Am I the only one getting tired of all the residency issues facing Indiana politicians? . . .
This isn't a new issue, and in the past it often hasn't exacted a price. Evan Bayh moved to the state in the 1980s to launch his political career, and Dan Coats moved here in 2010 to relaunch his. Both did so with spectacular success.
But some voters seem to have finally had enough and, last week, they rejected the candidacies of at least two politicians who struggled to explain their residential ties to the state.
As with every issue, though, this one is leading to political opportunism . . .
Those laws are conveniently liberal in their description of what it takes to run for office. They have allowed candidates with few current ties to the state to claim their spots on the ballot and, in some cases, win election. But winning doesn't make it right.
Personally, I'm most concerned about the trend of former Indiana politicians moving back to the state solely to run for office, as opposed to those who spend a lot of time out East while serving in Congress . . .
With that in mind, and after so many issues in recent years, perhaps we should adopt a new rule: If you want to be elected by Hoosiers, there should be no doubt that you are one.It's funny how Tully couldn't accept that there was anything "conveniently liberal" in the residency laws when applied to Charlie White. I don't know how any one with a conscience could think it was fair that White was criminally prosecuted, forced from office and stripped of his law license because of the great crime he supposedly committed in light of the circumstances of Lugar's and McIntosh's residency that came to light this year.