The Star's Mary Beth Schneider has a story today prominently featuring the 86th District race between Rep. David Orentlicher (D) and Kathryn Densborn (R). In our bloggers' forum last week with Orentlicher, state representative candidate John Barnes (D) and state senate candidate Russell Brown (D), we discussed the struggle state legislative candidates have in trying to get mainstream media coverage of their campaigns. Barnes pointed to a front-page story in a neighborhood newspaper on the city's eastside. Unlike other news stories, this was one his campaign had to purchase.
Orentlicher's and Barnes' campaigns received a big boost when the Star endorsed their candidacies last week. While Barnes' District 89 race against Rep. Larry Buell (R) did not get the attention Orentlicher's race got today, I suspect his race is every bit as competitive as District 86. Republican Jon Elrod, an attorney, also got a boost from a surprise Star endorsement last week in his uphill fight against Rep. Ed Mahern (D), as did Robin Olds (D) in her bid to unseat Rep. Phil Hinkle (R). Susan Fuldauer (D) has been campaigning tirelessly against House Speaker Brian Bosma, but her campaign has gotten little attention from the media, presumably because the district is so Republican.
Some of these candidates have wisely elected to use bloggers to help get out their message, while others have pretty much ignored them. The way I look at it, it's free media. With the high cost of mounting a campaign, a candidate can extend his/her reach considerably by reaching out to the blogs.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Indiana's Congressional Clout
The Star's Maureen Groppe takes a look at the clout of Indiana's current congressional delegation and what will happen to it if the Democrats take over Congress as many observers now expect. She concludes the state's influence will dwindle. She writes:
On the upside, Groppe sees Indiana's congressmen gaining two new leadership roles. Rep. Pete Visclosky (D) is likely to take over a panel that handles spending bills for energy and water projects. Groppe also speculates that Rep. Mike Pence (R) will gain a new leadership role as the GOP shuffles its leadership. Only one member of the congressional delegation gets no mention in Groppe's article--Rep. Julia Carson (D). That should tell folks something.
Indiana's congressional clout would immediately diminish if Democrats take control of the House and Senate, a scenario that appears increasingly likely as Republicans struggle on multiple fronts.
Indiana -- at least initially -- stands to lose more committee chairmen than it would gain in a power switch because the delegation is now dominated by Republicans, many of whom have been in Washington long enough to head committees.
Sen. Richard Lugar, for example, would lose his chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee if Democrats take control of the Senate. Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Monticello, would no longer head the House Veterans Affairs Committee if the GOP loses control of the House.
U.S. Reps. Dan Burton, R-Indianapolis, Mark Souder, R-Fort Wayne, and John Hostettler, R-Wadesville, would no longer run subcommittees under that scenario.
On the upside, Groppe sees Indiana's congressmen gaining two new leadership roles. Rep. Pete Visclosky (D) is likely to take over a panel that handles spending bills for energy and water projects. Groppe also speculates that Rep. Mike Pence (R) will gain a new leadership role as the GOP shuffles its leadership. Only one member of the congressional delegation gets no mention in Groppe's article--Rep. Julia Carson (D). That should tell folks something.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Speaking Of Failed Businesses And Candidates For Public Office
Apparently, some supporters of Rep. Julia Carson (D) would like people to believe her Republican opponent Eric Dickerson is a failed businessman as suggested by comments from her supporters on area blog sites, including this one. They suggest that by selling his Buick dealership this past summer this somehow confirms that he must be a failed businessman. One blogger, in support of Carson, referred to “Dickerson’s failed Buick dealership” in the same breath he accused others, including your’s truly, of slinging mud on behalf of Dickerson. Let’s examine the facts a little closer and compare Dickerson’s business success to that of Carson’s.
Dickerson rose up through the ranks of General Motors and Rolls Royce beginning 27 years ago and became a successful business executive. In 1999, he became a business entrepreneur by opening a Buick dealership he successfully operated for 7 years before selling out to Ed Martin. While Carson’s supporters wish to portray the sale as evidence of him being a failed businessman, it had much more to do with the changing automobile industry. It is no secret that GM is engaged in a major downsizing and consolidation effort. The Buick division has been reduced to just three model lines. These changed circumstances made it unwise for anyone in Dickerson’s shoes to continue operating a single, dwindling automobile line. His decision to sell it was a practical business decision as much as anything else. In addition to his Buick dealership, Dickerson also purchased a Maggie Moo franchise last year.
For those who insist on making his business success or failure an issue in this campaign, I think it is only fair to compare his business record to that of Ms. Carson’s. While she has spent most of her adult life as a career politician, she did venture into the private sector by opening an upscale fashion boutique, J Carson, in Claypool Court in downtown Indianapolis in 1985. As the Indianapolis News described the clothing store in a October 1, 1985 new story: “Offering women the latest fashions at reasonable prices is just another way the legislator believes she can serve her constituents. “No conflict of interest,” then-State Sen. Julia Carson told the News. Or was there?
A little more than a year later the Indianapolis Star’s George Stuteville reported on November 19, 1986, that a few Center Township workers were facing reprimands over a clothing dispute with Carson. It seems that Center Township had established a voucher program which allowed poor Center Township residents to redeem vouchers at approved vendors to purchase clothing for themselves and their children. The approved vendors included Stacy’s Discount Clothes, Zayre, Today’s Fashion and J. Carson. One of those vendors alone was granted a special benefit. Carson chose to participate in a program which permitted the vendors to rent space in the township’s warehouse to display their clothing. Carson, however, was permitted to display her clothing in the Center Township officers where the vouchers were being issued because she complained there was no heat in the warehouse. Carson then complained after picking up only 5 of the 37 vouchers initially issued that the township employees were discouraging the recipients from her. Stuteville reported:
Favoritism or not, it was not enough to save J. Carson’s from failure. The Indianapolis Star reported on October 15, 1987 that her landlord, Claypool Development Co., sued her for more than $74,199 in back rent and unpaid assessments for her clothing store. It appeared she hadn’t paid rent for some time as the story reported her monthly rent was $2,923. Carson shared a different view of the situation with the Star: “We reached an agreement two weeks ago and I guess it’s a matter of not communicating the agreement,” Carson said. “This is just an error that they filed the lawsuit.” On February 24, 1990, the Indianapolis News reported that “State Sen. Julia M. Carson’s wages are being garnished to help pay off a debt from a failed business venture.” The News said Carson was the only member of the legislature to have her wages garnished.
At the same time, the News reported that Carson was delinquent in the payment of more than $10,000 in property taxes on two properties she owned. Carson told the News, “I don’t apologize for not making a business work.” In a separate news story, Carson told the News she disputed the taxes owed on one of the properties. “The apartment building itself has been dormant for over 10 years,” Carson said. “It’s only the house that should be taxed and not the apartment building.” “But it’s not.” “It’s a single-family dwelling,” she added. That’s an argument that hardly works with an honest assessor.
Later, when Carson would become Center Township Trustee, she revamped the voucher program so that only one store, Doris’ Outlet, qualified to provide clothing to the poor. The store was owned by Doris and Louis Morse, who refused to answer questions of Indianapolis Star about the arrangement. A Star analysis in 1993 of the store’s prices determined that they were much higher than those at discount stores. Carson called it an oversight at the time according to the Star. “It will never happen again as long as I am trustee,” she told the Star. But when supporters of her Republican opponent for Congress in 1996 purchased clothing from Doris’ Outlet, they discovered that some clothing items cost several times the cost of the items at discount stores like Value City. Carson defended Doris’ Outlet because it was closer than the other stores. She told the Star she had to purchase transportation for clients if she sent them to stores like Value City with their vouchers. To her Republican opponent, Virginia Blankenbaker, Carson was ripping off the taxpayers. “She is gouging the taxpayers,” Blankenbaker told the Star on October 10, 1996. “Julia had some questionable things going on. She said they would be corrected, and in fact they weren’t,” she added. Blankenbaker also criticized Carson for giving township jobs to her own daughter and two grandsons. Carson defended the hiring of family members. “I have no qualms,” she told the Star.
Now, supporters of Carson will invariably scream that it’s mudslinging to raise legitimate news stories that have been written about Carson’s past. These are matters which are a part of the public record. Instead of accusing AI and others of making up stories about Carson, her defenders would do well to take a trip over the state library or the Marion County library and search the news archives as this blogger did instead of sitting on their butts and attacking anyone who dares to report on her record. It’s all right there in black and white. If you want to accuse someone of mudslinging, then start with the newspapers who reported these items as newsworthy in the first instance. And when you do that you might find a few more items of interest, including the following:
· While then-state senator Carson thought it was just fine for the township to fork over more money to let the poor buy her clothes, she was less charitable towards the needs of the poor when she became Center Township Trustee. Incredibly, one of Carson’s first policy decisions in office was to tell AFDC recipients that they would be ineligible for poor relief. Can you imagine if a Republican had done the same thing? Her handling of poor relief triggered a lawsuit on behalf of recipients by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, which forced her to rescind the policy, as well as a process that denied benefits without due process. As to an argument made by Ken Falk of the ICLU that she was trying to discourage people from applying for poor relief, Carson said, “That is not true. He’s having a pipe dream. We’re throwing money around here like south going north.” Indianapolis Star, February 28, 1991.
· Carson was right on target when she said the township was “throwing money around here like south going north.” Carson got her own salary increased 63.5% during the 6 years she served as Center Township Trustee. Carson made the decision to purchase the former Standard Life Insurance building, now known as the Julia Carson Government Center. When she acquired it with taxpayer funds for $350,000, she said taxpayers would have to spend another $2-$3 million to renovate the building. As it turned it, it cost $5 million to renovate the building. While she promised to make it one-stop shopping for all Center Township needs, only a small part of the township’s offices were ever re-located to the building. Not long after she said that, Carson announced the township would not need all the space and “some would be leased and some may be used for “entrepreneurial opportunities.” We’re looking at forming small businesses for people,” she said. When she was elected to Congress, she insisted on having her own congressional office in the building with a view of the downtown skyline. “This is the office where you watch fireworks,” she said, admiring her view of Downtown. Indianapolis News, April 15, 1994; Indianapolis Star, June 19, 1996; Indianapolis Star, October 10, 1996.
· Carson demonstrated how she exacts revenge on people who don’t obey her command when she served as township trustee. She fired three township employees who refused to support her candidate for township constable, Mark “Tony” Duncan, who was running to succeed a previous constable, Taylor Seaths, who pleaded guilty to federal mail fraud charges. The township eventually settled a lawsuit for $60,000 and tens of thousands in wasted attorneys fees at the urging of Carson’s attorney, Virginia Dill McCarty, in 1996 as she launched her bid for a congressional seat. The Star reported, “Despite a state unemployment ruling to the contrary, McCarty and Carson maintain the men weren’t fired.” “They just didn’t show up for work,” Carson said. The ICLU saw it differently. “These guys didn’t get rehired because of politics,” Rich Waples said. “They have a right not to be denied these jobs.” He described it as “a straight First Amendment claim.” Indianapolis Star, March 28, 1996.
· In 1994, the Indianapolis Star reported that the Marion County Election Board had determined that a political action committee operated by Carson and her successor, Carl Drummer, known as Democrats United for Victory, had used the PAC’s funds improperly by making gifts and loans from the PAC to township employees. Carson told the Board the PAC had stopped making illegal loans and gifts to employees. “It’s unfortunate,” she said of the violations. “It’s nothing that was deliberate.” The Board voted 2-1 to let Carson and Drummer off with a warning after their pleas for leniency rather than refer the two to the Marion County prosecutor's office for prosecution. Indianapolis Star, December 14, 1994.
Dickerson rose up through the ranks of General Motors and Rolls Royce beginning 27 years ago and became a successful business executive. In 1999, he became a business entrepreneur by opening a Buick dealership he successfully operated for 7 years before selling out to Ed Martin. While Carson’s supporters wish to portray the sale as evidence of him being a failed businessman, it had much more to do with the changing automobile industry. It is no secret that GM is engaged in a major downsizing and consolidation effort. The Buick division has been reduced to just three model lines. These changed circumstances made it unwise for anyone in Dickerson’s shoes to continue operating a single, dwindling automobile line. His decision to sell it was a practical business decision as much as anything else. In addition to his Buick dealership, Dickerson also purchased a Maggie Moo franchise last year.
For those who insist on making his business success or failure an issue in this campaign, I think it is only fair to compare his business record to that of Ms. Carson’s. While she has spent most of her adult life as a career politician, she did venture into the private sector by opening an upscale fashion boutique, J Carson, in Claypool Court in downtown Indianapolis in 1985. As the Indianapolis News described the clothing store in a October 1, 1985 new story: “Offering women the latest fashions at reasonable prices is just another way the legislator believes she can serve her constituents. “No conflict of interest,” then-State Sen. Julia Carson told the News. Or was there?
A little more than a year later the Indianapolis Star’s George Stuteville reported on November 19, 1986, that a few Center Township workers were facing reprimands over a clothing dispute with Carson. It seems that Center Township had established a voucher program which allowed poor Center Township residents to redeem vouchers at approved vendors to purchase clothing for themselves and their children. The approved vendors included Stacy’s Discount Clothes, Zayre, Today’s Fashion and J. Carson. One of those vendors alone was granted a special benefit. Carson chose to participate in a program which permitted the vendors to rent space in the township’s warehouse to display their clothing. Carson, however, was permitted to display her clothing in the Center Township officers where the vouchers were being issued because she complained there was no heat in the warehouse. Carson then complained after picking up only 5 of the 37 vouchers initially issued that the township employees were discouraging the recipients from her. Stuteville reported:
[Center Township Trustee Charles] Walton said it looked as if her store was being boycotted by trustee workers who thought the veteran state legislator must have had an unfair advantage by placing her merchandise in the township trustee’s office building.The flip side of the argument was that the trustee workers were actually doing the taxpayers and the voucher recipients a favor because the prices on the clothing offered by the other vendors were less expensive. Carson’s take was obviously different. She told Stuteville, “I could see my enemies screaming if I were giving indigents poor quality clothing, but I am competitive with my costs. I don’t do no markup on them. Why not let a poor kid have a damn good coat?”
“Julia has political enemies. There is a lot of infighting going on: partisans of the other vendors don’t want J. Carson’s to get the vouchers. It looks like they took it upon themselves to make that decision,” said Walton.
Favoritism or not, it was not enough to save J. Carson’s from failure. The Indianapolis Star reported on October 15, 1987 that her landlord, Claypool Development Co., sued her for more than $74,199 in back rent and unpaid assessments for her clothing store. It appeared she hadn’t paid rent for some time as the story reported her monthly rent was $2,923. Carson shared a different view of the situation with the Star: “We reached an agreement two weeks ago and I guess it’s a matter of not communicating the agreement,” Carson said. “This is just an error that they filed the lawsuit.” On February 24, 1990, the Indianapolis News reported that “State Sen. Julia M. Carson’s wages are being garnished to help pay off a debt from a failed business venture.” The News said Carson was the only member of the legislature to have her wages garnished.
At the same time, the News reported that Carson was delinquent in the payment of more than $10,000 in property taxes on two properties she owned. Carson told the News, “I don’t apologize for not making a business work.” In a separate news story, Carson told the News she disputed the taxes owed on one of the properties. “The apartment building itself has been dormant for over 10 years,” Carson said. “It’s only the house that should be taxed and not the apartment building.” “But it’s not.” “It’s a single-family dwelling,” she added. That’s an argument that hardly works with an honest assessor.
Later, when Carson would become Center Township Trustee, she revamped the voucher program so that only one store, Doris’ Outlet, qualified to provide clothing to the poor. The store was owned by Doris and Louis Morse, who refused to answer questions of Indianapolis Star about the arrangement. A Star analysis in 1993 of the store’s prices determined that they were much higher than those at discount stores. Carson called it an oversight at the time according to the Star. “It will never happen again as long as I am trustee,” she told the Star. But when supporters of her Republican opponent for Congress in 1996 purchased clothing from Doris’ Outlet, they discovered that some clothing items cost several times the cost of the items at discount stores like Value City. Carson defended Doris’ Outlet because it was closer than the other stores. She told the Star she had to purchase transportation for clients if she sent them to stores like Value City with their vouchers. To her Republican opponent, Virginia Blankenbaker, Carson was ripping off the taxpayers. “She is gouging the taxpayers,” Blankenbaker told the Star on October 10, 1996. “Julia had some questionable things going on. She said they would be corrected, and in fact they weren’t,” she added. Blankenbaker also criticized Carson for giving township jobs to her own daughter and two grandsons. Carson defended the hiring of family members. “I have no qualms,” she told the Star.
Now, supporters of Carson will invariably scream that it’s mudslinging to raise legitimate news stories that have been written about Carson’s past. These are matters which are a part of the public record. Instead of accusing AI and others of making up stories about Carson, her defenders would do well to take a trip over the state library or the Marion County library and search the news archives as this blogger did instead of sitting on their butts and attacking anyone who dares to report on her record. It’s all right there in black and white. If you want to accuse someone of mudslinging, then start with the newspapers who reported these items as newsworthy in the first instance. And when you do that you might find a few more items of interest, including the following:
· While then-state senator Carson thought it was just fine for the township to fork over more money to let the poor buy her clothes, she was less charitable towards the needs of the poor when she became Center Township Trustee. Incredibly, one of Carson’s first policy decisions in office was to tell AFDC recipients that they would be ineligible for poor relief. Can you imagine if a Republican had done the same thing? Her handling of poor relief triggered a lawsuit on behalf of recipients by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, which forced her to rescind the policy, as well as a process that denied benefits without due process. As to an argument made by Ken Falk of the ICLU that she was trying to discourage people from applying for poor relief, Carson said, “That is not true. He’s having a pipe dream. We’re throwing money around here like south going north.” Indianapolis Star, February 28, 1991.
· Carson was right on target when she said the township was “throwing money around here like south going north.” Carson got her own salary increased 63.5% during the 6 years she served as Center Township Trustee. Carson made the decision to purchase the former Standard Life Insurance building, now known as the Julia Carson Government Center. When she acquired it with taxpayer funds for $350,000, she said taxpayers would have to spend another $2-$3 million to renovate the building. As it turned it, it cost $5 million to renovate the building. While she promised to make it one-stop shopping for all Center Township needs, only a small part of the township’s offices were ever re-located to the building. Not long after she said that, Carson announced the township would not need all the space and “some would be leased and some may be used for “entrepreneurial opportunities.” We’re looking at forming small businesses for people,” she said. When she was elected to Congress, she insisted on having her own congressional office in the building with a view of the downtown skyline. “This is the office where you watch fireworks,” she said, admiring her view of Downtown. Indianapolis News, April 15, 1994; Indianapolis Star, June 19, 1996; Indianapolis Star, October 10, 1996.
· Carson demonstrated how she exacts revenge on people who don’t obey her command when she served as township trustee. She fired three township employees who refused to support her candidate for township constable, Mark “Tony” Duncan, who was running to succeed a previous constable, Taylor Seaths, who pleaded guilty to federal mail fraud charges. The township eventually settled a lawsuit for $60,000 and tens of thousands in wasted attorneys fees at the urging of Carson’s attorney, Virginia Dill McCarty, in 1996 as she launched her bid for a congressional seat. The Star reported, “Despite a state unemployment ruling to the contrary, McCarty and Carson maintain the men weren’t fired.” “They just didn’t show up for work,” Carson said. The ICLU saw it differently. “These guys didn’t get rehired because of politics,” Rich Waples said. “They have a right not to be denied these jobs.” He described it as “a straight First Amendment claim.” Indianapolis Star, March 28, 1996.
· In 1994, the Indianapolis Star reported that the Marion County Election Board had determined that a political action committee operated by Carson and her successor, Carl Drummer, known as Democrats United for Victory, had used the PAC’s funds improperly by making gifts and loans from the PAC to township employees. Carson told the Board the PAC had stopped making illegal loans and gifts to employees. “It’s unfortunate,” she said of the violations. “It’s nothing that was deliberate.” The Board voted 2-1 to let Carson and Drummer off with a warning after their pleas for leniency rather than refer the two to the Marion County prosecutor's office for prosecution. Indianapolis Star, December 14, 1994.
Eugene Anderson Redux
The Star's "Behind Closed Doors" column mentions an item which was first reported in the blogosphere more than two weeks ago. Commenting on reports by WXNTS's Abdul Hakim-Shabazz and Indy Undercover that assistant Deputy Mayor Eugene Anderson had resigned due to a previously undisclosed domestic violence arrest, AI had commented at the time that Rep. Carson had taken aim at her Republican opponent but had hit Anderson instead. "Behind Closed Doors" agrees that political attacks can come full circle:
AI noted previously that Dickerson, like Anderson, could have legally had his record expunged. It made much more sense in Dickerson's case because he denied the charges, which were eventually dropped. By entering a diversionary program, Anderson did not contest the charges; rather, he agreed not to commit the same crime again in exchange for leniency. If Anderson had the charge legally expunged, it begs the question of how the arrest became public. It is my reading of the statute which allows defendants to have their criminal records expunged that it is illegal for a law enforcement officer to disclose an expunged record.
There may be another explanation for the public disclosure of Anderson's record. I recently read where criminal defense attorneys are telling their clients that expungment isn't as effective as it once was. That's because numerous databases store arrest records as a service for employers and others checking out a person's criminal background. When a person's arrest record is expunged, it doesn't remove the arrest associated with their name from these other publicly accessible databases. The Marion Co. Juvenile Detention Center was forced to fire another employee this past week because of a previously unknown criminal record. In that case, the employee had legally changed his name and a criminal background check of his current name did not disclose his criminal past.
The recent resignation of Eugene Anderson, an Indianapolis assistant deputy mayor, appears to illustrate the axiom that political attacks can come full circle.
In mid-September, U.S. Rep. Julia Carson, a Democrat, dropped the news of an old domestic abuse incident involving Eric Dickerson, the Republican challenger for her congressional seat. Dickerson faced preliminary charges of battery and disorderly conduct, but the case was dismissed after his wife and daughter declined to testify.
While the mayor's office would not discuss why Anderson resigned, Deputy Mayor Steve Campbell said Anderson in late September informed chief of staff John Dillon of a 1997 domestic abuse incident. Anderson, who was in charge of special events for Mayor Bart Peterson, a Democrat, resigned shortly thereafter.
Anderson's misdemeanor battery charge may not have shown up in a background check when he was hired in 2002 because he went into a diversion program and later had the charge expunged.
AI noted previously that Dickerson, like Anderson, could have legally had his record expunged. It made much more sense in Dickerson's case because he denied the charges, which were eventually dropped. By entering a diversionary program, Anderson did not contest the charges; rather, he agreed not to commit the same crime again in exchange for leniency. If Anderson had the charge legally expunged, it begs the question of how the arrest became public. It is my reading of the statute which allows defendants to have their criminal records expunged that it is illegal for a law enforcement officer to disclose an expunged record.
There may be another explanation for the public disclosure of Anderson's record. I recently read where criminal defense attorneys are telling their clients that expungment isn't as effective as it once was. That's because numerous databases store arrest records as a service for employers and others checking out a person's criminal background. When a person's arrest record is expunged, it doesn't remove the arrest associated with their name from these other publicly accessible databases. The Marion Co. Juvenile Detention Center was forced to fire another employee this past week because of a previously unknown criminal record. In that case, the employee had legally changed his name and a criminal background check of his current name did not disclose his criminal past.
Star Picks Brizzi
Believe it or not, the Indianapolis Star editorial board finally made an endorsement that seems logical. Voters should re-elect Carl Brizzi as Marion Co. Prosecutor because he has a record and experience which merit re-election. They concluded his prosecutorial record on serious crimes was at least as good as the national average, notwithstanding Melina Kennedy's charges to the contrary. Under cross-examination, Kennedy told the editorial board she had only examined one witness in a court room and that was in small claims court.
The editorial also takes some hits at Brizzi. It says he spends too much time trying to "thrust himself into the center of media attention." It also says he is "too eager to score political points against his adversaries." The editorial doesn't mention that he's often been on the receiving end of Democratic efforts to score political points against him--a point the Star itself has made this past year. All in all, AI suspects Brizzi will be happy with today's endorsement.
For those of you interested in how the Star makes its endorsements, editor Dennis Ryerson explains the process here in today's Star. The editorial board is made up of persons with widely divergent political philosophies. They include Editorial Page Editor Tim Swarens, Jane Lichtenberg, RiShawn Biddle, Dan Carpenter, Beth Murphy, Russ Pulliam and cartoonist Gary Varvel.
The editorial also takes some hits at Brizzi. It says he spends too much time trying to "thrust himself into the center of media attention." It also says he is "too eager to score political points against his adversaries." The editorial doesn't mention that he's often been on the receiving end of Democratic efforts to score political points against him--a point the Star itself has made this past year. All in all, AI suspects Brizzi will be happy with today's endorsement.
For those of you interested in how the Star makes its endorsements, editor Dennis Ryerson explains the process here in today's Star. The editorial board is made up of persons with widely divergent political philosophies. They include Editorial Page Editor Tim Swarens, Jane Lichtenberg, RiShawn Biddle, Dan Carpenter, Beth Murphy, Russ Pulliam and cartoonist Gary Varvel.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Supreme Court Orders Enforcement Of Arizona Voter ID Law
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled to overturn a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals order blocking enforcement of Arizona's new voter ID law, citing a procedural error of the Court of Appeals in granting the injunction before the district court had tendered its findings of fact and law and without explaining its ruling. Indiana's voter ID law, which has been upheld by the district court, is on appeal in front of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. It is important to note that Arizona's voter ID law is written more broadly than Indiana's. It allows a valid photo ID or two other non-photo forms of ID with their name and address, such as a utility bill. Indiana's law requires voters to show a valid driver's license or state-issued photo ID.
College Football On A Saturday Afternoon
I don't typically take in college football games on a Saturday afternoon, but I made a special exception today. My nephew, Derek Eitel, is a freshman quarterback for Rose-Hulman. The Engineers had a tough day down at Franklin College. A tough defense kept the game within 3 points until the 4th quarter when the Grizzlies scored two touchdowns, giving them a 28-11 victory.
The Engineers were dealt a number of setbacks as a result of extremely poor officiating and a time-keeper who was working over-time to help out the Grizzlies. The clock had to be reset three times, largely because Engineer fans screamed out at the referees to correct the madness going on. When the Engineers had the ball on the one-yard line, referees called a personal foul on two Engineer players who were reacting to a Grizzly player who knew how to finger a guy in the eye through his helmet after the play was dead. The referees missed that and penalized the Engineers 30 yards. Needless to say, the Engineers didn't score on that play. The real kicker came at the end. The Grizzlies proved themselves to be bad winners by provoking a brawl that involved about half the players of each team and a couple of the coaches after the game ended.
The Engineers' starting quarterback, Cameron Hummel, is shown on the left next to my nephew. The action photo is one of the plays Derek quarterbacked. Unfortunately, that photo was taken immediately before an Engineer turnover. Starting quarterback Hummel led the offense most of the game. Derek has actually started about three games this year due to injuries suffered by Hummel early in the season.
Federal Grand Jury Probing Mortgage Fraud
Finally, the feds have stepped in and are taking a look at the mortgage fraud going on in Marion County. The Star reports that U.S. Attorney Susan Brooks has convened a grand jury to look into fraud allegedly committed by Robert Penn. AI hopes the investigation goes much further than Penn. There are others engaged in the similar practices.
More On Blogger's Forum With Legislative Candidates
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to sit down with three Democratic legislative candidates in Marion County, who are all in very tight races. Rep. David Orentlicher (D) is facing a tough challenge from Kathryn Densborn (D). Challenger John Barnes (D) is seeking to unseat long-time serving Rep. Larry Buell (D). And challenger Russell Brown (D) is taking on Sen. James Merritt (R). The candidates shared their views on a wide range of topics. What I was most impressed from all three of them was how well they seemed to have researched the issues and developed thoughtful positions. While their views were in line with many in their party, their own positions were not taken in a knee-jerk manner. Here's some of what they had to say.
Top Legislative Priorities
All three candidates listed education as a top priority. Full-day kindergarten has been an issue Russ Brown has been touting a lot. In a recent debate with his opponent, Merritt switched his past opposition to full-day kindergarten to one in support Brown notes. Orentlicher has supported full-day kindergarten during his two terms in the legislature. On the question of education funding, Barnes reminds us that the state constitution doesn't give us a choice--the state's role in funding a public education system is clearly mandated, and the state has not been fulfilling its constitutionally-mandated duty. Brown used the opportunity to tout his proposal to provide tax incentives to encourage Indiana employers to help retain Indiana college graduates to stem the brain drain.
They all agreed that dealing with the problem of the insured must be a high priority. Orentlicher noted that he has participated in a health insurance reform study for some time. A model adopted by the VA hospitals is one that he thinks Indiana should take a closer look at. Brown believes the state needs to create a small business health insurance pool as a means of combatting the problem of the uninsured.
The candidates agreed that property tax reform that allows local governments alternative options for raising revenues to reduce dependency on the property tax is a top priority as well.
SJR-7 (Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage)
All three candidates are opposed to SJR-7, which would adopt a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages, as well as prohibit the recognition of the legal incidents of marriage for unmarried couples, whether straight or gay. Orentlicher voted against the measure when it was adopted by the General Assembly in 2005 in the first of a two-part process to place the amendment before voters in 2008. The candidates were all familiar with the second paragraph of the proposed amendment. Brown remarked his astonishment that during debate on SJR-7, Sen. Brent Herschman (R) freely admitted that he had no idea what the second paragraph of SJR-7 meant. He thought many of the members were similarly uninformed about the language in the amendment. Barnes observed that, once an amendment to the constitution is adopted, it is almost never repealed.
Each of the candidates unique perspectives help explain their position on this controversial issue. All three candidates agreed that SJR-7 and other hot button social issues are creating an unfavorable perception of Indiana and hindering its ability to attract cutting edge industries and a highly-educated workforce. Orentlicher notes that a successful legislative effort to ban all research pertaining to cloning and continuing efforts to ban research on embryonic stem cell research has had the effect already of driving out researchers from the state. Brown grew up in Ft. Collins, Colorado where HP had a large presence. A culture of acceptance and diversity helped that community grown and thrive. And Barnes, as a long-term educator in Warren Township schools, has seen first-hand the benefit of promoting a culture of tolerance and acceptance of diversity in our public schools.
Non-Discrimination
All three candidates agreed that the state's civil rights law should be amended to protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Orentlicher cautioned, howevever, that with any legislative change, he would want to be extra careful not to effectively repeal any current local ordinances already on the books.
Voter I.D.
All three candidates oppose the state's current voter identification law. This will be the first general election at which voters will be required to submit a state-issued ID, such as a driver's license. Unlike some Democrats, these three candidates didn't reject out of hand the idea of requiring some form of ID. Their opposition is based on the restrictive nature of the law's requirement. They all agreed the law would be more palatable if the forms of ID permitted under the law were broadened considerably. They all agreed that the legislature should be more concerned with addressing election fraud in the form of absentee balloting as opposed to voter impersonation, a problem they see as being much greater. Their fear is that the current law will effectively disenfranchise voters for no other reason than it will create longer voting lines and people will walk away from the polling places.
Privatization
All three candidates expressed concern about the current administration's desire to privatize many government services. Orentlicher concedes that privatization in some cases is desirable, but there are many services which are not suited for privatization. In the context of the toll roads deal, one of Orentlicher's greatest concerns is a provision in the new law which will allow the Governor to privatize other public roads without legislative input. He sees a real danger in such an open-ended law. They felt that the toll road deal was too rushed. Barnes points out that his opponent freely admits he didn't consult with his constituents on the toll road initiative. Instead, Buell voted his conscience. Brown lamented that the paultry sums local governments were getting from the deal in his district weren't worth the risks of a 75-year deal.
Part-Time Legislature/Conflicts of Interest
While Indiana's legislature is still considered a part-time, citizen legislature, the candidates find that most constituents don't understand this. Orentlicher, who is a professor at IU, notes the challenges in deciding what issues pose a conflict of interest. Some would argue that he should recuse him from voting on all matters pertaining to IU, including its budget. He thinks the broader public interest should allow him to vote on IU's budget. Talking to voters, Barnes finds people who assume he will be required to give up his full-time teaching job if he's elected. He intends to continue teaching like other teachers in the legislature if he's elected. Brown sees a need for tighter controls. He notes one senator who is a hog farmer helps write laws regulating hog farms. He sees an apparent conflict of interest in that.
Some people have asked why there were no Republican candidates at the blogger's forum. That question should be addressed to Bil Browning at Bilerico, the organizer of yesterday's event. As for my part, I make myself available to any of the Republican legislative candidates who want to share their views with me for publication on this blog.
Top Legislative Priorities
All three candidates listed education as a top priority. Full-day kindergarten has been an issue Russ Brown has been touting a lot. In a recent debate with his opponent, Merritt switched his past opposition to full-day kindergarten to one in support Brown notes. Orentlicher has supported full-day kindergarten during his two terms in the legislature. On the question of education funding, Barnes reminds us that the state constitution doesn't give us a choice--the state's role in funding a public education system is clearly mandated, and the state has not been fulfilling its constitutionally-mandated duty. Brown used the opportunity to tout his proposal to provide tax incentives to encourage Indiana employers to help retain Indiana college graduates to stem the brain drain.
They all agreed that dealing with the problem of the insured must be a high priority. Orentlicher noted that he has participated in a health insurance reform study for some time. A model adopted by the VA hospitals is one that he thinks Indiana should take a closer look at. Brown believes the state needs to create a small business health insurance pool as a means of combatting the problem of the uninsured.
The candidates agreed that property tax reform that allows local governments alternative options for raising revenues to reduce dependency on the property tax is a top priority as well.
SJR-7 (Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage)
All three candidates are opposed to SJR-7, which would adopt a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages, as well as prohibit the recognition of the legal incidents of marriage for unmarried couples, whether straight or gay. Orentlicher voted against the measure when it was adopted by the General Assembly in 2005 in the first of a two-part process to place the amendment before voters in 2008. The candidates were all familiar with the second paragraph of the proposed amendment. Brown remarked his astonishment that during debate on SJR-7, Sen. Brent Herschman (R) freely admitted that he had no idea what the second paragraph of SJR-7 meant. He thought many of the members were similarly uninformed about the language in the amendment. Barnes observed that, once an amendment to the constitution is adopted, it is almost never repealed.
Each of the candidates unique perspectives help explain their position on this controversial issue. All three candidates agreed that SJR-7 and other hot button social issues are creating an unfavorable perception of Indiana and hindering its ability to attract cutting edge industries and a highly-educated workforce. Orentlicher notes that a successful legislative effort to ban all research pertaining to cloning and continuing efforts to ban research on embryonic stem cell research has had the effect already of driving out researchers from the state. Brown grew up in Ft. Collins, Colorado where HP had a large presence. A culture of acceptance and diversity helped that community grown and thrive. And Barnes, as a long-term educator in Warren Township schools, has seen first-hand the benefit of promoting a culture of tolerance and acceptance of diversity in our public schools.
Non-Discrimination
All three candidates agreed that the state's civil rights law should be amended to protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Orentlicher cautioned, howevever, that with any legislative change, he would want to be extra careful not to effectively repeal any current local ordinances already on the books.
Voter I.D.
All three candidates oppose the state's current voter identification law. This will be the first general election at which voters will be required to submit a state-issued ID, such as a driver's license. Unlike some Democrats, these three candidates didn't reject out of hand the idea of requiring some form of ID. Their opposition is based on the restrictive nature of the law's requirement. They all agreed the law would be more palatable if the forms of ID permitted under the law were broadened considerably. They all agreed that the legislature should be more concerned with addressing election fraud in the form of absentee balloting as opposed to voter impersonation, a problem they see as being much greater. Their fear is that the current law will effectively disenfranchise voters for no other reason than it will create longer voting lines and people will walk away from the polling places.
Privatization
All three candidates expressed concern about the current administration's desire to privatize many government services. Orentlicher concedes that privatization in some cases is desirable, but there are many services which are not suited for privatization. In the context of the toll roads deal, one of Orentlicher's greatest concerns is a provision in the new law which will allow the Governor to privatize other public roads without legislative input. He sees a real danger in such an open-ended law. They felt that the toll road deal was too rushed. Barnes points out that his opponent freely admits he didn't consult with his constituents on the toll road initiative. Instead, Buell voted his conscience. Brown lamented that the paultry sums local governments were getting from the deal in his district weren't worth the risks of a 75-year deal.
Part-Time Legislature/Conflicts of Interest
While Indiana's legislature is still considered a part-time, citizen legislature, the candidates find that most constituents don't understand this. Orentlicher, who is a professor at IU, notes the challenges in deciding what issues pose a conflict of interest. Some would argue that he should recuse him from voting on all matters pertaining to IU, including its budget. He thinks the broader public interest should allow him to vote on IU's budget. Talking to voters, Barnes finds people who assume he will be required to give up his full-time teaching job if he's elected. He intends to continue teaching like other teachers in the legislature if he's elected. Brown sees a need for tighter controls. He notes one senator who is a hog farmer helps write laws regulating hog farms. He sees an apparent conflict of interest in that.
Some people have asked why there were no Republican candidates at the blogger's forum. That question should be addressed to Bil Browning at Bilerico, the organizer of yesterday's event. As for my part, I make myself available to any of the Republican legislative candidates who want to share their views with me for publication on this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)