Rhode Island Republican Senators Unanimously Support Gay Marriage

Yep.  You read that right.  An entire Republican caucus has voted in favor of legalizing gay marriage.

Sure, it's a small number of legislators, but the importance of the word "unanimous" still shouldn't be lost on you.  Especially on this topic.  Especially from Republicans.

And it's not being done without political backlash, as you might imagine.  The National Organization for Marriage has vowed to unseat at least one of the Senators, Dennis Algiere, because of his vote.

Thanks to The Washington Post for tipping me off to this story.  For more information, including links to other stories, please check out their article here.

Why Republicans Should Raise Taxes on the Wealthy

First, the reason is NOT because raising taxes is a good idea.  It's not.

The first goal needs to be reducing the national debt.  Few disagree that our debt load is unsustainable.  Few disagree that if we continue down the current path, financial ruin is inevitable.

And no amount of taxes can can fix that problem.  If you were to be able to tax 100% of the income of every single person in America that makes more than $100,000, you would still not have raised enough revenue to cover the annual national debt.

So, then, why exactly should the Republicans consider raising taxes?  Because they, and the rest of our nation, are being held hostage by the Democrats.  The Democrats are the lone party that is currently in a position to accept solutions outside of tax increases, and they won't.

But I thought the Democrats said that the Republicans are the ones holding us hostage?

They did.  Frankly, it's a lie.

The Democrats have the strength in Congress to make demands.  The Republicans have basically been given two options by the Dems:

1. Raise taxes on those making $250,000+;
2. Raise taxes on everybody.

The Democrats, though, have more options available to them:

1. Raise taxes on those making $250,000+;
2. Raise taxes on everybody;
3. Raise taxes on some other group of people than the two listed above;
4. Don't raise taxes at all.

The GOP has only been given two options, both of which raise taxes.  The Democrats, though, basically have an infinite number of options at their disposal, with or without the Republicans.  Who does it sound like is REALLY holding the other party hostage?

So, why should the GOP raise taxes?

Because they don't have any option in front of them that doesn't do that.  They can either raise taxes on those making more than $250K, or they can allow taxes to go up on everyone.  That's it.  Those are their only choices.  In this particular case, the Republicans have to choose to raise the taxes on the wealthy to prevent the taxes from being raised on everyone else.  It's not a pretty choice, but it is the only choice that they have.

Instead of keeping up the non-winnable fight, though, the GOP can choose to agree to the raises now, and spend the next month playing their newly gained leverage to achieve other compromises.

President Obama and the Democrats have thus far only drawn one line in the sand: taxes must go up for those making more than $250,000.  Outside of that, they say they are willing to make compromises.  Republicans need to jump all over that.  Since they have no choice but to agree to the tax increases, then they should draw their own line in the sand.

"We'll agree to your tax increases for the wealthy, if you agree that we'll balance the budget."

If the Republicans make that compromise, then they can turn the tables.  First, they turn the tables on the Democrats that have successfully convinced Americans that the GOP are the bad guys here.  Second, if you can force that compromise, you might actually take the first steps to seeing a brighter financial future for our children, grand-children, and further generations down the road.

P.S. - Tip to the GOP: When you ask for a compromise that balances the budget, invoke the name of Bill Clinton and the fact that he, for all intents and purposes, did just that.

The GOP Labored Hard to Keep Ron Paul Quiet

It's Labor Day.  A day that most use as an extra day of rest as a reward for their hard work the rest of the year.

Today, I am going to show you some hard work done by the Republican Party at their convention last week.  Sure, it's been over for a few days.  Still, I am bothered by what I saw.

The Republicans fought their hardest to keep Ron Paul and his supporters quiet.  Here's some great news coverage from Fox 19 News in Cincinnati. Ben Swann's "Reality Check" segment covers how the GOP not only changed the rules at the last minute, but also went so far as to script doing so.  They also kept a person heading up those voting against the rules change trapped on a bus circling the stadium while the vote was approaching.  The video runs about 5 and a half minutes.  The entire thing is worth a peek, but it starts to get really good around 1:14.






Even many Republicans are disgusted by how this unfolded.  Here's former RNC Chairman Michael Steele in an interview with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show.  He makes it clear that he believes the actions of his own party are disgusting.




If you, too, find these actions disgusting, please share these videos.  Help inform those that might not realize what is happening behind the scenes.

Do I Owe the GOP Voters a Round of Applause? Nah.

I feel like I should give the GOP some credit here. Kinda. Sorta. Maybe.

The GOP is the party that questioned Obama's religion in 2008. And 2009, and 10, and 11, and today. For some reason, the possibility that Obama might even maybe be Muslim, despite all evidence otherwise, seemed to be a topic of much concern to the members of the Grand Ole Party.

Sure, they been concerned about Obama's birth certificate, too. More so, even. But the amount of concern over his religion has not been slight.

Now, though, the Republicans have selected a 100% non-protestant presidential ticket. Mitt Romney is Mormon.  Paul Ryan is Catholic. A surprise from this party in many ways.

My initial reaction is to wish to applaud the GOP. After spending the last few years concerned about the potential non-Christian beliefs of Obama, they seem to have finally set those religious concerns aside. They have, themselves, chosen a presidential candidate that isn't Christian. And his Veep choice, although Christian, isn't Protestant.

It feels like a huge leap.

But I'm skeptical. I'm sorry, but I just have my doubts about how "accepting" the traditionally Christian Right Republicans have become with other religions.  My concern is this: just how accepting would the Republicans be if the Mormon candidate wasn't one of their own? I'm afraid the answer is, "not very."

I'd bet a paycheck that if the GOP ticket was Protestant-Protestant that the GOP voters wouldn't be near as cool with a pair of candidates that weren't the same. I have little doubt that there would be a thousand memes floating around on Facebook that make fun of Mormonism and Catholicism (especially Mormonism), and indicating that the candidates were unworthy of your votes because of it.

The Republicans simply don't have a history of religious tolerance. Quite the opposite. Year after year, candidate after candidate, issue after issue, the Republicans seem to find fault in those that are not Protestant, or at least Christian.

Because of that history, I just don't buy what is currently going on. I feel like there are probably tons of Republicans out there right now that are offended by the religious choices of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. I feel like if it were Obama or another Democrat that all sorts of hell would be being made of this. (All unofficially, of course, which is why I'm speaking of GOP voters instead of the official Party.) But since it's a pair of Republicans, they are turning a blind eye.

If you're a member of a non-Protestant religion and you have political aspirations, don't expect the same respect for you in the future. Unless you're a Republican, of course. Then you get a pass.

Lugar Asks Voters to Break the Law in Effort to Re-Elect Him

Dick Lugar is desperate to win in Tuesday's primary election.  How desperate?  He's publicly calling for people to break the law to help make it happen.

Indianapolis Business Journal is reporting that Lugar has sent out a call for Independents and Democrats to cross party lines and ask for a Republican ballot in the primary.  He asks they will then use their vote to help him defeat challenger Richard Mourdock.

The problem with that is that it may be illegal for voters to cross the party lines as Lugar is asking them to do.  According to Indiana law, you can only pull a party's ballot in a primary if you cast at least half of your votes for that party in the previous general election, or if you intend to cast at least half your votes for that party in the next general election.

Independents may not be breaking the law very often by pulling a primary ballot that they normally wouldn't.  Democrats and Libertarians who pull a Republican ballot for the sake of the Senate or Presidential race, or some other reason, are clearly in violation and are committing voter fraud.

Is that an enforceable law?  No, not at all.  The only way the law could ever be enforced is if we moved away from a secret ballot.  That, of course, is never going to happen.

But whether it is an enforceable law doesn't change the fact that it is the law, and Dick Lugar is asking people to break it for his own political gain.

Rupert Makes Pledge to the LGBT Community on Marriage Equality

One of the more divisive issues in our communities today is the future of LGBT rights.  Marriage is at the forefront of this issue.  Whether you are for or against the rights of homosexuals to marry, the topic is hotly debated in just about every political arena.

Other issues the LGBT community are fighting for include inheritance rights and hospital visitation rights.  Without the ability to marry, if one partner in a homosexual relationship dies, then the surviving partner doesn't have the tax benefits on the inheritance that a similar heterosexual couple would have.  And if a LGBT partner is hospitalized, the other partner may not have visitation rights if the family disagrees...something that would obviously never be possible to happen against a spouse in a heterosexual marriage.

Over the last few years the fight for LGBT rights has become the civil rights issue of the generation.  There have been great advances in the fight.  A handful of states have started to allow gay marriage.  Hate crimes laws now include acts against homosexuals.  The public attitude has become welcoming enough that many that formerly would have stayed in the closet for their entire life are now comfortable coming out at an early age.

The obstacles yet to overcome far outweigh the advances, though.  While many now feel comfortable coming out that may not have, by doing so they face the potential to face dangerous bullying issues...especially while still of school age.  Entire segments of the population still fight against homosexuality; they fight over things like why people are gay and they fight over what rights the LGBT community may have.  They do everything they can do to "keep the gay away."

In politics, the fight is just as grand.  The Republicans, with little exception, fight with all their might to prevent LGBTs from having any kind of benefits at all.  For the most part, the gay community responds by rarely voting Republican.  And who can blame them?

Confusingly to me, though, the LGBTs turn their support to the Democrats.  While the Democrats don't go out of their way to fight against gay rights, they sure don't go out of their way to support them, either.  It feels like  the LGBTs just choose to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Examples?  Let's start with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Which Republican signed this bill that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and also keeps states from having to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state (despite the constitutional requirement to do so)? No Republican at all.  The bill was signed by Democrat Bill Clinton in 1996.

And what Republican signed into law Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT)?  Again, none.  The bill was signed into law by...you guessed it...Democrat Bill Clinton in 1993.

But, wait!  Democrat President Barack Obama got rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell, didn't he?!?  Yes, he did.  But let's look at how he did it.  Throughout the 2008 Presidential campaign, he indicated that getting rid of DADT was a priority to him. But how much of a priority did he make it once he took office in January 2009?  The answer is he didn't make it a priority at all.  In fact, after he was elected we never heard him mention it again for about 18 months.

Why did he wait for 18 months to bring it back up?  He had the majority in the House and the Senate.  If it was REALLY a priority for Obama, all he had to do was tell his friends in Congress to get the bill on his desk, and it would have been law in very short order.

Instead, though, Obama used the LGBT community to his political advantage.  He only made an issue out of it when he felt he could pick up a few votes with it.  He campaigned on its importance in 2008 to get votes.  Then he ignored them for nearly two years.  Then it suddenly became important again in 2010 when he could again use it as leverage for votes.  In the meantime, LGBTs spent two years either choosing to not serve in our military, or serving and hiding who they are.  Obama made them suffer for all that time so he could pick up a few more votes for he and his party.

The same attitude is going on right now in Indiana and it's Gubernatorial race.  Ask a member of the gay community what they think of Mike Pence and they are likely to despise him.  After all, Pence openly fights against gay rights.

But then ask LGBTs who they're going to vote for this fall and they are likely to say John Gregg.  Why?  Not because he's on their side, but because he's the lesser of two evils.

As my friend an fellow blogger Mike Kole recently wrote on his blog The Kole Hard Facts of Life, John Gregg is no friend to the LGBT community.  When it comes to LGBT issues, Gregg is suspiciously silent.  If he does support LGBT rights, he sure isn't saying so. And he may very well be against those rights...we just don't know.

If Gregg does support LGBT rights, why would he keep quiet about it?  There's only three possible reaons: A) He's embarrassed by his position;  B) He feels his position could harm him politically; or  C) He doesn't really support LGBT rights.

If you are LGBT, which of those makes you comfortable voting for Gregg?  Do you want to vote for someone who's embarrassed to support you?  Do you want to vote for someone whose principals are so low he'd hide his support for you to gain political advantage?  Do you want to vote for someone who is against you?  I bet the answer is "No!" to all three.

There is an Indiana Gubernatorial candidate that isn't John Gregg or Mike Pence, though.  And guess what, LGBTs, he's made a public pledge to support marriage equality and LGBT rights.

That's right, Rupert Boneham is a friend to the LGBT community.  He's not embarrassed by it.  He stands by his principals and admits it.  He will fight for you.

As we head into the fall elections, I hope you will remember that.  Of course, there are many more issues than just LGBT rights.  Rupert will be making several trips around the state in the next several months.  He makes himself very accessible and is always happy to talk policy with Hoosiers.  If you will be attending Circle City IN Pride this year, Rupert plans to be there all day at the Libertarian Party booth.  Please stop by.

Tully Misses Key Points in His "Why Vote in the Primary" Column

A reader wrote to the Star's Matthew Tully and asked him to pen a column on why it important to vote in the primary.  Tully did so in his column today and, for the most part, I agree with the points he's made.  He did leave out a couple bits of information that I think are important to know about the primaries, though.

First, it is important to remember that the primary votes are actually closed party business.  They are open to the public and taxpayer funded, but when you vote in a primary you are declaring yourself to be a member of that party.  This isn't a problem for lifelong Democrats or Republicans.  For the majority of people that declare themselves independent of a party label, though, you are making a statement of affiliation by voting in a primary.  

Actually, it may even be illegal for you to vote in a primary in certain situations. Although impossible to track and enforce, you are legally only allowed to vote in a party's primary if you the majority of the votes you cast in the last general election were for that party, or if the majority of the votes you intend to cast in the next general election are for that party.  Again, this is not possible to enforce, but like using the honor box in a parking garage, it's just the right thing to do if you are a person of integrity.

Second, you are giving the parties a LOT of information about yourself when you vote in the primaries.  In a world where everyone throws a fit every time Facebook changes their privacy policies, you should consider the information that you are giving the political parties each time you vote.

No, they don't know exactly who you vote for when you step inside the ballot box.  But it is a matter of public record which party's ballot you pull, how often you vote, and which elections you vote in.  For the purposes of marketing their candidates to you most effectively, the parties consider this some of the most valuable information they have and they use it a lot.  And I mean a LOT.

Every one of you that has ever voted is on a list that the political parties has.  And you are categorized.  Based on the information above, the parties label you in many ways.  "Hard R."  "Soft D."  Whatever.  Did you ever wonder how your neighbor got one mailer for a candidate, and you got a completely different one?  It's based on your voting histories.  Your neighbor votes more, or votes less, or never votes in the primaries, or always pulls the same party's ballot, or never pulls the same parties ballot, or whatever.  

Based on that information, the parties know to send the mailer that bashes a candidate to the voter they deem most susceptible to that message.  And the happy message to the voter that will respond to that.  And the Hard Rs and Hard Ds probably don't get much money wasted on them for mailers at all, because their votes are so predictable that no mailer will swing them.  It's voter profiling, and it happens constantly.

Third, if you are a member or supporter of a third party, such as the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party, then you don't get to participate in the primaries at all.  The two major parities have crafted it this way through legislation.  They don't want the third parties to be able to participate in the primaries because they don't want the third parties to know who their voters are.  The voter profiling that the two major parties do constantly and completely rely on is a benefit they don't want to give to anyone else.  They abhor competition.

So think about this before you go vote in a primary.  I'm not telling you to not cast your primary vote, I'm just saying that you should be aware of what you are doing when you do. You are saying "I'm a Republican, world!" or "Hey, Public! I'm a Democrat!"  You are submitting yourself to a world of intense profiling.  You are opening yourself up in ways you probably didn't want to know.

(As an aside, if there is a school board race or other non-partisan vote taking place along with the primaries, then you can always ask for a ballot that only includes those non-partisan races.  By doing so, you can submit your vote in those important races without making a party declaration.)

"Right to Work" Will Cause Both R and D Incumbents to Lose in November

I don't know what the motivation of the State Representatives is when it comes to right to work.  It could be a grudge match that they are finally willing to throw down on.  It could be that both sides just truly believe that right to work is such an important issue that it's worth stopping all other business for.  I only know one thing for sure...they sure aren't battling it out because the people of the state give a crap...because we don't.

Don't get me wrong.  There are some extremely vocal supporters on both sides of the issue. And I'm not saying I don't have my own opinion on right to work, because I do. But an independent survey on the issue by Ball State's Bowen Center said that, for the most part, we Hoosiers simply do not care about right to work.

The survey shows that approximately the same number of Hoosiers are for right to work as are against it.  Both those numbers come in right around 25% (27% for, 24% against, within the surveys margin of error.)  The remaining half of us?  Well they either don't know or don't care about the issue.

What's that mean for those representing us at the Statehouse?  I suggest it means they better get their acts together and either and pass or shoot down the bill - and quickly.  With this many Hoosiers apathetic to the issue, anything that happens on behalf of this bill that slows down or halts other legislation will simply be considered intolerable.

It's only been three days right now, but there is currently no end in sight for the Democratic walkout.  Democratic Minority Leader Pat Bauer has made several statements indicating that there is no current plan for the Dems to leave the state, or that the walkout will last as long as the one last year. Simultaneously, signs of hope for their return are currently few to none.  They are demanding the GOP agree to several statewide hearings on the issue, but there has been no indication from Speaker Bosma that he is willing to put the vote on the back burner while such hearings take place.

The Democrats have since announced that they will have their own hearings on the issue.  There has not been any statement as to whether they will return after they are completed.  One would assume that they would, but depending on the time frame of those hearings, it may be too late for their careers.

Simply, if the Representatives on both sides continue this childish fight for very long at all, the large number of Hoosiers that don't care about the issue will vote accordingly.  Not against Republicans.  Not against Democrats.  They will vote against incumbents.  If the Representatives cannot, for the second year in a row, reach enough compromise to even get business started, then this election year will be one full of kicking people to the curbs.

I'd like to add that there's something almost good about this...almost.  Politicians being so committed to an ideal they believe is truly for better of all, and willing to risk their jobs in support of that ideal (on both sides), is a rare thing.  I don't believe for a second though that either side is so committed to their side because of some great feeling of the better good.  Let's be real about this...this is nothing but politics as usual.

Indy Star Decides Rupert is not a Candidate Worth Mentioning



Rupert Boneham
(image credit: rupertforgovernor.com)



The Indy Star's Mary Beth Schneider had an article in today's paper about a candidate for Indiana Governor.  It started of with a lengthy discussion about how this candidate refused to shave his trademark facial hair despite pressure to do so.

There was even a quote from the gubernatorial candidate defending his position, as Schneider puts it, as not just a personal, but a political statement.

"If I shave this off," (he) said, "people would say, 'What else is he going to change to be governor?' I'm not changing anything to be governor. I am what I am."

If I didn't know better, I'd swear this article was about Rupert Boneham.  It's not, though.  The article is about Democratic candidate John Gregg, who has decided to embrace his mustache as a trademark of his campaign, even including it in his new campaign logo.

In fact, the article conspicuously fails to mention that Rupert Boneham is even a candidate in the Indiana Governor's race.

Gregg's Campaign Logo
(image credit: greggforgovernor.com)

Mike Pence?  Check.  Jim Wallace? Check.  John Gregg?  Obviously, check.  Schenider even mentions Gregg's primary "competition," J. Robert Casko, who, according to the article, has only raised $206.

But Schneider fails to include Rupert's name in any way as a candidate for 2012 Governor.  Boneham's absence from the article is especially notable since Schneider spends a significant portion of her article discussing Gregg's unwillingness to get rid of his facial hair.  Boneham - whose candidacy has brought national and international news stories - also has trademark facial hair that he has stated he will not get rid of.
Both candidates have obviously received pressure to do so.

In most races, I don't get to wrapped up in the fact that Libertarian candidates get ignored in media articles.  Often, the Libertarian candidates are poorly funded and do little campaigning. When a Libertarian candidate steps outside of that typical circle, though, they are just as worthy of coverage as any other candidate.

This is especially the case with Rupert Boneham.  He is on the path to running a well-funded, high-profile campaign.  For the Star to already begin heading down the path of failing to mention him goes beyond normal oversight of a Libertarian.  It is simply poor and sloppy journalism.

Ed Coleman Again Attacked with Lies by Sandlin Campaign.



Councillor Ed Coleman
(one of his infamous new suits?)

 Jack Sandlin's at it again.  I wrote on Thursday about Jack's neagative mailers; one attacking Ed Coleman with lies about an "attack piece" that didn't exist, and another with Jack taking credit for 4 years worth of Council votes while having only been on the Council for 11 months.

(To be fair, the Marion County Libertarian Party did send a less-than-positive piece on Sandlin.  It was sent, however, after Sandlin claimed to be attacked.  The only pieces that I am aware of having been sent before Sandlin's claim are the incredibly positive pieces I showed in the blog.)

Now, there's another mailer floating around on Sandlin's behalf attacking Ed Coleman.  This one, paid for by the MCRCC, makes claims that Coleman illegally used campaign funds to buy fancy clothes, and fly to Vegas for a night at a casino.

(On a personal note, I don't know what Sandlin considers to be a "Wild" night in vegas.  Frankly, I don't think that a $108 hotel room bill qualifies.)

New ad attacking Coleman

The fact is that Coleman made a trip to Vegas to go to Freedom Fest, one of the largest Libertarian festivals in the country, to seek fundraising.  Considering that his networking there may have been a significant step towards his campaign receiving a $50,000 donation seems to make the trip very worth while.  And the $108 casino expense that Sandlin implies was gambling?  That was Coleman's hotel room.

Fellow blogger Paul Ogden covered this earlier today.  It appears he has been in touch with Coleman's campaign. Coleman's response, via Ogden's blog:

"Freedom Fest is a large gathering of enthusiastic libertarian individuals every year in Nevada. The campaign invested a small amount for Ed to make the trip, because we saw an opportunity to fundraiser and receive attention on a national level.


The investment paid off and eventually helped Ed raise over $60,000 for his campaign, allowing us to spread Ed’s message of Lower Taxes, Balanced Budgets, and Public Safety."

Coleman's response goes on to say that Ed has focused on his health this year, a focus that has lead to his losing almost fifty pounds.  That weight loss lead to Coleman's need for new suits, a need which campaign contributors recognized and specifically donated for.
 
So, for the second time in days I have to wonder why Jack Sandlin has to resort to lies in his attempts to defeat Ed Coleman.  As I said in my previous blog, Sandlin is obviously scared.
 
I guess I should just be clear.  An $1,100 trip for the purpose of raising more than $60,000 for your campaign is not the misuse of campaign funds, even if that trip happens to land you in Vegas.  Another $880 on suits after losing 50 pounds is not a misuse of campaign funds, especially when money was specifically donated to your campaign for that cause.  There was no "Wild night in Vegas." There was a fundraising trip just like candidates everywhere take part in.
 
Jack Sandlin and the Republicans are turning to lies in their negative mailers simply because there just isn't anything true to be said about Councillor Coleman that would piss anyone off.
 
And Jack Sandlin and the Republicans are turning to lies in their own Vote for Jack mailers simply because there isn't anything true to be said about Sandlin that would entice anyone to elect him.

Sandlin Acting Scared on the South Side

If you haven't yet noticed, I hope you take a minute to turn your attention to a very interesting Council race that has been developing on the South Side.  Marion County's 24th district, located at the due-south side of town, along US 31 from I-465 to County Line, is shaping up as one of the more interesting races in this year's election.

Ed Coleman

The "battle of the mustaches" is between Libertarian Ed Coleman, currently an at-large councillor representing all of Marion County, and Republican Jack Sandlin, the current District 24 representative, appointed to fill the position last December after Mike Speedy left for his State House seat.  There is no Democrat running in the race. The word is, though, that Marion County Democrats are apparently making it clear through their inner circles that any Democrat who does not vote for Coleman is, in their view, essentially voting for Republican Sandlin.

Both have been out spreading the word about their campaigns and have sent several pieces through the mail.  Coleman has sent two or three mailers out so far and has thus far remained positive.  Sandlin has sent several mailers (mostly sent on his behalf from the Republican Party) which have been misleading at best.

This issue was tackled on Monday by fellow blogger Paul Ogden.  In his article "Mailing Brags About Councilor Jack Sandlin's Support of Mayor Ballard's Agenda BEFORE Sandlin Took a Seat On the Council" Ogden talks about how Sandlin, a councillor for a mere 11 months, takes credit for years worth of votes on the Council.

One of Sandlin's first misleading ads

I assume Sandlin is trying to play into the fact that most voters do not even know who their councillor is.  By making claims that are not even possible, Sandlin hopes to capitalize on the votes of voters who simply do not know better.

From Ogden:

"The only problem is, Sandlin did not take a seat on the Indianapolis City-County Council until late 2010. Bragging about Sandlin's support of the Ballard agenda when he wasn't even on the council seems to be at worst dishonest and at best sloppiness by party officials.


It is also a stretch to say he was "elected" and now should be "re-elected." Sandlin received his position when he won an unopposed precinct committeeman caucus vote to fill a vacancy when Councilor Michael Speedy was elected to the legislature."

Ogden is right on both points.  Sandlin's mailer starts by asking for you to "re-elect" him.  Simply, you cannot re-elect someone that was never elected in the first place.
 
Second, Sandlin takes credit for passing honestly balanced budgets each of the last three years.    Simply, again, you can't pass budgets that you were not part of the Council to even vote on. (I won't even get in to the "honestly balanced" statement, except to say Indianapolis does not have an honestly balanced budget.) His mailer, as you can see, is full of similar points that are simply impossible for an 11-month councillor to have achieved.
 
Sandlin's newest mailer, the first one I've seen actually paid for by his campaign, directly attacks Coleman for having "attacked" him unfairly.

Sandlin's recent "I was attacked" mailer



The first line of the mailer indicates that Coleman is trying to deceive the 24th District voters.  An interesting statement from someone claiming credit for 4 years of votes during 11 months on the Council.
 
The mailer also refers to Coleman's mailers as an "attack" on Sandlin.  If you look at the samples of Coleman's mailers that I have included, I am sure you you find that they are free of attacks on Sandlin. In fact, Coleman's campaign ads have been very good about staying centered on Coleman's achievements.
 

Back of one Coleman mailer

Front of both of Coleman's mailers

Back of the other Coleman mailer

I'm not going to get up on a pedestal and say that Ed Coleman is without flaws.  One thing that he is, though, is honest.  On more than one occasion I've heard members of other parties, even when disagreeing with him, refer to Coleman as one of the most consistent and principled members on the Council.  To suggest that Coleman is lying or being deceptive in his campaign materials is, as I show above, simply not true.
 
In fact, if there's a deceptive candidate this year in District 24, it's Jack Sandlin.

WISH TV Poll Shows Ballard with 11-Point Lead

WISH-TV just released a poll showing Mayor Ballard with a 44%-33% lead over challenger Melina Kennedy.  Libertarian Chris Bowen comes in with 2%, and the undecided vote comes in very high at 21%.  The poll had a 4.9% margin of error.

This poll very closely resembles the poll that Fox 59 received from the Ballard campaign.  I covered that poll and other aspects of the race in my Tuesday story "Kennedy Will Win...er, wait...No, Ballard Will Win...um, hold on..."

While this poll is not too far outside of the margin of error, especially when you add in the undecided votes, this is obviously horrible news for the Kennedy campaign.  Such an enormous apparent margin this many days before the election has the ability to possibly cause some Kennedy supporters to give up and not bother coming to the polls on Tuesday.

While I disagree with his position on this, that very possibility was something that Paul Ogden blogged on earlier Wednesday.

It will be very interesting to see how both campaigns react to this poll in the final days of what, before tonight, appeared to be a very close campaign.

Kennedy Will Win...er, wait...No, Ballard Will Win...um, hold on...

I was fully prepared to post my 2011 Indianapolis Mayoral prediction today.  My initial post was to declare my belief the Melina Kennedy would win the Mayor's race with 49% of the vote, Ballard coming in at 47%, and the remaining 4% going to Libertarian Chris Bowen.

With the lack of publicly available polls, I had to base my prediction on other things. First, the tone of the campaigns.  The Kennedy campaign seems to have gotten progressively nicer, while the Ballard camp seems to have gotten angrier lately.  Second, the lack of polls being released by the campaigns seemed to be an indicator of a tight race that neither side was willing to give up too much info on.


Third, there's a bunch of Republicans pissed off at Greg Ballard for things like the water company, the parking meters, the back-scratching of political buddies, etc.  While Bowen has ran a relatively quiet campaign and was excluded from most debates, I fully expected to see many Republicans either vote for him or take a pass on Mayoral voting altogether, rather than vote for Ballard or Kennedy. This, of course, would push Bowen's percentage up a bit.


There's been a sequence of news in the last day or so that has made me reconsider my position.  Twice.

First, word spread Monday of a couple of internal polls that Fox 59 had gotten a hold of.  One poll, from the Ballard campaign, was said to have been taken within the last week and indicated that he had a double-digit lead, 51%-39%, with Bowen coming in at 2%.  A second poll, from the Kennedy campaign, indicated that she had a 2-point lead that was within the margin of error.  Kennedy's poll was said to have been taken about two weeks ago.

Of course, both campaigns are likely to release polling information that shows them in the best light.  The fact that Kennedy's best shot at this was a two-week old poll that has her in a statistical dead heat with Ballard can't mean good news for the Kennedy campaign.  Abdul-Hakim Shabazz was quick to point out on his Indiana Barrister blog that those numbers are the exact same numbers released by Marion County Democratic Chairman Ed Treacy on September 23rd.  That coincidence is strong enough to make one doubt the validity of the Kennedy campaign statement that the poll given to Fox 59 is only two weeks old.

So, I began to rethink my initial prediction.  In light of this new information, I was willing to now say that Ballard was going to win re-election.  My new guess, based on that polling, was 52%-47%-3%. Ballard with a strong but not enormous win over Kennedy, and Bowen's numbers a little lower because of it.

OK, so I'm ready to run with this story now.  Right?

But wait...

This morning, Gary Welsh over at Advance Indiana wrote that early voting numbers are through the roof this year. According to his story, early turnout numbers are almost twice what they were at this time in 2007, and almost as high as last year's Congressional election year.

Traditional thinking would tend to indicate that is an incredibly strong sign for Kennedy.  Early voting is, as a rule, a Democratic stronghold.  While Republicans are now, at the last minute, trying to push their people for early voting, the Marion County GOP has been opposed to any expansion of the process this year.  It's all about votes when it comes to decision making for parties, so that opposition would lead you to believe Republicans are sure Kennedy and/or other Democrats favor strongly from early voting.

So let's sum this up.  Lack of polling results being released seems to be a slight favor to Kennedy.  But then some polling results are released but they are questionable but they seem to indicate a strong favor for Ballard.  But early voting results are through the roof which seems to be a good thing for Kennedy. (You get that?)

I guess I'll just split the difference and predict the race as 48%-48%-4%.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if we see a recount necessary on this one.

Ron Paul and Republicans: It's Decision Time

Dr. Ron Paul
(image credit: paul.house.gov)

There's been a lot of chatter in the blogosphere and the news lately about whether Ron Paul may abandon the Republican Party and choose to run for President on a third party ticket.  It's not exactly a surprise to be hearing these rumblings.  However, as the first presidential primaries draw closer, it is time for both Ron Paul and the Republican Elite to make a decision on how they want to proceed.

 

The first decision needs to be made by the Republicans.  It's time to answer a question: Is it more important for a Republican to win the presidency, or is it more important for Barack Obama not to?  That's the decision the GOP may be making when they decide to support or not support Ron Paul.

 

Let's break that down.  First, don't give me that "third party candidates steal votes" crap.  It isn't true.  Our votes do not belong to candidates, they belong to us.  If I vote for a third party candidate it's because they earned it.  If a major party candidate loses by a margin smaller than the amount of third party votes, then that candidate did not earn a win.  The winner wins because they earned the most votes.  The loser(s) lose because they were not successful at earning the number of votes they need.  That is fact.  You would be unable to convince me otherwise.

 

Next, Ron Paul is doing pretty well.  He is raising a ton of cash.  He is obliterating the competition in straw polls.  In head-to-head comparisons, he fares extremely well versus Obama.  The only people that don't seem to like him are the Republican Elite and the media.  Hell, even the media is slowly starting to come around.

 

But, as noted, the Republican brass don't seem to care for Paul much.  No matter how well he does, they just can't come to embrace his libertarian ideals.  More, I believe that they dislike him because he does what he believes is best rather than simply falling into line.

 

Now, though, the Republicans are going to be faced with a major problem.  There is growing belief that Ron Paul will be unable to earn the Republican nomination for President.  Because of that, the calls for Paul to run on a third party ticket get louder and louder.  On Saturday, ABC news reported that the director of the Manhattan Libertarian Party had specifically called for Paul to run for the LP. (Because of his libertarian ideals, and his 1988 run for president on the Libertarian ticket, the LP seems to be the most likely spot for Ron Paul to land if he ran as something other than Republican.)

 

The problem for Republicans has to do with Ron Paul's enormous popularity with those outside the Republican Establishment.  If Paul ran on a third party ticket, he would most certainly earn a huge number of votes, including a part of the Electoral College. If the votes are split three ways, there is little chance that a Republican candidate will earn enough votes to win the Presidency.  In fact, because of Paul's attraction to people on both sides of the aisle, a Third Party Ron Paul could quite possibly earn more votes than the Republican counterpart.

 



(image credit: wikipedia.org)



So, the Republican Elite have themselves in a pickle.  Their choices are: A) Suck it up and throw their support behind Ron Paul, a candidate they don't seem to care for but that has a real shot head-to-head versus Obama, or; B) Risk Ron Paul running on a third party ticket, in which case the GOP has no chance of 2012 victory.

 

That being said, I doubt that the Republican Elite have the intestinal fortitude to give enough support to Ron Paul to give him a shot at the nomination.  That would require conceding.  Conceding anything is not something the two major parties are known to do.

 

This brings us to the decision that needs to be made by Ron Paul.  He could wait for the Republican Elite to make a decision, but that decision is predictably a negative one for Paul. The problem is, if he waits for the Republicans to decide then they could stall.  My understanding of sore loser laws is that if Paul loses a GOP primary, then most states will not allow him to run for the same office on a different ticket in the subsequent general election.

 

That means Paul must decide about a third party run before the primaries, which gives him precious little time to do so.  Thus far his answers to questions on this issue have been relatively vague, but seem to lean heavily towards not doing so.  Of course, he's still running for the Republican nomination, so acting like he's considering defecting would be a sure-fire way to end any shot he has at an R nod. So, for now, it makes complete sense that Paul denies any third party rumors that are out there.

 

If, though, Ron Paul is serious about his intentions to be President, and all indications are that he is, he and his campaign team have to be seriously looking at the Third Party possibility.  Within a month, unless polls show him much stronger among likely Republican voters, Paul will need to decide whether to hang up his hat or to run for another party.

 

Paul's decision about a third party, though, will mean he will need to consider many of the same things that the Republican Elite will need to consider while thinking about him. If he runs as a third party candidate, there is little chance that the Republican candidate will earn enough votes to win the Presidency.  Paul, on a third party ticket, may earn more votes than the Republican, but will have a difficult time earning more votes than both the Republican and the Democrat.  In that case, it would appear that the Presidency remains under the grasp of Barack Obama. So, is it more important for Ron Paul to win, or for Obama to lose?

 

The Republican Elite and Ron Paul are both nearing the zero hour for a decision to be made.  I'm sure there are Republicans everywhere begging Ron Paul to not run third party.  I'm sure, also, that Ron Paul is using that to apply some leverage to his fellow Republicans.  "If you don't want me to go, you'd better get out there and start supporting me." The GOP probably won't offer that support, thinking they are calling Ron Paul's bluff.

 

Historically, though, Ron Paul is not known for bluffing.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if Paul announces a third party run within the next month.  If so, it's just one other story that's going to make 2012 one hell of a ride.

Ron Paul's Website Attacked During Online Fundraiser

Libertarian-leaning presidential contender and congressman Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX) turned 76 years old yesterday. As part of his birthday celebration, Dr. Paul and his campaign team decided to hold a "money-bomb," or day-long online fundraising push.

The congressman has had extraordinary success with money-bombs in the past, and has them regularly. He was the first candidate in U.S. history to raise one million dollars in a day via the internet.

His goal for yesterday's birthday money-bomb was an aggressive $1.5 million. Not surprisingly, he was making great strides towards that goal as the day progressed.

Then came the devastating news from Paul's campaign. At approximately 10:40pm Eastern, the Ron Paul Facebook page posted the following status update:

"The ronpaul2012.com website is under cyber attack. Our team is working to fix this as we speak. So sorry to all who have tried to make donations and could not. We'll have more info ASAP."

Speculation as to the cause and source if the web failure began quickly circulating the internet. Some were saying that the website's servers simply couldn't handle the traffic (something this author doubts do to the large number of successful money-bombs Paul has had in the past). Others speculated that the attacker was some Republican that wanted to slow Paul's recent successes. (A little more reasonable of a theory, since Paul is often considered a radical to ignore within his own party, but has had many recent positive movements in his campaign.)

The truths is, it doesn't matter who the attacker is. It could be someone just out to make a name for themselves in the hacker world. Or, as earlier stated, there may be no attacker at all.

The site was finally up and going before midnight, and the site announced they were extending the money-bomb until noon today to allow a chance to donate to those that could not.

By the time midnight struck, the money-bomb had raised $1.49 million of their $1.5 million goal. Because there's some extra time on the clock now, the campaign has increased the goal to $1.75 million.