The author of Indy's Painfully Objective Political Analysis, family law attorney Chris Worden, posted that he'd be taking a sabbatical back in June. It seems like the November 2 elections have bought Worden out of the woodworks and he had 12 posts throughout the month of November.
Welcome back, Chris. I hope he sticks around for the 2011 municipal election. He provides excellent analysis and offers incite into the local and state Democratic party that is hard to find in the blogosphere and impossible to find in the mainstream media.
Showing posts with label iPOPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iPOPA. Show all posts
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
CIB Bailout: How will the Democrats Use It?
With Chris Worden's iPOPA blog on indefinite hiatus, I think I'll try to put on my analyst/reporter cap and leave my opinions at the door. You can pretty much go to any of the other blogs in town and find some excellent opinions and analysis, but I've been pondering something else.
How will the Democrats play this issue? The leading candidate in the Mayoral race on their side, Melina Kennedy, has been quiet on the utility transfer due to her day-job at the law firm of Baker and Daniels (who is representing the city in the deal). And Democratic candidates who haven't even gotten the nomination wouldn't dare talk trash to Herb Simon, a long time supporter of Democrats (though like many of the movers and shakers of this town, he contributes to both parties locally). So what will they do?
I thought that they might criticize some of the finer details of the deal. Gary Welsh has already started their homework for them in two excellent posts. Someone like Brian Williams, who sunk his teeth into the water utility sale, could get in on the ground floor and point out specifics of the deal that could be played as bad, and what a Democratic administration would've done differently. A Democrat could also note that the deal won't have any City-County Council over site because it allegedly is coming from within the Capital Improvement Board's budget, and the Council only would need to review if it requested new spending. Finally,they could go after the short-term fix, since it just leaves a new deal for another administration to handle if the current one doesn't get re-elected.
And to prove how right I am, I had an e-mail exchange on Facebook with Jon Easter, one of the writers over at Indy Democrat. He basically confirmed my suspicion, and these points appeared in his latest post.
But there's one final viewpoint I'd like to cover: the viewpoint of the public. It really does seem like this bailout is getting overtly negative reviews, but what impact will it have on the average citizen in 2011 and their decision of who to vote for? As bloggers, sometimes we have more of a long-term memory or tend to focus in on certain subjects. That isn't true for everyone, and what is an issue now might be forgotten in a week, month, or a year from now.
How will the Democrats play this issue? The leading candidate in the Mayoral race on their side, Melina Kennedy, has been quiet on the utility transfer due to her day-job at the law firm of Baker and Daniels (who is representing the city in the deal). And Democratic candidates who haven't even gotten the nomination wouldn't dare talk trash to Herb Simon, a long time supporter of Democrats (though like many of the movers and shakers of this town, he contributes to both parties locally). So what will they do?
I thought that they might criticize some of the finer details of the deal. Gary Welsh has already started their homework for them in two excellent posts. Someone like Brian Williams, who sunk his teeth into the water utility sale, could get in on the ground floor and point out specifics of the deal that could be played as bad, and what a Democratic administration would've done differently. A Democrat could also note that the deal won't have any City-County Council over site because it allegedly is coming from within the Capital Improvement Board's budget, and the Council only would need to review if it requested new spending. Finally,they could go after the short-term fix, since it just leaves a new deal for another administration to handle if the current one doesn't get re-elected.
And to prove how right I am, I had an e-mail exchange on Facebook with Jon Easter, one of the writers over at Indy Democrat. He basically confirmed my suspicion, and these points appeared in his latest post.
But there's one final viewpoint I'd like to cover: the viewpoint of the public. It really does seem like this bailout is getting overtly negative reviews, but what impact will it have on the average citizen in 2011 and their decision of who to vote for? As bloggers, sometimes we have more of a long-term memory or tend to focus in on certain subjects. That isn't true for everyone, and what is an issue now might be forgotten in a week, month, or a year from now.
Monday, January 11, 2010
State Legislative Shindigs
I am very far behind in being knowledgable about what's going on at the State House, but hope to catch up later in the week. One bill that was pointed out to me via Indy's Painfully Objective Political Analysis is this bill in the Senate. Sue Errington (D-Delaware County) is proposing that "domestic partnerships" (two people in a relationship living together but aren't married) get visitation rights. It sets out how a partner can provide proof of the relationship, allows a hospital to make reasonable restrictions (visitation hours, patient's health, or the patient or their legal guardian denies them visitation).
Now, the Eric Miller's of the world are going to go up in arms about this, but what they don't realize is that there are an increasing number of couples who are living together but not married. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. USA Today reported in 2005 that cohabitation rates are up:
TEN MILLION? Now, that's a fraction of the national population, and probably so for Indiana too, but just because some demographic is part of a minority doesn't mean their basic human rights are thrown out the window.
Me? I don't see what all the fuss is about. If the patient is conscious and mentally able to make his or her own decisions, then he or she should allow whoever they want. But in the case that the patient isn't alert and talking, it's nice to have these guidelines set out so you can visit those you love when they need you the most.
Now, the Eric Miller's of the world are going to go up in arms about this, but what they don't realize is that there are an increasing number of couples who are living together but not married. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. USA Today reported in 2005 that cohabitation rates are up:
The number of unmarried couples living together increased tenfold from 1960 to 2000, the U.S. Census says; about 10 million people are living with a partner of the opposite sex. That's about 8% of U.S. coupled households. Data show that most unmarried partners who live together are 25 to 34.
TEN MILLION? Now, that's a fraction of the national population, and probably so for Indiana too, but just because some demographic is part of a minority doesn't mean their basic human rights are thrown out the window.
Me? I don't see what all the fuss is about. If the patient is conscious and mentally able to make his or her own decisions, then he or she should allow whoever they want. But in the case that the patient isn't alert and talking, it's nice to have these guidelines set out so you can visit those you love when they need you the most.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
