Weekly Standard Publishes “EXCLUSIVE DRAFT” Speech from Mitch Daniels: Is He Really Running Now?

 

Why would The Weekly Standard publish the following and not identify columnist Bill Kristol's piece as an opinion by him? Is conservative America really getting down on the current crop of candidates, especially after today's events, that they are using Internet drama to stir up the buzz?

No, no matter what the Standard said, it does appear that Kristol's piece was not news, it was just opinion. Local Indianapolis TV reported it as such in the following article:

 

INDIANAPOLIS — A conservative heavyweight wants Gov. Mitch Daniels to reconsider jumping into the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

The party announced Thursday that Daniels would give the Republican response to President Barack Obama's State of the Union Address next week.

In a piece posted on The Weekly Standard, conservative columnist Bill Kristol imagined that Daniels would use the opportunity to test the presidential waters.

Here is what The Weekly Standard said: (if you visit the site, the piece is built as an EXCLUSIVE, and unless you actually read the piece, you might want to believe it. Sensationalism and irresponsible journalism at its best?)

This morning, the Republican leadership on the Hill announced that Indiana governor Mitch Daniels would deliver the GOP response Tuesday night to President Obama’s State of the Union Address. An hour ago, a dark lady mysteriously appeared at our offices and dropped off an envelope before vanishing down the stairwell. We can’t vouch for the authenticity of the document the envelope contained, of course. But it appears to be a draft of a section—the final section, apparently—of Daniels’s speech text. On the first page of the section is typed, in capital letters, “DO NOT CIRCULATE WITH THE REST OF THE SPEECH DRAFT—THIS IS UNDER PERSONAL CONSIDERATION BY THE GOVERNOR.”

After reading the first part of the draft, here is the section that hints of a Daniels run:

 

Which raises the question: Is the current crop of Republican presidential candidates up to denying President Obama a second term? And would any of them be up to the necessary remodeling of our nation if they were to win? Unfortunately, lots of my fellow Republicans have doubts on both scores. A recent poll found that 7 out of 10 Republicans across the nation would like more options to choose from for president.

The candidates for the Republican nomination are my friends. I like and admire them. But I must say I’ve increasingly come to share the doubt that any of them would be likely to win, or would be likely to govern successfully.

So I want to announce tonight that I am open to reconsidering my decision not to seek the presidency in 2012. I have not wanted to run, for family reasons among others. I have hoped someone else would prove up to the task. But my family and I have now decided that country must come first. I am considering joining the race.

But I need to know if you want me to run. I only want to enter the race if you, the people, think I should. So here’s what I propose: None of the candidates currently running has received more than a total of 300,000 votes in the three contests so far. So here’s a test of my viability: If in the next few days I receive more than 300,000 emails, at http://mymanmitch.com/, asking me to run—then I will take that as a sign that, despite my previous reluctance, I should enter the contest.

If I run, I will be a reluctant candidate, in the sense that I did not plan on seeking this position. But let me assure you of this: if I do run, I will not run a reluctant campaign. I will run full out. I will compete in those primaries where I can still get on the ballot, I will go all out to win at the convention where the nomination will likely be decided, and I will take the fight to President Obama in the fall. If I run, I will run to win—because this country deserves leadership that will fundamentally remodel our government and restore our nation.

Thank you, good night, and God Bless America.

So why would the Standard publish this? If this were a parody or a fantasy or an opinion, why didn't they state that? Safe to say they got traffic from the post, but did they lose a little credibility today?

We think so.

0 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest