Another big political story is brewing in Indiana. Last week's decision by Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) not to seek re-election shook up the already shaky Democrats in Washington; putting at risk one of the precious Senate seats they believed they could hold in November. Now Mitch Daniels, the extremely popular Republican Governor of the Hoosier state says he is "open to the idea" of a presidential run in 2012. (source)

Continued...

Governor Daniels, who served in both George W. Bush's and Ronald Reagan's administrations, is in his second term as Indiana's chief executive. He won re-election in 2008 by a landslide despite the fact that President Obama carried the state in the presidential race. He is a Democrat's nightmare in the current political climate - fiscally conservative but not a fanatic, conservative on social issues but not one who believes those issues should be the driving force of any political agenda. In short, he’s the kind of candidate that could handily win back the independent voters who have quickly become disillusioned with Obama & Company.

Governor Daniels has already spoken out on some national issues. He joined the national debate on cap & trade legislation by writing a brilliant Wall Street Journal opinion piece against the euphemistically named "Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act" calling it "imperialism". He said the bill "would impose enormous taxes and restrictions on free commerce by wealthy but faltering powers - California, Massachusetts and New York - seeking to exploit politically weaker colonies in order to prop up their own decaying economies. Because proceeds from their new taxes, levied mostly on us, will be spent on their social programs while negatively impacting our economy, we Hoosiers decline to submit meekly." (source)

That is the kind of honest, straight forward approach to today's issues that will resonate with the majority of Americans much more than the tax and spend, nanny state goals of the Democrats. Recently Governor Daniels asked, “Are we still a country where people would prefer freedom, personal autonomy, with the risks and responsibilities that go with it, or do we want to socialize all the risks we can and settle for what I think is the false security of statism and so forth?" He then added, "I think those questions have got to be presented by somebody."

Sounds like a contender to me.