Saturday, January 09, 2010

More On Opposition To Straub


WISH TV's Jim Shella has a story on the opposition to Mayor Greg Ballard's new Public Safety Director appointee, Frank Straub. Shella interviews my good friend and leader of the Republican Liberty Caucus, local attorney Elizabeth Karlson. Unlike other news reports, Shella gets the political importance of this disagreement rather than focusing on bashing gun rights activists like some others have chosen to do in the news media. "And that leads Karlson to her real target, Mayor Greg Ballard," Shella reports. "Both on Facebook and in her role as chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus, Karlson makes the case that Ballard is not true to Republican principles." "The Straub confirmation is one battle in a much bigger war."

18 comments:

Diana Vice said...

It's about time Jim Shella kept his biases out of news reports! Do you suppose he's learned his lesson?

Paul K. Ogden said...

Wow. I guess we know now that Shella is capable of actual quality political reporting. Too bad he takes the lazy man's way out.

Shella's report shows the he understands that the issue is not about Straub so much as about Ballard. If Ballard were a supporter of gunowners' rights, I don't think anyone would be that concerned about Straub. Ballard has made it crystal clear though that he doesn't support gunowners.

Like I said on my blog, the Ballard administration has taken the position the City does not have to comply with the 2nd Amendment. The Ballard administration also supports a gun return policy that is the most strict in the Midwest and results in guns not being returned to LAWFUL owners unless they are fingerprinted (not a requirement to possess a gun in your home) and ballistics testing done on the guns.

Concerned Taxpayer said...

Jim Shella is a shill for the democrats and therefore anything he does is part of their agenda.

Paul K. Ogden said...

Well, CT, this was clearly not supportive of the Democrats agenda. Warning Ballard he needs to stop alienating his base helps not hurts Republicans.

Besides, I don't think Shella has a "Democratic" agenda. He has an "insider" agenda. He likes to curry favor with insiders, regardless of whether they are Democrats or Republicans, and mock people who challenge their control.

msmith66 said...

I have a sneaking hunch that the resistance to Straub has its roots in the power circles of IMPD and the FOP. This issue is a red herring. As a legal gun owner and supporter of the second amendment, I know that no public safety director can trump my federal and state constitutionally protected right to own a firearm. I would be interested to know how Karlson is connected to the IMPD and FOP.

The Indy Patriot said...

First let me say I think Liz is a good person. I think she could be more credible on:

1. Bashing Government
2. How Government effects the private sector.
3. Job creation in the private sector.

If she would get out from behind her desk at FSSA as a state employee and actually perform in the private sector. Because of this, my first thought on the interview was that it was across the street from the Government Center at the back of The Marriott. I do hope this interview took place at lunch time or before or after work and not on the tax payer dime. I am sure it was.
Liz, if you are going to run for office or be out there as a free enterprise low tax advocate then live the life and leave government employ!

Advance Indiana said...

msmith, Liz's views have nothing to do with any ties to law enforcement. In fact, her father has often stepped on the toes of law enforcement in media interviews on criminal law matters over the years.

IndyPatriot, Liz is entitled to lunch breaks and work breaks during the day where she can speak to a reporter on her own time. She doesn't need any lectures from anyone on this point. I'd be more concerned about certain people hired by Ballard who don't seem to perform any legitimate work for the public starting with the deputy mayor's son.

The Indy Patriot said...

Gary, I agree so go do the interview in the studio at lunch. or somewhere else but the location makes it look like she just ran accross the street. The actual facts I have no doubt are very clear but perception is everything.

Paul K. Ogden said...

Msmith66,

If you don't think the public safety director of Indianapolis can trump your Second amendment right to own a firearm, I have news for you. The Ballard Administration has taken the position that it does not have to comply with the Second Amendment.

It is a position which contradicts the IN Attorney General's but right now it is the position of the 7th Circuit - that your Second Amendment rights do not matter when it comes to any law or policy passed by the City. So if you don't think the Public Safety Director matters, especially considering that we have an adminsitration hostile to gun rights, you might want to reconsider your position.

Indy Student said...

Indy Patriot, as someone who has been involved in 3 local news interviews over the past month or so, I can tell that I've never been in "the studio." Reporters are out all day tracking down sources, doing ride alongs, and other research. When it comes to interviewing, it's often just talking about a public building or common street intersection to meet at for 5-7 minutes. I was interviewed at IUPUI's law school building even though I'm not a law school student, it just happened to be a place that the reporter knew how to get to.

I also fail to see the connection between being a conservative and being employed by the state. Some of my conservatives friends seem to think that getting a new job is as easy as making a pot of coffee. Simply having a government related job isn't bad. Using that position (and I doubt her position is much power) to benefit yourself and friends and family is the problem.

So Indy Patriot, can you prove she's used her job for selfish reasons? Handing out contracts to benefit her former employers, like Roob did with IBM?

The Indy Patriot said...

Indy Student, good for you and glad you are participating. We need more that do even when we don't agree. I have also done many interviews. Some in my office and some in the Studio, some on the phone and some in the chair at the radio station so I am not speaking of something I know nothing about.

Please show me in my post where I said anything about "being a conservative"? Anyplace?


Did I talk about someone talking about the private sector while working for the government....yep I did.

When it comes to ideology Liz is as good as it gets. Does she have any experience to talk about the private sector? Nope.

Paul K. Ogden said...

Indy Patriot, going down to the studio to give an interview takes a lot more time than stepping out on the street and doing an interview.

You can disagree with Liz Karlson all you want, but I don't know of anyone who is more diligent about keeping her political activities separate from her government jobs.

I can't say the same for our mayor who used the city's email to send out a message to city workers to support the Wishard referendun. Or the IUPUI Chancellor who used the public university's email to do the exact same thing.

Your allegations against Liz are as phony as a $3 bill. Your attack comes across as a little too orchestrated to be sincere. It certainly raises suspicions regarding what your real motives are in trying to undermine her on an issue she is extremely knowledgeable about.

Indy Student said...

Ok, so you know how interviews are conducted. So you understand that interviews can take place practically anywhere in the city, that the interview location may be directly related to the story, or completely irrelevant to the story. So why crticiize Liz for...conducting the interview where she did? You accuse her of doing personal business while on the clock, but you have, at best, assumptions to support your theory.

No, you didn't say anything about being a conservative specifically, but it's implied. But you make the claim that since she works at FSSA, she can't really understand the private sector. And since she is the leader of a Republican caucus, you are trying to brandish her as some sort of fake Republican. Otherwise, why are you criticizing her for having a job that just happens to be with FSSA? What's wrong with that and how does it invalidate anything she says?

To paraphrase the Great Dr. House, I don't have to go to Detroit to know it smells. Similarly, Liz (or anyone) can go out and learn a lot without direct experience. In some areas, it's even better! You aren't likely to find a bio about Regan or Clinton without an obvious bias, but there are dozen of quality books on Lincoln, JAckson, and other past POTUS due to the passage of time.

It seems you've looked over her whole resume too. You must know her quite well.

msmith66 said...

Paul, with all due respect, your slippery sloop argument fails with me. This is indeed no way an appointed public safety director can trump my second amendment rights nor could any member of the executive branch of government to which the mayor belongs.

Your reference to the 7th Circuit is curious to me. It appears to me that the court, in its ruling, placed additional burden on governments to justify restrictions to the second amendment rights of law-abiding, responsible citizens with exacting scrutiny. In fact, Skoien and Heller seem to be moving the pendulum toward confirming the rights of gun owners.

Cato said...

We have to realize that our professional full-time military has developed and inculcates in its members a deep institutional dislike of civilian firearm ownership.

In Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, New Orleans, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, our military has developed excellent skills for house-to-house invasions, inspections and weapons confiscations. These skills ought trouble all freedom-loving persons.

Republicans love the biggest government of all - the military. In order to again become a free country, we must understand that a large military is antithetical to freedom.

As long as we continue to extol military leadership as a qualification for public office, we're going to empower those persons and groups who do not champion or practice limited government and governmental restraint.

Indiana is particularly at risk. So many Hoosiers would rather be ruled by benevolent martial law government with a proud "war hero" as leader than by, say, a gay civil rights leader who won cases removing the Ten Commandments from public buildings.

Before a country can perform its first act, it must know that essential to the concept of "limited government" is the obligation to have a limited military.

dcrutch said...

Besides, I don't think Shella has a "Democratic" agenda. He has an "insider" agenda. He likes to curry favor with insiders, regardless of whether they are Democrats or Republicans, and mock people who challenge their control.

Mr. Ogden nails it. This is the fourth estate that is to protect us?

Marycatherine Barton said...

Thanks for posting this interview of attorney Karlson! Mayor Ballard, you need to leave our right to bear arms in Indianapolis alone. We do not want to imitate NYC in this regard.

Paul K. Ogden said...

Msmith66, there is no "slippery slope." I was stating fact. The City of Indianapolis takes the position that it does not have to follow the 2nd Amendment. That position is backed up by the NRA v Chicago case out of the 7th Circuit said the 2nd Amendment does not apply to states and political subdivisions.

If you think the 2nd Amendment prevents the City of Indianapolis from passing ordinances and the Ballardadminstration from adopting policies restricting your right to own and possess guns, your are 100% incorrect as a matter of law.

I think you're confused regarding the legal holdings. NRA v. Chicago most certainly did not protect gun rights - it said that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to states. Heller is the Supreme Court case which said that the 2nd Amendment did apply to D.C. Nordyke is the case out of California that contradicts the 7th Circuit and says the 2nd Amendement does apply to state and local government. It is the 7th Circuit case which is controlling here.

While I think the Supreme Court will eventually overturn NRA v. Chicago, the present status of the law is that the 2nd Amendment is no bar whatsoever to gun restrictions adopted by the Ballard administration or the Council. You're whistling by the graveyard if you think differently.