Primary Result Confirmation: "G.O.P." Does Not Mean "Go Out Peacefully"

The tea party has been cancelled. Well, at least in Indiana, where the only thing that kept the Republican Party from “shaking up Washington” last night was self-imploding ambition and arrogance.

In the Republican primary for U.S. Senate race, Dan Coats limped across the finish line with just under 40%, while Indiana state senator Marlin “I’m from a farm” Stutzman finished with 29%, former Congressman John "keep a nuke in your garage" Hostettler got 22%, and newbies Don Bates, Jr. and Richard "over my dead body" Behney picked up 4.5% and 4.2% respectively.

Hostettler was directly critical of Coats’ voting record on guns and "radical" Supreme Court Justices. Stutzman was as critical, though he used proxies to essentially say Coats was conservativism’s aged, Benedict Arnold. Had either Hostettler or Stutzman stepped aside, I am reasonably confident Dan Coats would not be the GOP candidate. (To the GOP voters, I say, “Thank you” for giving my party the opponent who ensures that the NRA will endorse Democrat Brad Ellsworth).

In the GOP’s 5th district free-for-all, Congressman Dan Burton rebuffed six opponents with an 29.7%, a jaw-droppingly anemic number for an incumbent. Luke Messer got 27.6%, repeat candidate John McGoff got 18.8%, Mike Murphy got 8.9%, and Brose “Who am I, and Why Am I Here” McVey got 8.5%.

In this one, I know that if any of Burton's opponents had stepped aside, Burton would not have to miss congressional votes to play golf any more.

Each Burton opponent publicly said he needed to step aside, but not one could bring himself to “take one for the team.” By hanging on to the bitter end, each said, “I’m more important than moving our party forward.” I assure you they all concluded that if Burton won, they'd have a chance to take his place in the future, but if one of the other guys won, they'd kiss the seat goodbye for another thirty years.

For Messer, ambition worked. By amassing 27.6%, he put himself at the front of the cue to fill the seat if Burton retires, or if he still shows weak public support in two years (he will). Messer's strong showing will allow him to chisel off money and support from the others by saying, “Which one of us is most likely to win this thing? Look at the history.” In other words, even though arrogance kept Messer in, it’s at least understandable. Same with McGoff, who actually put his arrogance on display by talking about “earning” the right to serve, as if a credible but losing campaign makes him best qualified to serve in Congress.

But what about Mike Murphy and Brose McVey, the dynamic duo of spoilerism? I know they have friends because they each got over 9,000 votes. Why didn't anybody tell them they would become the political equivalent of the insanely off-key guys from the first week of American Idol? Were I in the GOP (shudder) and in the 5th District, I’d serve them both potato salad that I had sitting in the sun for a day or two at the next GOP club meeting. Dan Burton needs to send them free subscriptions of American Rifleman because they were his biggest contributors.

In sum, the GOP said for months that its party needed a new direction, but not one of its ballot leaders made the sacrifice necessary to deliver it.

Coming shortly....

What Tuesday certainly says about party strength in Marion County....

What Tuesday arguably says about prejudice in Indiana

Primary Result Confirmation: "G.O.P." Does Not Mean "Go Out Peacefully"

Two Coats Still Can't Cover Dan's Record

On April 9, I ventured into the lion’s den as a commentator for the GOP Roundtable Discussion with all five Republican candidates for U.S. Senate –Don Bates, Jr., Richard Behney, Dan Coats, John Hostettler, and Marlin Stutzman – hosted by Indiana Barrister blogger and WXNT-1430 AM talk show host Abdul Hakim-Shabazz.

All of the commentators at the debate – myself, Josh Gillespie from Hoosier Access, Thomas Cook from Blue Indiana, and Mike O’Brien of WRTV’s Capitol Watch Blog – believed that to gain ground on presumptive favorite, Dan Coats, the other four would have to attack. None did.

This might be, in part, because Coats started the debate complimenting everyone for being so conservative and wanting what’s best for America. This is a mandatory and ingenious ploy for any candidate who leads the field, and it is often followed with, “America doesn’t want us engaging in negative attacks against each other because that doesn’t solve problems.” Attacking somebody after they’ve sucked up to you? That’s your grandmother telling you she likes your Sunday suit, and you respond with, “Your hat looks stupid.”

Consequently, the “debate” was more like a boring Fox reality show called “The Amazing Chase,” with the winner being determined by who could cram the most anti-Obama comments in one sixty-second spiel.

Anybody who doesn't believe in "the visual" aspect of politics should note how Coats' frontrunner status was amplified by the fact he was at the center of the table because the candidates were alphabetized, and he was the only guy who took his jacket off, as if to say, "I can go casual and still own these guys."

For my money, Don Bates, Jr. did the best job of stoking the populist fire. He called for a 5% congressional pay cut and came the closest to “going negative” by saying that he had none of the decades worth of government service at the table. Had I been a GOP voter without a lot of knowledge about the candidates, he would have been my guy.

Self-professed tea party activist, Richard Behney, who earned a rebuke from Indiana GOP Party Chair, Murray Clark, after Behney said he'd be "cleaning his guns" if the election in November didn't go well, did little to improve his image.

Behney repeatedly responded to whether he would support proposal x, y, or z by saying “over my dead body,” and he packed his remarks with gun-toting metaphors. On immigration, for example, he said that if somebody comes in the front door of his home and can speak English, the two might have a good conversation. But a person who sneaks in the back door "might get shot."

To his credit, Behney was the only candidate who stated that he supported repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Behney noted that he served in the military with gays and said he even knew some gay people from his time in the “music business.” Unfortunately, that one courageous position couldn’t alter my belief that Behney’s campaign slogan should be “The Fringe Unhinged.” He’s the embodiment of what makes people scared about Tea Partiers, and the fact Coats wouldn’t say anything against his violent rhetoric tells you all you need to know about the influence the GOP believes Tea Partiers wield.

Coats offered no chastisement, even though Behney also waved his hand right in front of Coats’ face while talking so often, I expected a melee to break out. (Behney might want to learn to stop “taking over” other people’s personal space before he starts in on federal government takeovers).

For his part, State Senator Marlin Stutzman wanted us to know he grew up on a farm. He said it so much, I had a post-traumatic stress flashback to the Jill Long-Thompson's campaign. (Did any of you know she has a PhD?)

To steal a question Abdul has been asking, why do we still mythologize a profession that is almost exclusively agribusiness now? My parents live in Hendricks County, and the farmers around them all have tractors with air conditioning, CD players, and DVD players. This isn’t Thomas Jefferson with a team of oxen, okay? Sure, they might get up at 5:00 a.m., but so does a guy working the early shift at a factory. And if anyone thinks being raised on a farm automatically means you're wholesome, check teenage pregnancy rates in rural communities or watch the Dukes of Hazzard.

I expected John Hostettler to at least “backdoor insult” Coats, but he said nothing. He didn’t say anything in the follow-up appearances either, which is curious given that Hostettler had already put up a Youtube ad attacking Coats for voting for Ruth Bader-Ginsburg’s confirmation, the Brady Bill, and the assault weapons ban.

Undoubtedly because of Hostettler’s ad, Coats is now running an ad that will earn him the “2010 Cojones Grandes” award for political advertising because he claims he’s “Pro-2nd Amendment. “

As a quick aside, the ad also said Coats would "Repeal Healthcare," but we're going to follow The Weekly Standard's view that the ad was just clunky, and Coats meant he would repeal the "Obama healthcare reform package," not turn into a Kevorkian death panel of one ensuring nobody has any type of healthcare. Of course, if Coats were into precision, he'd have filed his financial disclosure statement on time. Coats will not give a date certain for filing this report, and you should suspect it will NOT be released before the primary because it will disclose the insane amount of cash Coats got as a lobbyist, and it's not healthy having that kind of information floating around before the primary election. (Isn't it cool that Senators can go, "Yeah, I know there's a law I'm violating, but, oh, well. What's that toothless tiger FEC going to do? Fine me $250?)

Anyway, I’m more pro-gun than some of my Democratic colleagues, and I was okay with Coats’ votes for the Brady Bill and assault weapons ban. What’s wrong with checking somebody’s background for, say, insanity, before you let them buy a gun? But in conservative, NRA circles?!? That’s not just anathema; that’s voters in apoplectic convulsions. To vote for the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban while claiming you’re pro-2nd amendment in this crowd would be like an abortion doctor claiming he’s pro-life.

This is why, according to Hostettler, RedState reported that if Coats wins, the NRA will endorse Democrat Brad Ellsworth. That would be major.

With such a shaky record on some core conservative issues, will Coats win the primary? Absolutely. Because when his opponents could have attacked him for free, they didn’t, and none of them have enough money to effectively attack him when there's an actual cost. Even though he's seriously below fundraising expectations, Coats has raised over $378,000, and his next closest competitor, Marlin Stutzman, raised around $125,000 in the last reporting period.

Herein lies the tragedy in American politics. Dan Coats can whitewash his 2nd Amendment record while wearing a shirt that looks like he borrowed it from Lamar Alexander's Presidential election, and nobody can pay enough to tell you it’s a myth.

Two Coats Still Can't Cover Dan's Record

iPOPA Unleashed on 5-Way GOP Senate Roundtable; Your Official Drinking Game Rules

Abdul Hakim-Shabazz of Abdul in the Morning is "unleashing the kraken," politically speaking, by allowing me to do commentary today when Republicans Dan Coats, John Hostettler, Marlin Stutzman, Richard Behney, and Don Bates, Jr. sit down for a "Republican Roundtable" at the Indiana War Memorial Theater from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m.

Let's just say that the rhetorical knives have been sharpened for my segments, which I'm told will be around 3:15-3:45 p.m. and again around 5:30 p.m (on WXNT Talk Radio 1430-AM). I will be on air with Thomas Cook of Blue Indiana fame and Dan Burton's main man, Josh Gillespie, with Hoosier Access.

If you have a question for any of these gentleman, send it here.

For those of you fortunate enough to be able to drink at home at 3:00 p.m. today (or, unfortunately, alcoholic enough to be sneaking it at work), here are the "Official GOP Roundtable Drinking Game" rules.

1. Take a sip every time a GOP candidate for U.S. Senate:

- Says "government takeover" (this one might make you drunk before opening statements conclude);

- Specifically criticizes President Obama;

- Refers to 9-11;

- Uses the phrase "cut and run" to describe military policy;

- Refers to "judicial activism"; or

- Name drops "Ronald Reagan." (If Marlin Stutzman does it, take four drinks, as Stutzman was four years old when Reagan went into office)

2. Take a full drink every time a GOP candidate for U.S. Senate:

- Claims to be more pro-life than someone else on the stage;

- Specifically criticizes another Republican on the stage about anything; or

- Says anything positive about any Democrat at any level

4. Drink an entire bottle of scotch if:

- Any Republican calls Medicare "as socialist as healthcare reform" and calls for its repeal. (I know, it's exactly the same, but nobody will say it, I assure you).

iPOPA Unleashed on 5-Way GOP Senate Roundtable; Your Official Drinking Game Rules

Did Evan Bayh "Show Us the Money"?

When Senator Evan Bayh stepped down, I was angry. He left Democrats in the lurch because D.C. legislators don’t play nice?!? It was the political equivalent of “taking my ball and going home.”

Then I really thought about it.

Partisans don’t own the souls of our elected officials. We’re entitled to have them serve in the right way while in office and to have them exit while mitigating collateral damage. That’s it. We can’t make them stay, in particular when they’re cut from the executive “get things done” cloth, not from the “bloviate on C-SPAN and demonize the other guy” exterior.

The exit timing was a Bayh masterstroke. By waiting until the last minute, Bayh faked Mike Pence and Todd Rokita into staying sidelined though polling showed Bayh wasn’t a sure thing. Also, the Senator ensured there would be no costly primary like the one that caused the party’s 2008 gubernatorial implosion.

Instead, Bayh threw the choice of who filled his shoes to the Indiana Democratic Party State Central Committee’s 33 voting members, and he did so only after ensuring 8th District Congressman Brad Ellsworth had the votes to replace him.

Had Senator Bayh waited until after his re-election to resign, Governor Mitch Daniels would have appointed his successor, who would have served until a special election. Democrats would not have gotten the seat back.

In fact, the only real downside to Evan Bayh’s departure was that Ellsworth had little time to raise money for a 2010 election.

But how big a problem could that be? After all, the GOP has been playing host to a resource-consuming, five-way free-for-all (Dan Coats, Marlin Stutzman, John Hostettler, Don Bates, Jr., and Richard Behney) and Bayh was holding roughly $12 million in the bank, even after refunding contributions designated for a general election in which he will no longer participate.

A maximum mitigation effort would have Bayh legally laundering his money by giving it to every federally-qualified candidate or party committee with even the remotest Indiana connection, knowing it would wander home to Ellsworth. Or Bayh could always donate it all to the state party. No, it couldn't go directly to Ellsworth, but once state party and all the legislative party committees were covered, they could start directing all their prospective donors to give to Ellsworth instead.

We all knew the Senator would tip the cup. We just didn't know whether he'd pour it out or just let some drips fall.

I'd be lying if I said I was optimistic. Despite his considerable accomplishments, objective party folk will tell you off-the-record that the Senator has a lackluster record sharing his wealth unless the recipient's campaign helps him.

I’ll never forget one candidate who who was offered then-Governor Bayh’s support. The candidate recounted that the Governor was cordial as they talked about Bayh’s appearance at a fundraiser and in some joint political communications. But as soon as talk turned to Bayh donating money directly from his extremely flush campaign committee, the candidate said, "I could literally hear (Bayh’s) sphincter muscles clinch.” This was a key Bayh ally making the request.

But couldn't his circumstances now make him more sensitive to the need to rise as the consummate team player?

We got an answer today when the Indiana Democratic Party issued a release saying that Evan Bayh donated one million dollars to the state party, "the largest donation ever by an individual not on the ballot." Bayh called it a "million dollar vote of confidence in Brad Ellsworth and Indiana Democrats."

Call the Senator a victim of his astonishing fundraising prowess, but that's not nearly enough, even for a guy hoarding money for a 2012 gubernatorial run.

I have no doubt the Senator will stump for and attend events for candidates, but Mitch Daniels is investing his personal and political capital in untold numbers of state representatives in an effort to control legislative maps.

As insane and ungrateful as this will sound, I have to ask. Why did Bayh only give a million?

No, Bayh hasn’t become President (or even Vice-President), but he is a shrewd political operator. Thus, while I know I’d donate to him if he is generous with his current funds, he undoubtedly knows too many Democrats have less kind spirits about his exit. Moreover, he's raised money nationally from people who were thinking about sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom some day. Now that he's coming back to a smaller pond, it will be harder to recapture the dollars.

Basically, any goodwill engendered by spreading his largesse might not be enough to help him get it back dollar for dollar. But if he keeps it, the cash plus his statewide standing makes him the prohibitive favorite for 2012 if he wants to make a go. If he rolls into 2011 with at least eight or nine million, there’s no way he doesn’t clear the Democratic gubernatorial field the millisecond he declares. More importantly, if Democrats retain the U.S. House of Representatives, with eight or nine million, Mike Pence has to think very carefully, in particular if he becomes minority leader. Without it, he's "back home again in Indiana."

Accordingly, Democrats who look to Senator Bayh as Santa Bayh in 2010 will find more lumps of coal in the stockings than presents, though there is always the possibility that he's checking the list twice with an eye toward giving more. I hope so.

Because if Democrats lose the Indiana House of Representatives and Evan Bayh still has $8 or $9 million in his account on November 3, 2010, a lot of Democrats won't be quick to forgive, even if we know he's our best chance to end the Daniels-Skillman administration.

Did Evan Bayh "Show Us the Money"?

George Bush: The Great Avenger?

Man, this is going to be painful. But I'm trying to give respect where it's due.

Few people remember that former Indiana Congressman John Hostettler (R), who was defeated last election cycle by Brad Ellsworth (D) in Indiana's 8th District, was one of six Republicans who voted in 2002 against the original authorization for the Iraq War. In a flag-waving district, that was a courageous stand on principle and a vote that many Democrats now wish they had made.

Also, you have to tip your hat, even if grudgingly, to somebody who has a chance to score easy political points but doesn't because of his philosophy. In 2004, Hostettler introduced the Marriage Protection Act, which defined marriage federally as between a man and woman. But when the constitutional amendment was proposed in 2006, Hostettler said no because he does not believe the constitution should be amended easily. That's a principled man.

Of course, it bears mentioning that being "principled" is no compliment if the principles are terrifying, such as a tunnel-vision effort to inject one's personal theology into the public sphere.

Hostettler's greatest hits?

- The original MPA sponsorship

- Repealing D.C.'s extension of health coverage to employees' domestic partners

- Defeating abortion under any circumstance. This single-mindedness prompted Hostettler to adopt the belief that abortions cause cancer, which he astonishingly chose to share with some cancer survivors who came to his D.C. Congressional office. (That's kind of like hosting a group of blind kids and telling them they shouldn't have masturbated so much).

- Sponsoring legislation to deny the ACLU attorney's fees awards when they succeed in enforcing the 1st Amendment

- An effort to make Alexander Hamilton roll over in his grave by stripping the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals of its budget after it removed the 10 Comandments from a courthouse in Alabama. Hamilton, in Federalist 78 states: "The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited constitution."

- Trying to repeal the portion of the IRS code that says religious groups and churches CAN'T engage in political activity without losing their tax-exempt status

Apparently, not happy with this level of notoriety, Hostettler authored a book, Nothing for the Nation: Who Got What Out of Iraq, which is shocking.

I haven't read it, but Hostettler apparently argues that we went to war in Iraq for two reasons.

First, President George W. Bush wanted to avenge a 1993 assassination attempt on his father by the Iraqi Intelligence Service. (I first heard this contention from Chris Rock in his comedy special, Never Scared, and my reaction was, "DUH!")

Second, we charged to war because a cabal of influential Jewish-Americans wanted us to take Saddam out to secure Israel's safety. Because of historical persecution of Jews and its offshooting conspiracy theories about media control by the Jews, many discussions about Israel have become taboo. This is another area where people fear facts, as I stated in a prior post.

Do I think Jews led to the war in Iraq? Absolutely not. I vote for war profiteering and the allure of low hanging fruit. I honestly think Bush's thought was, "If my daddy could smoke them easily in 1991, why can't I do it in 2002?"

But I'm honest enough to say that our support of Israel puts us at odds with quite a few countries. This is a fact. You know how we know? Because all of these countries tell us explicitly they are mad about our support for Israel.

Why are we so afraid to say that? Here. It's easy. Our support of Israel makes us hated! Wheee! Look at me! Now you try. See how easy that is.

And here's the thing. SAYING that our support makes our lives tougher doesn't mean you don't get to ask questions like, "Shouldn't we support the only democracy in the Middle East, even if it's tough?" "Shouldn't we be loyal to them because they've been loyal to us?" Or "Even if we quit supporting Israel, won't these other countries still be angry at us for other reasons, meaning we'd could 'Et Tu Brutus' Israel for no real geopolitical gain?!?"

And agreeing that some Jews in America clearly influence our foreign policy in the Middle East doesn't keep you from asking whether the Congressional Black Caucus influences how we treat Africa, or whether the Kennedys and other Boston pols have influenced policy regarding Ireland. I even heard "a rumor" about Cuban-Americans influencing our policy on Cuba.

(Actually, what I heard from a colleague who served as a field operative of a now defunct presidential campaign, was that Florida's electoral votes are being held hostage by a rabid anti-Castro enclave who will only give us back the part of Florida they turned into their personal Cuba when America gives them the REAL Cuba back. And until then, we can expect an unrelenting wave of rhumba and samba dancing).

I say this somewhat facetiously, but if we are all Americans first, which is what we all claim, NOBODY, regardless of what country you came from, should advocate anything that does not clearly advantage America first. Being an America first means you have to write your grandmother in the home country and tell her she's hosed because we need to build some roads in Sheboygan, Wisconsin before we can send humanitarian relief, or we need cheap gas for our SUVs, and we don't want to upset the delicate diplomatic balance we've struck with an oil-producing nation-state.

Seriously, if you are going to wring your hands over "influences" in America, don't single out the Jews just because Spielberg has more money to throw around. What about John Zogby, the famed pollster and head of the Arab-American Institute?!?! Maybe he uses his polling data for nefarious, anti-Israeli purposes!?!)

Please. There are no "conspiracies" here. Many Jews strongly support Israel. They write letters, they vote, and they contribute to elected officials to achieve that goal. And so do a lot of other ethnic and religious groups, including Christians from the 8th District. This is part of the American experiment called democracy. If you don't like it, organize, write letters, and contribute in opposition to the position or person that irks you. It often works, which is why John Hostettler is a "former" member of Congress. But don't act like it's some "secret conspiracy" when you can find all the evidence on-line at the Federal Election Commission.

Oh, I almost forgot. The “shocking news” part of the Hostettler book is that I didn't know until I heard about this book that he's literate.

George Bush: The Great Avenger?