Did Evan Bayh "Show Us the Money"?

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

Then I really thought about it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did Evan Bayh "Show Us the Money"?

Things You Might Not Know About Indiana's Social Service Privatization Scheme

By now, we all know that the privatization of Indiana's social services (a/k/a "the crown jewel" of government achievement according to Governor Mitch Daniels) has been a colossal failure.

According to Business Week, before the governor entered into a contract worth $1.1 billion with IBM and Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), food stamp errors occurred in 4.38 percent of cases. By January 2009, that number was 18.2!

What you might have also heard is that the governor was so upset, he called a senior IBM officer to demand improvement. (This is not surprising, of course, since nobody likes to look as clueless as to see the exact same boondoggle we are now facing unfold in Texas and then think it will be all smiles and lollipops here). Anyway, you are all thinking that we can rest easy now that the governor is putting the hammer down, right?

Oh, wait, didn't you hear? The governor's folks just added $180 million to the contract value. According to the guv's folks, these amendments reflect work not included in the original agreement, such as processing applications for the Healthy Indiana Plan, or HIP, the state-sponsored medical savings account for low-income adults, and emergency food stamps after floods last year in parts of the state. Yes, Indiana is privatizing more social services.

This makes sense because when a building is collapsing all around you, you have the same guys who built it do more construction on the roof. (Insert criticism of bank bailout here). Well, at least we won't have to pay for any of the screwups by IBM and ACS, you're all thinking. That would be stupi....

Oh, wait, didn't you hear? The new contract includes $35.14 million for "several items that addressed criticisms of the project," such as adding staff and a Web portal for nursing homes and group homes.

According to FSSA Secretary Murphy, IBM put together an improvement plan that "adds 350 people and new technology at no additional cost to the state. I'm sorry, but when did $35 million become "no cost?" Whatever happened to, "you broke it, you fix it? IBM/ACS said it could deliver something, and it didn't. Indiana should not have to spend a single extra dime to get its "bargain."

This is particularly true given that IBM is still heralding Indiana as a success story on its website. Were I the governor, I'd demand it come down because it's false advertising. (In fact, the only reason IBM can do this with a straight face is because corporations don't have faces).

My favorite quote is from Zach Main, director of Family Resources, Indiana Family and Social Services Administration:

“We’re very happy with how things have worked out,” says Main. “We’ve accomplished our basic mission, to open up new channels and increase our accuracy. Our variances are moving towards the target of 5 percent and we’re going to save a lot of money in the process. But at the end of the day, it’s really all about making the lives of our citizens better by delivering the services they need, when they need them. We’re doing that, better than ever.”

I have no idea who Zach Main is, but I do want to know if he is still working. If this is his view of success, he shouldn’t be. If this is the type of oversight the agency offers, he shouldn't be.

With such an inept effort by IBM/ACS, why didn't the guv just pull the plug now? Screw ACS, right! The Governor doesn't have any "connections" with these guys!

Oh, wait, didn't you hear? ACS was former FSSA Secretary Mitch Roob's former employer. Yeah, but how could pulling the plug on a guy who isn't even working there anymore hurt Roob? Wait...is that Mitch Roob who was the head of the Health and Hospital Corporation in 1994 during Steve Goldsmith's mayoral tenure in Indianapolis? Yes? You know who else ran in the inner circle with Mayor Goldsmith and who handled privatization for the city, no less? A guy named of "Skip" Stitt. I wonder what Skip is doing these days? Oh, you hadn't heard? An officer with ACS.

Well, that explains why ACS gave its maximum allowable corporate donation of $5,000 to Daniels in 2008, and why Stitt gave $2,500 out of his own pocket. Campaign finance records also show $2,000 from Maryland native and ACS' Chief Operating Officer Tom Burlin. Why would a guy from Maryland give to an Indiana Governor? Oh, you hadn't heard? The website says he had the responsibility "to develop and execute a strategy to reestablish IBM as a major player in the government market after the company had divested its position six years earlier." Good job, Tom! A billion and growing sure seems major!

Oh, you also might not have heard that Governor Daniels is apparently running for something. I say this because ACS wrote Governor Daniels a check for $5,000 in January of 2009. I'm sure this was just to make sure the Governor was well-funded for the election that was about to happen in....um....well, I'm sure the fact it was written right after Secretary Murphy got a whiff of the stench that was privatization was just a coincidence. It had nothing to do with the fact that the dookie was about to hit the oscillating unit.

As a final note, in 2008, ACS also gave $2,000 each to the Senate Majority Campaign Committee (R) and the House Republican campaign committee, as well as $1,000 to the Indiana House Democratic Caucus, too. Boy, ACS must just LOVE good government because it’s investing in it everywhere! What a civic-minded firm! I only wish I had time to look at IBM, too.

Things You Might Not Know About Indiana's Social Service Privatization Scheme

Who DOESN'T Think Mitch is Jockeying?

I know Mitch Daniels said he's not running for national office in 2012. Then why did the staff of My Man Mitch send out an e-mail a month or so ago touting all of his national press? The intro paragraph reads:

"Mitch has been grabbing all kinds of national attention lately for his focus on reform and results. While other states are cutting education and raising taxes, Mitch has proposed a budget that increases school funding and does not include a tax increase.

You've known how great Mitch is all along, but we couldn't pass up a chance to share some of the recent kudos for our favorite Gov!"

Was it a Freudian slip to say he has been "grabbing" all kinds of attention? I don't think so. A candidate who really doesn't want to run tells his people to shut down the campaign. He doesn't leave national bread crumbs everywhere so people can start following him. In the past six months, Daniels' stories have included:

"What Would Daniels Do?" - The National Review
"Mitch the Knife" - The National Review
"A Hobbled March Forward" - The Economist
"The Idealism of Mitch Daniels" - The Atlantic Monthly
"Can Mitch Daniels Save the GOP?" - The Washington Examiner
"Low-Key Governor Becomes Leading GOP Voice on Climate" - The New York Times
"Mitch Daniels: Republican Revolutionary" - The Washington Post
"Indiana Says 'No Thanks' to Cap and Trade - The New York Times
"A Hoosier in the White House?" - The Weekly Standard
"Daniels on Changing the 'Party of No' - National Journal

Somebody is churning Daniels' profile nationally, or these stories wouldn't have run, folks. And given that Daniel's campaign manager was sending out a story about his victory in December of 2008 to Michael Barone of U.S. News and World Report, you can draw your own conclusion on who that might be. (Can anybody explain why an Indiana governor would be sending information about his political strength to a national political writer, if not to raise his own profile?)

Call this "The Anatomy of a 'Draft Me' Campaign." You have your people raise your profile while you completely deny interest. Then you let the rest of the world take over. After all, one Republican nerd with the hots for a beauty queen transformed Sarah Palin into a household name.

Maybe that explains Americans for Mitch, the "Mitch Daniels for President" Facebook page, or the GOPTrunk and Republican Depot's mercs for Daniels (including some nicely-embroidered "Daniels for President" golf shirts. It also explains why Daniels is getting mad kudos in the conservatorati blog sites, like Red State. (The Daily Kos takes a preemptive swipe at Daniels, meaning (a) it's pretty clear that Democrats think Daniels is getting traction; and (b) nobody is buying his "I'm not selling in 2012" mantra.

My Little League baseball coach used to tell us to run as hard as we could can to first base even if we hit the ball right at someone because a defender can bobble the pick-up or make an errant throw, and the first baseman can muff the catch. If you slow down and then try to sprint again after you see the error, you're still going to get thrown out, but not if you run the whole time.

Daniels' people are sure running full speed, and he's sure not coaching them any differently. Maybe he's telling the truth, and he won't serve in another elected office. Can anybody say cabinet secretary Daniels?

Who DOESN'T Think Mitch is Jockeying?

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

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

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

Pawns Get Played

People warn that you never talk about the family of a friend. It's dangerous terrain.

Yeah, yeah. When have I ever listened before?

Last week Tyrion at the Bilerico Project reported that Mitch Daniels is filming a TV ad in which Sam Carson, the son of Julia Carson, endorses Daniels in front of Julia's politically historic house on North Park Avenue.

(This is not the only head-scratching move made by a Carson of late. You may all recall that Julia's grandson, Sam Jr., threw his name in to run against Marion County Democratic Party Chairman, Ed Treacy, only to withdraw days later).

I'm reluctant to attack party "mavericks," since "independent" instincts can help keep a party "clean." But this isn't "maverick" for the better interest of the party. This is a foolishly naïve gentleman embracing the opposing team thinking he'll get something, and he's getting played in the process.

Governor Danielsalaam knows that getting ANY Carson to endorse him, in particular, in front of that house, is political kiting. Governor Danielsalaam wants viewers to believe that Sam Carson is speaking "for the family."

You now how I know this? Because Sam Carson, void of the name "Carson," is nobody politically. A Sam Carson ad would be the equivalent of Mitch Daniels filming an endorsement from his gardener, accountant, or bartender. They might be salt-of-the-worth people, but nobody will vote based on those endorsements. This means Daniels wouldn't put Carson, or the house, in a commercial unless it bears a strong "meta-message."

Okay, pay attention, class. A political ad has "the message" and the "meta-message." The message is what you read on the screen or what the person says. But the "meta-message" is the larger symbolic content in the ad. A guy in a wheelchair might say, "I support Mitch Daniels because he does what he says he'll do." That's the message. But the symbolic meta-message is identity politics driven, and it says, "Mitch Daniels treats people like me well because he cared enough to put me in an ad, and he'll do the same for you."

Political consultants play the meta-message game with gender, race, age, religion, region (city vs. rural), socioeconomic status (factory workers versus guys in suits) and sexual orientation as well, which is why many political ads look like commercials for the United Colors of Benetton.

The coup part of such a Carson for Mitch ad, if it airs, is that a large group of people who know Julia's house and see it as a staging point for progressive change might think Daniels must have been okay in Julia's mind. But this idea stands false. In no universe would Julia Carson endorse Mitch Daniels.

As a student of political tactics, I tip my hat to Governor Danielsalaam for this major coup. But I also don't mind telling him that he needs to take a shower once this airs because he just went gutter.

Pawns Get Played

John Price & Mitch Daniels Share Interesting Ideas on Mathematics

If John Price had any credibility in Republican circles, I’m pretty sure it’s gone. Price was quoted as saying State Senator John Waterman’s effort to obtain approximately the 32,000 certified signatures needed to get him on the ballot as a third-party gubernatorial candidate to only reached half of that goal.

Huh?

The actual number of signatures was 2,250, or less then ten percent of the total needed.

If Mitch Daniels had employed this type of mathematical skill as George Bush’s director for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), he might have given a ridiculously low cost estimate for the war in Iraq, and that misinformation might have helped convince Congress to vote for the war. Thank God he's not like....what? He said how much?!?!?!?! And it's cost HOW MUCH!?!?!?!?!

Never mind.

John Price & Mitch Daniels Share Interesting Ideas on Mathematics

O'Connor Has Left the Building!

In today’s Indianapolis Star, Matt Tully provides a balanced perspective on Mike O’Connor’s term as chair of the Marion County Democratic Party. Many want to hang O'Connor in effigy. In every venture, be it athletics, business, or politics, the “leader of the team” often gets too much criticism or credit for what is essentially a team game.

In the interest of full disclosure, Mike O’Connor is an affable fellow, who I’ve always liked personally. I have no interest in hearing people tear him for things he could not control. Once you’ve been a campaign manager, you know that the role does not convey the ability to make a candidate do something uncomfortable to him or her. But having said this, O’Connor was involved in several disastrous tactical decisions that spanned two campaigns.

First, he made a horrific call by signing off on the Melina Kennedy’s candidacy for Marion County prosecutor. As IPOPA stated previously, Kennedy was handicapped by a complete lack of prosecutorial experience.

Let’s be clear on something. The Marion County Prosecutor is mostly a manager. Unlike in smaller counties where the prosecutor actually tries cases, in Marion County, the prosecutor recruits talent, sets office policies, administers a budget, helps coordinate anti-crime policy for the city, and occasionally plays Jack McCoy on a lay-down trial so he can say, “I put (insert heartless killer’s name here) on death row” in a TV commercial in the next election cycle.

But the public can’t be sold on this idea; voters expect a trial lawyer. And without criminal law experience, Kennedy could not counter the preconceived notion, held still even by many women, that women are “soft on crime.”

Moreover, Republicans have an elephant as their mascot for a reason. They remember everything. In 1996, when Jeff Modisett was elected Attorney General over out-going Attorney General Steve Carter, we attacked Carter for never having prosecuted a case. “Not One.” That was the name of the ad put together by Christopher Klose, our campaign’s political consultant(and a guy O’Connor knew well from their mutual work with Joe Hogsett years earlier).

In candor, I can say I do not know an Attorney General who HAS personally prosecuted a case of any type, and yet, Carter’s lack of experience helped us defeat him. How surprising would it be that Republicans were lying in wait for Democrats to put up somebody without experience in a job where it would acyually matter. Not surprisingly, Brizzi’s attack ads basically mimicked “Not One.” We set the table for Republicans by selecting Kennedy as our candidate.

In addition, if you can get any Democrats to speak candidly, many will comment on Melina’s lack of “physical presence.” Ms. Kennedy came across as a confident speaker, but that confidence was somewhat belied by her physical bearing, which struck me as mousy at times. Also, the photographs on her billboard actually made her look somewhat sickly. I would have reworked those and had her work on posture and presence.

But the coup de grace that really doomed Kennedy was….say it together everyone – GANG AMNESTY!” I’ll never forget reading Kennedy’s plan a few days after it was released and getting to that dreaded proposal. I called a high-ranking Democrat in Mayor Peterson’s administration and said, “We just lost the prosecutor’s race.” I knew Republicans would find and exploit this proposal.

It could have been the single greatest law enforcement strategy in history, but it wouldn’t matter. “Amnesty” means ONLY forgiveness in the public mind. Mitch Daniels engineered taxpayer amnesty, and everybody loved him for it. It brought in tons of money, just like Kennedy’s plan might have arguably given law enforcement tons of leads. But Daniels wasn’t a woman running for prosecutor, and nobody finds people who skirt paying state taxes terrifying enough to make bad Sean Penn movies (Colors) about them.

I don’t understand how that proposal saw daylight. In every campaign, there has to be somebody (usually the manager) whose job is to be the “(excrement) catcher.” That person’s critical function is to make sure nothing idiotic leaves the building. If that person is doing his/her job, every statement and proposal is subjected to a mental review process during which “the catcher” attempts to figure out how the other side can turn the idea on its head. On gang amnesty, somebody fell down on the job, and when they did, Melina Kennedy couldn’t get up.

As Jon Easter properly noted in a comment on this blog, Brizzi and the Republican Party put heavy bank into this race and outspent Kennedy because it was (at least then) thought to be the setting sun for the R’s. Easter is right, but TV ads don’t move numbers without something compelling to say. We wrote their script.

Still to come…

…O’Connor’s Mayoral Mishaps

…How Pam Carter Got It Right in 1992

…The Great News for Melina Kennedy

…Who Looks Good as Your Next Prosecutor

and

…An intriguing experiment to help you determine whether you hate black people as much as George Bush

Stay tuned!!!

O'Connor Has Left the Building!

Waterman World Sequel - As Disastrous as the Kevin Costner Version!

As sad as I am to say this, sometimes there's just no good way to market crazy.

My compadres at Frugal Hoosiers note that State Senator John Waterman, who claimed he would wage an aggressive campaign to get on the ballot as the gubernatorial candidate for the Taxpayer's Party, has acquired a grand total of.......128 signatures. ("Fast Eddie" Feigenbaum at Indiana Insight shows a number closer to 500ish, but even with "the new math," that's a bit off, kids).

I know I'm "biting from my homies" at Frugal, but I can't resist. This might be the funniest political paragraph in 2008:

As of Friday, Indiana County Clerks had received a total of 128 certified signatures for Sen. John Waterman, leaving him just about 33,000 votes short of the 33,000 votes needed to get him on the ballot in his race for governor. That's about four per day since he announced. At this rate, Waterman will qualify for ballot access in December of 2030. He'll be 86 years old.

I knew Waterman would have a hard time getting the signatures, so I offered help in the form of a contest. I said I'd buy dinner to the Democrat who provided the largest number of signatures to me before the deadline. Let me do a quick tally of my responses. Okay...if I add the 10 signatures I collected, I now have...eleven (an impressive 7.8% of Waterman's total as of Friday).
Respectfully, shouldn't Waterman have been able to get 128 signatures in a day from nursing homes? Some of them are already confused, so that would have been playing to his natural constituency.

Governor Daniels will spin this as Hoosiers seeing what a great job he's doing.

I'll spin it as the public not trusting a guy with mutton chop sideburns in the 21st century.

Waterman World Sequel - As Disastrous as the Kevin Costner Version!

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!"