Why do some liberals think Governor Daniels is the most reasonable Republican who might run in 2012?

[Derechos]

During his tenure in office, Mitch Daniels, the Republican governor of Indiana, has enacted a set of policies that would make any conservative proud. Elected with the help of donations from the Koch brothers, he signed bills that abolished the right of teachers to bargain for anything other than wages and wage-related benefits and initiated the largest private-school voucher program in the country. He’s said he will sign a bill that will end Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood in his state and ban all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. For good measure, he’s also privatized a state highway. Before Daniels ran for governor, he held an important fiscal post in George W. Bush’s White House, and now, he supports Paul Ryan’s plan to cut taxes for the rich while starving Medicare. What’s more, before getting into politics, he was president of Eli Lilly, one of the largest drug companies in the world. So far, the governor has been silent about the fact that, under his watch, Lilly had to pay out almost $3 billion in fines and damages for illegally marketing two of its best-selling products.

Given his conservative bona fides, why are some prominent liberal journalists rooting for Daniels to run for president? After schmoozing with him recently at an exclusive Upper East Side gathering of premier pundits, Hendrik Hertzberg gushed, “He doesn’t throw off the crackles of craziness. … I found his effect reassuring. To all appearances, his temperament is undoctrinaire even if some of his economic views aren’t. When it comes to red meat he seems to be a vegetarian.” According to Hertzberg, the The New Yorker’s unofficial editorial writer, the rest of the “leftish contingent” in attendance—which included Joshua Marshall of TPM and Michael Kinsley of Politico—agreed that the diminutive, blue-eyed governor would “be better than” any of the other Republicans who are running to stop Obama from winning a second term.

Perhaps Hertzberg and his ideological compatriots liked Daniels because they think the hard right detests him. After all, at a widely covered speech in February, the governor hinted he would not campaign on social issues and made the sensible comment, “We still need people who never tune in to Rush or Glenn or Laura or Sean.” This incensed a bevy of unhappy conservative bloggers, some of whom even compared him to John McCain. But savvier and more influential voices on the right know better than to think Daniels would run as a moderate Republican.

http://www.tnr.com/article/not-even-past/88114/mitch-daniels-hendrik-hertzberg-moderate-republican-2012?utm_source=The+New+Republic&utm_campaign=80a870ab08-TNR_Daily_051111&utm_medium=email

[Warpy]

1. What liberals would those be?

Everyone I know thinks the man is pure scum.

[myrna minx]

2. I think the "some liberals" thing is the new "some people say".

:shrug:

[Bluenorthwest]

7. This is the second 'some liberals' thread in a row for me

I think you are right.

[sufrommich]

3. No "reasonable" republican is going to make it past the

primaries. That's what the GOP powers that be get for fanning the crazy flames.

[KharmaTrain]

4. "Reasonable"...

...is a term that is very fluid when it deals with the current crop of rushpublicans. Personally I find all of 'em...even the so-called "moderates" as far to the right of where their party was during the Raygun years and light years away from Nixon. A "moderate" tolerates on the surface, but we see with a Daniels a wink and nod and then caving into the right wing. The fact he doesn't spew the same claptrap of the more acerbic rushpublicans means little as his record as a member of the booooosh regime and his willingness to sign a litany of far right legislation (that led to Democrats leaving that state like they did in Wisconsin) speaks what he really is. The fact he's relatively literate compared to the others lets the corporate media do the framing here not "libruls". From most liberals and Progressives I know few give a rat's ass about Daniels or his chances.

[abq e streeter]

5. Maybe because it's "most" reasonable,not "reasonable"; meaning slightly less insane than the others

I think this makes him more dangerous. Being relatively unknown, the MSM can sell him as a moderate with the uninformed millions believing it. This guy scares me as a potential nominee more than the more insane righties for that reason.

[FrenchieCat]

6. I think in this case, Republicans are kinda of playing it right.....

First they offer up this douchebag....




Then they start acting like the tiny guy with a forehead as big as his face from the Bush economic team is supposed to be someone we should fear...




In the meantime, whomever the real candidate will be is keeping his powder dry....
and may be raising money from sources like the Koch brothers, etal under the radar...
and by the time we know who it is, he will look utterly "reasonable" compared to
the freaks currently in the offing, that he may be taken seriously not by just the GOP,
but by the public in general.


I don't know if it will work....
but it is the GOP strategical MO...
believe me.

Their biggest problem is that it does appear historically speaking, that there is some kind
of curse activated on just about anyone that has gone up against Barack Obama in a run for office....
in where that candidate pretty much ends up looking ridiculous and mental, no matter how they started out.
The only person who didn't suffer that fate was Bobby Seale...
who Barack Obama ran against for a congressional seat.
But I believe it was always meant for Barack Obama to lose that seat....
as a congressional seat does not a presidential candidate make.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. I've never met a liberal who thought any Republican was

'reasonable', not even relatively speaking. Now 'moderates' they actually vote for Republicans at times, you should ask them.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

9. Being "reasonable" when compared to Donald Trump, Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain...

...isn't that tall of a task.

It's like when I say Bill O'Reilly is the least offensive of the right wing talking heads on Fox. I still find him offensive as all hell on most everything, but he still pales in comparison to Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity.