Political Deaths Come in Threes?

There is a superstition that celebrity deaths come in threes, a notion supported this week when Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, and Michael Jackson passed away.

Maybe political deaths comes in threes as well because Governor Sanford's political career ended in a bizarre Argentina escapade. Then former State Representative and Democratic Lieutenant Governor candidate, Dennie Oxley, was found again in a state of intoxication. (And here I thought I was the only one driven to drink by the lackluster JLT campaign!).

Unfortunately, this time Oxley was caught on tape in the company of a hammered and unconscious 21-year-old intern (the niece of state representative David Niezgodski, D-South Bend). Can anybody smell toast burning?

Now comes Republican Superior Court Judge William Nelson's story which is almost as bizarre as Sanford's. The Star offers a vanilla headline:

"Woman charged with forging Marion Co. judge's name"

What you don't get from that headline is that the "woman" is Judge Nelson's wife, Kristina, that the forged name was that of Judge Sheila Carlise (with whom Nelson's wife is related by marriage), and that the forged letter, which was intended to prevent a foreclosure, stated that Mr. Nelson had been shot, which never happened. Tell me this isn't a Maury Povich episode.

Mrs. Nelson fell on the sword and stated that her husband had no idea of her actions, and given how bizarre her course of action, how could we doubt her? Even so, this story is riddled with unanswered questions. Did Judge Nelson know his home was in foreclosure? If so, how is this possible? While Judges don't make as much as law firm partners, they aren't exactly starving at $120,000 annually. So, what is going on? Is the Judge one of those "irresponsible" types the Republicans rail against for buying more house than he could afford? Or is he simply that clueless about his own affairs? Or is the Judge simply married to somebody who needs major counseling who has been siphoning off his money somehow? Expect a bizarre explanation before this is over.

Political Deaths Come in Threes?

JLT is Doomed!

I call myself "painfully objective," and if I can't say this now, I should forfeit the title:

Jill Long-Thompson will lose her bid to become our Governor, and she should.

Her campaign is the worst-run statewide race I've seen since Linley Pearson lost his bid to unseat then-Governor Evan Bayh in 1992. Only an Obama Indiana tsunami will keep JLT from losing by Pearson-type numbers (Pearson got 37%). In fact, she might actually poll as high as 46%, but it will be in spite of her campaign, not because of it.

I've known she was in trouble for a long time, but how deep the hole was only became clear when an acquaintance came into my office the other day and said the following: "I've voted Democrat my entire life, but I don't know a single reason why I should vote for Jill Long-Thompson. Can you tell me something?" Of course, took her out of the Daniels' column. But then this morning, a Democrat lawyer I know said, "I'm so angry. Where is Jill Long-Thompson?!? I'm going to vote for Daniels because she's been nowhere." This is a conversation I've now had with friends all over the state.

Mmm mm mmmmh. Unless there are a hundred thousand people doing one-on-one conversions every day, JLT is toast.

Lest you think I'm one a disgruntled Schellinger Dems, you should know that while I did support him during the primary and donated to him, since then, I have:

(1) co-hosted an event for JLT;

(2) gave JLT 3 times what I gave Schellinger;

(3) tried to assist JLT's campaign strategically by repeatedly sending e-mail suggestions (more on that later);

(4) helped on policy as best I could; and

(5) generated adverse press for Governor Daniels as a byproduct of writing a letter criticizing one of the Governor's ads that featured an endorsement from the director of a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entity. The resulting story ran on the radio and in 14 different major dailies in Indiana plus the Chicago Tribune.

In other words, you can't say I'm not "invested" in JLT's effort. I want her to succeed, and I'll keep telling people until the polls close to focus on policy, not public relations.

But I can't deny her campaign has failed catastrophically, which is hard to say because I have some friends there. But I know a rudderless ship, and it's been that way from day one.

Where to start? How about running for office without knowing what you're going to do?

Week after week after week, the media was begging JLT to talk about what she would do, and she waiting way too long to show up. The JLT campaign never grasped that the media only covers you when you're saying something new, and media coverage drives a challenger's fundraising as much as posting a good campaign finance report. Nobody gives to a candidate they don't see "out working," and if it's not in the paper, it might as well have not happened.

When Bart Peterson ran for Mayor the first time, he had issues committees, some of which had up to 20 members each that broke up into sub-committees. We all researched, wrote, discussed, and revised. The Peterson Plan was a top-to-bottom concrete blueprint for governing by a lot of knowledgeable people. In contrast, for the JLT campaign for the ENTIRE state, I never met with anyone but the policy director. There may have been hundreds working behind the scenes, but they weren't working in concert like the Bayh, O'Bannon, Kernan, and Obama.

Some colleagues have suggested that JLT was not accustomed to having to have proposals to govern, since her background is mostly legislative, where apparently you can sit back and give up and downs on other people's ideas. There may be legitimacy to this theory because JLT has not said much substantively.

Because JLT had no real message, her campaign was forced to "repackage" old news. I remember attending what must have been JLT's third HQ opening. It was billed as a big deal, but I remember seeing no more than 15 people who were not on staff. One attendee remarked that if this was a legitimate event, either JLT or Dennie Oxley would have appeared, at least telephonically. They didn't. Even they knew it was a non-event.

Because JLT had nothing substantive to say, her campaign wasted weeks on non-issues, such as the Governor's plane travel. Yes, it engaged the media (which loves a good scrape), but I assure you, it didn't move a SINGLE vote into JLT's column. The same thing could be said of the story surrounding my letter. Yes, it got major play, but it didn't move a single vote. What was distressing was that during the week of "the letter story," there was no JLT news coverage. A "process" story had taken precedence.

When JLT finally came out with her full-blown plan, which was ineffective repackaging itself, she had a disastrous press conference during which it became clear that JLT did not know her own plan.

What is maddening for me, though, is that about four months ago, I sent an e-mail to the campaign stating that JLT would get easy and widespread media coverage by doing something that was easy to understand and of limited risk: she should publicly call for an ombudsman in the Indiana Department of Child Services. This was a bill proposed by State Representative Charlie Brown in the previous session of the Indiana General Assembly.

The Indianapolis Star had chronicled the months-apart deaths of two children in the child welfare system extensively, and the comments from almost all Star readers were visceral and hostile. Some suggested that DCS director James Payne should be jailed! Whether fairly or not, everybody believed DCS was to blame, and nobody believed DCS could police itself.

Any political tactician knows that the best campaign issue is one where the "independent media" coverage provides a context or "story flow" which you can just jump into and ride. Think of the insane amount of coverage the immigration reform proposals received on CNN after Lou Dobbs made illegal immigration his baby, or how well covered the Daniels property tax plan was covered after the Ballard election.

Newspaper editors have policy ideas, and it was clear the Star felt the system was broken. And because newspapers would rather cover a policymaker proposing the solution than actually putting out its own suggestions, all JLT had to do was say ANYTHING.

But she didn't. A month passed and three more stories followed. Another month passed, and Judge Marilyn Moores was proposed some changes, but not the ombudsman. Another month passed, and even the Star got tired of waiting. It was making making a non-specific call to action for reform on its editorial pages. Finally, it happened.

Linda Pence issued a press release saying she would investigate fatalities as AG. Yes, the gubernatorial candidate got scooped by her own AG candidate. What was the result? The story ran in the Star, of course, and also in seven other papers in the state. This story was a nice, simple, political slow pitch down the center of the plate, and I couldn't get JLT's camp to swing the bat. But Pence knocked it out of the park.

Then, quickly picking up on what JLT didn't, which was his potential vulnerability on this child welfare issue, Daniels went out with the aforementioned TV ad featuring institutional leaders in the child welfare system talking about how much safer children are now then they've ever been. Innoculation complete! Now, anything JLT would say would be competing against a cemented impression in the electorate.

Admittedly, one issue wouldn't have gotten this victory, so even if JLT had jumped on the idea, it wouldn't have mattered. Candidates need to be consistently newsworthy, and they have to effectively reinforce their earned media message through paid media. But all of JLTs ads have been unoriginal and terrible. JLT's latest ad, which says nothing specifically except Indiana = bad and high school drop-out rate = bad. She pledges to do better, but offers nothing about how. But the ad did manage to misspell JLT's treasurer's name, so there's that.

That type of error has become common in JLT communications. A few days after the new ad aired, I received an e-mail that I'm sure was sent to every donor, media outlet, and volunteer. It told me that JLT's "Road to Change to Change" tour was beginning.

And this is the tip of the iceberg. I'd keep going, but at some point, isn't it just piling on?

JLT is Doomed!

It Takes a Villages. . . CEO to Get a Lucrative State Contract?

The story about Mitch Daniels' TV ad featuring the head of a non-profit entity endorsing him in arguable violation of IRS regulations has run either on, or in, WIBC, WFYI, WTHR, WISH, WTHI (Terre Haute), the Muncie Star Press, the Elkhart Truth, the Northwest Times (Hammond), the Louisville Courier-Journal, the Indianapolis Business Journal, and the Chicago Tribune.

If you read this blog, you know that Sharon Pierce, the CEO of two non-profits, The Villages and Prevent Child Abuse Indiana, spoke of Governor Daniels in glowing terms in the Governor's current commercial. I contend that Pierce's actions are contrary to IRS regulations prohibiting non-profits from engaging in political activism. For most of you, that's serious yawnsville, so you may be wondering, "How did a technical legal argument grow media legs?"

There is a new element to the story of which I was not aware: the Villages recently received a contract from the state for $12 million that covers the next two years. This is not an insubstantial amount, as The Villages' website states that its annual budget in 2007 was $25 million (a good portion of which was from existing state contracts).

For those who don't know state procurement (a/k/a "those who have a life"), Indiana law only requires the lowest competitive bidder on supplies and equipment. When the state seeks professional services, no bid is necessary. There is a middle option, however, called requests for proposal ("RFPs"). This method offers the semblance of competition by requiring each submitting entity to at least ostensibly "meet specifications" while outlining why they're good. However, the method of awarding RFP contracts is almost as subjective as no-bid professional service contracts. The only difference is that the state must give the reason a particular vendor was selected. This is limited only by the state’s creativity of phraseology, which gives it essentially unfettered discretion, even when it uses RFPs.

As a result, there is an air of quid pro quo on this commercial, which could be deflating or inflated depending on the answer to a series of questions:

(1) When did Ms. Pierce ultimately agree to appear in the ad? Was it before or after the contract was awarded to The Villages?

(2) Whose idea was the ad and when was it first broached between the parties? Was it before or after the RFP process began several months ago?

(3) Did Daniels (and his agents) know that The Villages was vying for a state contract (this is more of a rhetorical question really. The answer is yes, given that ALL social services in the child welfare system were out for bid).

(4) Were leaders of any other non-profit organizations approached by the Daniels campaign, and if so, what was their response? Were they bidding on state services as well at the time?

(5) Was The Villages the lowest bidder for the service it sought to provide? Or was there subjectivity in the state's award to The Villages?

When I wrote my letter to Ms. Pierce, I had two points: (1) I believed the ad should be withdrawn because it violated IRS regulations by giving the impression she was speaking for her agency, and (2) The Villages board was foolish for signing off on the ad because current and prospective donors might not want to support an organization that lets its CEO wade into electoral politics.

The first idea got some support yesterday from Julia Vaughn. From the Chicago Tribune:

Julia Vaughn, policy director of the citizens' watchdog group Common Cause Indiana, which lobbies for open and accountable government, said she has worked for nonprofits for 20 years and "you're not allowed to take sides."

"If they're not crossing the line, they've stepped right up to it with their toes squarely on it," Vaughn said.

But the contract sapped the vitality of my second argument. If you ran a company you expected to receive a quarter of its annual budget over the next four years from the Governor, why would you care about losing smaller private donations? DOING the ad might be the savviest play after weighing the pros (a lucrative contract plus the glowing admiration of a Governor who will be issuing new contracts in two years) against the cons (an almost non-existent likelihood of losing 501(c)(3) status even if the IRS determined there was a violation). One could say that The Villages just put its mouth where its money is.

But that would seem a cynical oversimplification. First, Ms. Pierce is no partisan hack. She's nationally known and highly-regarded in her field, and she has served both Republican AND Democrat administrations. Ms. Pierce was the then-Governor Evan Bayh's Deputy Director for the Department of Child Services between 1991 and 1993.

Also, The Villages is a multi-state organization that serves over 1200 kids annually. One could easily argue that The Villages didn't need to appear in any commercial to get business from the state, and that Ms. Pierce's motives were NOTHING about finances, but rather just about advancing the welfare of children with a Governor who has increased the number of case managers. (Of course, one wonders what contact Ms. Pierce had with Jill Long-Thompson to assess whether Ms. Thompson would hire even more case managers and also accept an independent investigator in child fatality cases, an idea not favored by Governor Daniels).

But there's a real easy way for non-profits across the state to avoid being subjected to this kind of "what's really going on under the surface" scrutiny. When in doubt, leave your non-profit’s name out.

I hope the boards are paying attention.

It Takes a Villages. . . CEO to Get a Lucrative State Contract?

The 2nd Gubernatorial Debate

I watched the second head-to-head-to-head last night, and, stealing from Sports Illustrated's Peter King, here are the "things I think I think":

1. If Jill Long-Thompson mentions her M.B.A. and PhD again, I'm going to scream. I don't know what poll she looked at that says saying this line gains her votes, but I don't buy it. In a vacuum, if I'm looking for someone who can solve an economic or business management problem, I'll take someone with an M.B.A. over a guy who has a GED. BUT nobody believes Daniels is an imbecile, so JLT needs to show me how the degrees translate in a better economic solution for this to make sense. She has yet to do this.

2. Mitch Daniels sure seems like a hothead. He was visibly irritated every time criticism was made about him. Also, I think Mitch Daniels can sometimes be cowardly. When he had the chance to say that he would do away with township government, he said, "These (the bi-partisan government reform commission's recommendations) are not my recommendations." He did say he would "look at" the recommendations and "take them seriously." Why the hedge?

3. In contrast to Daniels, Andy Horning told a guy who works as a logger that government has no business being in the natural resources/park management business, even though he personally cares greatly about the environment. Frankly, Andy Horning wins every debate he's in. He's the only one who articulates a clear philosophy, he's amazingly folksy while also being wonkish, which is an astonishing feat, and he is the only who will tell you bad news right to your face. I never hear Horning give an answer where I say, "That's a political answer." I can't say the same for either Daniels or JLT.

If the Libertarian Party ever finds a George Soros-type donor to give ten million dollars to Andy Horning, Indiana will have its first third-party Governor.

The 2nd Gubernatorial Debate

Jill Long-Thompson Campaign Saves Me a Post

On September 5, 2008, I did a post asking people to comment on Jill Long-Thompson's TV ads. I got eleven public comments and twenty-two private. They were ALL negative. I was going to go public and release the results, but on or about September 10, JLT changed its media consultant. (No word yet on who the new shop is or will be).

Different people have different philosophies about how many gross rating points (GRPs) you need to buy for an ad to "work," and most people say you need to see an ad seven times to have the message "sink in." I say "bovine feces."

If an ad is different enough...if it is creative enough...all it takes is one viewing. But when your political ad looks like every other political ad, it doesn't "break through the clutter." The reason Mitch Daniels' "Pirates of the Carribean" ad was so lauded was because of its difference. I've told anybody who would listen that there is enough "other side of the story" to that ad that it would be easy to demolish it with comparable one that shows Mitch's words dissolving with the negative statistics and results over the top. I even had a bunch of modified tag-lines that played on the movie theme, such as:

"Mitch Daniels - II - "Two Thumbs Down! A Sequel Hoosiers Can't Afford!"

Well, guess what? I wasn't alone in my thinking. Check out this ad, by a media-savvy labor union guy. I wouldn't have used all of the same talking points included is this ad, but had this been a JLT ad, it would have (a) been extremely memorable for JLT; and (b) would have actually drawn off of the popularity of Daniels' ad by drawing people to the TV who thought they were seeing HIS ad until it was too late.

Sigh. The sad part is that if anybody needs a huge bang for the buck, it's a candidate who trails in the money race. Each JLT ad needed to be three times as effective as each Daniels ad, but the consensus was that the ads run to date did not even keep pace. JLT has a LOT of ground to make up, but with strong performances at three upcoming debates, anything is possible. I learned that yesterday when the Colts trailed 15-0 in the late third quarter.

Jill Long-Thompson Campaign Saves Me a Post

Governor Danielsalaam Craps Out on Lottery Ad

Many politicians stretch the truth for maximum emotional effect. But it's ridiculous to pull a Governor Danielsalaam* and intentionally mislead in an ad when you have a sizeable alleged lead over your opponent. (I say "alleged" because Jill Long-Thompson's campaign claims internal polling showing them close. However, since they won't release the numbers, I wouldn't bet JLT's farm on them).

Lesley Stedman covers this issue well, so give her a read. But the short story is that Governor Danielsalaam* released an ad stating that he would devote lottery proceeds to improving education. The proposal part is fine. But the Governor also says, "THEY told us the money would be used for education." The implication clearly is that Hoosiers were hoodwinked by SOMEBODY into accepting the lottery in exchange for improved education, but THEY siphoned off the money for something else.

I was at the formation of Indiana's lottery, as its third employee, and I know its legislative history. At no point did ANY the lottery legislation direct funds for education, as even lottery supporters felt it was an uncertain revenue stream. In addition, since then, no bill has been passed to direct lottery money to education.

So the Governor "lies" about where the money was allegedly supposed to go. I say "lies" because this is what I call it when you know something is not true and you say it anyway. And Daniels' campaign knows this is not true, which is why the Governor's press man, Cam Savage, dodges Stedman (see below).

Why lie?

Think about this. If you're in a "change" referendum year, you have to show you are superior to the past, and this is particularly tricky when you've been running the government for the past four years. The Governor is using the vaunted Republican playbook of "us versus them." The reason Savage won't say who "THEY" are when asked is because the "THEY" is a phantom.

You want to hear a flimsy excuse for misleading Hoosiers? The Governor was speaking about his understanding of Hoosiers' misunderstanding about where the money would go. Got it?!? No?!? Well, it's not easy with distortions, so let me try again. The Governor wasn't saying that "they" actually said the money would go to education. He was saying that Hoosiers think that "they" said it.

What a great model for political discourse!

If I were JLT, I'd put out an ad saying "THEY" said they would cap your gas taxes when the price got high, but you still keep paying more! Don't let THEM get away with failing to honor THEIR promise. If I'm elected Governor, I'll suspend state taxes on your gas my first day in office."

Who is THEY? As long as you get maximum emotional impact in your ad, who cares? Right, Governor Danielsalaam?!?!

(*-I have stated repeatedly that I will continue to refer to Mitchell Elias Daniels, Jr. as "Governor Danielsalaam" until Greg Garrison stops calling Obama "Barack HUSSEIN Obama." Garrison and his ilk clearly find Senator Obama "un-American" and seek to make negative associations based on his heritage and name. Our Governor if first generation Syrian. Our Governor is also a supporter of the Arab-American Institute, which has honored the Governor for his work in the Arab community. What bothers me about this is NOT that Governor Daniels is an Arab. That's a great thing for diversity in Indiana.

What bothers me about it is that none of the positive associations that could be created in having an Arab-American Hoosier governor are made for voters because Daniels is probably the pastiest Arab in history. Daniels could talk about his Arabic ancestry, but he seldom does so outside his Arabic constituency. Also, there is a strong undercurrent of anti-Muslim sentiment in America, and it's often (though certainly not always) driven by Republicans.

Governor Daniels invited my dear friend, Shariq Siddiqui, the executive director of the Muslim Alliance of Indiana, to his State of the State address in 2007. How many of Daniels' Republican Christian supporters know he's Arabic and has courted Muslim support? I'd say almost none, because if they had known, he either wouldn't be our Governor, or they would have had to shelf their anti-Muslim, anti-Arabic paranoia. That's my goal. To get it shelved.

For further details on the Daniels/Arabic connection, see this and this).

Governor Danielsalaam Craps Out on Lottery Ad

Bayh Sizing Up JLT HQ for New Drapes?

If I were on Jill Long-Thompson’s campaign staff right now, I’d be getting accustomed to playing second-fiddle because every indication is that Senator Evan Bayh will be Barack Obama’s running mate if Bayh survives the intensive VP VP (vetting process).

You ask: “What does a Bayh vice-presidential campaign have to do with JLT?!?”

Just this. Indiana Code 3-13-3-1(b).

“The governor shall immediately fill a vacancy in the United States Senate by appointing a person possessing the qualifications required under Article 1, Section 3, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States. The person appointed holds office until the next general election, when the vacancy shall be filled by the election of a Senator in a special election to hold office for the unexpired term.”

In politics, assuming an office, no matter how long you hold it before an election, gives a leg up on retaining it, which is why Andre Carson’s supporters quietly orchestrated his succession before anybody else had a chance to mobilize. See how well it worked?

So, in addition to Hoosier Democrats, who might be interested in having a Democrat get the senate appointment, even if it’s only for three to five months? The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee (DSCC), which doesn’t want to see a D seat turn R, even for a minute. If Mitch Daniels is re-elected, it’s his appointment. If JLT gets elected, the right is hers.

In addition to DSCC interest, Bayh will make sure every political action in Indiana works for Obama. The very second the Bayh announcement is made, the JLT headquarters will look like a scene from one of those hostage crises movies. You know the one where the feds come in and take over for the local sheriff. JLT’s entire campaign will be commandeered because, quite frankly, even though she’s “out talking” on a run-ragged schedule, nobody I’ve polled can tell you “her message.” This is why, if JLT wants to survive politically, she’ll turn over the megaphone when the DSCC (and Senator Bayh) says she will.

(The first order of business will be getting JLT to stop talking about her principle campaign idea to date – a gas tax suspension - which Obama called “a gimmick” when Hillary Clinton proposed it on the national level).

But this is actually good news for JLT. In exchange for putting her staff (and probably consultants) on a raft and sending them over the waterfall, metaphorically speaking, JLT will get a LOT of D.C. money from sources other than Emily’s List and the SEIU. You think JLT has labor problems? See how long those last once the DSCC’s top brass starts leaning on people.

In truth, Evan Bayh’s succession to VP candidate is a win-win for JLT and her staff. Sure, it will feel like a demotion for some staffers to be moved from “(current title)” to “deputy (current title).” But they shouldn’t be distressed. For playing along without ego, they may find JLT holding a gubernatorial victory and all the employment-related spoils of war at her disposal. How does “Special Assistant to the Governor” sound?

Bayh Sizing Up JLT HQ for New Drapes?

Crafty Indiana Chamber Begins Parallel Gubernatorial Campaign

Kudos to the Indiana Chamber of Commerce for being some devious weasels. The Chamber announced that it’s issuing a series of “Letters to Our Leaders,” with the first coming out next Tuesday.

According to Cam Carter, the chamber’s VP for small business and economic development, the eight letters are actually issue statements. The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, without having seen the format or content of the same, falls all over itself to say that the letters should “serve as a model for a variety of interest groups to encourage constructive discourse in the contest between Governor Mitch Daniels and Democratic challenger Jill Long-Thompson.”

Pay attention here, class. Ipopa is going to teach you about “controlling message.”

Suppose a candidate knows she can win an election talking about job loss, declining healthcare coverage, children dying in the public welfare system, and educational problems. Suppose further she can win by bashing the bejesus out of the current administration who has presided over this state of affairs.

That candidate will likely want to unveil her ideas one at a time and travel the state with each positive proposal while she (or a third-party) is clubbing the current administration as job closing after job closing is announced. This campaign is nice and orderly, and the media would likely receive each idea set forth as “fresh news” from the candidate.

But let’s say the Chamber of Commerce makes a huge push around the state to get newspapers aware that IT is going to issue its OWN policy statements over a period of weeks. When each of those statements come out, what will happen? The papers will want to know the candidates’ positions on each of issue. If JLT does not respond, it will look like she’s not ready or informed, or both. If she does respond fully with her own ideas, she cannibalizes her own future press coverage to be part of someone else’s story.

This is why the Chamber is ingenious. They have put themselves in a position to dictate the order in which events are rolled out, and they know it. If you do not believe this is a carefully orchestrated political strategy to assist Mitch Daniels (whose positions will essentially mirror those of the Chamber), ask yourself why all eight issues cannot come out at once, just like Richard Lugar's “Letters to the Next President.”

In addition, here's what gets Daniels defeated: bad news. How do you innoculate yourself from "bad news?" You make it somehow unseemly to even TALK about the bad news without a twenty-page policy proposal. Look at the last paragraph from the Journal-Gazette, a paper that is from JLT's home area:

The worst scenario for the campaign season would be one in which the rhetoric outweighs responsible discussion, in which sound bites and gratuitous attacks overwhelm the key issues affecting Hoosiers. The Indiana Chamber of Commerce has done voters a favor by setting the bar high – others should follow its lead.

I'd say, "Mission Accomplished" to the Chamber on setting the "tone" of the campaign, and they haven't even released their first letter.

Oh, I forgot to add that Cameron Carter, the apparent architect of the plan, gave Mitch Daniels $2,500 on October 10, 2007. That donation is probably .025% of what Daniels will receive from Chamber member corporations and their executives.

As an ancillary benefit, the Chamber also neatly puts other Democratic affinity groups, such as organized labor, on the defensive by forcing them “to answer” as well. Yes, I know. You’re saying that if other groups can’t defend their beliefs and positions in writing, shame on them. But remember that apparently until now, the Chamber hadn’t had anything in writing to offer to this robust civil discourse that are trying to create either.

Yeah, yeah, I know. The AFL-CIO, Hoosier Environmental Council, or other Democratic affinity groups could have thought of this strategy last year and put Daniels on the defensive.

Sigh.

Crafty Indiana Chamber Begins Parallel Gubernatorial Campaign

Jill Long-Thompson In Striking Distance

Pay attention, class! Here's a key political lesson from IPOPA.

How is it possible that a man can spend MILLIONS to own the airwaves unanswered for months, travel the state non-stop for a few weeks as "empathizer-in-chief," and still find himself only five points ahead in his gubernatorial election?

The answer is simple. Personal experience always trumps salesmanship, no matter how much Matt Tully raves about it.

If you have never been a victim of violent crime and your friends haven't either, I can sell you on the idea I reduced crime as your Governor, even if the truth is the exact opposite. But if you've been a crime victim, no amount of persuasion will make you believe things are better.

In the recent past, there are thousands of Hoosiers who have suffered economic violence in the form of layoffs, downsizing, rightsizing, and factory closings, which some (but not all) Republicans write off as "market corrections" while shortening the time during which you can receive unemployment benefits. You see, the free market hand has to put the hammer down on the unruly workforce inntent on preserving its standard of living. Oh, you silly blue collar types with your ridiculous "living wage" expectations!

So Governor Daniels caravans the state sounding like George Bush, Sr. in 1992, when he was telling everybody the economy was on the upswing. But the problem the Governor faces is that too many Hoosiers have lost their jobs, and those who weren't simply cut were "bought out." This means that even though these employees may not feel the immediate pain, they will next year when their retirement money is gone, and they can't find another job with a comparable salary. Apparently, the Governor doesn't think we can see what's coming.

And, respectfully, when you're unemployed and can't find a job, it's not all the comforting to hear the Governor tell you that "we're better than Ohio."

I predicted before (and I'll say again) that Jill Long-Thompson WILL be our next Governor if she can raise 1 dollar for every 2 dollars Governor Daniels raises.

Here's your homework, class.

Jill Long-Thompson In Striking Distance

Make Rush Limbaugh and Governor Mitch Daniels Eat It With "Mission Havoc!"

Rush Limbaugh orchestrated “Operation Chaos,” an effort to persuade Republicans to “cross over” and vote for Hillary Clinton in open primary states like Indiana, thereby prolonging the divisive and costly D primary fight.

While Democrats spun the high voter registration totals as “new” voters brought in by excitement about “the process” and Obama (absolutely true), they also claimed converts from legions of disgruntled Republicans. Sorry, but this can't be as true. There hasn't been that kind of mass defection from any organization since Dan Dakich took over as head coach at IU. In short, you HAVE to believe that Limbaugh’s tactic had at least some success, in particular in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana.

So how about a little payback? Let’s call it “Mission Havoc.”

The goal is to assist the gubernatorial campaign of Democrat Jill Long-Thompson by getting John Waterman, a rogue Republican state senator who is waging a third-party bid as leader of “the taxpayer party” on the ballot. He needs 33,000 signatures by June 30.

If Waterman becomes viable, I predict he will siphon both money and votes from Daniels. Sure, there is a chance he might take some protest votes from independents that JLT would have otherwise collected but for a “third protest option,” but I’m banking that, by virtue of the assistance from famed foe of Bob and Tom, Waterman will take even MORE votes from ultra conservatives who think an income tax is illegal and who think the right to have a tank in your garage is constitutionally protected. Those folks would NEVER vote for a Democrat. Ever.

People, including John Price himself, say the collection of 33,000 signatures might require a political miracle. I don’t agree. Look at the math. 33,000/12 days = 2,750 signatures per day. That’s 275 per day if you have 10 volunteers at Walmart. But WHAT IF, in addition to the Waterman campaign efforts, we could get, say, 1000 people to get 10 names each?

How about we find out, readers?

PLEASE go to http://www.taxpayersparty.net/, print out the form, and get 10 people in your circle of family and friends (or MORE if you’re Catholic) to sign. Then mail it to me at: Chris Worden, 225 N. Delaware Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204.

IF I receive it BEFORE June 30, I’ll take all of them to the Marion County Clerk’s Office. If you mail it, it MUST be received by the 29th, or I won’t have it in time to deliver by the deadline.

No, I’m serious. Really. I’m very serious. If you want to help JLT, and you’re thinking, “I can write a check for JLT, or I can spend my time getting signatures for John Waterman," get the signatures.” (And write the check as or donate on-line immediately. JLT needs a good campaign finance report).

As an incentive for your labor, I will give a $100 gift card to the restaurant of choice to the registered Democrat who delivers in a timely manner the most legitimate signatures (no "I.P. Freely" or "Seymour Butts").

LET MISSION HAVOC BEGIN! Bwaaahaha. Bwaahahaha! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Make Rush Limbaugh and Governor Mitch Daniels Eat It With "Mission Havoc!"

The Glass is (Van) Haaften Empty

State Representative Trent Van Haaften, who made a name for himself with some fine prosecutorial work in Posey County before turning his attention to the Indiana General Assembly, is not interested in serving as the Democrats' LG nominee.

(Van Haaften has had his name dropped by political pundits more times in the last three weeks than a houseful of washed up TV stars in a reality show drops the names of their more successful co-stars).


Limelight is nice, of course, but Van Haaften is content to continue his work for his constituents back in Indiana's 76th, where he works as an attorney with Bamberger, Foreman, Oswald, and Hahn.

Sources at the General Assembly say Van Haaften has built a reputation for seeking bi-partisan consensus. One wonders how comfortable Van Haaften would have been then with the slinging of rocks and arrows that will be necesssary to bring down the giant that is Governor Daniels' warchest.

This seems to have exhausted the public list of distinguished southern gentlemen from whom Jill Long can pick. Therefore, we know this is about to get REAL exciting, folks. It means either that JLT has other names in the hopper, and we're going to get a REAL surprise announcement, or she's seeking Northern exposure with Lake County Sherrif Roy Dominguez. If she does the latter, her campaign will need to camp South of U.S. 40 to make inroads in key battleground counties.

Stay tuned....

The Glass is (Van) Haaften Empty