Signing Off . . .

Greetings friends and fans:

The time has come for Indy's Painfully Objective Political Analysis (iPOPA) to ride off into the sunset.

Long-time readers will say, "Yeah, we heard this before! iPOPA closed up shop only to come roaring back." You got me. I got spurred back into action because of my inability to stay silent on "the untold stories."

But this time things are different.

I recently joined the staff of Congressman Andre Carson as district director, and I intend to put all of my time and mental energy into that effort. This is also why you won't see me as commentator for WRTV-6's Friday Rountable or on Fox's Face-Off in the future.

Being a blogger and media commentator has been incredibly rewarding, but nowhere near as much as the work I'm doing now, and I say this only eight days into the job.

I will see you all in the neighborhood!

Chris

Signing Off . . .

BREAKING NEWS: Carson, Ellsworth, Hill, Bayh Support Repeal of DADT

Representatives Andre Carson, Brad Ellsworth, Pete Viscloskey, and Baron Hill, all voted in favor of repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy tonight, a measure which passed out of the House by a 234-194 margin. At the same time, Politico.com reports a similar measure in the Senate passed out of the Armed Services Committee, 16-12, with the assistance of Senator Evan Bayh.

Carson stated, "Any patriotic American willing to give his or her life in defense of country should have that opportunity. And our troops should never be forced to lie about who they are in order to continue their service. Today’s vote will help ensure this kind of personal conflict is never an issue for the brave men and women in our military.”

The only Democrat who voted against the measure in the House delegation was Represenative Joe Donnelly. According to the Louisville Courier-Journal, Donnelly said earlier today that he would vote no to any effort to change the law before the Defense Department had finished its review.

Donnelly stated, "I value the expertise and experience of our military leaders and first want to know their thoughts on the matter."

The problem is that there will be some at the DoD who are against the repeal, and some, such as General Colin Powell, who favor it. Waiting for what may be an only mildly favorable report or an ambivalent one would be seized upon by opponents to short-circuit the entire effort. In other words, Donnelly's position was cowardice covered in military deference crap, in my opinion.

You may say, "Aha! iPOPA just admitted that some GENERALS may tell you this is a bad idea." In response, I would tell you, yeah, this wouldn't be the first time some generals opposed an idea of a commander-in-chief, and I would refer you to the dialogue from one of my favorite scenes of The West Wing, where John Amos, playing Percy Fitzwallace, the African-American Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is talking to some lesser officers about their feelings on letting gays serve openly:

Major Tate: Sir, we're not prejudiced toward homosexuals.

Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: You just don't want to see them serving in the Armed Forces?

Major Tate: No sir, I don't.

Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: Because they pose a threat to unit discipline and cohesion?

Major Tate: Yes, sir.

Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: That's what I think, too. I also think the military wasn't designed to be an instrument of social change.

Major Tate: Yes, sir.

Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: The problem with that is that's what they were saying about me 50 years ago - blacks shouldn't serve with whites. It would disrupt the unit. You know what? It did disrupt the unit. The unit got over it. The unit changed. I'm an admiral in the U.S. Navy and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff...beat that with a stick.

I'm guessing Donnelly isn't a fan of Harry Truman, who desegregating the military when 87% of Americans, including a supermajority of its military personnel, opposed the decision.

Sorry, Joe, but we have a civilian-led military, and if Congress and the Commander-in-Chief say gays and lesbians can serve openly, the generals will use their expertise to implement the policy, not to decide it.

BREAKING NEWS: Carson, Ellsworth, Hill, Bayh Support Repeal of DADT

Carson Turns Out JJ; Indiana Stonewall Democrats Abstain on Ellsworth

Some quick weekend updates...

...first, for those who were not present, Congressman Andre Carson gave a lights out presentation last night at the Indiana Democratic Party's JJ dinner, a gala that seemed light on diversity in personage and particulars, save the Congressman's appearance. Absent, for example, were any statements of condemnation about Arizona's recent course of conduct. I do not say "curiously absent" because in any hotly-contested election season, I always expect the Democratic Party to drive to the political safe ground.

Therein lies a frequent difference between Democrats and Republicans in Indiana. When things are on the line electorally, Republicans rally their base. Democrats too frequently put theirs in the basement and tell them not to make too much noise.

In a related story, the Indiana Democratic Party selected former Vanderburgh County Sheriff and current 8th-District Congressman Brad Ellsworth as our party's nominee to run against North Carolina-lovin,' swollen pocket from lobbying, "Beltway" Dan Coats. However, the vote was not a unanimous. The Indiana Stonewall Democrats (ISD) abstained. [In the interest of full disclosure, I serve on the Stonewall board].

I will never forget the words of State Senator Earline Rogers (D-Gary) almost twenty years ago that "too many people get elected, to do nothing, to get re-elected, to do nothing, to get re-elected." The Senator's point was that people who have power waste it if they don't try to advance a principle periodically, regardless of the cost.

With that in mind, here is the Stonewall Democrats' statement:

Today, the Indiana Stonewall Democrats (ISD) spoke resolutely and loudly by saying nothing on our ballot to determine Evan Bayh’s successor for Democratic candidate for United States Senate.

To any who would question our commitment to the Democratic Party based on our abstention, we would respond with a simple question, “What does it mean to be a Democrat?”

We find our answer in the Indiana Democratic Party’s 2008 platform, which includes the following statements:

“As a party of the people, we strongly oppose restriction of opportunity to Hoosiers based on their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or economic background.”

“We also encourage legislation addressing hate crimes that would protect the freedom of all Hoosiers and create tougher penalties for those who infringe, criminally or otherwise, on those freedoms.”

“We must work to ensure that all people – without regard to race, religion gender, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or economic background – have the right to achieve the American dream. For the sake of current and future generations, it is our duty as Democrats to put an end to any injustices that threaten that goal.”

We find further guidance in the Democratic National Committee’s 2008 platform, which states:

“We support the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the implementation of policies to allow qualified men and women to serve openly regardless of sexual orientation.”

“We support the full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections.”

We believe it is time for the Democratic Party at all levels to live up to our expressed ideals.

Our abstention is born, in large part, from the frustration of faint support from the Indiana Democratic Party, which has taken our support for granted too long and shown no interest in developing ISD further.

We do not intend our abstention, in any manner, to be taken as support for Republican nominee Dan Coats. His objection to permitting highly-qualified gays and lesbians to serve in the armed services is well-documented, as is his historical hostility to the gay and lesbian community. Further, we doubt a high-paid, Washington, D.C. lobbyist is what average Hoosiers needs in this time of economic insecurity.

Nor do we intend our abstention to be construed as an indictment of Congressman Ellsworth’s personal sentiments towards gays and lesbians. By all accounts, the Congressman interacts respectfully and meaningfully with our community, and to his credit, implemented a gay-friendly employment policy as Vanderburgh County Sheriff at great political risk to himself.

But as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stated, “Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.”

Regrettably, there has been, up to this point, a disconnect between not only the Democratic Party’s words and deeds, but in the Congressman’s personal conduct toward gay, lesbian, and transgender Hoosiers and his votes and public statements on their issues. Specifically, Congressman Ellsworth voted against the Hates Crimes bill and the version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that provides protection to transgender Hoosiers, and he has not expressed publicly his willingness to vote for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Moreover, and perhaps most tellingly, when asked during our meeting whether he supports adoption by gay couples, Congressman Ellsworth stated he “needs more information.”

Given the number of children suffering in the foster care system, the Congressman’s reservations about gay adoption are deeply troubling.

But, in fairness, we must say that our meeting with Congressman Ellsworth was constructive overall. Our hope is that he will continue to learn about our issues, moderate his positions on areas of disagreement, and follow through on our many areas of agreement.

Had the Congressman spoken publicly for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, voted for the Hate Crimes bill, or supported a transgender inclusive version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or had the Indiana Democratic Party shown interest in facilitating the growth of our caucus, perhaps our path today would have been different.

But we see a clear distinction between an elected official with a record forged under the crucible of political pressure like Senator Evan Bayh’s and a candidate who claims to be supportive but whose voting history and public rhetoric show an effort to too frequently side with those who demonize gay, lesbian, and transgender Hoosiers, and a political party that does the same.

In sum, we will no longer go along for the sake of “party unity” with a party that too frequently fails to unify with us under its own guiding principles.

We want to state emphatically on behalf of our members and our fellow progressives in the Democratic family that our support must be earned by living up to the Democratic Party’s principles through action. When that is done, we will respond accordingly. Approximately two weeks ago, we hosted a fundraising event for several Indiana House of Representatives candidates. We did so to support our friends who have lived up to our platform and to help preserve the Democratic House leadership that has done the same.

It is our hope that we will soon be able to likewise embrace Congressman Ellsworth without reservation and usher in a more fruitful relationship with the Indiana Democratic Party.

Carson Turns Out JJ; Indiana Stonewall Democrats Abstain on Ellsworth