Daniels must be scaring people, because the smear campaigns are out. Here is the huff post had to say:
MITCH DANIELS IS YOUR NEWEST GOP CANDIDATE WHO PREVIOUSLY LIKED HCR - With the vultures of smoke picking at the Tweet-riddled carcass of Newt Gingrich's cocktail party -- or whatever it was Rick Tyler said -- liberal sights are now set on Mitch Daniels, the next (would-be) candidate whose record contains a number of policy statements that could prove embarrassing. Sam Stein cites a 2003 article in the South Bend Tribune that summarizes then-candidate Daniels' views on health care reform: "The candidate said he favors a universal health care system that would move away from employee-based health policies and make it mandatory for all Americans to have health insurance. Daniels envisioned one scenario in which residents could certify their coverage when paying income taxes and receive a tax exemption that would cover the cost. 'We really have to have universal coverage,' Daniels said." Daniels today told radio host Michael Smerconish today that he is against a mandate. "I don't believe in mandates," he said. "There's nothing wrong with trying to protect more people from being ruined by an adverse health effect."
First, Daniels did not say anything about a mandate. The original story paraphrases a discussion with Daniels. The Huffpost, basically just turns it into an all out lie. Mitch would have given people an option to deduct deductibles from the income tax as well as let people make the choice about what healthcare plan was best for them. A tax deduction for choosing care is totally different than a mandate and government run program doomed failure.
This is a key reason why I'll never be a 'great' blogger. This type of out right bending of the truth to literally create news where it didn't exist before, isn't something I can do. I can make up a total story out of nothing. Which is what these people do. And lets look at this again, how could a story where Mitch isn't quoted even be embarrassing for him today, when the people who would read the article would be in favor of a federal healtcare plan of some kind anyway. So they try to make him out to be a flip flopper on healthcare, by saying his views have changed over a 10 time period! Really that's embarrassing? Note to public, over a 10 year period, people's view might change. Also don't listen to summarized snippets by journalists trying to create stories out of nothing to promote their already bad careers.