Thursday, May 19, 2011

In case Julia's visiting the blog...





A) her favorite columnist wrote this delightful passage:

There has been no suggestion that Mr. Daniels behaved wrongfully in private, much less in public. Mrs. Daniels's actions back then are reminiscent of Meryl Streep's character Joanna Kramer, the villain in "Kramer vs. Kramer." But since the Indiana first lady is a private citizen who appears to have no political ambitions of her own, her past indiscretions are none of anyone's business.


Of course, Taranto cites no sources providing him additional knowledge about the marriage and seperation. But he still has the nerve to cast aspersions on Cheri Daniels, who apparently is the villian of the story who committed "indiscretions." I wonder what Taranto was hinting at here? Way to keep it classy.


B) In other Julia-related news, I attended two events at the AEI this week. First, on Monday an interesting panel discussion about Medicare, and then Wednesday I got to witness Senator Toomey's economic insanity. Too bad the Hamilton spring semester program wasn't still going- I would have liked to pester Julia at her place of work.

5 comments:

TJE said...

Ran off with her high school boy friend.

Patrick_L said...

and what happened before that? we have no clue what happened inside or outside their marriage. We can all think of countless scenarios in which she looks bad, or ones where he looks bad. We have no information to eliminate any possibilities or tell us which is correct, so I don't think we should jump to conclusions about who was the wronged party- or if there even was a wronged party. I certainly don't think Taranto should be ascribing blame publicly to her when he has no way of knowing the full details of the story- or even most of the details.

Megan said...

We do know Daniels raised their 4 daughters when she was absent.

Patrick_L said...

and now the discussion is moot because Mitch Daniels has decided not to run. I'm sure the commentary of people like Taranto had nothing to do with the decision. What sane person doesn't want people obsessing over their personal life in public forums?

Patrick_L said...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55459.html