Classic iPOPA: Carson-Elrod-Shepherd Debate

I'm a day late with my "Classic iPOPA Monday," which is where I pull one from the archives on the first Monday of each month for the new readers. Another post understandably took precedence yesterday. Newbies, enjoy! If you've been an iPOPA reader from day one, you needn't linger here because you've probably already seen.....

********************************************************************************

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 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, just like it did when we re-legalized alcohol. 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), 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 incredibly 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.

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 somewhere.

But when was the last time you heard him give a speech that really moved you like he did back in 1988 or 1992 when he spoke with more 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.

Classic iPOPA: Carson-Elrod-Shepherd Debate

Class iPOPA: Carson-Elrod-Shepherd Debate for the 7th District

I'm a day late with my "Classic iPOPA Monday," which is where I pull one for the archieves for the new readers on the first Monday of the month. Another post understandably took precedence yesterday. Newbies, enjoy! If you've been an iPOPA reader from day one, you needn't linger here because you've probably already seen.....

********************************************************************************

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 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, just like it did when we re-legalized alcohol. 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), 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 incredibly 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.

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 somewhere.

But when was the last time you heard him give a speech that really moved you like he did back in 1988 or 1992 when he spoke with more 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.

Class iPOPA: Carson-Elrod-Shepherd Debate for the 7th District

Republican Bagman's Office Raided! iPOPA Challenges Advance Indy

When Marla Stevens was first investigated and then indicted, Advance Indiana, a local conservative blog, repeatedly mentioned that Stevens had donated $25,000 to Congressman Andre Carson. Advance Indiana called for the return of those funds, which he claimed were from ill-gotten gains. (Carson was ahead of him on the return, as I recall).

Today, we learn that one of the Republican Party biggest donors, Tim Durham, had his office raided by the FBI, and he is reportedly in custody. AI reports that Durham donated $150,000 to Carl Brizzi. But, strangely, that's where the reporting ends.

So I have to ask. If Durham's pyramid collapses, will AI call for the return of all the donations, just like he did with Carson?

What I've learned from exchanges with AI's publisher, Gary Welsh, is that the "return the money" rule applies only to those who don't have defunct committees, so that if, through some crazy coincidence, both John McCain and Andre Carson got a contribution from somebody who was indicted, only Andre would have to give the money back. Don't get it, but let's run with it for now.

I didn't have time to record all of the donations because there were so many of them, but here are some notable ones:

Mitch Daniels for Governor Committee:
2004 - $75,000
2005 - $10,000
2006 - $50,000
2007- $35,000
2008 - $5,000

Aiming Higher (Governor Daniel's Pac) - 2006 - $10,000

Greg Zoeller for Attorney General - 2008 - $11,000

Greater Indianapolis Republican Finance Committee - 2007 - $25,000

Marion County Republican Central Committee:
2005 - $1,250
2006 - $5,000

Indiana State Republican Central Committee:
2005 - $37,500
2006 - $27,500
2007 - $40,000

Hoosiers for Richard Mourdock - 2007 - $1,500

Committee to Elect Brian Bosma - 2007 - $10,000

Nineteen Pac - 2008 - $1,000

House Republican Campaign Committee:
2006 - $25,000
2007 - $8,580

Friends of Mike Delph:
2006 - $5,000
2007 - $5,000

Senator Bev Gard got $1,174 in-kinded to her for a fundraiser.

The only Democrat I found on the list is Baron Hill, who received $4,600 in 2007. Baron, send him back his money if you haven't already, dude!

I guess since Jon Elrod and Rudy Guiliani have defunct committees, they get a pass on their respective $2,300s.

I will wait and see what happens because we don't have all the information yet. But if Mr. Durham ends up taking a plea for financial misdeeds, I'll be waiting to hear from AI, and I'll be expecting the Governor and the multitude of Republican committees to cough it up, just like Advance Indiana would expect.

Republican Bagman's Office Raided! iPOPA Challenges Advance Indy

Elrod's Retort: Even a Flawed America Still Leads the World in Pursuit of Noble Ideals

Well played, Chris.

I would first note that AE does not mean that America is always right or has always been right. AE is (or should be) based on the triumphs of America, its continuing trajectory toward the realization of its noble ideals; not that it has realized those ideals. I also truly believe that no country lives up to those ideals as faithfully as the United States.

Obama’s election shows how far this country has come. Of course there are still bigots in America upset about the election. Every country in the world has bigots. Could someone like Obama have been elected in the UK? Italy? Canada? Japan? Brazil? I honestly cannot think of another nation where a person of the non-majority race could reach the presidency or its equivalent.

Of course Americans still “marginalize” some groups, as do people in every other country in the world. That, by the way, is a conveniently vague term. Try being Christian in China. Try being an untouchable in India. Try being gay in Saudi Arabia. Try being a Muslim convert to Buddhism in Indonesia. Try being a woman wearing pants in the Sudan. Marginalization in those countries means lashings, mobs, honor killings, secret detentions, systematic state discrimination, etc. The Multiculturalist Moral Relativist (MMR) too often equates the glass ceilings and racial profiling in the US with the transparent oppression in other countries.

It is this mentality that allows the world’s worst human rights abusers to sit (and chair) the UN Human Rights Committee (China, Venezuela, Iran). This is how Yasser Arafat gets a Nobel. This is why a Spanish judge will indict George Bush for war crimes, while ignoring warlords in Darfur. MMR has real consequences. The number of free countries (open elections, representative government, free press) is declining.

I want to make clear that I am not suggesting that our president supports any of the above, much less that he has caused a global decline in freedom. The point of my post is to advocate that he return to the inspiring words of his inaugural speech.

People do vote with their feet. I couldn’t put it better myself. I remember all those news stories about a huge liberal emigration to Canada in ’04 after Bush’s reelection. It didn’t happen. And people from around the world still flock here. There must be something exceptional about this Union.

As for specific speeches where Obama apologized, see http://www.heritage.org/research/europe/wm2466.cfm. I’m not sure all of those speeches should be classified as apologies, but it is a good reference for Obama’s shift from Bush’s diplomacy.

If your political views are refined enough to know where you stand on card-check, cap and trade, the public health option, cash for clunkers, deficit spending, government bail-outs, etc., then you should have a pretty good idea whether you’ll vote R or D in 2012, even without a crystal ball.

Elrod's Retort: Even a Flawed America Still Leads the World in Pursuit of Noble Ideals

Jon Elrod & American Exceptionalism's Decline Under President Obama

American Exceptionalism is the belief that the United States is unique in its place in history, and in many ways, superior to other nations and societies.


Moral Relativism and Multiculturalism form the belief that the United States is not unique nor superior, and that the US should be more like other countries. This belief system is hostile to the ideal of American Exceptionalism and generally focuses on the faults of the US rather than its virtues.


American Exceptionalism is abhorrent when it is based on xenophobia, prejudice, tribalism, jingoism, or bigotry. Suggesting America is superior simply because it is the place of one's birth is absurdly ignorant.


But American Exceptionalism is proper when it is founded on American civil liberties: free speech, free exercise of religion, rule of law, upward mobility, equality of gender, equality of race and creed, democratic representative government, free markets, etc.


Multiculturalism is proper when it is founded on dialogue, appreciation of history and culture, comparative studies, and general open-mindedness regarding other societies.


Moral Relativity and Multiculturalism become abhorrent when critical thought is abandoned. Too often this belief system refuses to make judgments. And when the judgments are reached, they tend to blame the US first, often through hyperbolic arguments.


The diplomacy of Barack Obama has intentionally stepped away from the American Exceptionalism of the Bush Administration. His administration has pursued what could be described as an international apology tour. It is based on the mistaken belief that those who hate America will change their minds once we admit they have reason to hate America. I hope our President soon returns to the nobler thoughts found in his Inaugural Speech:

We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense.

And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that, "Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness.

We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth.

And because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall heal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

These are inspiring words, spoken by someone who exemplifies American Exceptionalism. I did not and will not vote for our president, nor will I support most of his policies. But I take pride in this country, where a biracial son of a foreignor, with a Muslim name, could rise to lead our government. It speaks to how truly exceptional is this place called America.

Jon Elrod & American Exceptionalism's Decline Under President Obama

Uh oh! IPOPA and Jon Elrod Get Experimental on You!

Let's be honest. American political discourse is more acidic than ever. The public sphere seldom showcases respectful disagreement based on honest differences of opinion. Instead, we are bombarded with increasingly divisive rhetoric undergirded by a "gotcha" mentality that preys on isolated words from opponents to morph them into caricatures of the dimwitted and "dangerous." Those who disagrees get accused of harboring sinister motives.

IPOPA thinks we deserve better. I'm not alone.

Several months ago, I began communicating with (more appropriately, arguing with) former Republican Indiana State House Representative Jon Elrod. I have come to appreciate Jon's keen intellect, expansive knowledge base, and idealism, and despite our inability to agree on seemingly anything, never have we exchanged cross words. I say this though Jon knows I worked for my current state representative (Mary Ann Sullivan) to defeat him, and I would do it again. How can he not take our arguments personally against this backdrop?

Because he joins me in realizing that all public policy decisions, even value-based ones, are laden with tradeoffs and arbitrary line-drawing that can strain philosophical purity and even intellectual honesty. In such an environment, how can we be mad at someone who draws a line five or even five hundred feet further left or right of us?

In an effort that will hopefully raise the bar on how we discuss the pressing issues of the day, IPOPA will be hosting periodic commentaries from Mr. Elrod and then responding to the same.

Will we always get it right? Probably not. Some zingers are just too "fish-in-a-barrel" to let pass. But if nothing else, I hope all IPOPA readers will admire that we felt it worth aspiring to something more high-minded.

Be sure to come by tomorrow for Jon's piece on the virtues of "American Exceptionalism" and how President Obama is parting ways with it. Thereafter, I will kindly alert Jon to some flaws and contradictions in his argument and give him the chance to return the favor.

I hope you find our exchanges thought-provoking.

Thanks for reading!

- IPOPA -

Uh oh! IPOPA and Jon Elrod Get Experimental on You!

Light-Hearted Moment at Sullivan Event

Peacocks use garish plumes to catch a mate. If you watch it on film, you laugh because it's so ridiculous and obvious. But humans aren't far off, though men generally use sports cars. The short of it is that making oneself attractive pays major dividends.

Research confirms that in job interviews, the more attractive a candidate is, the better off (s)he fares. Both male and female interviewers assume that good looking people have higher intelligence, among other positive social traits. Researchers call this “the halo effect,” and we know it applies to politics.

While somebody can certainly be odd-looking and get elected (have you SEEN some of the Indiana General Assembly?!?), it helps to be a handsome man or beautiful woman as a candidate. This is good news for Mary Ann Sullivan, the Democrat running against Jon Elrod in House District 97. Unless I am having auditory hallucinations, Ms. Sullivan got some "affirmation" during her press conference calling for increased funding for Amtrak.

Go see my amigo at www.blueindiana.net, and scroll to "Barnes, Sullivan call for increased Amtrak funding." Turn up your volume, advance to 1:01 on the Youtube clip and listen closely to the background noise. I seriously doubt that adulation is for John Barnes.

I just hope somebody from the Sullivan campaign found that guy and hit him up for a contribution.

Light-Hearted Moment at Sullivan Event

The Jon Elrod I Thought I Knew

I've said some really good things about Republican Jon Elrod. He's a likeable guy, and he was the only Republican who refused to sign a PR ploy request for a vote on SJR-7, the constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. There's NO WAY that could have been easy in the Indiana House Republican Caucus. Cajones of steel, said I. I've even tried, somewhat jokingly (but also somewhat seriously) to recruit him into the Democratic Party. Rest easy, Republican Friends of Elrod...absolutely NO success in that effort.

What I liked about him was that, while he would work hard for victory, I had the sense that as long as he did things "the right way," he could live with defeat. This was evident during the congressional debates before the special election. He could have bashed Andre Carson publicly, but he didn't. (Yes, I know. He hit him with some anti-gun mailers that weren't flattering, but compared to most scorched earth campaigns, one mailing is tame stuff). Call it gut instinct, but winning almost seemed secondary to running a good race for Elrod. In this respect, he personified the difference between people whose motivation is just "to make money" and those who adopt an attitude that if you do things the right way and do what you love, the money will follow. Elrod's initial run for HD 97 was not Step 1 in a ten-step scripted plan for obtaining the highest possible elective office.

But now it seems the political ambitions have stolen him. Brendan O'Shaughnessy of the Indianapolis Star reports that Jon Elrod has resigned as the R candidate from the 7th District Congressional race so that he can be appointed to fill a vacancy left in Indiana State House District 97, his old district which he had to forfeit to run against Carson in the first place. Elrod knew he had an easier chance to win in HD 97 than in a re-run of the special election, so he bailed out.

To paraphrse Ross Perot, I hear a giant sucking sound. It's Jon Elrod's credibility going into a toilet and flushing itself. (I guess this explains why I never got a response when I e-mailed and asked him to flatly deny the rumor that he was even thinking about this).

I suppose the likeability factor might still be there, but almost everything else is out the window. Jon Elrod went from being the guy who wanted to be your neighborhood congressman to the guy who just couldn't live without representing ANY neighborhood. He could have waited for two years, stayed active in the community and come back, but somehow he wasn't able to withstand either (1) the temptation of keeping and/or expanding power; (2) political pressure from the Republican Party, which had not been an issue before now; or (3) a combination of 1 and 2.
How can any constituent trust that he wouldn't sell them out to preserve his standing? He may have said he takes no pleasure in "walking away from a fight," but he actually sprinted away from it.

One could say that it's unfair for me to be disappointed in a candidate simply because I had an impression of him that turned out to be wrong. After all, he never claimed to impervious to the lure of power.

Yeah, good thing.

The Jon Elrod I Thought I Knew

Jon Elrod Abandons Ship?

Say it ain't so, Jo....n.

Sure, Bush's legacy in November will be as beneficial to downticket races as pizza at a Weight Watchers meeting, but I was floored to get wind of scuttlebutt that Jon Elrod, having lost to Andre Carson in the special election and seeing little hope of improving in November, is contemplating resigning his federal candidacy and jumping back into his old house district.

If he pops back into Indiana House District 97, Elrod would face Democrat Mary Ann Sullivan, who edged out city-county councilor Dane Mahern at the Marion County Democratic Party's slating convention.

The Republicans had none of that drama. In fact, nobody even filed a declaration of candidacy pre-primary. As a result, there is a candidate vacancy that must be filled by a Republican Party caucus. Ostensibly, the precinct committee persons covering HD 97 could appoint Jon Elrod, EXCEPT for one small detail. He can't run for congress and state representative at the same time, which is why David Orentlicher had to give up his state house seat. (More on that in a second).

Elrod is allegedly getting pressure from some Repubs to drop the lost cause congressional race and help the R's hold ground in the House by reclaiming a seat he won in a labor-intensive campaign against Democrat Ed Mahern in 2006.

While such a two-step of resigning the federal candidacy and getting appointed to fill the vacancy in his former seat seems completely legal by my cursory review of the election code, I'm skeptical it would be easy for Elrod to pull off politically. He basically told the folks in HD 97, "Your little pond is too small for me." I don't know how keen they'll be now to let him swim in it again just because he saw the piranhana that is the Carson machine coming at him in the congressional campaign stream.

This is a bi-partisan critique, by the way. There's a corresponding rumor that either Ed Delaney offered to withdraw his candidacy so David O. could take HIS seat back or that Delaney has been asked by some Democrats to do so. I find the former version highly suspect. Ed Delaney is no slouch, folks, and I seriously doubt he was running just because he thought it would be a fun thing to do. (I'll let you know when I sort this out).

In my opinion, the vanquished (or the "not even fully vanquished yet") shouldn't get to take their ball and run home. At least not until they regroup and come out swinging in the next election cycle.

Some may say, "What's the big deal? Presidential candidates all have other offices they hold, and they lose and go back without political fallout." First, there CAN be fallout if your state suffered a crises in your absence. Second, if there isn't fallout, it's because either:

(a) many people are wowed to see somebody from their home state playing on the national stage (Evan Bayh, for example...even as an Obama guy, seeing the Senator get national play was pretty sweet); and

(b) presidential candidacies are waged by people who gain FOR their constituents by having assembled national contacts. Hillary Clinton will have more political resources now as a Senator than she ever had before this campaign. That will make her more formidable in the Senate, and every one of her constituents will benefit.

In contrast, what can Jon Elrod say he got for HD 97 by virtue of running....er....starting to run....against Andre Carson? Yeah, I don't know either. Same for David O. Sit tight until the next go-round, lads. You'll come off more respectably.

Jon Elrod Abandons Ship?

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...