Myer'd in Iraq - When the Wood Hits the Bush

I used to laugh when George Bush said he was a "unifer," not a "divider." Not anymore. In the midst of two divisive primaries - one national and one local - George Bush has managed to unify all Democrats with respect to at least one idea: George Bush sucks.

Woody Myers takes the Prez to the wood shed in new radio ads today that play off his earlier TV bio ads.

You remember those? I thought they were very good bio spots, showing Dr. Myers' medical credentials and his fight for Ryan White at a time when AIDS had people holding their urine all day at work to avoid using public toilets. Dr. Myers was definitely ahead of his time both medically and politically (though some might rightly point out that fighting for Ryan White is substantially different than fighting for the guy who dresses up like a cheetah at the San Francisco GLBTG Pride Parade).

BUT the part about the TV ads that bothered me most was a split-second clip of Oprah Winfrey from when Woody was on her show to discuss White. That clip was as unflattering as any public image of Oprah, except for when Sofia got hit in the eye in The Color Purple. Had the image not flashed so quickly, maybe we could have visualized the woman that is now the media scion and not the flash of extra thick mascara that was more fitting for the Thriller video than a talk show. I'm surprised Oprah didn't try to BUY all the television stations running the ad to prevent anyone from seeing her again in her "80's hair."

But I digress.

Here's how you know how bad things are for the President. When I tell you the title to Woody's radio ad is "Mess," I don't even have to go on. You KNOW what it's about. Here's the script anyway (with my additions in parenthesis and asterisks next to each place on which I have a comment):

President Bush (struggling to get out a coherent sentence as usual):

America’s economy is getting stronger everyday…. I believe we’re making really good progress in Iraq…. You’re predicting $4 a gallon gasoline, I hadn’t heard that.

Voiceover:
George Bush has created one fine mess in the last 7 years and it’s going to take some strong Democrats to clean it up.

Dr. Woody Myers is running for Congress to get out troops out of Iraq as quickly and safely as possible and start investing in America again. Dr. Woody Myers is one of our nation’s preeminent internal medicine physicians*, Indiana’s first black Commissioner of Health, and he knows how to clean up George Bush’s mess. Money to create jobs here in America, not more in Iraq; tax cuts for the middle class, not the super wealthy**; and instead of doing the Iraqi’s job in Baghdad, finally stop the violence on our own streets. Dr. Woody Myers, Democrat for Congress. To fix George Bush’s mess, we have to send our best***.

* - Woody Myers is no idiot. Polls consistently show physicians are one of the most trusted vocations, with 85% of people saying they'd trust a doctor to 27% saying they'd trust a lawyer. (Right now David O. is somewhere saying, "CRAP! I KNEW I shouldn't have gone back to Harvard Law School! Boy, did I shoot myself in the foot on that one!") In fact, I'm surprised Dr. Myers doesn't have more subtle physician references in the tag line of this ad, such as "The Medicine Washington Needs," or "Woody Myers - Ready to Operate." How about countering Andre Carson's constituent service ads with one of his own -- "Woody Myers - Always on Call - For You!" The possibilities are endless.

** - Woody Myers is no idiot. Most people have a habit of giving meaning to every word in a sentence under the belief that the writer meant to include it or he/she wouldn't have. Myers knows he has to win some white AND black suburban voters who are on the ascend financially, and their definition of "middle class" might be more "classy" than "middle." Thus, when Woody Myers puts the qualifier "super" before wealthy, it arguably signals to you that Woody Myers is okay with tax cuts for just the "regular" wealthy. If you're a two-income, two-kid, two-professional family making $120,000, don't worry your head! Woody probably isn't angling to take back your tax cut. Even if he is, though, you'd never know because when you make $250,000, "super" wealthy is NEVER what you make.

That's the real genius in all good advertising. Not what it says, but what it lets YOU infer. Take "fresh roasted coffee." Sounds delicious, doesn't it? But unless you work for Juan Valdez or are a coffee-addicted weirdo, I bet you can't describe the actual process of fresh roasting. That's the magic. They give you a phrase that sounds good and let you put your aspirations and own interpretations into it. Good political ads are the grown up version of those kiddie books where you get to choose the ending.

Ending A: "Daddy, lookie - I picked more student loans and got to go to college!"

Ending B: "Look Daddy, I picked more student loans, and when everybody defaulted because we were giving them away like free drugs in a crackhouse, we had to cut social security!"

On leaving enough "unsaid," Woody does quite well, and radio doesn't restrict your imagination by providing images. You get to fill in ALL of your own blanks as to what the meaning is, including this final comment:

*** - "To fix George Bush's mess, we have to send our best."

I've always called this kind of ad a "pillow soft negative." Dr. Myers doesn't mention or criticize anyone, but anybody with a pulse knows what he's really implying. And if you had doubt, his website has a GREAT tagline from a PR perspective. "Experience. Change. We Deserve Both." He doesn't have to even say it, because we know EXACTLY what Dr. Myers is thinking, "Andre Carson is greener than the bubonic chronic at a Snoop Dogg Girls Gone Wild Gala." Well, he's either thinking that, or "Andre Carson is not sufficiently experienced to hold this prestigious post of high public esteem and trust." One of those, I'm sure.

To sum up, thumbs up to Dr. Myers' radio spot. Even if you disagree about Andre's experience, how can you not feel good about a man who shares your revulsion for our current President's politics?

On the ad front, has anybody heard from David O in any medium? David O. must be waiting to use the funnel philosophy of campaigns championed by Joe Hogsett. You save every dime and then own the networks the last week when people are either paying attention of their own accord or forced to pay attention because you're every other non-Viagra ad running.

Let me know if you see or hear him. No slight intended to David O. if he's already out. I've been listening to a lot of NPR lately.

Myer'd in Iraq - When the Wood Hits the Bush

George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People

Ah, yes. The controversial line uttered by Kanye West after Katrina that caused Michael Myers' face to contort like an alien was about to come out his stomach. It's hard to say that George Bush and FEMA were not criminally negligent in their response to Katrina, but today I want to talk about whether George Bush cares about the black people he appoints to his cabinet. I say he doesn't.

If you care about somebody...REALLY care about somebody in a mentoring way, you nurture their aspirations, don't you? You want to see them do great things. And if you're a white Republican and you TRULY want a black Republican president, you would NEVER, EVER, EVER throw them under the bus, right?

Then why has George Bush taken the two most prominent and otherwise electable black people in the Republican Party - Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice - and put an albatross around both of their necks. Bush's White House sold out Powell when it made him give a speech at the UN with NO evidence. It killed any future political aspirations (though his wife might not have let him run anyway), and made him look like the modern version of Step 'n Fetchit. They could have sent anybody to the UN to lie, even the UN Ambassador since talking to the UN is, ya know, HIS JOB! But they sent Powell, thereby demolishing his credibility on the world stage forever. Also, isn't it strange that a military man was appointed to a diplomatic post. Why would you do that, unless you knew that he would create problems for your war-hungry appetites as head of the Department of Defense?

The same thing applies to Condoleeza Rice. Her resume is about intelligence and national security, not diplomacy. But again, they made her the public face of the administration internationally while divesting her of any ability to stop a pointless war in the way she could have as head of the Department of Defense.

Respectfully, most Americans hate this war. This was not the case when we went, of course, because the Bush White House stoked the flames of patriotism to work everybody into a furor. We were so upset about 9/11, it didn't really matter WHO we attacked, as long as we attacked somebody. This war has been a totally unnecessary detour in the effort to find Osama bin Laden, and the cost is staggering, including billions of dollars in cash that can't be found. It's ironic that Republicans want to shut down government benefit programs, such as food stamps, when they learn about fraud of this magnitude, but fraud in Iraq is written off as part of the cost of business.

How could Rice EVER run on this record? I stood up with the man who brought you the most pointless war in American history? And don't you think the Democratic Party read her convention speech in 2000 when she said:

"(George Bush) recognizes that the magnificent men and women of America's armed forces are not a global police force; they are not the world's 911."

Really? Then why are we in a sustained police action in Iraq? I promise you that if Rice runs, the Democrats are going to make her eat that quote for dinner, and they should. Maybe Bush doesn't like minorities at all. This would explain why he would appoint Alberto Gonzalez to a post where he knew he'd have to continously lie to Congress to get done what Bush wanted done.

Of course, some may say, "Chris, you can't say this was personal against Powell, Rice, or Gonzalez. George Bush was such a colossal screw up that nobody in his administration has any political future." That could be true. And this may also be why there aren't many black Republicans and certainly none who are viable for the presidency of the United States. Their careers are killed by Republican presidents.

George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People

The Last Word on Terrorist Cash

Blog comments are a great way (if we can keep our wits and maintain civility) to expand a conversation for the benefit of all readers. One comment I got from a gentleman named Jacob Perry dealt with the recurring theme among some anti-Andre Carson bloggers to point out that he attended a fundraiser attended by "executives" of CAIR, an organization whose principal, Yacub Mirza, had been investigated, though not charged, by our Department of Justice for allegedly being connected with the financing of terrorism.

Mr. Carson returned the donation. But what if he hadn't?

Can Mr. Perry (or anybody else who wants to weigh in) let me know precisely what you think CAIR would have gotten for their donation? Seriously. Which is more likely:

Scenario A: Mirza was giving money to Andre Carson because he thought it might be cool to have a second Muslim in Congress.

Scenario B: Mirza was giving money to Andre Carson because he wanted to capitalize on the substantial political clout of a first-term congressperson.

NOW, let's compare some other contributions by Mirza:

Spencer Abraham (R) for Senate - 12/17/1998
$500

Tom Campbell (R) for Senate - 2/4/2000
$1,000

Spencer Abraham (R) for Senate - 9/30/2000
$1,000

National Republican Senatorial Committee - 12/12/2001
$1,000

National Republican Senatorial Committee - 2/15/2002
$600

George Allen (R) for Senate - 5/24/2006
$500

Dick Black (R) for Congress - 6/27/2007
$2,300

Dick Black's contribution is the one that REALLY makes me nervous. Mr. Black was a U.S. Marine pilot at Iwo Jim and Valley Forge in the South Sea, so you KNOW he's a terrorist sympathizer.

Let's think about that donation to Abraham BEFORE 9/11. What did he get for that contribution, which occured only four months before Abraham became the head of the Department of Energy, an agency whose sieve-like leaks repeatedly jeopardized our national security. What did the RNSC give Mirza?

When Bob Dole ran for President, he accepted a check from the Log Cabin (gay) Republicans, noting that he couldn't be bought by a contribution. Then the fundies got to him, and he sent the check back noting that their views were not consistent with his own. So which is it? Can a donation change views? If so, which is more dangerous? A connection with a cabinet member or a congressman? What nuclear secrets was Mirza trying to buy from Spencer Abraham? And did he succeed?

Or, it is possible that Mirza just thought it would be cool to have an Arab in the Senate or serving as a cabinet secretary?

You already know, so let's put this one to bed.

The Last Word on Terrorist Cash

Taking Down Words is Taking Down Taking Down Words!?!?!

Jen Wagner, my favorite blog mistress (what a saucy title!), made blue readers across the state bluer today by announcing she is joining the gubernatorial campaign of Jim Schellinger. As a result of her new duties, TDW will become the blog equivalent of the septuagenarian partner the law firm can't coax into retirement, so they make him "of counsel." Yeah, he's still there, but he's not offering any new insight so people only pop in when they want to reminisce about "the good old days."

When Jen leaves, expect to hear what billionaire crazy man Ross Perot called a giant "sucking sound." Especially around me, as I keep saying, "Man, this sucks!"

I wish Jen well, though, and I actually feel bad for Mitch DanielSALAAM and Jill. Mr. Schellinger has acquired a tenacious PR fighter, not some Janette-off-the-street, mamby pamby, milquetoast, "couldn't spin clothes in a dryer," squishy puffdiddler.

Jen is also committed, so expect her to raise the campaign's "average number of weeks before staff member departure" into double digits!

There's a saying: "Nature abhors a vacuum." While this certainly explains why Nature's hardwoods are always covered in crumbs and cat hair, it doesn't really help answer the urgent question of the moment:

Can anyone fill the void left by the Wag-i-nator?

(Shake shake shake)

Magic 8-ball says:

"Outlook doubtful."

Taking Down Words is Taking Down Taking Down Words!?!?!

Prostitutes and PPOs

It’s amazing what stirs in your mind if you read the Indianapolis Star and the Heritage Foundation website the same week you listen to Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Jim Schellinger. For example, questions like, “What do prostitutes and forty million uninsured Americans have in common?”

The Star reported over the weekend that Indianapolis deputy mayor Olgen Williams’ son (who serves as a bailiff at the juvenile court) was cited for soliciting an undercover police trainee. Should I lecture Williams on soliciting? He clearly is not an expert “John,” or he would have been able to sniff out a newbie vice officer. Also, it’s hard to get worked up about a crime that doesn’t even get you arrested. One might rightly ask whether it’s worth spending a single dollar or man-hour for IMPD to train their officers to hand out wrist slaps.

But what I WILL lecture Williams on is being cheap. He only offered $16 for oral sex. If that is the going rate for “working girls,” they need a union. Maybe Streetwalkers Local 69 could get them a better deal through collective bargaining.

Of course, Republican Johns like Williams would hate this. (No word on whether Spitzer's preferred house of ill repute was union). Republicans hate it when employees act in concert to raise wages. They believe it perverts a free market system that would otherwise have an individual employer negotiating with an individual employee. This is why Governor Daniels’ first act as governor was to rescind the executive order signed by Governor Bayh to afford collective bargaining rights to state employees.

But here’s something to think about. The Heritage Foundation is one of (if not THE) nation’s premier conservative think tanks. One of its primary ideas for expanding healthcare affordability and coverage is to allow individuals and small businesses to join “pools” to purchase coverage. This is the Sam’s Club theory of health insurance. If I buy one pair of wool socks, I might normally pay $4. But if I pool my money with 1000 other buyers and we can purchase 1000 pairs together "in bulk," we might pay only $1 per pair. In other words, “pooling” is the means by which many individuals bargain…oh, what’s the word I’m looking for here? I remember! “Collectively.”

If “pooling” is a key to expanding health coverage, why stop with a bunch of self-employed individuals or small businesses? After all, the larger the purchasing unit, the better the prices negotiated for coverage, right? If this is correct, why not create a bargaining unit that ALL uninsured people can buy into? We can call it “America, Inc.” Wait. Wouldn’t that be the same thing as “universal healthcare coverage” that Obama and Hillary are talking about? No, not “socialized medicine.” Neither of their plans has government running the hospitals or employing doctors. They would just have a single payer system, which would presumably get the BEST rate for us all, wouldn’t it?

Even if the foregoing policy specifics could be deemed squishy, isn’t it, nonetheless, strange that having employees bond together to increase wages (or to actually obtain health insurance coverage) corrupts the market, but having those same employees bond together (whether on their own or through small businesses) is lauded. Things that make you go hmmm.

Prostitutes and PPOs

Is Mitch Daniels a Terrorist - Part Deux

I jokingly penned "Is Mitch Daniels a Terrorist" earlier in the week as a "taste of your own medicine" for all the Republicans (certain bloggers, in particular) who have made sport of attacking Barack Obama for allegedly (and Andre Carson for actually) being Islamic.

Isn't it at least a tad bit unrealistic to hold a person accountable for every organization that supports him/her or ALL of the beliefs of every demographic sub-group he or she might fall into? I'd say yes. BUT I'm not dictator of the universe (yet), and as long as R's are sniping at D candidates for this kind of stuff, let's have some more fun while giving a lesson in how "invidious" one can make things seem when they aren't really.

Governor Daniels was given an award by the Arab-American Institute, an organization that "represents the policy and community interests of Arab Americans throughout the United States and strives to promote Arab American participation in the U.S. electoral system." Really? What ARE those policy interests, Governor Daniels?

Do those policy interests reflect YOUR interests, fellow Hoosiers? The Board of Governors for the Arab-American Institute are: Dr. Samir Abu-Ghazaleh, Dr. Yahya Basha, Dr. Ali Bazzi, Mr. Nasser Beydoun, Ms. Sherine El-Abd, Mr. Nijad Fares, Ms. Samia Farouki, Dr. Abdel Kader Fustok, Hon. Edward Gabriel, Mr. Samuel Halaby, Jr., Mr. Assad Jebara, and Mr. Ghassan Saab.
Hmmm. I don't see any names that sound even remotely like Smith, Johnson, or DANIELS, do you?

In June of 2007, AAI had the following item on its website: "Events this week in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine, leave no doubt that the Middle East is in crisis. The bombing of the Shiite holy shrine of Askariya in Samarra; the assassination of yet another Lebanese Member of Parliament and continued political paralysis in that country; and the military takeover of Gaza by Hamas and dissolution of the Palestinian government create even further challenges to the region’s future and U.S. credibility."

“What we’re seeing is an unraveling of U.S. policy in the Middle East,” said AAI President James Zogby. Wait! Isn't this EXACTLY like saying U.S. policy is "coming home to roost?!?!?" Pollster Zogby goes on to say, "While extremists and their international backers clearly are at fault, neither Israel nor the United States escapes their share...in particular, in the Gaza Strip." Are you BLAMING AMERICA, Mr. Zogby?!?!? I never knew pollster Zogby was such a "radical" America hater, and I never knew Mitch Daniels was so anti-American and anti-Israeli as well. Clearly, Governor Daniels can't say he didn't know what the AAI was about before he spoke at their conference. Their positions have been on their website for YEARS!

Man, this whole "guilt by association" thing sure is fun! To all the "fringies" out there who aren't voting for Carson because he's Muslim or Obama because he's "associated" with an "anti-American" pastor, if you vote for Mitch Danielsalaam, you're arguably being hypocritical unless you share the AAI's obvious disapproval of Israel as well.

Let me switch gears back to a serious note, would Mitch Daniels even BE our Governor if his name were actually Mitch Danielsalaam? I seriously wonder given the vitriol against Obama and Carson for any alleged "Islamic connection." People may say, "Come on. Look at another famous Arab-American, John Sununu, who was chief of staff for the first President Bush!" Yeah, but how many Americans even knew Sununu was part Lebanese and part Palestinian?

This is the part of politics we seldom contemplate - the potential negative effect of our names. (Well, I'm sure Dave Crooks thought about it the first time he contemplated running for office. But I digress). Why is it so easy to believe someone black who was named Barack HUSSEIN Obama would be a radical Muslim, but it would never even occur to anybody that Mitch Daniels is more active in Arab causes than Obama would ever be? Is it because he's "Mitch Daniels?" Or is it because he's the whitest (not just white, but PASTY white) Arab you've ever seen?

The fact one is easier to believe than another says something about us, and it's not flattering. We still haven't moved past race, religion, and heritage (our names) when you look at what frightens us. Maybe one day we'll actually talk about issues and not about the hobgoblins of identity politics and all of our demographic associations. Just maybe. Oh, wait. My comment above may be construed by some as a criticism of America. That would be taking my comment "out of context." Love America or leave it, baby! Like me. I LOOOOOOVE America. Luv it, luv it, luv it. Let me give America a big old hug right now! Mmmmm. Where's my American flag? I want to kiss it on every star. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

Is Mitch Daniels a Terrorist - Part Deux

More Cackles for Ackles

Dear Democrat Friends,

The next time you see city-county councilors Mary Moriarty Adams, Jose Evans, Angela Mansfield, or Jackie Nytes, show them your respect and cut them a check for re-election. These four showed REAL leadership when they joined the Republicans to pass a resolution (20-8) withholding the salary of Marion County coroner, Dr. Ken Ackles, until he passes basic certification requirements enacted by the Indiana General Assembly.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080325/LOCAL18/803250365

According to the Star story, this is the second council meeting Ackles didn't even attend to explain why he had not re-enrolled to retake the three sections of the test he failed. Had he at least done this, he would probably not be where he is. The law exempts coroners who can show a good faith basis for the failure to pass the test or who can show that "progress has been made."

But not showing up (and leaving the talking to your attorney) reeks of arrogance.

Was this decision politically motivated? Of course. This is just like the law to change the sheriff's salary. (Isn't it strange that they ONLY changed this law when a black man they couldn't stand was making that much money?)

Was it picking on a sweet old man? Absolutely. But you know what? My grandfather is a sweet old man, too, and when he can't drive any more, we'll take his license. We won't let him jeopardize other motorists.

The point is that sometimes "doing someone wrong" is still doing right. Every profession requires continuing education and often retesting, and if Ackles can't pass BASIC tests, he shouldn't be our coroner. Sorry, but my Marion County Democratic Party has to stop reflexively defending incompetence and arrogance.

This Ackles business is starting to get into Bobby Hidalgo Kern-type embarrassment for the party. TAKE THE D@MN TESTS OR QUIT ALREADY!

More Cackles for Ackles

Is Mitch Daniels a Terrorist?

According to the U.S. Department of State, Syria "provides safehaven and material support for several Palestinian rejectionist groups, including HAMAS," and "Syria continues to provide safe haven and political cover to Hizbollah in Lebanon."

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rm/2003/25778.htm

Governor Mitch Daniels is a "first generation Syrian American" who is a proud supporter of the Arab-American Institute, which honored him for his work in the community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Daniels
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/81391.pdf

Where are the denunciations of this terrorist regime by Governor Daniels? And more importantly, is "Daniels" even his real name, or was it Anglicized by his father so that the "Daniels"family could blend in without notice in America to implement an anti-Israeli agenda? Things that make you go, "Hmmmm!"

(This tongue-in-cheek rant has been sponsored by all the idiots who have referred to to the Senator from Illinois as Barack HUSSEIN Obama (emphasized) and who continued to suggest he was a closet Muslim until they realized it was better to accuse him of beliefs similar to his "radical" Christian minister. My point is....if you're going to be paranoid, at least be consistent, ya weirdos!)

Is Mitch Daniels a Terrorist?

Micromanaging Judges

What's the sweetest feeling a blogger gets? Being ahead of the mainstream media, folks! Two days after my critique of the Judge Payne agenda, Tim Evans with the Star details how judges have their authority curtailed under the budget that just passed.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080324/NEWS05/803240357/1304/frontpagecities

Under the new legislation, DCS, and not the court, carries the big bat in deciding what services are best for delinquent children and children in need of services (CHINS). The basis for this change according to Payne is that now that the state is responsible for more child welfare expenses, they need to monitor the money. Judge Payne points out that we get only 50% of the dollars we could for CHINS kids and only 10% of the delinquent kids for two primary reasons:

(1) judicial orders that do not include the appropriate language to qualify for federal reimbursement; and

(2) placement of children in programs that are not eligible for the cost-sharing.

Putting aside that judges are not generally incredibly stupid and could be given new forms that comply with federal reimbursement requirements without new legislation, the craziest part of this bill from a lawyer's perspective is that when DCS and the court disagree, DCS can actually file an appeal with the Indiana Court of Appeals. Can you envision something more pointless than using our appellate court to resolve something like whether a parent goes to intensive inpatient vs. outpatient treatment or where a juvenile gets housed?

The stories states that "Payne acknowledged there will be an adjustment period for judges, service providers, local officials and others who will see their roles changing -- in some cases, significantly.

"We'll take our lumps," he said of the anticipated fallout. "But in the end, this is about doing what's best for children and families."

Not exactly. But I'll save that for a separate entry.

Micromanaging Judges

Follow Up

I can't neglect my friend at Taking Down Words, who also caught the Payne flap...

http://www.takingdownwords.com/

Follow Up

Major Payne Story

Whoever said the only bad press is no press, well...

A day after I critiqued Judge Payne's legislative agenda, the Indianapolis Star ran an astonishing article regarding a Fountain County judge's decision to prohibit an Indianapolis television station from running an interview with a father who believed the Indiana Department of Child Services was "out to get him."

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080323/LOCAL18/803230357/1195/LOCAL18

Gary Welsh at Advance Indiana offers his take on the story, which appeared in the Star http://www.advanceindiana.com/

The jist is that IU's most quoted law professor, Henry Karlson, says that the Judge's decision borders on "judicial misconduct."

Now, here is a little something that most people DON'T know. Judge Payne caused quite a stir back in late 2007 and early 2008 by sending at least two e-mails to EVERY judge capable of influencing the outcome of Children in Need of Services (CHINS) and Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) trials and appeals. Having read the e-mail, I'd summarize it as a rather one-sided statement extolling DCS's goals and explaining why it's good for kids to get cases moving more quickly (resulting in parents' rights being terminated faster).

While there is technically no reason Judge Payne can't e-mail every juvenile court judge,
Court of Appeals judge, and Indiana Supreme Court judge, isn't there something concerning about the director of an agency with thousands of ongoing cases using his position to persuade the entire state judiciary of "the rightness" of his policies and vision?

If you think so, you're probably not alone. I recently saw Indiana Supreme Court Justice Ted Boehm at the Indiana State Bar Association's legislative reception. As I knew Justice Boehm would have received the earlier Judge Payne e-mail, I knew he'd know the general thrust of of the second missive, which was actually deemed a "follow up").

"Justice Boehm," I asked, "did you receive an e-mail from Judge Payne this week regarding how CHINS and TPR cases are processed?" Justice Boehm was visibly uncomfortable with my question. I say this because he got that look you get when you run into somebody you know while shopping at Priscilla's or Victoria's Secret.

Then he responded in a manner reminiscent of witnesses before Congress. He said, "I think that I did receive an e-mail or communication that I believe was from Judge Payne. But I put it aside in a pile with things to look at later when I (can't remember his exact words here, so I'm paraphrasing VERY roughly) "have some free time" or "am done with more important things."

If the e-mail had been talking about gardening, I firmly believe Justice Boehm's reaction have been different? And as a rule of thumb, if your e-mail makes a supreme court justice nervous, you probably shouldn't send it.

But if these e-mails can help solidify friendships with judges and help get decisions like the one in Fountain County, what are the odds anybody will ever hear about them?

Major Payne Story

When Is a Republican Not a Republican?

When it's Judge James Payne, the director of the Indiana Department of Child Services.

I always give respect and praise where it's due. I 'm told people nationally herald Judge Payne as a visionary juvenile court judge. But NOBODY should herald him as a "true" Republican. A "true" Republican (of which there are probably only seven or eight hundred in the country anyway) is someone who not only talks about, but also, actually delivers: (a) less government; (b) "local" control; and (c) accountability.

From a Democrat perspective, I say it is to Judge Payne's credit that he made it a priority to hire new case managers so that each case manager has fewer families to supervise. That's a great thing for children. BUT it's also a huge growth in government employment, isn't it? TRUE Republicans hate that. In fact, they probably want to privatize DCS so they can easily fire case managers who don't carry their weight.

In addition, Judge Payne favored SB 105, which would have created a new system of administrative law judges to establish child support orders. The bill was defeated after very vocal opposition by every county bar association in the state, and the Indiana State Bar Association's family and juvenile law section. Everybody wants more money to be collected (which is a decidedly different goal than establishing more support orders), but creating a whole new governmental apparatus in your agency makes no sense if you're a Republican. Moreover, this bill would have taken away local judges' discretion to not require support orders in CHINS (Children in Need of Services) cases where the parents were already overwhelmed with the task of completing services to get their children back.

The Republican party has historically been the party of "state's rights" and "local control." B ut HB 1001 (a/k/a "the property tax relief bill") as passed, took a LOT of control out of the hands of local judges in deciding what services judges offer to parents in CHINS cases. Admittedly, this was done because the state has assumed more of these expenses, and it makes sense to have the person writing the check supervising what is purchased. But if "local government knows best," why would you take away local decisionmaking?

Here's why. Because, like Judge Payne, most people who call themselves Republicans don't actually believe in local control. I've always thought that Republicans hoisted one of the best pubic relations scams of all time on the American populace when they started talking about how it's better to leave decisions to "local government." (The only better PR move was renaming an anti-aristocracy tax paid through estates as "the death tax"). Why have bureaucrats in D.C. or in Indianapolis decide how you run YOUR affairs?!? We'll leave that up to local people. This is great pandering to the states and local government officials who feel warm and cozy with the confidence bestowed upon them by Republicans.

At the same time, MANY (but not all) Republicans support nationwide tort reform, a nationwide prohibition on gay marriage, and a nationwide prohibition on abortion. In other words, if you want to know when a state or a local government SHOULDN'T decide for itself, here's your handy dandy test question:

Do we, the Republican Party, agree with the decision the "local" government has made? If yes, go to our "state and local government rights" talking points. If no, act like we have no "state and local government rights" talking points.

But back to Judge Payne. On the issue of accountability, HB 1001 adds a provision that says the DCS Director, officers, and employees are not liable for their actions, except to the State of Indiana. Now, who might have wanted this provision and why might they have wanted it? I mean, has anybody read anything bad in the news about DCS or its employees lately that might give some insight into why this is suddenly necessary? Anybody? Oh, yeah. That. Tajanay Bailey.

I may be in the minority on this, but I think immunity is a good thing because DCS would be getting sued every time they took a kid from a home and every time they sent a kid home. No actor in the system can see the future, and even in the Bailey case, the critics are talking in hindsight. Nobody could have predicted that marijuana use and a domestic dispute would lead to a dead child. If those two "symptoms" were the telltale signs of a dead child, we'd have 500 dead kids every day in Indianapolis. But even as one favoring immunity, I recognize I'm hard-pressed to say it doesn't run contrary to accountability.

That's been the Judge Payne's legislative agenda, though - expanding government employment, taking away local control, and taking away accountability. I 'd also be lying if I said I didn't agree with Judge Payne more than I disagree with him. But the difference is that I don't claim to be a small government Republican, and I'm not sure you should get credit for claiming to be something you aren't.

Of course, now that I think about it, I'm not sure I've ever heard Judge Payne refer to himself as a small government Republican. Maybe for a good reason. But I have heard Mitch Daniels call himself that. He should stop until he retools his administration.

When Is a Republican Not a Republican?

Giving Many of You "The Gas Face" ***

According to CNN, http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/, American gas prices (adjusted to U.S. dollars per gallon) are actually very good compared to a lot of our industrial colleagues:

Oslo, Norway - $6.82
Hong Kong - $6.25
Brussels, Belgium - $6.16
London, UK - $5.96
Tokyo, Japan - $5.25
Rome, Italy - $5.80
San Paulo, Brazil - $4.42
New Delhi, India - $3.71
Sydney, Australia - $3.42
Johannesberg - $3.39
Mexico City - $2.22
Buenos Aires - $2.09

Now here are the killers:
Riyadh, Saudia Arabi - $.91
Kuwait - $.78
Caracas, Venezuela - $.12

Many complain about gas prices. I don't. We (well, not me, but an awful lot of you) are driving gas guzzling SUVs from BFE to Indianapolis and polluting our environment. (Sorry, if this hit you like a lecture, but you need to hear this). Why? Low gas prices.

Let me give a history lesson to you "younguns" (by which I mean people younger than me). In the early 1970s, when I was a wee little lad, Americans all drove insanely inefficient American town cars. Except my father. For some reason, he was driving a Volkswagon that was so old, you could see the ground passing through the eroded floorboards. We called it the Fred Flinstone car.

Anyway, gas prices spiked because Jimmy Carter got the crazy idea that running a country was as easy as building houses for people, and everybody had to go to compact imports which outperformed American cars in fuel efficiency. Why? Because Japan was, even then, paying twice what we pay for gas. In Japan, NOT paying $100 per week for gas seemed like a good idea. Finally, after seeing so many Honda Accords littering our streets, the Big Three started making their own small, fuel-efficient cars.

BUT as gas prices kept getting lower and lower, the American obsession with big things crept back into the world and thus was born the SUV. When Japan saw the profit margins on SUVs, they started, ironically, making them, too, and the Big Three, in a desperate ploy to capture market share, basically started giving away vehicles (No interest! Ever!) And here we sit now with gas at $3.30 per gallon. It now takes the equivalent of the GNP of Lichtenstein for a single Hoosier to get through a month of petroleum needs in his SUV and/or pick-up truck.

As a result, we now have pressure to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Why? Because we can't afford our gas guzzling SUVs anymore. As arrogant as Americans can be sometimes (including myself), surely the fact we burn 70% of the world's fossil fuels would suggest to us that we should, ya know, create more fuel efficient vehicles. But NO! Gas was too cheap for that! The problem with most vehicles is that you can't get in and out of them in a day. As a result, the upside to high gas prices over a prolonged period is that either Detroit starts making fuel efficient cars, or people won't be able to buy them anymore. But to make this radical consumer change, you have to have consistently high gas prices.

The same applies to alternative energy sources. We pledged in 1980 to break our dependency on foreign oil. But when gas went back under $1.00 per gallon, where was the need? (To commemorate this phenomenon, Berkley Breathed had a Bloom County comic strip where an old man proclaims, in a fit of good gas price euphoria, "Pour out the milk, Ethel. The cat drinks unleaded from now on!")

But my main gripe with low gas prices is the suburban sprawl that it helped create. When you pay $1.00 per gallon, you can run out of Indianapolis away from all those bothersome African-Americans (tongue firmly in cheek, but who are we kidding? You can track the downward skid in population from Indianapolis from the day the courageous Hugh Dillon said, "Let's desegregate the schools!"). Stay and try to create a diverse community of people who work together to solve problems like a bad IPS system? Heck no! I can bail out with all the other white people into Brownsburg and drive into town for almost no cost! I do not believe it is a stretch to say cheap gas has helped speed the decline of many of America's inner cities by making the "politics of exit" too cheap for many people who might have cared enough to fight. And in exchange, what has it wrought in the suburbs? Mile after mile of strip mall and demolished greenspace. Is there anywhere you can go today in Greenwood, Plainfield, Avon, Brownsburg, Westfield, etc., etc., where there was once a field that isn't now a clearcut area awaiting construction of vacant stripmalls with signs reading, "Space for Lease?"

What is worse for Indianapolis is that we had wide open cornfields on every side and not enough people to start with. As a result, the population that used to be Indianapolis is now dispersed throughout nine doughnut counties, making it inefficient to even construct the one environmental benefit that normally comes from the mad dash out of the city - a mass transit system.

A final note...if we can keep gas prices high enough to actually break our dependence on foreign oil, our foreign policy will change dramatically. We can recoup all the moral currency we lost having to kow two to regimes we might have normally smacked down, at least diplomatically (and yes, I mean you, Saudi Arabia - the REAL harborer of terrorists, not Iraq). Also, once our "oil interests" in the Middle East have waned, we'll see if we're really a good a friend to Israel because they're a democracy, or because we needed a spring board from which to manage conflict that could disrupt our oil supplies.

It's not a stretch to suppose that gaining our energy independence could change everything we do internationally. And Republicans should be most eager to join this clarion call for higher gas prices because they won't have to be irritated by peaceniks anymore saying, "We invaded (insert name of most recent country Republican President has invaded here) for oil!" It would no longer be true, even hypothetically.

*** - "The Gas Face" -- an expression popularized by the 1990's hip hop group, 3rd Bass, that refers to a "disdainful look given to one who behaves in a questionable or foul manner."

Giving Many of You "The Gas Face" ***

Jill Long(shot?) Thompson Does Some Poll Dancing

Jill Long Thompson penned a letter that hit the mailboxes of D's today to let them know she's been endorsed by 22 mayors (from impressive cities like Angola, no less!) along with an alphabet soup of labor unions (the USW, CWA, AFGE, UTU, SEIU, and AEIOU and Sometimes Y).

But what she really wants you to know is that she has a 26% lead over Jim Schellinger (44 to 18% w/ 38% undecided), and she claims that "the momentum is clearly with us." (Momentum is apparently not cheap, as we are next asked to send $50, $100, or $250 to her campaign).

The specifics of the poll are set forth in a separate "memo" from Pete Brodnitz, the American Association of Political Consultants' pollster of the year. These findings are certainly consistent with Brian Howey's polling data prior to March 11, 2008, showing that Schelllinger did not have name ID outside of Indianapolis in excess of 20%.

While showing that you are likely to win is one way to sway the "smart money," bragging at this juncture by Ms. Thompson is like crowing about being voted the best chili at the cookoff when people have only tasted your recipe. Schellinger, having never run for public office, has not yet "presented himself" (polling done February 28-March 3, before Schellinger unveiled his ad).

BUT nothing will change even when he does "present himself," Thompson implies, anticipating your argument! When voters are asked who they favored AFTER being read "one short positive paragraph," Thompson goes up 55 - 27 with 18% undecided!

Unlike some push polling models that interject negatives into the questioning, the paragraph about Jim Schellinger is facially decent. It says:

"Jim Schellinger can bring positive change to Indiana because he is not a professional politician and will bring a fresh approach to leading the state. Schellinger grew up in a working class South Bend neighborhood and went on to attend Notre Dame and work his way up to President of an Indianapolis architecture firm that grew to employ 100 people in Indiana and was given one of the Indianapolis Star's top 5 companies to work for. His background as a successful businessman gives him the right experience to create jobs in Indiana. Schellinger believes Indiana needs real change and Hoosiers need a leader who will listen. He will bring people together in the fight to improve our schools, stop the privatization of state assets like toll roads, expand health care coverage, and create good jobs."

Even if you discount the 2% of those polled who moved into Thompson's column because they detest run-on sentences or statements that end with prepositions, there is still an eleven point pick-up. That's impressive, isn't it? Oh, wait. What did Thompson's statement say?

"Jill Long Thompson is a proven leader who can bring change to Indiana. A former head of Rural Development for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, she brings the economic credentials needed to change course and create jobs in Indiana. As a former Member of Congress, she helped pass tough ethics reform in Congress and will do the same in Indiana. As Governor, Jill Long Thompson will stop the privatization of state assets like toll roads, oppose tax increases that hurt Hoosier working families and work to bring change to Indiana's education and healthcare systems. Her Reinvest in Indiana plan will move us in a new direction and away from the harmful politices of Mitch Daniel's Administration."

Far be it from me to question the "pollster of the year," but couldn't a layman quickly sniff out the two statements that swing things toward Thompson in this model?

Howey had the Governor's overall approval rating at 41% before the property tax deal was cut. I haven't seen the cross-tabs, but with a straight D sample, Daniel's approval might be in the low teens, and part of this low standing was because of the "property tax crisis" (that he ignored for three and a half years). Had the poll results been the same even with Schellinger's "short statement" using the phrase "...away from the harmful policies of Mitch Daniel's Administration," instead of Thompson's, and had both used the statement about opposing tax increases, I'd be saying, "Sorry folks, it's all over."

But I can't shake the belief that my cat would have moved at least three points with benefit of "one short positive statement" that read:

"Slick the Cat supports ending privatization of state assets like toll roads, an increase in the number of days Hoosiers can spending sleeping in the sun next to their bay windows, and an end to the policies of Mitch Daniels, who he thinks is, literally, a rat."

I'm open minded, but until I see polling data AFTER Schellinger's been on the air, I wouldn't bet the farm on good old Pete repeating as pollster of the year.

As an aside, I was amused Ms. Thompson's letter refers to Mr. Schellinger as "architect Jim Schellinger." Apparently, Mr. Brodnitz must have some polling data showing that the only architect Hoosiers know is Mike Brady, and if he can't even manage sibling rivalry between Marcia and Jan, how in the world can he work with divided chambers at the Indiana General Assembly?

Jill Long(shot?) Thompson Does Some Poll Dancing

Shhhh! This Post is About.....RACE!

Nobody can read the human heart, and until we develop this skill, people will be accused of being racist for saying things they don't intend to be malicious, and people will get away with things that clearly are. And millions of comments will be uttered somewhere in between, many misconstrued or misread for political advantage.

Truthfully, we are so afraid to talk about race in this country that we can't even get a national consensus on what comments or behavioirs ARE racist.

This brings me to Geraldine Ferraro.

Ferraro "resigned" her post as a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton after she made the following comment:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Commentators, pundits, operatives, and lay folk, both white and black, went nuts on this. I'm not sure why (UNLESS their goal was to misconstrue or oversimplify the complexity that is human language).

People who wanted to run Ferraro out on a rail read the comment as if Ferraro is saying that the ONLY thing that got Obama where he is, is his race. That's a WHOLE lot different than saying he's received a tactical advantage being a black man, which is arguably true, just as it was true that Ferraro would not have been Mondale's running mate had she been a man (a fact that Ferraro has publicly acknowledged).

So, the only way we can conclude Ferraro is making a "racist" comment is if she meant to completely denounce the political genius of Obama's campaign, his savvy, his oratorical skill, his educational background, his laudable career choices, and his courageous stand against an ill-fated war. She could have meant that, and if one looks at her entire history, maybe she is a racist. I don't know. But I wonder if she meant, more simply, that Obama has gained an advantage in particular caucuses and primaries by virtue of being black. If she meant the latter, is her comment still "racist?"

Think outside of politics for a second. If you ask a black man who watches golf if he watched the sport before Tiger Woods, and he says, "No, I specifically watch to root for Tiger, and if he's not playing, I'm not watching," is he a racist? If the PGA can count a seven-fold increase in attendance among African-Americans at PGA events since Tiger's tour entry, are these fans racist? Now add to this a ton of white people like me who root for Tiger because they think it's hillarious that a black man consistently dominates in a sport that historically wouldn't even let black men caddy at elite clubs, and you've got a LOT of Tiger Woods fans because (a) he's black; and (b) because he's dominant. There's definitely synergy between these two things. Would he have as many fans if he weren't so damn talented? Probably not. Some of the interest would fall off, but even if he won a single major per season, he'd probably keep the crowd interested because they would always hold out hope that something novel can happen, and Americans LOVE to make history. (Why do you think we all turned a blind eye from the obvious steroid/HGH use when McGuire and Sosa broke Maris's record?)

But I digress. If Geraldine Ferraro said "If Tiger Woods were a white man, he wouldn't have the following he does," is she being racist or simply telling the truth? If she said, "If Hillary Clinton were a man (other than Bill), SHE wouldn't be where SHE is," is she being sexist or telling the truth? How much of Hillary's early strength was from women?

How many of us are dying to see Danica Patrick win her first IRL race JUST because she's a woman? Does that "fandom" detract from her driving skill? Isn't "fandom," when translated into tickets purchased for the Masters or 500 to see the black man or woman win, nothing more than an election with your dollars? Then how is this "rooting for" factor suddenly shut off with politics?

When the race started out, Hillary Clinton did astonishingly well with black voters. But as the race progressed and Obama's grassroots campaign started to eat up primaries, black voters started to defect strongly. Some pundits will say that is because President Clinton insulted Obama and put black folks off. There's truth to that. But isn't it also true that a lot of black folks had to reassess their Clinton support when Obama's odds went from long-shot to preemptive favorite? Didn't black folks leave Clinton in droves (90% of the Mississippi vote to Obama) when it looked like he could ACTUALLY become the first black president? Is there any black parent in America who wouldn't want their child to have a black president to admire?" Aren't there thousands of white folks in every state who will feel a sense of pride when they cast the vote for Obama and help breathe life into the American Dream of "anyone can be President?" (These votes will come with irony, of course, because the day you know identity politics is dead is when there is NO satisfaction in voting for a black man for president because it won't be anything different). But doesn't every white person reading this know at least SOME white people who WANT a black man as president for either symbolic or "international esteem" value? (More of this below). Isn't that why, right now, John Edwards has the free time to seek funding for a documentary on poverty? (I'm making this up, but it worked for Al Gore!)

And isn't it also true that having a black man as our president is a prudent play in international relations? Isn't it accurate that those who seek to do us ill will be hard-pressed to say our country operates with a malevolent design against "dark peoples of the world" when our president is African-American?

Aren't there white people who see THAT as much as they see that Hillary might benefit in international relations from being able to trade on the relationships built up by President Clinton? If so, then that means Barak Obama DOES benefit from being black. That's not the ONLY reason he's where he is, but it is A reason.

By the way, I'm squarely in Obama's camp. You couldn't pry me out with a wedge. But it doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. That's the great thing about America. We've evolved to the point where we're about to have our first black president, and you can still disagree with someone you respect without having to compromise that respect.

Shhhh! This Post is About.....RACE!

When is a Republican not a Republican?

When it's Judge James Payne, the director of the Indiana Department of Child Services. I always give respect and praise where it's due. I 'm told people nationally herald Judge Payne as a visionary juvenile court judge. But NOBODY should herald him as a "true" Republican.


A "true" Republican (of which there are probably only seven or eight hundred in the country anyway) is someone who not only talks about, but also, actually delivers: (a) less government; (b) "local" control; and (c) accountability.


From a Democrat perspective, I say it is to Judge Payne's credit that he made it a priority to hire new case managers so that each case manager has fewer families to supervise. That's a great thing for children. BUT it's also a huge growth in government employment, isn't it? TRUE Republicans hate that. In fact, they probably want to privatize DCS so they can easily fire case managers who don't carry their weight.

In addition, Judge Payne favored SB 105, which would have created a new system of administrative law judges to establish child support orders. The bill was defeated after very vocal opposition by every county bar association in the state, and the Indiana State Bar Association's family and juvenile law section. Everybody wants more money to be collected (which is a decidedly different goal than establishing more support orders), but creating a whole new governmental apparatus in your agency makes no sense if you're a Republican. Moreover, this bill would have taken away local judges' discretion to not require support orders in CHINS (Children in Need of Services) cases where the parents were already overwhelmed with the task of completing services to get their children back.

The Republican party has historically been the party of "state's rights" and "local control." But HB 1001 (a/k/a "the property tax relief bill") as passed, took a LOT of control out of the hands of local judges in deciding what services judges offer to parents in CHINS cases. Admittedly, this was done because the state has assumed more of these expenses, and it makes sense to have the person writing the check supervising what is purchased. But if "local government knows best," why would you take away local decisionmaking?

Here's why. Because, like Judge Payne, most people who call themselves Republicans don't actually believe in local control. I've always thought that Republicans hoisted one of the best pubic relations scams of all time on the American populace when they started talking about how it's better to leave decisions to "local government." (The only better PR move was renaming an anti-aristocracy tax paid through estates as "the death tax"). Why have bureaucrats in D.C. or in Indianapolis decide how you run YOUR affairs?!? We'll leave that up to local people. This is great pandering to the states and local government officials who feel warm and cozy with the confidence bestowed upon them by Republicans.

At the same time, MANY (but not all) Republicans support nationwide tort reform, a nationwide prohibition on gay marriage, and a nationwide prohibition on abortion. In other words, if you want to know when a state or a local government SHOULDN'T decide for itself, here's your handy dandy test question:

Do we, the Republican Party, agree with the decision the "local" government has made? If yes, go to our "state and local government rights" talking points. If no, act like we have no "state and local government rights" talking points.

But back to Judge Payne. On the issue of accountability, HB 1001 adds a provision that says the DCS Director, officers, and employees are not liable for their actions, except to the State of Indiana. Now, who might have wanted this provision and why might they have wanted it? I mean, has anybody read anything bad in the news about DCS or its employees lately that might give some insight into why this is suddenly necessary? Anybody? Oh, yeah. That. Tajanay Bailey.

I may be in the minority on this, but I think immunity is a good thing because DCS would be getting sued every time they took a kid from a home and every time they sent a kid home. No actor in the system can see the future, and even in the Bailey case, the critics are talking in hindsight. Nobody could have predicted that marijuana use and a domestic dispute would lead to a dead child. If those two "symptoms" were the telltale signs of a dead child, we'd have 500 dead kids every day in Indianapolis. But even as one favoring immunity, I recognize I'm hard-pressed to say it doesn't run contrary to accountability.

That's been the Judge Payne's legislative agenda, though - expanding government employment, taking away local control, and taking away accountability. I'd also be lying if I said I didn't agree with Judge Payne more than I disagree with him. But the difference is that I don't claim to be a small government Republican, and I'm not sure you should get credit for claiming to be something you aren't. Of course, now that I think about it, I'm not sure I've ever heard Judge Payne refer to himself as a small government Republican. Maybe for a good reason.

When is a Republican not a Republican?

What I Like About Jon Elrod

The show from here on out is all Democratic primary, and that might not be as major as people think given that the DCCC will stay on board for Andre Carson. Whoever emerges from the primary is irrelevant, though, to the future for Jon Elrod, who is officially toast in this race.

If Carson wins the primary, how will Elrod convince anyone to donate again for a fight he already lost? If Carson loses, how will Elrod convince anyone to donate for a fight against a candidate who every Republican will think is BETTER than Carson? I have to imagine Elrod is feeling a bit down.

This is the bad part of the political process. Somebody has to lose, and Elrod is not a bad guy....for a Republican. He was the ONLY Republican who did not sign a petition to get a vote on SJR 7 on gay marriage. That had to make him persona non grata in the Bosma "wedge issue" caravan. That was just a gutsy move. Also, nobody can say the guy doesn't work hard. Knocking on 6,000 doors is no joke.

But the thing I really like about Elrod is that he leaves no stone unturned. I slammed the guy in the Indianapolis Star over a taxpayer-funded General Assembly "look at me pointing while standing at the House podium" puff piece. In fairness, both parties do these mailings, but I'm his constituent, I had his mailer that day, and I gave it to him with both barrels.

The next day after my letter ran, my paralegal told me that Jon Elrod had left a message saying he had "gotten my letter and wanted to meet." Here I was running this guy up on a petard, and he wanted a one-on-one. Gutsy. I met him at Loughmillers, and when I told him I'd been a Democrat all my life, he didn't flinch. We had, in fact, a very candid discussion, and I left thinking that Mr. Elrod is either a very good actor (which could be true, given he was a theater major), OR he is one of those rare guys who isn't really into politics for self-aggrandizement. I daresay I left with respect for the man.

Also, when I think about Elrod, I'm reminded of a story about the late Mississippi Senator John Stennis. He was in a tough race, and he was trailing in the polls. Stennis didn't really trust political consultants, but he agreed to take a meeting with some "D.C. folk." The consultant started telling Stennis, "To win this thing, we've got to go negative on your opponent. To win this thing, we've got to take more D.C. money to finance your campaign. To win this thing, you've got to..." At this point, Senator Stennis said, "Son, we don't got to win this thing."

At the debate, there stood Elrod, the bashed candidate, the victim of TV attacks and mass mailers, a head full of negative information about Carson that could be trotted out. And he wouldn't do it. He could have churned Mr. Carson's Muslim faith, his Farrakhan endorsement, and a variety of campaign snafus as many Republican bloggers have done. But he didn't.

There's something to be said for wanting to win the right way, and Jon Elrod said it best by remaining silent.

What I Like About Jon Elrod

The Vile File

One thing I've always prided myself on is not being vile on my blog toward people with whom I don't agree. I think George Bush and Dick Cheney have done horribly for this country. I think Greg Ballard is not well-suited to be Mayor. I think one of the most dangerous places in America is the space between Brian Bosma and a TV camera. But holding all of these views, I am unable to summon up the vinegar that people send toward Andre Carson. Advance Indiana won't say the respectful "Representative Carson." It uses "the Seed."

That puts Andre in good company with his grandmother, who many Republicans took to callously calling "Droolia" in her later life. I'm not optimistic about this, but I hold hope that at some point, we'll not be so bitter about people with whom we disagree.

I hope we won't accuse people, specifically Beth White, of stealing an election without evidence. The difference between here and, oh, say, Florida, is we all knew the votes were messed up in Florida. Retired Democratic Jews don't vote for Buchanan!

What's the evidence here? I'm not sure. If Mr. Welsh, Marion County Republican Chair Tom John, or Jon Elrod have something to litigate or investigate, do it. Bring it on. Find somebody who will do a poll of a precinct that you think Elrod REALLY won. But until then, I'm afraid you're REALLY sounding like sour grapes.

The Vile File

Carson City!

The results are in, and Andre Carson is your 7th District Congressman! But what's unknown now is why specifically. Conservative bloggers such as Gary Welsh at Advance Indiana and its readership are implicitly promoting the idea that the election was somehow stolen based on the results of particular precincts where Carson should have won but didn't. Sorry, but this is crazy and (sadly) expected.

One of Mr. Welsh's readers hit the real reason on the head when he said that "the Carson machine" was out in full force in Pike Township. This will be anathema to many old-style Democrats, but I believe yesterday's result will show that Centre Township is no longer the African-American power for the Democratic Party. It's up in Pike now. I will reserve further comment until I actually see all of the precinct tallies, but I would guess Elrod got crushed in Pike, and this offset any "gains" he got from losing small in some Center Township precincts or by carrying Broad Ripple. Also, the DCCC paid for canvassing and, I'm told, for an absentee voter program with which Elrod couldn't compete. The single best tactic for any campaign is to lock up votes as early as possible before anybody can have second thoughts and you can spend less on GOTV. Carson did this well.

The Republican disconnect here is amusing because they have apparently forgotten that John Kerry carried this district by 58% in 2004, so 54% is hardly landslide territory. And herein lies another question that Democrats may not wish to consider. Was Julia Carson REALLY that popular? (Understand that the depth of affection for the Congresswoman is undenied. Those who voted for her could not be shook. My question is whether her performance drew the esteem (and votes) of all inclined to favor Democrats). These are questions colleagues and I have debated heatedly, and I will enjoy chopping up the new precincts and digesting all the data.

But in a 58% presidential district, wouldn't one think Julia Carson would poll 58% in 2004? But she didn't. She polled 54%, which matches the 54% she polled in 2006. In 2002, she polled 53%. In other words, in the new 7th, she only "improved" marginally. She never won any converts. And given that her grandson was deemed "inexperienced" by the Star, which endorsed his opponent, 54% may be as low as it gets for ANY Democrat in this district who isn't scandal-prone. We have no baseline to determine whether Julia won because she was the Democratic candidate in a Democratic district, or because she was Julia Carson. (Of course, in fairness, this could be said of a lot of candidates, I'm sure). My point is this. If Andre Carson were to lose in the primary to someone else, and that person draws 56% or 58% in November, wouldn't that be cause to hypothesize that Julia Carson was actually underperforming? And if a D elected in November is re-elected by the same margin two years from now, wouldn't we have confirmation for our hypothesis? In short, can anybody, at this point, even say whether yesterday was a strong showing or a weak one for Andre Carson, in particular given the funding advantage he enjoyed?

Of course, I'd rather be an underperforming member of Congress than be the one writing the concession speech. So, congratulations to you, Andre Carson. Let the others read the tea leaves while you keep pounding the pavement. You've got a crowd in your rear-view mirror.

Carson City!

Addendum to Star Light...

When I was at NIFS today, I tracked down the Star in print and found the Carson returned donation story.

Page B7, next to the obituaries.

Yeah, I'll be standing by my earlier comments.

Addendum to Star Light...

Star Light, Star Not-So-Bright

Democrats tire of hearing Republicans gripe about the vast left-wing, media conspiracy hellbent on depriving conservative Republicans of electoral victories. After sitting in on several conference calls for the conspiracy (hosted by the New York Times each Tuesday at 11 a.m. Eastern Standard Time), I've realized you can't paint "the media" with a broad brush. There are too many outlets. If one "shows a little slip" in favor of a particular candidate, it's usually an anomoly. What "the media" does do is attack a good controversy, just like political comedians do. When you run things, it's easier to be in the cross-hairs. If you think the Bush coverage has been biased, it's because he keeps putting himself out for ridicule each time he speaks without a script or gropes a female leader of another country during a G-7 meeting.

You think it was different when Clinton was in office? Don't you remember President Clinton getting a bit of bad coverage when one of his policies imperiled our economy and healthcare system. Specifically, his policy of accepting fellatio from an intern.

"The media" generally loves a good controversy. You give them one, and it's off to the races, regardless of affiliation. BUT...today I'm troubled about the Indianapolis Star.

There are the obvious measures of journalistic objectivity, such as "Did we give both sides a chance to comment?" and "Will our story be used to induce America into a war against either the Spanish or the Vietnamese?"

But there are subtler ways bias can creep into a story. Does the story report ALL the facts? Does the headline (which is all most people read) reflect the story? And where is the story placed in the paper or on-line?

Once upon a time, the Star was the bane of existence for every soul with even a solitary thought of voting for a candidate to the left of Atilla the Hun. Now, Republicans scream that the Star has joined "the conspiracy." I'd say the Star finally started being "fair." And while I said good riddance to the Pulliams and all their ilk (enjoying the golf, Mr. Vice President?), doing a 180 is not good. For the first time, I saw what one might call "evidence" of such a flip.

I was reading Advance Indiana's critique of a Star story about Andre Carson's campaign returning a contribution to M. Yaqub Mirza, a man who had fallen under the federal eye in a terrorism financing investigation. I went to http://www.indystar.com/. I scrolled down my page, and I couldn't find the story. Anywhere. The main stories for the day were:

Average Pay Up 8% for Ballard’s Cabinet

Hospital Loses Child Abuse Suit

Murder Charges Dropped in Durty Nelly Case

Steak ‘N Shake Rival Declares Landslide Victory

Then I scrolled down to my “Local News” where I got…

Man Sentenced to 60 Years in Kroger Killing

Metro Area Ducks Snowstorms Punch

Dems Offer Their Own Tax Plan

Indicted Gary Police Chief Back at Work

I then clicked on “Local News” to get expanded headlines…

I got a different story about a Carmel kid going to the national spelling bee, the list of all the stories above, and then finally, in 9th place, the story about the Carson donation.

I don't subscribe to the Star, and from what I hear, only 113 people still do. So while I cannot speak for what those folks saw, in the electronic world, most of us would have NEVER seen the story, even though we have a special election on Tuesday.

The story plays poorly for Carson, so you are probably wondering why I'm talking about it. The blog name is IPOPA, not Indy's Self-Serving Analysis. If, by actually saying I think the Star was biased today, it means I don't get invited to the Indiana Democratic Party State Convention, then OH DARN, I guess I'll have to do something else with my money and Saturday free time.

The value of an endorsement is directly proportional to the credibility of the endorser, and as I foresee a time when Democrats again field consistently high quality candidates, (a man can dream, can't he?), I want the Star's endorsements to matter in the future. Yes, the Star did endorse Elrod and crushed Carson by calling him the "fourth-best qualified" candidate in the Democratic primary field. This was huge because Republicans act like Julia Carson owned the paper. But then the Star turns around with this story placement.

Let me ask you all a simple question. As a reader of THE INDIANAPOLIS Star, which news item is more important for you? ANYTHING about the candidates for special election on Tuesday, OR a story about the police chief of Gary? Had the Star switched the order of just these two stories, it would have been on my webpage.

The Carson story was also UNDER one about a snowstorm that didn't actually hit anybody and UNDER another one about a clash of hamburger chains. Elrod, Carson, and Shepherd are going to either help tank or save our economy and either save or demolish social security. Shouldn't ANYTHING about one of these guys take precedence over steakburgers and milkshakes or a 7th grader who makes us feel stupid because he can spell "triumvirate" when we need to spellcheck "embarrass" because we keep forgetting how many r's are in it?

Just food for thought.

Star Light, Star Not-So-Bright

AND THE WINNER IS...

I've just returned from the great 7th District debate at IUPUI featuring Andre Carson (D), Jon Elrod (R), and Sean Shepherd (L), and I've reached the following conclusion.....

Libertarians are entertaining.

In P.J. O'Rourke's book Parliament of Whores, he states that "in the American political system, you're only allowed to have real ideas if it's absolutely guaranteed that you can't win an election."

Maybe this is why Sean Shepherd was the most engaging personality on the stage tonight. When asked about legalizing marijuana, Mr. Shepherd did not directly support the same, but he pointed out that a family of seven never gets run over by someone who has smoked too many joints. The only thing they do, Shepherd said, is clog up the fast food drive-thru. The crowd burst out laughing.

Mr. Carson took umbrage and pointed out that drug use is not something at which one laughs and that he knows "ten crackheads" who began on marijuana. Mr. Carson's point was undoubtedly not to emphasize that he knows more crackheads than most voters in the 7th District, but rather, to emphasize marijuana's standing as a "gateway drug." This was expected law enforcement background dogma from a man who worked in law enforcement, and it was echoed by Elrod in standard Republican "law and order" dogma. And that's the problem. Only a libertarian could entertain the idea of serious debate on this issue because it's too dangerous for the other two, seeing they have better than a snowflake's chance of winning.

But I won't bore you with the details of how many people we have incarcerated for life for possessing marijuana on a "third strike," or how many hundreds of thousands fewer die each year from marijuana than alcohol and cigarettes, which are also "gateway" drugs, or how much money the government could make taxing marijuana, or how legalizing marijuana would reduce violent crime associated with its distribution. You aren't allowed to think about that.

Shepherd also had the best line of the night. On gay marriage: "We need to get government out of the marriage business. The Bible says, 'Give to Caesar things that are Caesars.' I say we take from Caesar things that are God's."

Libertarians might be thought of as a fringe party, but they know a good sound bite. Libertarian wit, along with knowing the formula for a space-age, super-adhesive, are the keys to the vitality of the Libertarian Party in Indianapolis. This is no joke. Some aluminum lamp posts downtown still have bumper stickers for Libertarian Kurt St. Angelo from the 10th district race he ran in 1996 against Julia Carson.

Shepherd also seemed to have superior knowledge on most issues. He had a lot of statistics at his fingertips that he used to illustrate his points. Admittedly, 72% of statistics are made up on the spot, so he could have been lying to us all. But if you know somebody who cares enough to fact-check whether it's true that it cost $1.29 in conventional fuel to create $1.00 worth of corn-based ethanol, I hope you'll let me know. Either Shepherd possesses a broad intellect, or he reads a lot of books like "Medicare Part B for Dummies."

I know. People want to know, "What about Andre Carson? What about Jon Elrod?" I'm reluctant to criticize any of these three political gladiators. They stood on that stage for ninety minutes on live TV under intense media scrutiny that would have left mere mortals huddled in the fetal position.

Oh, what the hell.

Elrod came off slightly mechanical, and he said that he wanted to be my "neighborhood congressman" so many times, I was waiting for him to put on a sweater and take us by train to see King Friday in the Land of Make Believe.

Paying homage to irony, Elrod repeated a soundbite about the typical Washington, D.C. politics and soundbites that epitomize campaigns. But he came off as sensible and likeable. To his credit, Elrod refused to make religion an issue, pointing out there is no religious test to hold office. In a line that would make Eric Miller cringe (which makes me like Elrod all the more), he noted that an office holder can be of any religion or NO religion. He also said that if Andre Carson were elected, he could be sworn in upon whatever holy text he wanted to use. One wonders what the crowd’s reaction would have been had Elrod “let loose” of his programming.

Carson, while very charismatic, also hit a “message rut” by referring to “senior citizens” as “precious” so many times, I had to leave the auditorium to call my grandmother and tell her I love her.

I’ve seen Mr. Carson in social settings just talking one-on-one about issues, and he can be sharp when he’s his own man. But tonight, it was as if he was so focused on staying “on message” for the campaign that he came “off message” for some questions. Only once (on a question about federal earmarks during which Mr. Carson waxed appreciatively about dinosaurs at the Children’s Museum) did his compassion and well-measured sentimentality show through.

I don’t blame Mr. Carson though. I believe the DCCC stole his personality by chocking him full of “talking points,” and I'd like for the DCCC to give him his soul back. Just like with Elrod, when a candidate strains to hit certain pre-programmed responses, they lose their individuality, spontaneity, and humanity. Of course, they also win that way, which is why Senator Bayh keeps getting elected while boring the hell out of us all.

Uh oh. Now you've done it, Worden. You're finished in politics. Haven't you heard what happens to people who insult the Senator?

Don't get it twisted, people. I hold the Senator in high regard. He is why I’m a Democrat. His campaign for Governor was the first on which I ever worked. I still have an autographed photo of him in my house.

But when was the last time you heard him give a speech that really moved you like he did back in 1988 when he spoke with urgency? (I miss the wordsmithing of Will Fay).

I think that’s what happens when you become too cautious. You become boring. Sean Shepherd had us in his palm tonight because he had nothing to fear. Including the fear of being elected.

AND THE WINNER IS...

The Magic of Lord Elrod

I just read that Gary Gygax, the co-creator of the role-playing game Dungeons and Dragons died yesterday. (Apparently, he did NOT make the saving throw). Across the country, hundreds of thousands emerged from their moms’ basements to fly medieval flags at half-mast. As an homage to Mr. Gygax, I present the following true story….

From the House of Rivendell, err…Representatives…comes Lord Elrod. He conquers seemingly invulnerable Democratic dragons with his silver tongue, visibly worn shoe leathermail, and his + 4 % (within the margin of error) cloak of electability.

Now, within the land of Midcentral Indiana lived a good sorceress, Queen Julia, and she was beloved by her people. Alas, age came and as Queen Julia lie on her deathbed, she bequeathed her kingdom to her grandson, Juggernaut. With his sergeant at arms, Sir Lacylot Johnson, Juggernaut sought to continue the benevolence of the beloved Queen Julia.

Lord Elrod, however, thought that Queen Julia’s kingdom had grown corrupt, and he opposed Juggernaut’s plan to increase the levy on nobles’ lands to pay for increased serfs’ wages.

Lord Elrod and Juggernaut accepted an offer from the overlords of IUPUI, and the two engaged in an epic battle in the coliseum on the eve of March 6, in the year of our Lord 2008.

Lord Elrod saw immediately that Juggernaut was cursed by the Endorsement of Farrakhan. Lord Elrod, accordingly, swung his Wedge of Irrational Fears. Juggernaut was toppled, but he regained his balance and countered with his +$350,000 broadsword of bought media. Lord Elrod cried foul, as Juggernaut’s weaponry had been financed, not by individual peasants, but rather from organizations outside of Midcentral, such as the International Brotherhood of Catapult Builders.

Who will win this clash of the titans? Stay tuned…

The Magic of Lord Elrod

Defeating Radical Islam!

Tangent time.

Have you noticed the proliferation of “pass through” websites for political fund-raising. Very savvy. If the organizations took money from donors and cut a check for the candidate, they would have to register as PACs and be limited to giving $5,000 per election under federal campaign laws. However, these websites tell you where to send money DIRECTLY to support candidates “like you.” Such sites include www.actblue.com for Democrats and www.slatecard.com for Republicans.

If you look up Jon Elrod on Slatecard, you’ll see he has 27 donors who gave less than $2,000 total. http://www.slatecard.com/slatecards/SlateCaps. But more interestingly, you'll see that Slatecard awards candidates “issue badges” from the donors. These awards give you insight into the donors’ perception of the candidate. Under “Most Received Issue Badges,” Mr. Elrod has four:

- Conservation of Resources (awesome, unless by “conserve” you mean saving the resources until we can give permits to private strip mining companies)

- Faith & Family (could be awesome, depending on how you define "faith" and "family")

- Energy Independence (could be awesome if we’re talking hybrids and not Anwar drilling)…and last, but not least….

- Defeat Radical Islam.

WHAT!?!??!!!!

As I just read Jon Elrod’s website in its entirety and saw no “anti-radical Islam” plank, I can only conclude, in these donors' estimations, that you defeat “radical” Islam by making sure no Muslims serve in Congress. Can I now say that Elrod feels the same way because a supporter said it? Oh, don’t be silly. That would be like saying that Andre Carson hates Jews because he was endorsed by Minister Farrakhan, and we know nobody would…..what’s that? They have??? Hmmm.

One of the favorite sports for political camps is to act like every nut who gloms onto a campaign is the candidate’s alter ego. Andre Carson has NO current connection with Farrakhan or his beliefs. But the Carson Hater Camp (CHC) act like they’re in league because Carson won’t denounce Minister Farrakhan’s endorsement. People point out that Minister Farrakhan called Judaism a “gutter religion” and spoke in what we can charitably call unflattering terms about gays.

But I know another guy who uses the exact same words about gays. His name is Eric Miller, and his people designed Jon Elrod’s website. Eric Miller supports Jon Elrod publicly. That is why I am calling on Jon Elrod, right now, to denounce this endorsement. Only by doing so can we defeat “Radical Evangelism.” What makes things more staggering is that a prominent GLTG organization recently endorsed Elrod, noting in their commentary on the endorsement that Farrakhan and Islam are homophobic. Yes, but so is the version of Christianity practiced by Eric Miller. And, respectfully, I didn’t see Achmed and his jihadists pushing SJR 7 to constitutionally abolish gay marriage in Indiana. I saw Eric Miller.

Every political party plays on hobgoblins, but when I’m thinking about the 7th District of Indiana, I see Eric Miller as a greater threat to it than Louis Farrakhan ever could be. Andre Carson has seen Louis Farrakhan, what, probably 3 times in his life? I bet Jon Elrod sees Eric Miller three times a week.

Now onto some FUN stuff...

Man, today’s Abdul show stirred up a dookie tempest! Jon Elrod’s sexuality became an issue, and it prompted people to suggest shortly thereafter that the Carson campaign is churning this issue to deep-six Elrod.

This might be true if by “Carson campaign” you mean every person who supports Andre Carson. I’m sure SOMEBODY is talking about Jon Elrod’s sexuality. Let’s be frank. Every man who isn’t married at 30 gets ridiculously questioned, usually by his own mother. Throw in that the guy is metrosexual and a theater major, and I imagine he gets four times the scrutiny. Also, I’m sure it doesn’t help that he periodically wears a funny hat. (See page 6 on the link below).

http://www.aasr-indy.org/doubleeagle/DoubleEagle-54-3_LR.pdf

(I’m not sure what it is about lodges and bad headwear. I love the Scottish Rite, but these guys look like they’re at Chuckie Cheese for their birthday).

At the same time this discussion is going on, SOMEBODY who supports Elrod is talking about Andre Carson being Muslim and not in a favorable way. But having water cooler discussion among people who follow politics is a lot different than having the campaign disseminate the view as an attack. Andre Carson is not a homophobe and Jon Elrod is not close-minded when it comes to religion. Neither one would sanction these type of attacks.

I loved Truman’s idea that “the buck stops here.” But Truman was talking about being responsible for all things under his command. We ask too much of any political candidate when we make them responsible for every comment from every potential supporter.

Defeating Radical Islam!

Schooling You on Carson

Time for full disclosure. I am on Andre Carson’s donor list. Also, Mr. Carson’s father-in-law, Marion County Superior Judge David Shaheed, is a man I hold in extremely high regard. At the same time, I am a late convert, not a Carson clan devotee. I worked for Ann Delaney against Mr. Carson’s grandmother in 1994. (Ms. Delaney was instrumental in the successful campaign I ran for Pam Carter in 1992. I never forgot Ann’s generosity in offering counsel). To what degree these facts color your impression of what follows is for you to decide.

We all have biases. The question is whether we are honest enough to know when we make apologies we shouldn’t or gloss over concerns that merit scrutiny. Can’t we advocate for a candidate without accepting his or her infallibility?

Some may say comments that follow do a disservice to the Democratic Party. But just as Dr. King said openly disobeying an unjust law shows the highest form of respect for law, speaking out with an eye toward improving a body one serves shows the highest form of respect for that body. So here it is. Prior to slating, I was dead set against Andre Carson. I held a fervent belief (and still do) that a congressional seat is not a family heirloom to be handed down. I was fond of telling people that if you took the names off the Democratic candidates' resumes, Andre Carson’s would not be the one you selected. I realize now that I was looking for the “best candidate on paper,” not necessarily the “best representative.”

The claim that Andre Carson has insufficient experience resonated with me. I knew why shortly after I read that Barack Obama is not deemed “inexperienced” by people 40 and younger as much as he is by people 55 and older. The human reaction is to gauge others’ “experience” by where we sit in our own lives, and I am older than Mr. Carson. After slating, though, I had to come to grips with the idea that if someone should not automatically get an office by virtue of family history, should they be automatically disqualified because of it? I started thinking about what “experience” really means. Dick Cheney is the most “experienced” elected official in Washington, D.C. Has that been an asset to this country, or has it been used destructively?

Moreover, how can anyone talk about “experience” without considering what skills the job requires? Twenty years in sales is useless in a marketing job. Being a CEO for a Fortune 500 company that sent all its manufacturing jobs overseas is useless if you run a company trying to create high paying jobs in America. The discussion has to begin with what a member of Congress does and what skills are required to accomplish it.

If you subscribe to the “delegate theory of representation,” a congressperson must mimic the districts’ expressed interests on each vote. If you subscribe to the “trustee” theory, a congressperson must make a value judgment based on how he thinks the district would act with information he has but they don’t, and in sufficiently compelling circumstances, he must act in the nation’s interest instead of the district’s.

If you believe your congressperson should be your delegate, your congressperson must be able to: (a) listen to constituents; and (b) push a button. If you believe in the trustee theory, your congressperson must have an extremely incisive mind and a comprehensive knowledge of world affairs, industry, macroeconomics, global trends, science, the environment, and human nature (among many other fields). In short, you need a “super genius.” But as anyone who has watched Jeopardy knows, freakishly high intellect and social skills seldom coincide. We are usually left to select one who we believe can digest issues quickly (or “grasp the heart of the matter”) while also being able to interact with others. Regardless of which representation theory you choose, you should also probably be able to “horse trade” to get things done.

With these ideas in mind, here’s why I like Andre Carson. At a recent event I attended, he asked more questions than he answered. (Republicans insert your joke here). I found it refreshing that he did not feel pressed to act as if he had all the solutions. He was much more interested in absorbing what we were saying, and in this respect, you could see the best of Julia Carson coming out of him.

I consider myself reasonably informed, and I cannot name a single bill Julia Carson authored, except one to get Rosa Parks recognized. But nobody can say she didn’t listen to her district. Nobody. (Well, they can say it, but they’ll be viewed in the same way we look at people who wear aluminum foil on their heads because they say the CIA is using satellites to listen to their thoughts). Andre Carson showed me he WILL listen. And if the district’s view contrasts his, I firmly believe he will let his own feelings give way. That takes humility, and anyone who has talked with him for even a few minutes will see he has it in buckets. (Ironically, his humility may stem as much from his recognition that many people do not believe he is deserving of such a privileged office as it does from his Muslim faith).

People will say, “Yes, but everybody will listen. These other candidates have been in office longer.” David Orenlichter and Carolene Mays serve in the Indiana General Assembly. Joanne Sanders is serving with distinction on the city-county council. Woody Meyers is…. hmmm. Umm. I'm not really sure. Let me get back to you on that one.

My point is that none of these people have “experience” applicable to Congress. The issues, personalities, and procedures are all different. Knowing how to work Luke Kenley won’t do you any good in D.C. That’s why, all things being equal, I would take someone on the hip of a sitting member of Congress, over someone with ten years at the Indiana General Assembly any day. Also, I harbor a belief that Andre Carson is most likely to hit the ground running. Julia Carson was beloved by the members of the Black Congressional Caucus and even by such Republican hardheads as Dan Burton. They will all embrace Andre Carson out of respect for his grandmother the first day of his arrival. The national house leadership has already stepped in and helped him. While Republicans will decry the “outside influence,” it’s the beltway equivalent of a “we care about Indianapolis" greeting card. We know that the national folks will make sure Carson lands well to ensure he stays where he is. These folks know that Congress is a game of longevity, and power for the district comes from seniority. Andre Carson has the potential to be a two-decade congressperson, and I would daresay that before we reach 2024, he will be the leader of a major congressional committee, just as Andy Jacobs was. (The same thing cannot be said for Jon Elrod, though he is equally youthful, as the demographics of the 7th District would make him a perpetual target from D challengers. Even if he wins, he'd be a one or two-termer).

Mr. Carson’s critics do themselves a disservice by referring to “experience,” but this sounds like code. What it SEEMS they really want to say is that Mr. Carson does not have the intellectual heft to do the job of a representative under the trustee model. I suggest this because my fellow Blogger, Gary Welsh, at Advance America (see sidebar for link) has pointed out on several occasions as have numerous posters to the Indianapolis Star, that Mr. Carson attended an on-line college (Concordia University) and that he was ranked near the bottom in his law enforcement class.

When I hear these criticisms, my initial reaction is to call out those Republicans who voted for the C-student in the Whitehouse. But that’s doesn’t support Mr. Carson; it just chastises them for hypocrisy. Also, given that President Bush has done such a deplorable job, it certainly adds weight to the idea that some intellect should be a prerequisite for public service.

It is fair game to assess Mr. Carson’s educational history in making this assessment. (Though, Mr. Elrod should produce his undergrad and law school transcripts as well). But as we are rummaging to see what embarrassing course titles lay therein, I hope we will be mindful that book smarts are not uniformly the sin quo non of a leader in most fields. Our country has been built by many great “street savvy” entrepreneurs, and most lawyers know people who graduated ahead of them in law school who they wouldn’t let represent their dog in court. Moreover, there are legions of management books devoted to the notion the skillfully dealing with others and their emotions (a/k/a EQ, emotional quotient) is more important than I.Q in predicting success. Arguably the most effective legislator in American history was Lyndon Baines Johnson, a man who graduated from that bastion of intellectualism, Southwest Texas State Teacher’s College.

I wish I could shake the Magic 8 Ball and have it deliver the clear answer on how much smarter someone with no charisma must be to trump someone with less technical knowledge who connects well with people before it’s a net gain. But I just keep getting “Ask Again Later.” The ball knows that, in some situations, a book-smart candidate would be the better choice. But it also knows that high intellect is just as often connected to arrogance, condescension, and “I know-it-all” insensitivity, a la Dukakis (and arguably even Hillary Clinton). That doesn't wash in the 7th District of Indiana.

All I can offer is that during the same event I spoke of earlier, Mr. Carson showed a strong grasp of the pro and cons on many diverse ideas. (I intend to attend the debate Thursday night to see if this was an anomaly). This was refreshing as well. As voters, we want everything to be put nicely in boxes. We want to know that our lives will be made right without any sacrifice. Andre Carson on this day would not say it, though he certainly could have. There were no cameras and no microphones. Just one man, his constituents, and frank conversation….just like Grandma Carson used to make.

Schooling You on Carson

Hoosier in the National News - and NOT for plagiarism

When I was a brash intern for the Indiana Democratic Party in 1990 (yeah, I know....some things never change!), an exceptional lady named Gelone Broadnax took me under her wing. She was ahead of the crowd in her thinking then, and she still is. Here's a story (that apparently ran everywhere except in Indianapolis) regarding her support for Obama, and how Indiana might actually matter in May. (Sorry to disappoint, but if Clinton doesn't deliver Texas and Ohio, she'll be out by then).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080225/ap_on_el_pr/the_waiting_states

Hoosier in the National News - and NOT for plagiarism

Slating on my nerves!

People react to slating the same way they react to Britney Spears. Some hate it, some love it, but all feel sorry for everyone associated with it publicly.

The process is undoubtedly subject to abuse, but this is only because the party's premier candidates fail to draw citizens into the ranks. Permit me to explain.

At the Marion County slating convention in February, critics claimed that Mary Ann Sullivan won HD 97 by virtue of putting "new people" who never worked for the party in vacant slots. It is conceivable that people without long-term interest in the party were given votes (although one would assume they will work long enough to get Mary Ann elected, and are, therefore, a welcome addition). Only time will tell.

However, how strongly can you take a complaint of "hijacking" from candidates who can prevent it every time and don't.

The committeepersons who vote on slating are either elected to serve in the precinct in which they live, or are appointed by the county chair when no elected committeeperson serves.

If I were an elected official, my people would spend time on recruitment to ensure that as many people elected to commiteeperson slots favor me. If there were vacancies, I would make sure to get as many names to the chairman as early as possible. As long as the county chairman appointed everyone I recommended, wouldn't my complaint of hijacking be griping about being outworked? Moreover, in situations where the chair makes his/her own picks, isn't there is a check and balance? If a county chair veers too wildly toward a candidate, he will be held to account in his own election, and ultimately, his precinct folks may revolt and leave the party or dump him/her.

In contrast, taking away the slating vote would be like refusing to pay the $10 to the neighborhood kid who cut your lawn in 100 degree heat. Though many precinct people are worthless props, many do voter registration and GOTV, and their only reward is "bottom up" say in who the parties' favored candidates will be. Take that away, and your party will become as well kept as your lawn.

While I support slating generally, there IS room for reform. It's unseemly that slating turns our judges into full-time pols before slating. And it's natural to fear a system that might turn the guy who tells the best jokes at the chicken dinners, sends out the nicest Christmas cards, or hires a clerk who is related to the most precinct committeepersons into a gavel holder. But until we move to an "appointment based" system, the Marion County Democratic Party needs to dump the incumbent protection slating method currently in effect.

Unlike the Republican Party, which let everyone run against everyone (8 slots to be filled by an untold number of candidates), the Democratic Party had 6 "incumbent" slots and two "open slots." Each new candidate had two options: (1) run "head-to-head" against an incumbent (which is another way of saying "play political russian roulette with an automatic"), or (2) run in one of two opens slots. Amazingly, no Democrat ran against an incumbent. (Feign shock here).

Some Democrats might tell you that this process "works great." (By "some Democrats," I refer mostly to incumbent Democrat judges*). These judges point out that had Democrats done it the Republican way, our party might have ended up losing two long-time incumbents as well (R Judges Gary Miller and Ken Johnson, departing). Based on the untold number of interviews I conducted on this point, I am highly confident the collective response from the precinct committeepersons in attendance would have been, "And your point is?!?"

This is one of those times when my party leaders (and any judges who pushed for this) need to look in the mirror. Just because things CAN be easy for you doesn't mean you should use the party process to make it so. It is just wrong. What will be next? The same plan for our at-large council seats (once we get them back)? Of course, maybe my feelings would be different were I not so optimistic about my precinct committeeperson peers. I truly believe an open process would have resulted in all of our good judges being kept this time on their own merits.

If you are a judge, ask any precinct committeeperson not employed by you what they thought about this system. I would say you would be surprised, but I'm sure you already know.

Slating on my nerves!