Lugar Shows Richard Mourdock and Mike Delph the Uphill Climb

According to the blog of Wish-TV political guru, Jim Shella, Indiana's senior senator, Richard Lugar, has a poll that shows he has the highest favorable rating (66%) among Hoosier Republican politicians, including Governor Mitch Daniels (59%).

Shella writes, "Curiously, Lugar included potential primary challengers Richard Mourdock and Mike Delph in the poll. Mourdock is at 14% and Delph is at 7%."

There's nothing curious about including Mourdock and Delph. It's ingenious politics. You know who responds to polls? The "smart money crowd" (a/k/a lobbyists, interest groups, and party officials who don't want to get frozen out if they support a Lugar opponent and lose).

A well-known political maxim is that if you shoot at the king, you better kill him. Lugar is trying to show he's bullet-proof. And given that Lugar has an underwhelming $2.3 million in the bank with only two years to go, scaring the smart money into his column before one of his prospective opponents can get traction is critical.

I'm probably in the minority on this, but I think Lugar could be in jeopardy unless the GOP plays nice in 2012. In a general election? Without question, Lugar could still dominate.

But what if we see a GOP primary fight between Congressman Mike Pence and Lieutenant Governor Becky Skillman? Pence would fuel a high-octane cultural conservative/Tea Party turnout, and Lugar's statesmanship, outspoken role in nuclear anti-proliferation (and castigation of his own party for not getting on board), and occasional kind word toward the President make him too internationalist and soft for the Pence constituency.

If such a showdown in the Guv's race were to materialize, and Lugar were to square off with only one primary opponent, he could be doomed. The "only one opponent" piece is crucial though. The Indiana GOP has already showed it was in the market for something new when it only gave Dan "Sugar" Coats thirty-nine percent of the vote. Had Marlin Stutzman not been in a four-way field, he'd be a senator, not a representative. Any more than one opponent, and Lugar is a shoe-in.

The key to Lugar's survivability will be his next two years of voting. If he doesn't placate the neocons and deficit hawks in his own party, they'll be eager to trade in for a newer, more idealogically-pure model. Lugar would be eighty in 2012.

Lugar Shows Richard Mourdock and Mike Delph the Uphill Climb

Part II: "Name Combat" Leads to Embarrassing Result: iPOPA's Apology to Nasser Hanna

Last Tuesday, Tim Crawford won the right to challenge Dan Burton in November for Indiana’s Sixth Congressional District seat by defeating Nasser Hanna in the Democratic primary. Crawford got 9,934 votes (61%) to Hanna’s 6,381 (39%).

I've met Hanna twice and was very impressed, but I hadn’t met or heard about Crawford. To win so handily, though, Crawford must have been formidable, right? I decided to investigate to see if I could pinpoint Crawford’s campaign strength.

1. Policy Positions. Perhaps, I thought, Crawford’s policy positions were more in line with the district, and he did a better job laying them out. I went to his website and clicked on the heading “issues” and got boxes reading, “Pro-Life,” “Pro-2nd Amendment,” “Pro-Free Trade,” “Pro-Right to Work,” “Pro-States Rights,” and “Anti-Cap and Trade,” and “Anti-Mandatory Health Insurance.”

That didn’t sound too Democratic to me, so I clicked on each box seeking his explanations. (Double Click). (Double Click). Nothing. You see, those headings weren’t hotlinks. Those headings were the policy statements in total.

2. PR Campaign. Was Crawford’s media operation better? When I clicked on his website for “news,” it read, “Coming soon.” I’m sorry, but he just won a primary, but he didn’t even have a victory statement?

3. Dollars. Hanna raised $111,000 in the cycle, which is not bad in a strong Republican district. In contrast, Crawford’s website says he won’t take money from donors but would self-finance his entire campaign. If he wants to Perot it, alrighty then. Under federal law, however, any candidate who spends more than $1,000 must register as a “campaign committee.” Crawford hasn’t registered. This means that, as of today, it is almost certain that Crawford has spent less on becoming a congressman this year than I've spent on Redbox.

4. Resume. Tim Crawford went to Vincennes and Ball State but didn’t graduate from either. Crawford wants you know that between 2002-2004, he worked as a server at Longhorn Steakhouse. Between 2005 and now, he’s worked with three different construction companies as an “estimator.” Crawford’s community service experience consists of “playing rugby with the Carmel Dad’s Club between 1996-1999.” Did I mention that, according to Jim Shella, Crawford’s business address is a P.O. Box at a Fishers UPS store?

However could Hanna compete with that?

How about a Bachelor’s in Biology from St. Louis University, an M.D. from the University of Missouri, a residency in internal medicine at the University of Iowa, and an oncology fellowship at IU? Or how about the fact Dr. Hanna is considered a world leader in the treatment and research of lung cancer, is the Chairman of the Hoosier Oncology Group, or runs a non-profit with his wife called “Cancer-Free Lungs” that aims to reduce teen smoking? Did I tell you that the Indianapolis Business Journal dubbed Nasser one of their 40 Under 40, or that he has a picturesque family (Crawford makes no reference to anybody but himself).

5. Party Service. Every once in a while, you get a guy who isn’t about high fallutin’ credentials, deep pockets, or media savvy. He’s just the guy everybody knows because he's laboring in the trenches for the party. Maybe that’s how Crawford won. Oh, wait. Crawford admitted to Shella that he has worked during past elections as a Republican party judge and just voted Democrat in 2008 as a ballot tactic.

Folks, what’s left except for the obvious and ugly truth? An awful lot of Democrats in the 6th District of Indiana are too xenophobic to vote for a guy named Nasser, even though he was born and raised in a small town in Missouri. I can envision some of their Ritz voices now. “Nasser? Rhymes with Yasir! Guy might be a terrorist!”

Understand that this is not a blanket indictment of the Democratic Party. In fact, the leadership of the party – the county chairs, ward chairs, and the precinct committeepersons of the 6th District – overwhelmingly supported Dr. Hanna. Hamilton County Democratic Party Chair Keith Clock said of Crawford, “He’ll find no support from our party at all.”

But the party can’t absolve itself completely either. Nearly 10,000 people who self-identify enough with the Democratic Party to ask for a D ballot in an R-dominated district and, in so doing, forfeit their chance to vote in a Republican Congressional primary where their vote might matter, passed on a guy for no other reason than his name. (In the future, if you don't know the candidates, don't vote).

What I find most tragic about last Tuesday is that in 1998, Bobby Hidalgo Kern, a man who was convicted of forgery and who would periodically impersonate a female judge he admired, won the Democratic Party primary for what was then Indiana’s 6th Congressional District.

How?

Kern’s opponent was R. “Nag” Nagarajan. Need I say more? Why do that when I can just quote the 6th District Chair at the time, Allan Raches:

Nag is a fine candidate, but his name conjures up some Middle East monster for voters, I guess.”

The then-6th, now 5th District of Indiana hasn’t progressed in the past decade, and it’s a shame that should hang over the entire party until we address it.

Lest Republicans take delight in this post, know that you’d do worse. You just haven’t found out because you can’t even recruit someone with a name like Nasser Hanna to run on your ticket.

But Democrats have to take the log out of their own eyes.

To Dr. Hanna, I want to apologize twice. First, I apologize for some in my party who haven't embraced inclusion. While I would certainly feel demoralized were I you, I hope you will realize that this result is precisely why you are so desperately needed as a Democrat – so that you can continue to do great things, stay active in the party, and root out some ingrained prejudices. But, second, I want to apologize for not telling you when I met you to spend your money now and not take somebody with better ballot placement for granted.

As I wrote yesterday, having a strange sounding name might not get you beat if you’re known, but it sure will if you aren’t.

Part II: "Name Combat" Leads to Embarrassing Result: iPOPA's Apology to Nasser Hanna

Zoeller in RNCC Cellar as GOP Vows to Continue "Dissing" Hoosiers During Dinner

Even though he's one of their own, the Republican National Campaign Committee (RNCC) doesn't care what Indiana's top law enforcement officer, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller, thinks.

Jim Shella blogs that when the RNCC made robocalls into three congressional district in a manner that is legal but in violation of an agreement made by all three state party chairman in an effort to give Hoosiers some peace, Zoeller asked the RNCC to stop. The RNCC's reply?

"Sorry, dude. We've got way too much anti-Democrat, misleading healthcare-related fear mongering to do to get this done with live humans." (Okay, I made that last part up, but you know that's what they were thinking).

Zoeller told Shella the tactic was "disrespectful."

I'm painfully objective and when praise is due, I give it. Kudos to Republican Greg Zoeller for taking on his own party. Too bad their ends justify even "disrespectful" means.

Zoeller in RNCC Cellar as GOP Vows to Continue "Dissing" Hoosiers During Dinner

Under the Things We Already Knew...Daniels Interested in Presidency!

Jim Shella reports today that Governor Mitch Daniels is "keeping the door open" with respect to a 2012 presidential bid.

The Shella headline reads, "Daniels Changes Position on 2012." As much as I'd like to criticize the Governor for flip-flopping, I really can't. It would be too disingenuous because nobody believed him when he said he wasn't running.

Under the Things We Already Knew...Daniels Interested in Presidency!

Ron Gibson & A Thing I Hate About Political Parties

Earlier in the week, I noted that former City-County Councillor Ron Gibson (D-At Large, 1999-2007) had more cash-on-hand in his campaign account (a bit over $11,000) than any sitting or any trying-to-be city-county councillor, except Toby McClamroch, Joanne Sanders, and Ike Randolph. In short, I hypothesized that Gibson was in decent shape to try to reclaim his seat.

But the day before yesterday, my man Jim Shella at WISH-TV reported that Gibson will announce on Friday that he is running for Mayor.

My colleague Jon Easter at IndyDemocrat gave a solid overview of Gibson's dreamquest, but I want to amplify it a bit.

Gibson's announced opponents in the Democratic field are Melina Kennedy and Brian Williams. Kennedy had $220,485 cash-on-hand at the end of 2009. Williams had $101,000. They both have been campaigning for a long time now, and they both have campaign apparatuses up and running. Gibson wants some of that?!? (I've e-mailed Ron on Facebook to get his motivation, but I haven't heard back yet).

I doubt any political observers will think he legitimately believes he can win the Democratic nomination. So what is his endgame?

I submit that this is a simple Braveheart maneuver. In that movie, the king's commmanders always offered land to the opposing force before waging battle, even when the odds overwhelmingly favored the king's army. This approach helped the king avoid looking like his kingdom was divided and losing resources he'd need for a bigger battle.

If Gibson runs, he'll elevate his county-wide name ID just by being consistently referred to as a mayoral candidate. City-County Councillor Jose Evans hasn't even announced for mayor, but in most stories about the race or about his activities, he's referenced in that fashion. Assuming no adverse political effects, Gibson's play is smart.

By getting in, Gibson recognizes the possibility that either county party or one of the mayoral candidates will pledge support for him in 2011 in exchange for him stepping aside and delivering the support of whoever he musters to his cause. At least six names are currently floating for at-large on the D side; I anticipate that number will grow. Locking up some slating support certainly wouldn't hurt Gibson's chances.

Now, maybe this is "just politics," but political parties (mostly mine) buy off people too often who try to dance on our stage with promises of future support, jobs, or who knows what else. I hate this because it encourages everybody else to play it the same way. If you have even a handful of influential fans or the ability to scorch some earth, by all means, jump into the field and create distraction! Even if you have no chance at winning, we'll cash in your bargaining chip.

I have no problem with candidates competing for an office at the onset when it's not clear who is going to prevail. What bothers me is when a candidate comes in late in the game who must know he can't win. (Of course, there are people on American Idol who you would assume know they can't sing, but they'll still jump on stage, either because they're delusional or they want some fame, so who knows). In short, at this juncture, Gibson's candidacy feels like prelude to a bartering session.

My advice on this to the party and the other mayoral candidates is this: don't give in. As a guide post, look at how the party has handled Greg Bowes, the Democrat opponent to party favorite for prosecutor, Terry Curry. As of this posting, I can say with almost certainty that Bowes has been offered nothing but the political equivalent of a horse's head in the bed (though I'm not sure what anybody could offer that he would find satisfactory).

My point is that my party and its front-runner candidates need to send a message by not only refusing to barter with the other long-shot, johnny-come-latelies, they need to demolish them politically for diverting party resources when we'll need every dollar to defeat Greg Ballard.

My first thought was that Gibson realized the value of beating City-County Councillor Jose Evans to the punch with his announcement. I confess to being uncertain on this fact, but I believe when Gibson announces on Friday, he'll become the first African-American male to run for Mayor of Indianapolis (African-American woman Z. Mae Jimison - God rest her soul - ran against, and lost to, Steve Goldsmith in 1995). Having an African-American man running would be an event long-delayed for Indiana's most populated city (thank you Unigov!).

Unfortunately, even with racial history up for the making, I doubt this gambit will pay dividends for Gibson. But I'll know more with a level of confidence when I see who is standing with him at his announcement. I'll know for sure if I hear political chatter about a deal that made Gibson go home. Then I'll know another player cashed in on nuisance value.

If that happens, we'll have only one question to ask:

Who's next in line?

Ron Gibson & A Thing I Hate About Political Parties

Shella Shoots...AND SCORES on Governor Daniels' Taj Mahalian-Sized Hypocrisy

When WISH-TV's political reporter Jim Shella gets sarcastic on you, it can be lethal. These are the two best "zinger questions" I've seen on the Capital Improvement Board mess:

In all the public negotiating over the Capital Improvement Board bailout there are a couple of things worth pointing out.

Thing 1: When Jim Irsay, Bill Polian, and the Colts say that a deal is a deal and they won’t renegotiate, how does that apply to Reggie Wayne’s contract? That’s the one they renegotiated last week when the outcome benefited them.

Thing 2: When the governor criticized school districts for building Taj Mahal athletic facilities, was he employing a different philosophy than the one used for Lucas Oil Stadium?

Ohhhhhhh! Takedown.

I'm with Shella. The Governor's Taj Mahal comment made me immediately think about my favorite scene in Remember the Titans, when the white and black co-captains are arguing:

Julius: You been doing you're job?

Bertier: I been doing my job.

Julius: Then why don't you tell your white buddies to block for Rev better because they have not blocked for him worth a plugged nickel, and you know it! Nobody plays. Yourself included. I'm supposed to wear myself out for the team? What team? Nah, nah...what I'm gonna do is look out for myself, and I'ma get mine.

Bertier: See man, that's the worst attitude I ever heard.

Julius: Attitude reflect leadership....captain.

Captain Daniels, how can you criticize? When it came time to say, "No, it's just a game. The state isn't putting money into a new stadium," you didn't. You said, "We can make money by using this dome as an attraction."

Why would you expect a school board to think differently after you set the example? I can see school board members actually thinking, "With a big stadium/natatorium/soccer field, we can draw big fans and facility users, sell big advertising and big concessions, collect user fees for soccer league or swimming lessons, and pay for the cost in no time."

Isn't that close to the same thing we said about the dome?

Shella Shoots...AND SCORES on Governor Daniels' Taj Mahalian-Sized Hypocrisy

Is IPOPA Hypocritical? A Response to Advance Indiana

One of many problems with politics these days is group-based generalizations. Everybody gets grouped into one thing, and all views, actions, and inactions are then attributed to a group regardless of the connection. This crystallized for me when Advance Indiana referred to the hypocrisy of Democrats over non-profit entities. Here’s the deal.

Sharon Pierce, the CEO of the Villages, Inc., and its auxiliary organization, Prevent Child Abuse Indiana (both of which go some good work), appeared last night during 60 Minutes in a campaign ad that speaks glowingly of Governor Daniels. The problem is that both of these organizations are 501(c)(3) non-profits, which means that they enjoy tax exempt status, but they must refrain from engaging in political advocacy.

At the outset, let me say that I am not a tax lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But I’ve read the IRS provision restricting 501(c)(3)'s from engaging in politics, and I do not see how having the CEO of two specifically identified organizations gush about a candidate complies with the law.

So I wrote Ms. Pierce a letter today encouraging her to have Daniels pull the ad and to establish a policy to prohibit any officer or board member of either The Villages, Inc. or Prevent Child Abuse Indiana from appearing in future political ads with organizational attribution. Not only does such activity risk tax-exempt status, it risks ill-will among celebrity endorsers and politically active potential donors. In my letter, I noted that Colts coach, Tony Dungee, had been in a public service announcement for Prevent Child Abuse Indiana. I do not personally know Dungee’s politics, but I offered that he might be put in the awkward position of having to explain why he just did an ad for an organization that endorsed a campaign he might oppose. Moreover, any 501(c)(3) that plays politics risks alienating donors who might otherwise agree with the agency's mission but not its politics.

Anyway, within minutes of my letter being sent, Jim Shella blogged on it, which prompted Advance Indiana to note:

It’s funny that Marion County Democrats didn’t see anything wrong with Andre Carson’s campaign using Forest Manor Multi-Service Center to stage press conferences to promote his campaign at the center. And didn’t one or more not-for-profit employees appear in ads for Carson’s campaign?

First, notice how Advance Indiana says that “Marion County Democrats” didn’t see anything wrong. To have hypocrisy, you need person A (Chris Worden) calling into question a practice that person A (again, Chris Worden) has sanctioned in the past.

Respectfully, we cannot say what “Marion County Democrats” thought about the “Forest Manor situation” because we haven’t polled them to see if they even knew about it. But we can say what Chris Worden thought about it. He didn’t know about it at the time and still is not sure of the specifics.

If any individual, organization, or candidate can use the facility without cost, I’m not sure letting Carson do so constitutes advocacy. It seems more akin to an “open door” policy. If, however, there is normally a cost to use the center for a brief period, and the Congressman didn’t pay it, he should do so immediately. No 501(c)(3) organization should provide any service to a political campaign without charging the “market rate.” If I learn of a facility that does this, I’ll call them out on it as well as the candidate, be they Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian.

With respect to employees of Forest Manor appearing in a Carson ad, though, this is a trickier issue. I’m a firm proponent of individuals being able to support a candidate as individuals. If Ms. Pierce and her boards want to write checks to Governor Daniels, they can (and many have). But when it comes to political ads, the only way employees should appear is without organizational identification.

Accordingly, Forest Manor would have only acted improperly had it given its employees permission to appear in an Andre Carson ad specifically either with identification as Forest Manor employees or on regular work time. Absent that imprimatur, the employees appear only as individuals.

Admittedly, some leaders of organizations are so recognizable that even appearing without attribution will have the feel of an organizational endorsement. Quite frankly, this is something with which we’ll have to live because we honor the 1st Amendment. But the Daniels ad isn’t one of those situations.

To do right in this situation, all the Boards for The Villages and Prevent Child Abuse had to ask was this question:

“Is Ms. Pierce’s individual presence in the TV commercial made even remotely more advantageous for Governor Daniels by virtue of her identification as CEO of The Villages and Prevent Child Abuse Indiana?”

The answer is, “Of course, it was!” In fact, precisely what makes the ad powerful is that Ms. Pierce is speaking from organizational knowledge that she would not have but for her role as head of these not-for-profits. It seems impossible to assert that these organizations have not handed their PR heft, public good will, and organizational knowledge to Governor Daniels for his political benefit.

I am not interested in revoking the 501(c)(3) tax status of The Villages, Prevent Child Abuse Indiana, or any similar organization. I just want them to stop playing politics. When these organizations receive dollars, be they from grants, donors, or fees for services, they grow in the public’s esteem by virtue of not paying taxes. The tax exemption frees dollars that are used to spread the organization’s mission and good name in the community. To then turn that name over for the benefit of a particular party or individual candidate is just inappropriate, in my opinion.

So now everybody is on notice. Play politics as a 501(c)(3) entity, get chastised by Chris Worden. (I'm sure you're all terrified). Now, where is the hypocrisy again?!?

As a final note, Jim Shella’s blog identified me as a “public defender.” That is not an adequate description, as it (ironically) might convey that I am speaking for an agency. It is correct that I am currently a contract public defender, but my words were not written as a full-time employee for the Marion County Public Defender Agency. I would never want anyone to think I’m speaking for that agency when I’m not. This was simply me, as an individual, exercising my 1st Amendment rights by writing a letter on an individual lawyer’s private stationery.

Is IPOPA Hypocritical? A Response to Advance Indiana