Omedia Won't Let The Cheri Issue Die, You Can Count On It

Pundits and pols who view Gov. Mitch Daniels and his potential presidential bid favorably are dismissing as inconsequential any past marital discord between him and his wife, Cheri. Most Hoosiers know little about Daniels' wife because, until the past week, she had distinguished herself as the state's First Lady with the lowest profile in modern times. She refused to campaign for him in either of his gubernatorial bids, and she has rarely accompanied him in public appearances during the past seven years. Strangely, all of America has been seeing and learning about Cheri Daniels for the first time just like Hoosiers despite her husband's prominence as a political fixture in the state for decades. Cheri was thrust into the national spotlight last week when political reporters descended on Indianapolis to cover a rare speech delivered by her at a state GOP fundraising dinner attended by more than a thousand of the party faithful. The mere fact she was speaking publicly was deemed the surest sign Daniels will become a candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Predictably, past marital discord became a prime focus in mainstream media accounts of her speech. The Washington Post's Rachel Weiner wrote:

The couple have a somewhat unusual marital history. In 1993, they divorced, and Cheri moved to California. Her husband stayed in Indiana with their four young daughters. A year later, they reconciled.


Some attendees at the state party dinner said that it was not Daniels’s wife but his daughters, now adults, who were most wary of the campaign glare on that period in their life.

But Indiana’s first lady is in the spotlight for now. “There’s a lot of pressure on her,” said Ted Ogle, the party’s 6th District chairman, before the speech. “Her speaking last night is a major deal. What it means we might not know for some time.”

Party members had nothing but good things to say about Cheri Daniels, but they agreed that she had no love for politics.

“I always say that she’s the most elegant, graceful watermelon-spitter I’ve ever met,” said Eric Holcomb, the state party chairman. “She’s a multi-talented first lady. She’s not shy, but she’s not a political animal.”

Neither Daniels nor his wife seemed particularly reticent. “In 1975, I met a small-town girl, and it was one of those first sight things. I couldn’t take my eyes off her legs. She couldn’t take her eyes off the Steak and Shake burger I was eating. Whatever works.”

He explained how he convinced her that he should run for governor in 2003. “It does not overstate the case to say that this was not her first choice,” Daniels said. “There is no rule book for this, as far as I’m concerned. I would never want you to be any different than you are. I’ll never ask you to go anywhere you don’t want to go.”

The New York Times' Jeff Zeleny had this to say:

Cheri Daniels has made no secret of her distaste for politics. She did not campaign for her husband, Mitch Daniels, during two races for governor. She did not fully move into the governor’s mansion after his election. She has never delivered a political speech.


But as leading Republicans step up their efforts to urge Mr. Daniels to run for president, the attention has suddenly turned to Mrs. Daniels, who makes her debut here on Thursday when she delivers a keynote address at the spring dinner of the Indiana Republican Party.


Her willingness to take on a public role has increased the speculation about his intentions. But it has also come at the price of increased scrutiny on the couple’s private life, something Mr. Daniels had seemed to have on his mind for months as he made it clear that family considerations would weigh heavily on his decision.

While much is known about Mr. Daniels in Republican circles, where he is viewed as a fiscally focused, budget-cutting, pragmatic-thinking conservative, there is one period of his life that has remained almost entirely private — until now.

He has been married twice — to the same wife.

Should he run, that chapter in his life would no doubt be picked over in public and become a part of the personal narrative that springs up around any serious candidate: in this case a three-year gap in their marriage in the 1990s, when she filed for divorce, moved to California with a new husband and left Mr. Daniels to raise their four daughters, then ages 8 to 14. She later returned and remarried him.

He has discussed it only once publicly, telling The Indianapolis Star in 2004: “If you like happy endings, you’ll love our story. Love and the love of children overcame any problems.”

Their story is in some ways an antidote to a string of philandering male politicians. But it is a topic that Mr. Daniels does not relish delving into, several friends said. And it has been one of the factors as he weighs whether to run for president, a rare position where scrutiny begins and privacy ends whether or not one gets the job.

The marriages of many political figures break up after they leave office — the latest example coming this week with the announcement of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver’s separation — but the Daniels case provides a different look at the intersection of public and private lives.

The deliberations about whether Mr. Daniels will join the Republican presidential race have elevated from whispers to headlines in recent weeks as fund-raisers, activists and party leaders have openly lamented the party’s slate of candidates already in the race.

I could go on, but the point is the national news media, appropriately dubbed the Omedia, will remain fixated on this issue until all that can be exacted from it to effectively diminish public opinion of Daniels and his wife is a fait accompli. Anyone who doesn't appreciate this fact ignores the past history of those who have taken on Barack Obama in a political race.

When Barack Obama first ran for the U.S. Senate in Illinois and thrusted into national prominence in 2004, he faced stiff primary opposition, including a multi-millionaire who was self-funding his campaign and leading in the polls. Blair Hull was practically measuring the drapes for the curtains in his Senate office when the Omedia in Illinois, egged on by Obama media adviser and former Chicago Tribune political reporter David Axelrod, descended on him with a vengeance by getting old divorce records unsealed, aired unsubstantiated allegations of domestic violence contained in the previously-sealed records and effectively destroyed his short-lived political career. Moving on to the general election in 2004, Obama faced Republican Jack Ryan, a young, attractive multi-millionaire formerly married to Hollywood actress Jerri Ryan--until the Omedia got his divorce records unsealed and learned he had a penchant for taking his former wife to swinger clubs--a revelation that forced his withdrawal from the race, effectively sealing Obama's 2004 Senate victory. As Obama's number one fan, the Chicago Tribune, described his luck back then:

Barack Obama, who penned a 403-page memoir at age 33 and has a special skill for giving intricate answers to questions, has never been a man short on words.


But this week, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate finds himself at a strange place in his political career: trying to say as little as possible.

Obama's greatest challenge in the coming days is keeping his public comments in check as he watches Republican opponent Jack Ryan manage a political firestorm after the release of divorce files. They show Ryan's ex-wife accused him of pressuring her to have sex with him in sex clubs while others watched.

"You're probably going to hear me say the same thing over and over," Obama cautioned reporters as he opened a question-and-answer session amid a Tuesday evening fundraiser on Navy Pier.

Indeed, if keeping his words concise and repetitive is Obama's biggest challenge between now and the November election, perhaps no candidacy has been more blessed than the Democrat's current run for the U.S. Senate.

In the Democratic primary, Obama found himself the overwhelming beneficiary when the campaign of former securities trader Blair Hull crashed in the aftermath of Hull's release of court files from a messy divorce. Though Obama has been a passive beneficiary of Ryan's latest problems, the Democrat's campaign worked aggressively behind the scenes to fuel controversy about Hull's filings.

Now, with 4 1/2 months left until the general election, Obama is facing a severely wounded Republican foe who not only has the embarrassing sexual allegations to cope with, but also has a severe credibility problem with leaders of his own party. Illinois GOP Chairwoman Judy Baar Topinka and former Gov. Jim Edgar have publicly said they believe Ryan misled them about the contents of the divorce papers. And on Wednesday, U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert leveled similar charges.

On Wednesday, Obama insisted that he has delivered a convincing message to voters and has worked tirelessly on the campaign trail. But he also conceded that fortune is smiling on him lately: "We've gotten some good breaks in this campaign, no doubt about it."

Indeed, Obama has been the beneficiary of several Ryan stumbles, including the Republican's much criticized decision last month to dispatch an aide to trail Obama closely and continually with a video camera. Ryan also drew criticism for misstating a vote Obama took in the state Senate.

Obama's candidacy has also been buoyed by special attention he has gotten from national and international media outlets ranging from the New Yorker to the New Republic to the Economist of London. The unusual attention on his candidacy is generated by the possibility he could become the Senate's only African-American member, and the intense coverage should prove helpful in raising campaign cash outside of Illinois.

All of that has helped Obama gain a comfortable lead in the public opinion polls . . .

Remember what happened to John Edwards in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary? He's still reeling from the bombshell stories of his marital infidelity and the love child one such affair produced. Remember all of those stories about John McCain leaving his ex-wife for a younger wife? Need I go on?

So what's in Mitch and Cheri's divorce records? If you don't know now, you can bet you will after Mitch Daniels secures the Republican nomination for president, if not sooner. If Daniels is serious about running for president, he may as well let the entire record be laid bare on his terms rather than the Omedia's terms. No stone may go unturned when it comes to Obama's political opponents--even as the Omedia turns a blind eye to allegations of Obama stepping out on his wife with other men and the misfortune that befalls those who raise issues of his marital infidelity, including Larry Sinclair's illegal arrest or the murder of Donald Young.

Bayh Spending Leftover Campaign Funds On Himself

When Evan Bayh left the Senate last year, he had well over $10 million in leftover campaign funds. At the time of his departure, he said he was leaving the Senate because Washington had become too partisan and he wanted to spend more time with his family and take a new non-political job like running a university. Instead, he stayed in Washington where he has taken jobs with a big D.C. law firm that lobbies Congress, a New York City private equity firm with international ties and Fox News as a commentator. Together, the jobs provide him an annual income well north of $1 million. Nonetheless campaign finance records suggests he is using his leftover funds to pay for personal travel-related expenses rather than donating it to other candidates or charities. The Northwest Indiana Times Christine Kraly has the story:

According to a report filed last month with the Federal Election Commission, Bayh's campaign committee spent nearly $10,000 on various expenses during the first quarter of this year, after he left his Senate seat.


Generally, Bayh cannot, as no candidate can, use the money for personal expenses.

Bayh said, "We bend over backwards" not to violate the FEC's personal-use rules.

Campaign funds, according to the FEC, may be used only "for purposes in connection with the campaign to influence the federal election of the candidate."

Bayh began 2011 busying himself with new, private careers. In January, he became a partner at prestigious Washington, D.C., law firm McGuire Woods.

Also that month, New York City private equity firm Apollo Global Management announced Bayh would join as a senior public policy adviser.

And last month, Fox News touted it had hired Bayh as a commentator and analyst for the upcoming 2012 elections.

From January through March, Bayh spent $9,834 on travel, organization dues and other expenses.

About $1,200 of that went to air fare, $1,558 paid for hotels and $550 went to train fares.

The campaign committee covered smaller bills, including for meals in Virginia and Indianapolis, and $74.57 for cab fares in New York.

Bayh said some of the expenses were for travel and other costs spent in a hectic December, as he wound up his time in office. Some later were billed and paid for into the new year, he said.

"We are well aware of the prohibition on personal expenditures," Bayh said. "I was pretty active in December."

Part of what kept him active in New York that month was joining with other politicos -- including New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Florida Gov. Charlie Christ -- at an event for No Labels, an alliance formed by officials frustrated with partisanship.

Some of the expenses in his latest FEC report paid for that trip, wherein he also appeared on CNBC, he said.

"You're going to see practically none of that nature going forward," he said. "Going forward, I'd be surprised if I did one politically related event a month."

As for donating the money to other candidates, Bayh tells Kraly he's not too keen on that after he gave $1 million to U.S. Sen. Brad Ellsworth's failed Senate bid last year. "Bayh said he felt 'a little bit burned' after giving $1 million to U.S. Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., to back his U.S. Senate bid, only to see little additional support from the national party," Kraly writes. "I don't want to see a repetition of that," he said. "I'm going to kind of wait and see. What I won't do again is get heavily involved in a race" if there is not greater support of the candidate, he said. As always, it's always about Evan first.

Indiana Supreme Court Abrogating Citizen's Right To Resist Unlawful Police Entry Into Home Making Headlines

It's not often that a decision by the Indiana Supreme Court gets national attention, but a case decided by Gov. Mitch Daniels' first and only appointee to the high court is getting noticed. The case could have been your run of the mill domestic case involving an argument between husband and wife where wife feels threatened, wife calls police, police respond to wife's call and proceed to haul husband off to jail. What else is new? A broad-sweeping abrogation of a recognized common law right to resist an unlawful entry of police into a person's home, however, has drawn a lot of attention to this case. Here are the basic facts in Barnes v. State:

Officer Lenny Reed, the first responder, saw a man leaving an apartment with a bag and began questioning him in the parking lot. Upon identifying the man as Barnes, Reed informed him that officers were responding to a 911 call. Barnes responded that he was getting his things and leaving and that Reed was not needed. Barnes had raised his voice and yelled at Reed, prompting stares from others outside and several warnings from Reed.

Officer Jason Henry arrived on the scene and observed that Barnes was ―very agitated and was yelling. Barnes ―continued to yell, loudly and did not lower his voice until Reed warned that he would be arrested for disorderly conduct. Barnes retorted, ―if you lock me up for Disorderly Conduct, you’re going to be sitting right next to me in a jail cell. Mary came onto the parking lot, threw a black duffle bag in Barnes’s direction, told him to take the rest of his stuff, and returned to the apartment. Reed and Henry followed Barnes back to the apartment. Mary entered the apartment, followed by Barnes, who then turned around and blocked the doorway. Barnes told the officers that they could not enter the apartment and denied Reed’s requests to enter and investigate. Mary did not explicitly invite the officers in, but she told Barnes several times, ―don’t do this and ―just let them in. Reed attempted to enter the apartment, and Barnes shoved him against the wall. A struggle ensued, and the officers used a choke hold and a taser to subdue and arrest Barnes. Barnes suffered an adverse reaction to the taser and was taken to the hospital.

At trial, Barnes' attorney wanted the jury to be instructed that he had the right to reasonably resist police from making a warrantless entry into his home based on a long-recognized right at common law but was denied the instruction by the trial court judge. The jury found Barnes guilty of resisting a law enforcement officer, battery on a law enforcement officer and disorderly conduct. The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled it error for the trial court to deny the instruction to the jury and ordered a new trial. In a 3-2 opinion authored by Judge Steven David, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the lower court ruling and completely abrogated recognition of the common law right. “In sum, we hold that [in] Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.” Apparently, none of the three justices or their clerks caught the grammatical error in their sweeping decision. Explaining the Court's ruling, Justice David wrote:

We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action. E.g., Warner, supra, at 330 (citing the dangers of arrest at common law—indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, physical torture—as reasons for recognizing the right to resist); State v. Hobson, 577 N.W.2d 825, 835–36 (Wis. 1998) (citing the following modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies). We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest—as evident by the facts of this instant case. E.g., Hobson, 577 N.W.2d at 836 (―But in arrest situations that are often ripe for rapid escalation, one’s measured’ response may fast become excessive.). Further, we note that a warrant is not necessary for every entry into a home. For example, officers may enter the home if they are in ―hot pursuit of the arrestee or if exigent circumstances justified the entry. E.g., United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42–43 (1976) (holding that retreat into a defendant‘s house could not thwart an otherwise proper arrest made in the course of a ―hot pursuit‖); Holder v. State, 847 N.E.2d 930, 938 (Ind. 2006) (Possible imminent destruction of evidence is one exigent circumstance that may justify a warrantless entry into a home if the fear on the part of the police that the evidence was immediately about to be destroyed is objectively reasonable.). Even with a warrant, officers may have acted in good faith in entering a home, only to find later that their entry was in error. E.g., Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 11 (1994); United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922–25 (1984). In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.

Justices Brent Dickson and Robert Rucker offered separate, stinging dissenting opinions. Justice Dickson wrote, “In my view, the wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad.” "In my view it is breathtaking that the majority deems it appropriate or even necessary to erode this constitutional protection based on a rationale addressing much different policy considerations," Justice Rucker opined. "There is simply no reason to abrogate the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful police entry into his or her home."

A Drudge Report headline linking to an Indiana newspaper story on the Court's ruling reads, "Indiana court rules Americans have no right to resist illegal police entry into home." The Northwest Indiana Times story begins:

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.


In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry . . .

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.


"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."

I think most legal observers would agree with Professor Bodensteiner's defense of the case as serving to prevent violence, particularly in a case such as this one where tempers had already flared as a result of a domestic dispute. It's the total sweeping aside of the common law rule that is unsettling. "Indiana Supreme Court issues death warrant for Fourth Amendment" blares a headline at Pajamas Media. "This case may not get to the Supreme Court of the United States; that requires time and money," writes Dan Miller. "It should get there because it purports to abrogate — in Indiana — prior Supreme Court rulings on the Fourth Amendment and because cases embodying bad law tend to breed and multiply." I suspect the case may get even more attention in the days ahead if Gov. Daniels decides to run for president for no other reason than the decision is authored by his first and only state supreme court appointee.

Hat tip to Indiana Law Blog.

UPDATE: Hot Air weighs in with this critical take on the decision:

One has to wonder what part of “unlawful” Justice David doesn’t get. What part of the right of the people to “be secure… shall not be violated” wasn’t taught to him in law school.


How secure is anyone in their “persons, houses, papers and effects” if, per David, a police officer can waltz into any home he wants to “for any reason or no reason at all?”

The given reason by the Justice is resistance is “against public policy?” What policy is that? For whatever reason, most believe our public policy as regards our homes is set by the 4th amendment to the US Constitution. Since when does Indiana’s “public policy” abrogate the Constitutional right to be “secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects”?

Additionally, most would assume it is the job of the police not to “escalate the level of violence”, not the homeowner. Like maybe a polite knock on a door to attempt an arrest instead of a battering ram and the violent entry of a full SWAT team to arrest a suspected perpetrator of a non-violent crime. Maybe a little pre-raid intelligence gathering, or snagging the alleged perp when he leaves the house to go to work, or walk the dog, or go to the store.

Now citizens in Indiana are to give up their 4th Amendment rights because it might “elevate the violence” if they attempt to protect themselves from unlawful activity? Sounds like the “don’t resist rape” nonsense that was once so popular.

It looks like someone else has picked up on the rape analogy made in the Hot Air post. Len Rockwell pens a post entitled, "Indiana Supreme Court upholds the Rapist Doctrine: Don't resist--you'll just make it worse."

State Ethics Commission Hammers Former IURC Counsel

The Indiana Ethics Commission has imposed a fine of $12,120 on former IURC general counsel Scott Storms and barred him from future state employment after he negotiated and accepted a job with Duke while he was serving as an administrative law judge on a case pertaining to the utility giant. Storms' annual salary jumped from $93,000 to $135,000 after he began his job with Duke last September. He was fired by Duke in mid-December after the IURC and Duke came under fire for the hiring of Storms. The fine represented three times the salary gain Storms realized during his short period of employment by Duke. The Commission found Storms had violated Indiana law by serving as administrative law judge in the Duke Edwardsport plant case and Duke Smart Grid case while he had a financial interest in his prospective employment with the utility company. The Commission also found that Storms violated Indiana law by failing to notify the IURC of his potential conflict, or to seek an advisory opinion from the Commission related to his further participation in the case.

Ironically, the same Commission okayed his employment by Duke within the one-year cooling off period for former employees with the knowledge he had served as an ALJ in those same Duke cases. From its opinion last September giving the green light to Storms' employment by Duke:

This provision would not be triggered by Mr. Storms' work at the IURC as he was neither a commissioner nor a voting member of the regulatory body that may have made license or permit decisions regarding Duke." 

The ethics panel added that Storms would be prohibited from representing or assisting Duke on any matter in which he was "personally or substantially involved as a regulator." Those include several cases involving the Edwardsport plant and Duke's "smart grid."

Imagine if you sought the government's permission to do something before you did it. The government says, yeah, go ahead. A few months later after the proverbial shit hits the fan the government comes back and says we didn't get all the facts nailed down before we gave you approval to do that. We now find you violated the law and you must pay us a hefty fine. I don't have a lot of sympathy for Storms, but I don't have a lot of respect for the Commission's handling of his case. It looks like the Commission is simply punishing Storms now for making it look even more foolish than what it looked when it first signed off on his employment by Duke last September.

Daniels Vetoes Civil Forfeiture Legislation

The Indiana Constitution has long provided for the deposit of monies collected from civil forfeitures into the state's Common School Fund, but law enforcement agencies for years have socked away most of the money for their use as an offset for their costs. Governor Mitch Daniels wisely vetoed legislation passed by the General Assembly this year with the blessing of Attorney General Greg Zoeller that would have codified the practice of letting law enforcement agencies keep the lion's share of civil forfeiture monies. Gov. Daniels wrote in his veto message of SEA 215:

The bill would take more than 90 cents of every dollar collected through forfeiture for the "expense of collection" rather than sending it to the Common School fund. That is unwarranted as policy and constitutionally unacceptable in light of the Supreme Court's recent guidance and plain language of  Article 8, Section 2 of the Indiana Constitution.

Bates Launches 6th District Bid

An unsuccessful 2010 U.S. Senate candidate, businessman Don Bates, has announced he will seek the open seat of U.S. Rep. Mike Pence in the 6th District, which Pence is giving up to run for governor. A press release from Bates reads:

Richmond financial advisor and former U.S. Senate candidate Don Bates announced today he will seek Indiana’s 6th Congressional District seat being vacated by Congressman Pence.


“Congressman Pence has served my home district well these past 12 years; his message of fiscal restraint and social responsibility has been clear, and I look forward to continuing that message.”

Bates has been a strong, consistent voice for conservative values, and understands what must happen to restore American principles and revive our stagnant economy.

“Last week the unemployment rate again hit nine percent and the President’s policies continue to push our nation to the brink of financial ruin.”

“It is time for someone from Main street Indiana to go to the Capitol building in Washington D.C. as a voice for the people,” Bates said.

Bates lives and works in the 6th District, and is prepared to take his lifetime of private sector achievement to our nation’s capital on behalf of the people.

“The message I have heard clearly from Hoosiers is they are frustrated with lifetime politicians bringing no real results. I am a product of Main street Indiana and have a vision of what Indiana and America can be. That is why I am entering this race.”

Unsuccessful 2010 5th District candidate Luke Messer has indicated his interest in the open seat. The newly-drawn boundaries for the 6th District places his home county, Shelby, within the 6th District. Former. U.S. Rep. David McIntosh has also expressed an interest in recapturing the seat he held until he gave it up when he unsuccessfully ran for governor in 2000.

Duke's Rogers: Worried Hiring IURC's Storms Was "A Bridge Too Far"

John Russell's excellent reporting at the Star of the cozy relationship between regulators at the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission and Duke Energy's top executives continues today. He has more e-mails of discussions that eventually led Duke to offer the IURC's general counsel, Scott Storms, a job working for another former IURC official, Michael Reed, the company's Indiana head. In one e-mail, Duke CEO Jim Rogers worried that hiring Storms was "a bridge too far", but the view of other Duke officials that former IURC Chairman David Hardy would be offended if a job was not extended to Storms, which exemplifies the extent of the perversion in the relationship between the regulator and regulated, ultimately prevailed in spite of the risks.

When the chairman of Duke Energy Corp., the largest utility serving Indiana, was asked last summer by a subordinate for permission to hire the top lawyer at the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, he expressed misgivings.


"It bothers me but I don't know why," James Rogers, the chairman and chief executive, wrote in an email on July 26 to James Turner, a Duke vice president. "(It) feels like a bad move at this time."

Rogers suggested the move could raise criticisms of a revolving door, coming so closely on the heels of Duke's hiring of another former IURC official, Michael Reed. It is "a bridge too far," Rogers wrote . . .

But [Kelley] Karn was in a bind. Hiring Storms might set off criticism from consumer groups. But not hiring him, she seemed to feel, could upset Hardy, the powerful chairman of the IURC.


Karn turned to her boss at Duke's corporate headquarters in Charlotte, N.C., for guidance. "This could all blow up with Hardy being mad that we won't hire Scott," she wrote in an email July 1 to her boss, Catherine Stempien, senior vice president for legal services. "I'm really not sure how to get out of this mess." . . .

Of particular concern to Gov. Mitch Daniels and the impact on his potential presidential run are e-mails that firmly establish his personal legal counsel was aware of Storm's potential hiring and supported the move.

On the same day, Turner seemed to pick up an important ally in the Statehouse: David Pippen, general counsel to Daniels. Turner sent an email to Rogers on July 26, saying he had "just talked with Pippen" and it would "be fine" to move forward with discussions on Storms.


"I was pleasantly surprised by how positive and supportive the gov's chief counsel was," Turner wrote

Not surprisingly, Daniels' spokesperson, Jan Jankowski, didn't like any spin that suggested the guv's office complicity in Duke's hiring of Storms:

A Daniels spokeswoman, Jane Jankowski, took issue Tuesday with the suggestion that Pippen had supported the idea of Duke hiring Storms.


"There was no discussion of Duke hiring Storms," she wrote in an email. "Pippen was asked about Storms' work as a state employee. Any other characterization is Turner's."

In October, The Star requested all correspondence among the governor's office, Duke and the IURC in 2010. The governor's office released some emails but denied others, saying they were "advisory communications or expressions of opinion communicated for the purpose of decision-making and thus not subject to disclosure" under the state's public records law.

The release of these latest internal Duke e-mails suggests a potential cover up by the governor's office in the role it played in this sordid affair. It isn't "a bridge to far" to think the governor's office selectively released e-mails to the Star last year to give the appearance of transparency when it moved quickly to fire Hardy after the scandal first broke last year. There will no doubt be more pressure on the governor's office to release other communications it deemed "advisory" or "expressions of opinion." You can bet national reporters, particularly given their extreme bias for Barack Obama, will seize on this scandal as a way of diminishing the many Daniels' successes as Indiana governor.

The Star provides a link to the latest release of e-mails, which you can view here. They're much worse than Russell describes them in his story. Both Duke's and the IURC's top brass should be holding their heads in total shame.

Indianapolis Burning

Indianapolis firefighters fought at least 10 overnight fires near the downtown area, most of which appeared to be intentionally set. Although most of the affected homes and building were unoccupied, at least one was occupied with four persons, critically injuring two. The historic Kemper House at 10th & Delaware, once owned by Eli Lilly, was among the houses that caught fire. The Star provided a list of some of the reported overnight fires:

12:03 AM -- Arson, 945 North Dearborn Street, vacant home, $25,000 damage.

12:23 AM -- Arson, 1725 Nelson Ave., trash fire.

12:35 a.m. - 1602 Nelson Ave. garage, $15,000' spread to 1604 Nelson Ave., shed, $1,500.

12:37 AM --- Arson, 2517 E 9th St, vacant residence, $25,000.

12:55 AM -- Arson, 34 Karcher Street, vacant residence, $75,000.

3: 15 AM -- Under investigation, 1028 N Delaware Street, Historic Kemper Building, vacant, $80,000.

3:57 AM -- Arson, 1431 S. Talbott Street, vacant residence, $500.

4:36 AM -- Under investigation, 1230 S Meridian Street, vacant apartment building, $5,000

UPDATE: One of the critically injured persons, 63-year-old Anna Harris, has died. Fire investigators say the fire appears to have started near the front door, which makes its origins suspicious.

Lugar Political Director: GOP Chairmen Duped Into Backing Mourdock

An e-mail missive sent by Sen. Richard Lugar's political director, David Willkie, is likely to draw the ire of the more than two-thirds of the state's county GOP chairs who have endorsed Lugar's primary opponent, State Treasurer Richard Mourdock. Willkie said the chairs were "duped" into backing Mourdock, who he accused of relying on the same consultants as last year's failed GOP Senate candidate in Colorado, Delaware and Nevada to advise him:

Unfortunately, a large number of Republican County Chairmen have been duped into participating in the same failed scheme that resulted in Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle and cost us two crucial Senate Seats in 2010. (If the Republican parties in Delaware, Nevada, and Colorado had taken the Reagan "big tent" approach, we would have already repealed Obamacare.) Mr. Mourdock has hired the same consultants that brought us these unelectable candidates, and with Mr. Donnelly joining the race the pattern is complete . . .

Willkie also turns Lugar's label of being President Obama's favorite Republican senator on Mourdock. "Right now, Richard Mourdock is Obama's favorite Republican because if he wins that primary and Joe Donnelly is the nominee that's their (Democrats) shot at the Senate seat held by Dick Lugar," Willkie quotes Peter Rusthoven, a former Reagan White House Counsel and conservative political commentator as saying. Willkie suggests in his e-mail that Mourdock's challenge to Lugar is what drew Donnelly into next year's senate race.