Family likely played role in decision of Daniels '71

This article is an online exclusive. The Daily Princetonian will resume regular publication on Sept. 15. Visit the website throughout the summer for updates.

When former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin resigned from the governorship in July 2009, she cited a desire to protect her family from the critical culture of national politics as the cause. When former Democratic Representative Bart Stupak announced his retirement last April, he said it was because he wanted to spend more time with his family. Choosing to step away from politics due to “family reasons” is a trademark of Washington political culture, often a safe rationale for politicians worried about their electoral chances or political future.

But for Mitch Daniels ’71, it might just be true.

University faculty and alumni who work as political consultants said that Daniels’ decision, announced on Saturday night, to not seek the Republican nomination for president in 2012 reflected a genuine concern by his family about the turbulence of a national campaign. Daniels, the Republican governor who was considered by many to be a frontrunner for the nomination, explicitly referenced his family’s apprehension in a statement to the Indianapolis Star.

“What could have been a complicated decision was in the end very simple: On matters affecting us all, our family constitution gives a veto to the women’s caucus, and there is no override provision,” Daniels said. “Simply put, I find myself caught between two duties. I love my country; I love my family more.”

Wilson School Professor Joshua Bolten '76, former Chief of Staff to President George W. Bush and Daniels’ successor at Director of the Office of Management and Budget — Daniel served in the position from January 2001 to June 2003 — said that he believed Daniels’ explanation.

“I have no doubt that Mitch's reason for not running was exactly as he said — family considerations — and nothing else," Bolten said in an email. "One of Mitch's many virtues as a person (and perhaps an occasional vice as a politician) is that he always tells it as it is.”

Mac McCorkle ’77, a retired Democratic consultant, said that, while the family explanation may not often be true for politicians, he gave Daniels’ explanation “more credence than usual.”

“More than most politicians that cite family, in this case it is probably genuine,” he said. “If he was going to run in a Republican primary there would be a lot of questions raised if not directly by his opponents then by the political culture of the Republican Party,” McCorkle noted.

Daniels’ marital history has come under attack in recent weeks, escalating along with speculation about a presidential run. Daniels’ wife, Cheri, divorced him in 1994 and moved to California, marrying another man. In 1997, however, Daniels and Cheri remarried, leading to questions about both their relationship and the governor’s personal life.

These sorts of issues would be sure to play a role in a Daniels presidential campaign, Wilson School Associate Dean Nolan McCarty said.

“Running for president is a very difficult thing to do for families in the best of circumstances — there would be lots of questions asked about the peculiarities of his private life,” McCarty explained. “The media would do background stories and cover it, [and] that’s probably not very comfortable to the people involved.”

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Daniels’ decision, though, almost certainly has a political dimension. McCorkle said that, though Daniels had significant political and financial support, he would have had a tough road to the presidency due to previous “comments about a moratorium on the culture war.”

Daniels has faced criticism in the past for his proposition of a “truce” on social issues.

McCarty said he agreed with McCorkle’s assessment, saying that Daniels would encounter trouble in the campaign, as he would have to become an alternative to leading Republican candidate and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

“I suspect the anti-Romney candidate would likely be someone more socially conservative than Daniels would have been,” McCarty said.

Though Bolten said that he thought the decision was purely personal, he expressed some regret that Daniels chose not to enter the race.

“All of us who worked closely with Mitch in the Bush White House are disappointed he's not running; he would've been a superb candidate,” he said.

Some supporters still think that Daniels, widely considered a star in the party for his fiscal conservatism as governor, may surface as a potential candidate for vice president in 2012 or president in 2016. Martin Gutierrez ’87, a California political consultant, emphasized that Daniels’ decision was wise politically.

“Governor Daniels would be better suited for a 2016 run, when the GOP-favored contenders ... would have quite possibly cancelled each other off," Gutierrez said in an email. "Governor Daniels is smart enough not to be part of that equation now."

McCarty and Bolten, however, said that Daniels’ familial concerns may continue to take precedence over any larger political aspirations.

“My sense is that if he is unwilling to do that now, he will be unwilling to do that in the future,” McCarty said.

“I can't see what would change to cause Mitch to reach a different conclusion about the vice presidency in 2012 or the presidency in 2016," Bolten said. "But never say never."