Tuesday Results Show Democrat Strength, Serve as Bad Omen for Williams

You're probably thinking, "Come on! Tuesday's election results have been picked over by blogger buzzards like a three-day old zebra carcass on the Serengeti!" Sorry, but there's still meat on dem bones.

The main storyline locally is that the Democratic Party's slated candidates fared extremely well. Sheriff candidate Colonel John Layton received 61% of the vote in his race against Mark Brown, while prosecutor candidate Terry Curry received 64% against current Marion County Assessor Greg Bowes. Countywide, in fact, the only slated candidate who lost was Charles Gaddy, who was defeated by Maxine King, the incumbent Small Claims Judge in Wayne Township. King's victory further cements my hypothesis that African-American woman are natural slate busters, in particular when their names are at the top of the alphabet. For historical evidence, see Billie Breaux (Jean, too, I think), Kim Brown, Linda Brown, and Julia Carson. I'm sure I'm missing others, so throw them in my comment box.

Anyway, Tuesday was well-oiled Democratic party machinery on display.

If Democratic mayoral contender Brian Williams was contemplating going through slating in 2011, he can't be now. If the Democratic Party's heavyweights (or "insiders" if you prefer) can rope so many of their more detached kindred spirits to support Curry and Layton, imagine how persuasive they'll be among their Precinct Committeepersons (PCs).

Further, while I'm still calculating the numbers, quite a few of the PCs that came from the Williams camp's initial submission of close to 200 new PCs were defeated on Tuesday, making his slating prospects even more gloomy, though Williams did succeed in placing over 100 in empty precincts, and those folks with stay. Nonetheless, I believe we've entered the "primary planning phase" for the Williams campaign.

Across the aisle, the Republican Party's main guy, Dennis Fishburn only captured 55% in a race against Bart McAtee.

Some may rightfully contend that my comparison is unfair because neither Bowes nor Brown had the money McAtee did. Had McAtee been unable to afford his last week radio barrage, Fishburn might have weighed in around 62-64%, just like the Dems. Maybe, but McAtee was a guy rank and file GOP apparatchiks branded a patronage sopping turncoat, and the fact they couldn't convince their less ideologically committed brethren to believe it tells you that the operation ruptured along the communication chain.

This notion is reinforced by the fact the GOP's slated candidate for 7th District Congress, Carlos May, lost with 37% in a three-way race to perennial candidate for something, Marvin Scott. Scott didn't have a last (or any minute) media blitz. How do you explain his victory? Many will contend that "Marvin Scott" name ID trumped all. If so, the GOP foot soldiers failed to dissuade their own from selecting a guy who got bucked on all of his four prior ballot rodeos (U.S. House - 1994, U.S. House - 1996, U.S. Senate - 2000, U.S. House - 2004).

(As a quick aside, don't you love how the Republican Party's "new leadership" consists of Dan Burton, Dan Coats, and Marvin Scott, three guys who were on the ballot in 1996? It's like the GOP is using Mr. Peabody's Wayback Machine for candidate recruitment.)

Did "nativism" or prejudice cost Carlos May? Stay tuned....

...up next...

...A Shameful Moment for the Democratic Party...and.....

...Let's Play Name Combat!

Tuesday Results Show Democrat Strength, Serve as Bad Omen for Williams

Brian Williams' Lonely Voice On Water Deal

Let me start off by saying that I obviously can't read or hear every TV news segment, radio interview, newspaper story, blog post, or even press release, so this might be a case of selective reception on my part. But when I try to list elected or want-to-be-elected Democrats opposed for any reason to Mayor Ballard's effort to sell our city's water assets, the inkwell dries up quickly.

As of yet, no opposing voice has emerged from the City-County Council, which is strange given that the Mayor will wrap up his four "town-hall meetings" with one this Tuesday (6:30-8:00 p.m., Nu Corinthian Church's Family Life Center, 5935 West 56th Strett) and the last the Tuesday thereafter (6:30-8:00 p.m., Lynhurst 7th & 8th Grad Center, 2805 South Lynhurst Drive). Actually, City-County Councillor Jose Evans was the first to get "into the water" by twice questioning the management of the city's water, and he questioned the deal generally on the Amos Brown show.

But when it comes to what I'd call a thoroughly substantive critique, there's one name in the game - mayoral contender Brian Williams.

Williams tells specifically why the deal is perilous, and he continues to raise the right unasked questions. If you want to see Williams' most recent tug on the curtain of Ballard's faux financial wizardry, read below.

April 8, 2010 Statement[1]

By virtue of his opposition, Williams is garnering media attention.


My fellow Democrats might ask how Melina Kennedy, our party apparatus's perceived frontrunner, can cede this much mic time to her most formidable rival?

She has no choice.

This is one of the tragic drawbacks to being an attorney at Baker & Daniels, one of, if not, Indy's largest law firm. By virtue of being an attorney there, and by virtue of B&D representing one of the principals, she is bound by the rules of professional conduct, and she cannot speak ill of the deal, even if she were so inclined.

Williams clearly knows this, which is why he has repeatedly referred to this deal as the most significant enterprise Mayor Ballard has undertaken. Call it self-serving if you will, but Williams is right, whether you view this as being the result of the enormity of the water company deal or the paucity of other sizeable mayoral accomplishments. What we can say is that every time Williams publicly talks about the deal, somebody unaware of the Baker & Daniels/Melina conflict might think, even if just subconsciously, "Where is Melina?"

And what makes the forced silence more intriguing is that one of the board members for Citizens Gas is Anne Nobles, a senior VP at Eli Lilly who also serves as Melina's campaign chair. (In the interest of full disclosure, Anne was also my mother's boss when she worked for then Governor Evan Bayh, and Anne is one of the most brilliant people you'd ever meet). Because of Melina's current employer, we don't know whether Melina would have shown her moxy and gone womano-a-womano with a powerful friend. I think Melina could have held her own in such a debate, but we'll never know.

This is maddening, mostly because I always get wanked when I see Republicans do something to us that we've done to them.

You see, back when Bart Peterson was Mayor, the expression "getting Keelered" was ushered in. The Marion County GOP Chair, John Keeler, was working as an attorney at Baker & Daniels, and because the city had the firm on retainer, Keeler couldn't chastize Peterson. It was like having a political criticism immunity card card for two years.

We see the same thing here. Whether it was driven by shrewd politicking or simply the natural outgrowth of having so many big players in the Cit Gas deal, every big firm in Indiapolis with anyone inclined to say "Wait a minute," including my party's perceived frontrunner, has been gobbled up.

Let's just hope Melina can get out of the stomach of the beast before the Mayor cooks up his next big idea for public consumption.

UPDATE: I did not wish to imply that the Democrats on the City-County Council have done nothing, as Minority Leader, Joanne Sanders, submitted a resolution on behalf of the caucus requesting an open and transparent discussion of the sale. But this resolution can be fairly described as a "process" resolution, not a substantive critique akin to what Williams has provided. It is curious that the hearing of the resolution before the Rules & Public Policy Committee is set for 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday (Room 260 of the City-County Building). This is one hour before the townhall on the far Northwest side. Great way to guarantee maximum participation by Democratic councillors at the Mayor's little forum - creating a potential scheduling conflict for the caucus members.

Brian Williams' Lonely Voice On Water Deal

Williams: Mayor is All Wet on Water Deal

Yeseterday, Democratic mayoral candidate Brian Williams issued a statement regarding the Citizens Gas water deal that is so well-done, I feel compelled to provide it to you in its entirety here. It should be required reading:

Recently, Mayor Greg Ballard and the City of Indianapolis entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the sale of the city’s water and waste water systems to Citizens Gas. Rather than the MOU being the product of a community based decision making process for evaluating water system ownership, management and funding alternatives, the citizens of Indianapolis were presented a transaction that the Mayor intends to pursue, for better or worse.

Strong municipal leadership should have begun a community discussion of how Indianapolis improves the quality of the water it drinks and the water it discharges into our lakes, rivers and streams and how Indianapolis pays for the deferred maintenance of its infrastructure to meet those community standards. In evaluating the transaction the Mayor proposes, its flaws are twofold. The first flaw is what is missing: Assurances that our community continues to receive safe, clean, reliable water. This MOU does not establish any standards or any metrics to measure performance against such standards.

The second flaw is with the content of the MOU. First, the MOU does not provide the city with the option to re-purchase the water and waste water systems in the event Citizen’s Gas decides to sell them in the future. This MOU allows Citizen’s to sell our water company to a for-profit corporation whose interests may not align with those of Indianapolis. Second, the City of Indianapolis and its advisors have failed to protect the city, the taxpayers and the rate payers by allowing Citizen’s Gas to complete the transaction only if it receives "an acceptable indemnification from the City ... related to certain of the City's pre-closing combined sewer overflow liabilities."

This nebulous condition could prove financially ruinous to the city as the City could be responsible for billions of dollars in additional expenses for something it no longer owns – the water and wastewater systems – and for which it no longer receives revenue. A strong leader with experience would define and limit this potential exposure as part of a sale.

Finally, it is unclear that the transaction as presented is a net gain financially to the city for the following reasons:

1. The Mayor has stated that the City will gain $425 million on the sale. Based on the MOU that is not accurate. The MOU clearly states that the City will receive $170.6 million in cash at closing. Another $92 million will be paid on October 1, 2011. Therefore, the net cash proceeds from Citizen’s Gas to the city are actually $262.6 million. However, this amount may be reduced by:

Some unknown amount due to “increased borrowing costs” resulting from a downgrade of a provider of surety bonds backing the Water Company revenue bonds;

The value of the Water Company headquarters if Citizens decides it does not want it; and,“Up to $15 million” based on some vaguely referenced “Cost Sharing Agreement.”

The only way the proceeds from the sale equal $425 million is to assume that the $262.6 million in cash over two years is not reduced by any of these contingencies and that the City of Indianapolis borrows another $163 million.

In the MOU, Citizen’s Gas proposes to make payments in lieu of property taxes in the years 2010 through 2039 totaling over $666 million and that future revenue will be pledged to pay off the principal and interest on a loan of $163 million.

Put simply, the Mayor and his advisors are proposing that we trade over $600 million in future revenues for $163 million today – an amount insufficient to address meaningfully the City’s current infrastructure needs which are estimated to be over $4 billion for the water and waste water systems and $1.5 billion for roads, bridges, sidewalks and parks.

2. As part of the purchase Citizen’s will acquire approximately $127 million in cash that the City currently holds in a construction fund for wastewater system projects. Therefore the maximum net cash proceeds to the city at closing from the sale could be $43 million ($170 million - $127 million). That amount could be further reduced by the contingencies already noted. An astute leader would question whether the risks of losing control over a vital asset and paying the expenses associated with completing a sale of this complexity is worth such a relatively small amount of money.

We do not know how much the city will spend on lawyers, accountants, engineers, environmental experts, brokers and other costs to complete the transaction the Mayor proposes. One study by the non-partisan research organization Public Citizen estimated the costs preparing for privatization at nearly $5 million.

3. Between now and closing the City will continue to pay its obligations, including some debt that Citizens Gas will assume. The City’s payments "will reduce the Assumed Debt Obligations that Citizens will be assuming at closing." In many instances, if the seller pays off debt before closing, then the cash paid to the seller increases at closing. In this case, the maximum amount of cash at closing is $170 million. Under this MOU, if the City pays off $100 million in debt between now and closing, the maximum amount of cash at closing would still be $170 million. In a deal between knowledgeable business people, Citizen’s would pay an additional $100 million to keep the agreed upon value of the assets constant. Here the Mayor and his advisors have not protected the economic well being of the City, the rate payers and the taxpayers.

4. In order to close on the sale, Citizen’s Gas must receive "satisfaction with respect to the balances of the Systems' working capital". In a normal arms length deal, the parties would agree on the amount of working capital. Any shortfall at closing would reduce the purchase price and any excess at closing would be paid to the seller. Here, there is no excess going to the City, but any shortfall could result in no closing, or more likely a further reduction in the amount of cash paid at closing. Again, the Mayor and his advisors failed to protect the City, the rate payers and the taxpayers.

Indianapolis must make significant investments in its infrastructure. Currently, those investments are over $4 billion for water and waste water systems and $1.5 billion for roads, bridges, sidewalks and parks. In addition to those investments, Indianapolis must improve the quality of its water and ensure that it is clean and reliable. The development of solutions to these challenges requires leadership that begins with a dialogue about the problems and the creation of a framework by which community supported solutions can be identified and implemented.

Municipal ownership of water utilities gained prominence in the nineteenth century because of water quality and supply problems and affordability. Those same concerns exist today along with concerns about protecting our water supplies from natural disaster and human threats and about water conservation. Clean water is as important to a community’s well being as public safety and education. Clean water is vital for human health and it is necessary for successful business ventures in agriculture, livestock and manufacturing. In other words, economic development and jobs only come to communities with a reliable source of clean water. For these basic reasons access to plentiful, reliable, clean water is in the community’s short and long term interest. Municipal ownership is the best way to ensure those concerns are met because of accountability at the ballot box, transparency of management and operations and a long term perspective to assess the entire community’s needs.

Unfortunately, the lack of water quality standards as part of this agreement and the relatively insignificant amount of cash at closing present tremendous risks to the city, its citizens and the rate payers – risks that are significant enough that a prudent leader would seriously consider the merits of the Mayor’s proposal. Effective performance of Indianapolis’ water and waste water systems depends upon effective staffing, consistent public support for sufficient funding, better asset management systems, performance measurements and rewards and stakeholder involvement and transparency. True leadership requires that Indianapolis develop sustainable solutions to its infrastructure problems and leadership that develops community support for the performance and standards that must be met.

Williams: Mayor is All Wet on Water Deal

Evans Mayoral Bid Curious, But His Water Company Meddling Dead-On

Democratic City-County Councillor, Jose Evans, will file paperwork at 2:30 p.m. today that establishes his "exploratory committee" to run for Mayor of Indianapolis, a move that will surely have people shaking their heads.

With a clearly-established candidate among party faithful in Melina Kennedy, a formidable "outsider" candidate in Brian Williams, and even an African-American candidate in former At-Large City-County Councillor Ron Gibson, one may ask, "What's the play here for Evans?" Is this what iPOPA has dubbed a "Braveheart maneuver" (trying to get concessions from your opponents to force you off the battlefield) or just an effort to elevate profile, as Jim Shella with WISH-TV suggests.

Before Gibson's entry, Evans had a hail mary-type long-shot chance at potentially garnering support for a plurality in an inverted Thomas Carcetti/The Wire scenario. But now that Gibson stepped in, he forces Evans to fight to preserve the segment of voters with no real connection to political folk but who think it's time for Indianapolis to have an African-American mayor.

Also, it's not clear who supports Evans' bid yet, nor will we find out immediately. Evans is not announcing his candidacy like Gibson, who drew at least 50 supporters to a rally; he is only handing over paper for said "exploratory committee," which makes it sound like Jose is two-stepping his way into the race. This late in the game, Evans cannot afford to be coy, and he should expect some political blowback from this effort. To paraphrase sage words once uttered by Democratic Party Chair Ed Treacy, "We need fewer candidates, not more."

But when praise is do, I give it, and here it is.

For months, Evans has been criticizing the Ballard Administration's handling of the water company, and he's been trying to publicly force the Mayor's Office to discuss what plans its has for a sale to Citizens Gas. I've seen at least three separate press releases for such calls that went unheeded and, perhaps in part because council Democrats just assumed Evans was seeking the limelight and going rogue, nobody signed on.

This is not to say none of the D's on the council weren't paying attention. Democratic City-County Council leaders have been working behind the scenes collecting information, believing that the Mayor would let them know before any real progress was made, and last week, the caucus introduced a resolution seeking that the mayor ensure a public process. That resolution was sent to the rules committee by Republicans, and the meeting at which it was to be heard last Tuesday was cancelled.

Now guess what? Democratic blogger Terry Burns reports there is now a "deal" that will be presented to the caucus this evening. The presentation was already made to Republicans on Monday, and I'm told that, but for Citizens and its attorneys, no presentation would have been made at all to Democrats.

There are all kinds of "teachable moments" here for my fellow Democrats, so absorb them:

1. You can't trust anything Mayor Ballard says about "transparency."

2. There's a fine line between paranoia and political astuteness. We like to believe when people say, "I'll let you know," and that's fine. But on this one, Jose Evans fell on the right side on the line. I admire the council resolution, but I can't help but wonder. If the entire caucus had "gone public" to the media, might an enterprising TV reporter have gone to the 25th Floor and asked, "Is city legal and/or an Indianapolis law firm representing Citizens Gas negotiating and/or writing up a purchase agreement as we speak? Doesn't the public have a right to be heard on this?"

3. We should remember to check our human nature, which often lets our feelings about the "who" prevail over our logic surrounding the "what." Even if Evans' critics think he got information wrong or did this for all the wrong reasons, he rightly saw a ram-rod coming.

4. The Ballard administration is ingenius at buying off individual Dems. Now that a deal seems to be a fait accompli, expect it to chisel off individual D councillors by offering a cut of the pie. Hopefully, D councillors will not fall for the siren song and completely fail to recognize potentially catastrophic long-term implications.

5. Finally, remember Luke 12:24: "You cannot serve two masters at the same time. You will hate one and love the other, or you will be loyal to the one and not care about the other." Every elected official or party with the mind to take advice from an attorney better memorize the attorney's client list because the Rules of Professional Conduct require allegiance to the client's interests to trump any political friendship you think you have.

As two of the Marion County Democratic Party's most prominent advisors and financiers serve with the law firm representing Citizens Gas, the effort to persuade D's to vote in favor might actually be led by my own party's consiglieres, bringing with them, not horse heads in beds, but statements like, "This is going to happen, so you need to get what you can as quickly as you can before there's nothing left."

Ahh, my kingdom for a modicum of Democratic solidarity even when the Mayor deals a bad hand. But, hey, politics isn't pretty, and somebody has to pay for the re-election campaigns.

Evans Mayoral Bid Curious, But His Water Company Meddling Dead-On

Addendum to B Dubya Piece

I forgot to discuss this in my previous Brian Williams piece...

One of the things that irritates me in politics is when people cross a line to achieve a result that would have happened anyway.

Two different sources reported to Brian Williams that an effort to challenge his PCs was being orchestrated out of Marion County Democratic Party HQ and that calls were made regarding the same from MCDP phones.

If true (and I'm trying to confirm now), this bothers me.

Even if party leadership had the belief a particular candidate is favored for an office, you don't visibly play favorites until after slating. To do so certainly reinforces Williams' belief that the party was never going to give him a fair shake at slating, so why not try to oust some folks?

In fairnes to the MCDP, it has every right to ensure the integrity of its PCs by reviewing all candidates for compliance with statutory requirements. But you can't stop with Williams' people.

If county party uses a single resource to review any of Williams' folks, it needs to review all filings. Otherwise, it needs to leave the task of challenging candidacies to another campaign (which the Kennedy folks certainly would have done on their own).

I'm hoping my party folks are playing this one straight up. Stay tuned...

UPDATED: Adam Kirsch, the executive director for the MCDP, states that they are reviewing all candidate filings.

That, my friends, is how you handle business.

Addendum to B Dubya Piece

Brian Williams: Political Entrepreneur Extraordinaire or Party Saboteur?

Not since Karl Rove's heyday have so many high-ranking Marion County Democrats given "the stank eye" so intently to one man. That steely gaze is now firmly affixed on Democratic mayoral prospect Brian Williams.

Let's play 10 questions.

1. Why are people so mad?

Williams enlisted an estimated 200 people to file candidacies for Democratic precinct committeeperson (PC). In many precincts, long-time Democratic precinct committeepersons, ward chairs, and even elected officials must run against a Williams-backed PC candidate in the May 2010 primary.

2. Why would Williams do this?

PC votes decide who the Democratic Party slates for mayor. Melina Kennedy, Williams' opponent, told some folks she would not run in the primary if she lost at slating. In other words, while Williams can go to slating, lose, and still run in the primary against Kennedy, she can't do the opposite without eating her own words.

The more PCs you have who favor you, the more likely you are to win. Because Williams knew Kennedy had the upper hand, he tried something high risk, high reward and completely legal. Just like John F. Kennedy in 1960, Williams decided that if "the party" was not for him, he'd try to create a whole new party.

3. What would make Williams think this could work?

There are tons of Democratic PC vacancies in Marion County. Currently, only 210 of the 590 precincts have elected PCs. Each elected PC gets to pick his or her own vice-committeeperson, so every Williams supporter who carries is theoretically two Williams votes. If Williams could get 295 favorable PCs elected (either by putting them in vacant precincts or having them defeat all comers in the primary), he could wrap this up. As it stands, if all the PCs Williams filed survive through the May 2010 primary, he'd only need to persuade one of every four remaining PCs, which would be tolerable fighting odds.

4. Where did the wheels fall off?

A good share of the names submitted by Camp Williams won't survive. Some are being challenged by the Kennedy campaign and the Marion County Democratic Party for: (a) voting Republican in the most recent primary; (b) being unregistered voters; or (c) being registered but residing in a precinct different than the one for which they filed. Further, many Williams supporters are running against each other, dramatically increasing the likelihood of a plurality victory for incumbent PCs.

I haven't studied Camp Williams's submissions, but it seems he managed to get close to 100 new people to fill previously vacant slots, and all 100 of those PC positions are uncontested. In other words, if they're not disqualified for the reasons listed above, Williams has 200 votes in the bank.

Unfortunately for Williams, even with the onslaught of new filings, only 367 precincts have PC candidates filed. All PC vacancies are filled by the county chair under state law. That means Ed Treacy, who is crappy at Williams for screwing with his long-time personnel, will hand-pick 223 of those PCs and their vice-PCs. (It is critical to note that an elected PC gets to pick his own vice, but an appointed PC doesn't.) Which mayoral candidate do you think Ed Treacy's selected PCs will favor? Probably Kennedy, the former candidate, spokesperson for Obama, and treasurer for Andre Carson.

5. What did Williams do right?

You have to give Williams credit for mobilizing 200 new people (minus the disqualified). His effort to get PCs on the ballot was more successful than any other candidate or the party itself. In the interest of intellectual honesty, though, how hard would you try to recruit elected PCs as chair if you knew that you could fill vacancies with whomever you wanted? (You might end up with unknown commodities who would hose you later).

6. What did Williams do wrong?

The Williams campaign waited until the last day to file the mother lode of its declarations of candidacy, and they were in one big stack and signed by one notary. Had the filings been spread out, it would have been a lot harder to put the usurper tag on Williams.

But instead of stealth, Williams wanted to tout his recruitment effort and did so through a press release and follow-up letter to current PCs that served as gas on dynamite on a fire. More troubling, the Williams campaign didn't seem to make tactical considerations before jamming somebody into the slot of a potentially favorable PC. There were people honestly on the fence who came off against Williams because he dropped an opponent on them. They say if you shoot at the king, you better kill him. Williams took a shot and blew off the king's left hand.

Now not only will he lose support from some PCs, he's going to have ward chairs actively working against him. Sometimes in politics, the smartest play is to not beat the beehive with a stick. Not only do you not get the honey, you get the stingers. Every incumbent PC with an opponent will assume Williams was coming after him or her. Williams could try to say he didn't intend, for example, to front an opponent in Pike Township Trustee Lula Patton's precinct. But if he says that, doesn't he prove a strategically-inept PC recruitment campaign?

One of the party's best historians talked about how Marion County Democrats orchestrated a political revolution under John Livengood by substituting one type of Democrat philosophically for another. But most party insiders see this as substituting strong Democrats for marginal ones (or Republicans!) who will disappear if Williams doesn't win the May 2011 primary. It's unfair to say that across the board, though, as nobody has spoken to all of these folks to see who is for real.

In fairness to Williams, a lot of organizations were recruiting PCs, so Williams is probably being blamed for a few PC contests that aren't even his fault. Sometimes you get victimized by your own success.

7. Will people say this will destroy the party?

Yes. In fact, some are.

8. Will it?

Not necessarily. This will strengthen current PCs. Human nature says if you don't have to ramp up, don't. I love my party people, but I've heard way too many say how hard they've worked (past tense), as if they're now entitled to coast. Sorry, but the PC's job is to know his or her people, and in a transient society, those people change frequently. If a long-serving PC or elected official can't get more votes from Democrats in his or her home precinct than somebody who has never worked a poll or been to a township club or party function, they aren't trying hard enough to connect with folks. This competition will push PCs (and elected officials) into their neighborhoods, connecting with their neighbors.

I also don't believe this will hamper our ability to carry our slated candidates. If you can't say, "I'm so-and-so, your Democratic PC, and I hope you'll support me and Terry Curry, who....." then you need help multi-tasking.

The real harm comes in the vacant precincts Team Williams now controls. Only time will tell if Williams' supporters are committed to the party or just to Williams. If it's the latter, these folks will fill their boards and work their precincts in November 2011 for Melina Kennedy, should she prevail, and the party will be stronger. If it's the former, not only will these folks not work, but the Chair won't be able to put somebody who will into their slots. That could be catastrophic to the party's mayoral effort. The hope would be that if Williams doesn't win, and his people aren't serious, they'll resign. But only time will tell who's who.

9. Would Williams have had a realistic chance to win slating?

He had better odds than he thought, but probably not better than 40/60, so I understand the recruitment effort as a tactic.

10. Has he demolished any chance he had to win at slating?

Indisputably. Williams took a high-risk roll, and because his strategy was poorly-executed, he crapped out. He needs to start thinking primary strategy because the slating game is over.

Brian Williams: Political Entrepreneur Extraordinaire or Party Saboteur?

Ellsworth Goes Official; Williams Onslaught Locally?

Brad Ellsworth is officially a candidate for United States Senate, reports Mary Beth Schneider of the Indianapolis Star.

The other news of the day is that the filing deadline ended at noon, and word circulating around the election board is that the Brian Williams for Mayor campaign has delivered close to 200 declarations of candidacy for precinct committee person. (I am still trying to confirm the numbers).

This matters because every person elected in May as a PC will cast a vote in next year's mayoral slating. While having a Williams supporter on the ballot does not guarantee a May victory, every Williams supporter elected as a PC gets to pick his or her vice-PC, who also gets a vote, so it's a two-for-one effect.

Before today, the Marion County Clerk's Office listed 813 candidacies for county offices, precinct committee person, and state convention delegate.

The level of activity this year has been pretty amazing, it's been driven by not only the mayoral campaigns, but by Democratic affinity groups, such as Organizing for America, to get as many of PCs who are proponents of their views elected as possible.

While we should expect some ruffled feathers among elected officials or long-time party folks who are upset about being challenged for PC roles, we'll be stronger for it because people who want this will have to start connecting in their neighborhoods earlier than they might without the competition. Anything that makes you sharper sooner is for the good of the party, so we should not complain.

(Excuse me, but I need to go finish my first campaign letter for PC since I have an opponent now. Grrr!)

Stay tuned....

Ellsworth Goes Official; Williams Onslaught Locally?

The Williams-Durham Fallout

Democratic mayoral candidate Brian Williams is an idea machine. His columns for the Indianapolis Business Journal are all extremely thoughtful, as are his campaign website "letters." The website also has a few good “internet commercials.” (Yes, I did think his campaign slogan “braves ideas” was awfully close to Andre Carson’s “bold leadership,” but, hey, how many original campaign phrases are left?!?)

Brian may dispute this, but most people I talk with say he does not have deep grassroots support in the Democratic Party. But he fits a prototype of a Democrat who can win in an Indianapolis that is, respectfully, dominated by the wealthy, be they individual (think Simon, DeHaan, McAllister) or institutional (think Eli Lilly & Barnes & Thornburg).

Brian fits the potent “Peterson” model as a guy who came up Democrat but turned wizard in a largely Republican-dominated field, such as real estate development, finance, or mergers & acquisitions. This type of candidate can gain the support of, or at least negate the influence of, small “r” Republicans by virtue of the shared joy of capital formation.

A guy like Williams, running against a mayor that many Republicans can’t stand, could theoretically raise a lot of “cross-over” money, hop over “party insiders” and avoid slating, get on TV, and win a primary and general election. Just as Peterson did, Williams could say, “Hey, I’m a Democrat, but you have nothing to fear, Republicans.” (Of course, this might terrify Democrats. You decide).

Then came Tim Durham.

Durham’s legal troubles have been nauseatingly chronicled, and some pundits proclaimed Williams’ campaign was over. It will definitely be a tricky needle to thread for Williams.

Nothing damages an entire party like a good scandal, in particular one that has Playboy bunnies, fancy cars, and a yacht (think Lonely Island and T-Pain's “I’m on a Boat”). Accordingly, Democrats will work the phrase “Tim Durham” into everything, even when Carl Brizzi steps down.

Marion County Democratic Chair Ed Treacy on Christmas? “Democrats believe that Christmas is about giving…not about taking money in a ponzi scheme like Tim Durham, the Marion County Republican Party’s biggest donor.”

Ed Treacy on grilled cheese? “Democrats believe grilled cheese is pure Americana, a fusion of delicious ingredients for an even better taste, not a ripping apart of investor’s hearts and wallets, leaving a bad taste in their mouths, which is what GOP b.f.f. Tim Durham did.”

This one is actually true. Democratic prosecutor front-runner Terry Curry sent an e-mail to supporters today saying our contributions can “send a strong message to both the Republican Party and to their powerful friends that the Marion County criminal justice system is not for sale.” (Get ‘em, Terry!)

Can we dispute it would be logically challenging to churn the Durham angle in 2010 then hand the reins to a guy in 2011 who is “connected” with Durham? The answer lies in the nature of the connection and whether the voting public is indiscriminate.

Having reviewed a stack of legal documents, this is what I’m pretty sure I know. In 2000 or shortly thereafter, Brian became a member of Obsidian Capital Corporation, LLC (“OCC”). However, the operating agreement designated Williams, who only had a 5% share, as a Class B member, which meant he had no ability to control the management of the company any more than a minority shareholder can tell Bill Gates what to do at Microsoft. Williams also apparently signed the Obsidian Capital Partners, LLP operating agreement on behalf of an entity known as the 77th Street Partners. (In other words, if I'm reading the handwriting correctly, Williams was “down with OCP”). But, again, Williams had no managerial control.

As Williams pointed out in an interview with Amos Brown, in 2005, he and several other investors recognized that Durham was moving away from the stated mission he had given to Williams, which was the purchase and resale of manufacturing and distribution companies. According to Williams, he “started to extract himself, or tried to extract himself” from the relationship.

It’s unclear what specific steps Williams took, however, until December of 2007, when Williams and numerous other investors (who I’ll collectively call “the investors”) demanded through their counsel, John Taylor, that Durham “cash out” their interests.

A flurry of correspondence ensued. One e-mail from Taylor, dated March 12, 2009, states that the investors “do not regret” the investment they made, but they just wanted out. As an aside, nobody can attribute this alleged lack of regret to Williams, as it’s most likely legal puffery employed to make Durham a more amenable buyer.

In response, Durham’s counsel, John Egloff of Riley, Bennett, & Egloff (a big Mayor Ballard donor, by the way) asserted that neither Williams nor the other investors had any contractual basis to request a “buy out.” Nonetheless, Durham stated he would agree to an appraisal of the companies for the purpose of facilitating a purchase at fair market value.

For reasons unclear to me, the investors did not agree but instead gave Durham a deadline to make an offer in the range of 10x to 15x their initial investments. When Durham refused, Taylor seemed perplexed, and in a sales pitch I cannot ever imagine working (which I'll call "the Hyman Roth stategem") said essentially that the investors thought that Durham would want to share his largesse so people would know he made money for his partners. Clearly exasperated with Durham's incalcitrance, Taylor asks, “Is Tim just all washed up? Is that the underlying problem?”

Durham then turned the tables on the investors and on April 21, 2008, sued them in Marion County, claiming they were engaging in bad faith and arguably extortion by telling him to pay them inflated values to avoid litigation when they had no right legally to any “buy-out.” (Not to bore the non-lawyers, but under the operating agreement (a/k/a “the owners manual”) for Obsidian’s Capital Corp. LLC, only a vote of the majority of Class A members (Williams was Class B) could “terminate” the company, which would require it to pay all liabilities, sell all property, and distribute what’s left to the members. Without the ability to force the same, Williams had no way out, and the 3 other Class A members in addition to Durham were Durham associates).

Notably, in the counterclaim, Williams and the investors alleged that “Durham, Obsidian Capital, Obsidian Partners, Fair Finance, and Fair Holdings have been within the zone of insolvency or have been or are insolvent” and further, that Durham “has equity interests in over 50 companies.” Yes, you read that right. Fifty! In short, the investors suspected Durham was crashing in early 2008.

The next thing reflected in the Court file is a stipulation of dismissal, which is what parties do to say they don’t want to go forward because the case settled.

Then on January 9, 2009, the same group of investors filed separate suits against Durham in Hamilton County. The complaints said that Durham breached promissory notes held by the investors with a collective value of $313,130. Under the promissory notes, Durham was to pay three installments on 9-30-08, 12-31-08, and 3-31-09 to each investor. Durham made the September payments, but then failed to pay in December.

Initially, I thought these promissory notes were loans, which would have suggested that Williams and Durham was an ongoing concern. Williams clarified, however, that the notes were part of the Marion County settlement. This, of course, makes sense if you’re Durham. Instead of possibly having a judgment entered against you that people can see, you have a settlement on paper only.

The Hamilton County lawsuit concluded almost immediately with a settlement agreement, except this time the terms were more transparent. Durham was to make payments to all plaintiffs on the 15th of each month from February through June of 2009, with the greatest portion to be paid in the first month and lesser amounts each month thereafter.

This time Durham paid his debts on time, but this second settlement let him off with paying roughly 70 percent of the note values. For example, though his initial promissory note was for $43,510, Williams walked away with only $31,321 (paid out monthly in the amounts of $10,297, $5,320, $5,277, $5,234, and $5,194, respectively). 77th Street Partners’ initial promissory note was for $65,619, but it walked away with only $46,420 ($15,262, $7,885, $7,821, $7,758, and $7,694).

What kind of multi-millionaire needs six months to pay off a total of $219,000?

But back to Williams. What’s fair here? Williams’ situation is different than Brizzi's. When Williams got a whiff of something foul, he tried to get out, while Brizzi kept following Durham (and his stock picks) even when smoke surrounded him. Brizzi only stopped when the heat of public scrutiny sent him running off the board of Fair Finance.

Yes, Williams still touts his connection to Obsidian on his website, which might not seem the smartest politics at first blush. In fact, it almost reads as if Williams is taking credit for the name. It states:

Obsidian was a great name for a company that wanted to invest in manufacturing, service and distribution related companies. Entrepreneur Tim Durham warmed to the name and Brian invested in Obsidian Enterprises, a holding company with a diverse portfolio of businesses.

(The website for Gazelle TechVentures features the following description about their "advisor" Brian Williams: "Co-Founder of Obsidian Capital..." It's not clear if Williams can control what Gazelle writes, but they certainly exaggerate Williams' 5% interest to his detriment).

But all things Obsidian are catch-22's for Williams. If he tries to erase history, people will think he has something to hide. He does. But it’s only that he invested in Tim Durham, and he chose poorly. Does that make him unable to serve as Mayor? Is a person making a bad investment and losing his own money to an alleged ponzi schemer who hides information worse or better than a mayor making a bad investment despite available information and losing the public’s tax money?

Can we say Williams is any different than any of the savvy folk who got taken by Bernie Madoff? Can we expect Williams to read into Tim Durham’s soul in 2000 and foretell that he would be seduced by the money and power later? No, we can't.

But a lot of people still will.

Some will wonder how a guy whose campaign is based largely on being savvy found himself in a corporate entity with no clear ability to exit should things go awry, and we’ll ask why he wasn’t more aggressive in his “extraction” from Durham. (In fairness, Williams' reasonable defense is that you don't divorce your spouse the first day you think things aren't going well, and how can you fault a guy who simply trusted someone who turned untrustworthy?). We might even ask whether the investors took a 30% cut on the promissory notes because they feared that if they didn't get their money before the litigation flood gates opened up, they might end up completely empty-handed.

Being plagued with questions is what most of us do in hindsight....which is too bad because that’s not the kind of vision Williams was touting for Indianapolis.

The Williams-Durham Fallout

Democrats Won't Clear Up Gray Skies

I love my county party. Anybody who says otherwise should expect words. But I am looking for someone - anyone - who has the cajones to make it act right. I started this blog because I was tired of waking up embarrassed by the latest idiocy of a D elected local official. Two years and 328 blog posts later, and the hits keep coming...

WRTV-6 reports yesterday that Democratic City-County Councilor Monroe Gray hasn't registered his automobile in three years. This follows the past two years, during which he received a censure for failing to disclose conflicts of interest, shut down an investigation of his alleged ghost employment, and was hit with a slew of lawsuits filed against his construction company. Oh, he also said he didn't know anything about the 300 East project, even though his wife was a principal investor. There's nothing illegal about that, but, boy, it sure tarnished his credibility across the board.

The Gray news follows a police report last month that Democratic City-County Councilor Doris Minton-McNeil, who was recently acquitted on battery charges, had a neighbor complain on a 9-1-1 call that she was intoxicated and nearly hit somebody with her vehicle. I'm not one who sides with police automatically, and I thought from the outset they exaggerated the battery charge. (As an aside, I would have loved it if Judge Christ-Garcia would have entered findings because I'm almost certain the element the prosecution didn't prove was intent. I bet the contact with the officer was the kind that happens when somebody hammered is trying to navigate through a crowded bar on the way to the bathroom).

I also wouldn't automatically rule out a police vendetta. But now I'm supposed to believe police co-opted a neighbor on the scam? Seriously, what kind of adult beefs with a neighbor to the extent the neighbor calls 9-1-1? Are we running a city or auditioning for Jerry Springer?

Here's my question. When does Democratic Party Chair Ed Treacy, Congressman Carson, the other Democratic members of the city-county council, or anybody else who wants to lead this city from the Democratic aisle say, "Enough is enough!" When do we stop enabling?

The notion that significant party heavyweights have not already asked for these folks' resignations, even if behind closed doors, is inexplicable to me, but I cannot find any evidence anyone ever has. (If somebody out there knows otherwise, feel free to correct me).

Mayor Peterson came close. He was livid, and he wanted to distance himself from Monroe. But some in Mayor Peterson's circle told him he couldn't because he would alienate an African-American constituency he was going to need on election day. By the way, how funny is it that the advisors were white guys? Also, anybody know how that strategy worked out?

Anyway, I wanted to see if any of our would-be mayors (Jose Evans, Brian Williams, Kip Tew, Melina Kennedy, and Joe Hogsett) would close the deal on a wayward councilor, so I sent them all inquiries on their Facebook accounts and/or to their e-mails to see if they would ask for McNeil's resignation either publicly or behind-the-scenes. (I would have kept the responses confidential if they said "behind the scenes," of course.)

Two never responded, and three offered comments that required a bit of "reading the tea leaves." For example, while not answering the question directly, Brian Williams reminded me that when former Colts Mike Vanderjagt got liquored up and said some things he shouldn't have, Peyton Manning called him our "idiot kicker."

Williams' remark serves the point nicely. That's leadership folks. Peyton could have had a private conversation with Vanderjagt, but he wanted to remind the public that Vanderjagt's conduct wasn't Colts conduct. Who is the quarterback for our team who will make that point publicly?

What makes it hard for any of these five to step up in a visible way?

First, for a lot of influential Democrats, Monroe Gray is like family and his associations run deep. If you call for putting him out to pasture, you alienate a multitude of political and business folk for whom he's done favors (and as many have done favors for him). Of course, you would get the gratitude of a staggeringly higher number, but you'd never know this because nobody will tell you out loud for fear of retribution. Politics is peopled with the self-interested and terrified.

Ms. Minton-McNeil is equally perceived as "protected." She was widely-regarded as the Congressman's favored choice for filling his former council seat. Anybody want to cross the Congressman when he's swinging the big bat in the mayoral slating contest? Didn't think so.

I know both Gray and Minton-McNeil are party "friends," and I generally subscribe to the notion that if you don't stand with your friends, you stand alone. But I've also heard the saying "with friends like these...."

Some may say, "They haven't done anything illegal, or seriously illegal. Let the voters decide. If the voters want to keep them, who are we to interfere with democracy!?!"

First, I can't be content with my party using "Anything Not Illegal" as it's guidepost for acceptable conduct. Second, the "let the voters decide" approach is so staggeringly naive that no serious person could say it if (s)he cared about his or her party. I don't want to rehash my "brand" speech, but a stain on one on the Democratic ticket is a stain on all.

Don't believe me? Ask South Carolina Republicans how they're doing waiting for Mark Sanford's term to end. Do you think their fund-raising is up this year?

Of all the mayoral candidates, the one whose response gave me the most confidence that he would take action was Jose Evans. He seemed most invested in reforming the image of the party. This makes sense because as a member of the council, he's probably tired of being in the WRTV B-roll for every scandal, and he's probably tired of fielding questions about whether he stands by scandal-plagued colleague x or y. It has to be exhausting.

Also, Jose is the only one who can ask for Monroe Gray and Doris Minton-McNeil's to step down without looking like a racist, though I'm sure some wouldn't be above accusing him of being a white sock puppet were he to do so.

Why would a call for a step-down be viewed in racial terms? Because the replacements would be uncertain, and while you shouldn't expect anybody to say this out loud, a core group of the Democratic movers and shakers in the African-American community have done a sterling job hoisting an unspoken edict on the Marion County Democratic Party, and it is this: no depletion of African-American political power. Were I a historically disenfranchised minority, I'd see this as both understandable and shrewd bargaining.

But what I'm talking about doesn't require a depletion of African-American political strength. It just requires better African-American talent. Were I Ed Treacy, I'd go through every poll book in Gray and Minton-McNeil's districts, and I'd find African-American replacements who I'd then vet on every conceivable issue. Once I was convinced of the reasonable likelihood they wouldn't humiliate the party, I'd commit every resource available to ensuring their victory. I would do everything I could to convince every African-American elected officer in the county - be it a township trustee, judge, auditor, state representative or state senator - that none of this was racial, and all of it was practical and prudential. I might even spread contributions to those elected officials to emphasize the point.

In other words, I'd put my money and organizational heft where my mouth was, and if somebody of another race came out of the woodwork to challenge the natural order of things, I'd put him or her down. You have to give something to get something, and getting rid of this bad PR will pay for itself three times over.

I've now heard repeatedly about a meeting of influential Democrats during which a suggestion was made (and, no, I'm not going to say by whom) to have Democrat PR experts and attorneys on the ready in case someone got into trouble again.

Tell me, dear IPOPA reader, isn't your reaction to this suggestion precisely the same as every other human being's reaction...except for some of those in the room that day? Weren't you thinking, "Wouldn't it be easier just to NOT get in trouble?" If so, welcome to the surreal world that is not very often, but still far too many times, the mentality of some key personnel within the Marion County Democratic Party.

Democrats Won't Clear Up Gray Skies

Memory Lane for D Activists and Godfather Fans: Mayor's Race and Thoughts of the "Good Old Days?"

I suppose since many Republicans are plotting the ouster of their incumbent mayor, I should be grateful my current struggle is limited to not wanting to disappoint my friends.

In my informal polling of precinct committee people in Indianapolis, none of the most widely-touted Democratic contenders for Mayor - Jose Evans, Joe Hogsett, Melinda Kennedy, Kip Tew, or Brian Williams - are gaining "knock out blow" momentum. Most precinct folk are "watching," not "buying." Republicans will contend this is because even Democrats don't believe those in the field are electable. I think there's something simpler at play for many -- friendship.

Things were easier for Democrats in the Evan Bayh "golden finger" era. Following his election as Governor, Evan Bayh was the party. He would say "Pam Carter for AG" and "Stan Jones for Superintendent of Public Instruction," and all others stepped down quietly or went down noisily. Anybody not think former Court Clerk Dwayne Brown's career was toast (even before his foot fetish scandal) when he waged an aborted convention fight against Pam Carter (and, by extension, Ann Delaney) in 1992?

Was this approach heavy-handed? Absolutely. But did it preserve party unity? Absolutely. Evan Bayh said Joe Hogsett takes my place for Secretary of State, and there it was. A united party helped Joe keep the S0S office in 1990.

All Democrats aligned in unity behind Governor Bayh's golden children. Other candidates would make noise, then get stabled. They would make nice with the Governor, and their supporters would fall back into the fold. Up to this year, the greatest interparty "clash" Evan Bayh has had was with Frank O'Bannon, whom he made his Lieutenant Governor.

When Governor O'Bannon took the reigns, the same model prevailed. If you sought an office, you had to go through Room 206. (Yes, it was like going to see the Godfather to ask for your own family). Sure, the Governor might not tell you himself, but people like Bill Moreau and Tom New made sure you got the message. (No, they didn't put horse heads in your bed).

Fast forward two decades, and Don Corleone has left the building. There is nobody who will "make the peace," so we have a world where friends run against the friends of friends.

Joe Hogsett was literally the first man I met in politics, and I like to think we've been friends since. While his political record might not show it, Joe is one of the most gifted politicians of this generation. He simply waded into a few Republican tsunami years.

I met Brian Williams shortly thereafter when we worked together in Governor Bayh's Office and at the Indiana Democratic Party. I liked Brian because he was soft-spoken. I learned this wasn't because he wasn't passionate about his ideas. He just put substance over bluster, which explains why he cranks out ideas like a machine for the IBJ.

I knew of Kip Tew prior to 1996, but that was the year I got to work around him daily. Kip was a tenacious political fighter for Frank O'Bannon. The way he and Steve Bella hunted down information on the Goldsmith administration was a thing of beauty. Kip has always been "mavericky," too, which helped him earn my respect, even though he has irritated some folks during his career. (More power to you, my brother!)

I met Melina back in 1992 when I was working with Pam Carter. I liked her instantly, and she's done nothing to make me second-guess that assessment. She is one of the most genuine people I know, and I always enjoy talking with her. Nobody can say she doesn't know how this city runs.

I've known Jose Evans for the shortest period of time, but his mentor, former IDP chair Robin Winston, is one of the most underrated political talents in Indiana, and that alone puts Jose in good stead with me. I see Jose shrewdly and skillfully elevating his profile. Also, Jose and I share an abiding love of positive hip hop music, which has nothing to do with running a city, but everything to do with signaling that our next generation of leaders is standing on a real short horizon, folks. Watch this man.

In short, this is a formidable field...and I have to pick just one?

This is when politics gets "real." Assuming you have the cajones to say it directly, you now have to look a friend (or four or five of them) in the eye and say, "I am sorry. Nothing personal. This is just business." This is what Democratic politics now demands, and it's not pleasant. (Certain members of Congress are still catching hell from their own party over who they favored for President in 2008, and you know who you are, Baron Hill.)

In 2010, Democrats also have two extremely well-credentialed and personable men - Tom McKenna and Vop Osili - vying for Secretary of State. In 2012, we'll have at least three Democratic candidates for Governor, and I expect this list to grow before it shrinks.

Sorry, but people who are jumping early into any of these races have either worked for one of the candidates or are looking to get "bumped off"....a lot of Christmas card lists. Most activists are hoping if they wait long enough, they'll get the return of the "Corleone influence." They are like Tessio when he's about to get wacked, asking Tom Hagen:

"Tom, can you get me off the hook....for old times sake?"

And our party's leaders all say in unison: "Can't do it, Sally."

(For a profile of the current D mayoral field, check out this article from the IBJ).

Coming soon....."Memory Lane Part II: Where are Our Corleones?"

Memory Lane for D Activists and Godfather Fans: Mayor's Race and Thoughts of the "Good Old Days?"

Andre Carson and the Art of Staying Uncommitted

Cynics on politicians: “See how crafty they are! They always take special interest money, give the interests a blank check, and lie to the public about it!”

While this probably won’t make you feel any better, more misdirection and outright deception in politics is directed toward “special interests” than anybody. They are repeatedly fooled into thinking they will get something the politician never intends to deliver.

That is real political skill – to speak in code or through emissaries so well as to suggest favor that never existed, to perform an interpretive dance of “no” without ever mouthing the word, let alone saying it.

And let’s be honest about two points. First, almost every political decision has a loser, so there’s a lot of misleading. And, second, the most “special” of “special interests” are other politicians seeking favors for themselves, their causes, or their families and friends.

So what does a smart politician do with competing suitors? Play on the fear each has of being outside the tent.

Say what you want about Representative Charlie Rangel, the Harlem Democrat, but the man is a fundraising genius. If Fed-Ex gives him money, UPS gets scared and matches. Then Rangel hoses them both and stands with the postal workers union. So the postal workers double-down on their donation, then Rangel hoses them on the next issue. Rangel’s campaign finance reports are littered with donations from diametrically opposed interests, prompting any objective observer to ask, “How can the bankers keep giving this man money when he keeps screwing them? Easy. Bankers fear the mortgage brokers will get LESS of a screwing at their expense if they don’t. Plus, since all these interests know they’ll need Charlie again, they cannot complain too loudly. Ahhhhhh, it’s good to be king….

….which brings me to Andre Carson. My man! You are sitting in the fundraising "catbird seat," to quote James Thurber. You have a cadre of Democrats jockeying early to challenge Greg Ballard, and they ALL want your magic finger to point at them prior to any slating convention. In fact, they all hope that finger will make slating unnecessary. The list of prospects I have heard (which is not exhaustive because it only includes those I’ve heard have personally confirmed interest) is, in alphabetical order: Joe Hogsett, Melina Kennedy, Woody Myers, Kip Tew, and Brian Williams.

Oh! And what do you know?!?! The first four of those folks are co-hosting a fundraiser at 300 East on April 17 for Rep. Carson and his alter-ego, Lacy Johnson, at $250 per head on the low end. (I promise you you’ll see a lot of $2,400 max out contributions). And I would bet that every one of these fiery competitors will host more Carson fundraising events on their own. Melina already has one on the books.

Were I the Congressman, I would feel like Yo Yo Ma right now because there’s no way to play this badly…as long as he stays publicly uncommitted. Every candidate can take his every cryptic pronouncement as indicia of tacit approval or support, but since they never know for sure, they have to keep sprinting to the finish line for fear that pulling up leaves them out of the race at the end. In addition to insane money, you are going to see the strongest GOTV effort for somebody without a real opponent in history.

If Rep. Carson says, “I value loyalty,” maybe it’s spun as support for Melina or Joe Hogsett's public speaking efforts on behalf of the Congressman. If Rep. Carson says, “We need bold new leadership,” maybe it’s a signal that Melina is too “Peterson-bound,” and Rep. Carson fears a replay of the past election. Or maybe it’s a putdown of Joe Hogsett and Kip Tew for being too old school political guard. These are, of course, made up examples, but I assure you the shamans of political spinnery in each campaign will be dissecting Rep. Carson’s every word, which probably explains why no fewer than 20 Marion County Democrats have told me which way Rep. Carson is leaning, though I’m pretty confident he hasn’t even twitched in anybody’s direction.

But most of us don’t know. And that’s the beauty of his position. Rep. Carson reminded us all of the critical difference between knowing early and saying early. I short-sightedly called out Rep. Carson for political cowardice because I felt he should have endorsed Senator Obama early to give Obama an Indiana boost. I'm told the Congressman always knew he would endorse Obama, but by playing coy and delaying, he negotiated an endorsement from the President. That’s political genius, folks.

Rep. Carson may know right now the horse he's backing, and maybe he knows he’s going to avoid alienating the others by sending his support through “back channels.” Or maybe that’s just what everybody vying for the mayor’s chair wants to believe in their heart of hearts. Or maybe that what the Congressman wants them to believe…that he will come out to play.

Stay inside, Congressman. There will be dollars raining all around you for a while.

Andre Carson and the Art of Staying Uncommitted