More on Mitch Presidential Rumors

Wednesday, Mitch Daniels seemed to end any speculation about possible presidential aspirations.

Or did he? If you were to carefully read what Mitch said, you'd find his usual remarks about not being a career politician more than you'd find a definitive disavowal of presidential aspirations. You find the same sort of disinterest in running for president that Mitch showed in running for governor before 2004.

A Sherman statement, Mitch's comments yesterday were not, and Mitch is someone that chooses his words carefully whenever he speaks.

But there are several other reasons to not view Mitch's remarks yesterday as definitive.

First of all, this has been the traditional Mitch campaign modus operandi. He campaigns as the outsider. The honorable public servant, rather than the career politico. This was exactly how the 2004 campaign played out. But to fit with that same image, Mitch can't just win reelection last year and be seen to jump into the fray for 2012; that goes against the grain. It also wouldn't be popular among Hoosiers. Similarly, how many Democrats contribute to that 70% approval rating, but suddenly wouldn't approve or would be more critically-minded if Mitch had open presidential aspirations? Just ask Sarah Palin that question and reference her declining approval ratings. Nobody gets more kind words than dead people at their own funerals or politicians who don't appear to have further political ambitions or electoral designs. It also ensures that you're less of a target for the other party until it's too late. By not being a candidate but being vocal, you define yourself before they define you.

Second, Mitch understands--as I noted some weeks ago when I was much more skeptical about his presidential chances and ambitions than I am now--that the most important thing in politics is that other people have to want you to have the job. President Mitt Romney will tell you about how important it is that you want it yourself. Again, this was exactly how the 2004 campaign played out. People wanted Mitch, or at least Republicans did initially and then 53% or so of Hoosiers wanted him later (and almost 60% of them wanted to keep him last year).

Third, as in 2004, everything has to be engineered in advance. Once it's established that Mitch will play hard to get and the demand for him has to exist (or be manufactured or ginned up, or whatever), this fire has to be stoked into a nice roaring blaze. Once the board is set, the pieces can move. In politics, Mitch Daniels plays chess; most of his opponents lose while still thinking they were playing checkers.

Fourth, the Mitch campaign in Indiana in 2004 began in 2003 much like the Mitch national roll-out has happened this year. A lot of appearances to friendly audiences (Lincoln Day dinners in Indiana in 2003 and 2004, magazine articles and various public speeches on the national scene in 2009). An increase in profile. Policy stances that are broadly popular with the electorate and relatively uncontroversial (criticizing sixteen years of one party rule and growing stagnation in 2003, complaining about high spending and cap and trade in 2009).

And, lastly, I've heard rumors that Eric Holcomb, Mitch's close political advisor (and his campaign manager for his thumping reelection last year), has been spending a lot of time in Washington, D.C. This wouldn't surprise me much, given the sort of Beltway buzz Mitch has been getting of late. But I've also heard rumors that Holcomb has been making some trips to New Hampshire (three trips, according to one rumor, though numbers vary), home of what will almost certainly be the first primary of 2012. That piqued my interest enough to email Holcomb himself and enquire about the rumors. He responded that the rumors were not true and that he has never even been to New Hampshire. So much for that.

Regardless, I'm inclined to look at how things unfolded in 2003 and 2004 and see in the recent rising national stature of Mitch Daniels an indication of a broader, though subtle, effort to position Mitch Daniels for something greater. Perhaps not because Mitch is set on running (three years is a long time, and somebody has to run Indiana in the meantime; we had an autopilot running the show for sixteen years and even reverting to it for even a couple of years would be bad), but perhaps to ensure that the option is open (and because there is a very real vacuum in the national party leadership right now).

So is Mitch running? Who knows. Perhaps Mitch for President speculation can replace Evan Bayh for Vice President speculation as the parlor game of choice among Indiana politicos. Then again, Indiana already has had one such political parlor game. Does it need two? Anyway, I certainly don't take Mitch's statements on Wednesday to be a flat refusal, and there's considerable evidence and historical precedent to view the current increase in Mitch's national exposure as planting the seeds of something bigger.

Something big, and perhaps something green.