As much as I respect JSojourner's insight, let's not forget that he is a Democrat, while Mitch Daniels is a Republican. 
True...but it's JSojourner. I value his opinion a lot more than many Republicans in this forum.
Thanks, Paul. Joe has a point, of course. Some of the things Daniels has done would be very appealing to Republicans. So it's definitely worth considering that I approach Daniels negatively. Here are my objections to the man...
1. Indiana has lost record numbers of high-paying manufacturing jobs since Daniels became governor. This began long before the recession. I don't blame Daniels for this and I don't completely dismiss complaints that state Democrats are just as much to blame as Republicans. My anger at Daniels is based on his response to the job loss. During his re-election campaign, he stumped as "a job-creating machine". While smart tactically, one needn't scratch more than the surface away to see that the jobs his administration has helped to create are minimum wage, service sector positions. When Dunkin Donuts recently announced plans to open 44 new stores in my part of the state over the next five years, Daniels was the keynote presence at the press conference. He claimed credit for these jobs and, indeed, state grants and tax breaks made it possible. He's been cutting the ribbon on new Wal-Mart stores and Dollar General stores, too. Swell. But that's not job creation by any measurable, meaningful standard.
2. Daniels, in the name of downsizing "big state government", tried to close a number of BMV branch offices. There can be no question that the BMV needed some reform in terms of improving service. Hoosiers are annoyed by long lines, bungled computer records and poor communication. So I applaud the governor for trying to do something. But his answer was much too simplistic. Closing offices was NOT the way to reduce congestion. If anything, it would have created more. I understand why conservatives believe in small government...but I don't understand why, when they want small federal government, they also want small state, county, city and township government. Services have to be provided somewhere, right? Fortunately, sensible Republicans and state Democrats were able to temper the Governor's plans. He did succeed in closing a BMV branch in my neighborhood -- one that served about 50% African American clients, 15% Hispanic and the rest being whites and Asians. (We have the largest Burmese refugee community in the country.) Almost all of us are poor, working poor or middle class. Closing this branch left 20 thousand people without a branch to serve them. As a compromise, the administration agreed to open a new branch out at the airport. Now consider -- the airport is miles from any residential area. (Allen County is one of the largest counties east of the Mississippi.) And on top of that, all these working poor people would have to pay to park! Daniels never understood why that was even a problem. This would explain his "let them eat cake" philosophy when crafting the Bush budgets for the first four years.
3. Daniels pulled a Reagan when it came to the mentally ill and institutions in which they were housed. Ostensibly, he "privatized" them. Today, most of them are closed and their former patients are homeless or being cared for by strapped family members.
4. Because the Governor felt the state needed an infusion of cash, he sold the Indiana toll road (turnpike) to a Spanish-Italian consortium that also operates the Chicago Skyway toll road. The state did reap massive profits and I am pleased the money is mostly being used to improve highways and small town infrastructure. I'm less happy with the way toll road workers were treated in the transition. And the jury is still out regarding how they are being treated by their new employees.
5. He pretty much broke the back of the state employees' union. (Which, I realize, would be regarded as a positive my a lot of Republicans.)
So those are my objections to the man. As to a Presidential bid, I am at least leaning toward the idea that he will run. Daniels is too cute by half when he denies any interest in seeking higher office. I see a wink and a nod there, but that could just be me. The fact is, he might very well be a candidate and -- despite what I consider to be a miserable record -- he could be a winner. Daniels is an extremely good campaign and, like The Decider and Reagan before him, has a mastery over the simplistic, most base appeal to voters. This has worked in past elections (in both parties) and if it works again, Daniels could be the man.
That said, I am not sure he qualifies anymore as a "name out of the blue". In the last month, he has been much-discussed in the press and in the blogs.
