This Tuesday, July 21st at 7:00 pm Precinct Committeemen will meet to select the successor to Teresa Lubbers State Senate seat. This seat represents the north central portion of Marion County and the southern strip of Hamilton County. There are four candidates vying for this seat: Ryan Vaughn (current Indianapolis City-County Counselor); Scott Schneider (former Indianapolis City-County Counselor); John Ruckelhaus(a former State Representative); and occasional Hoosier Access commenter Chris Douglas.
I happen to be one of 108 Precinct Committeemen who are in Senate District 30.
On Wednesday (or maybe late Tuesday evening) I will give a report of what happens and my analysis of the four candidates, even who I voted for and why. But I would like to ask a question of the Hoosier Access community.
Someone commented to me that the Indiana Senate needed new leadership which got me thinking–what is leadership? How does a Senator show leadership?
Is it someone who stands on principles even when standing alone? (Or is that just courage) Is it someone who compromises on unimportant things in order to get the main part of what they want? Is it the person who brings people together to create a consensus?
Or is it something else?
***
Added by The Directors: We’re working on some sort of coverage for the caucus. We don’t know if we’re going to have a video or audio coverage yet or if we’ll just live blog it. Stay tuned.
I would take a look at Scott Schneider as the person who, in my opinion, is the best candidate for the caucus. Although he was not my Counselor, I have spoken to Mr. Schneider several times concerning a variety of issues. Mr. Schneider has always been thoughtful and has a keen sense of public sentiment, political realities, and is faithful to Republican tenets. I believe a Senator should “play well with others” in both parties and I have witnessed Mr. Schneider do exactly that. Although a Senator should be open to persuasive arguments, a Senator (or any representative for that matter) should be willing and able to make a stand on core beliefs. More than that, I would hope a Senator would be a strong leader for his grass-roots party officials. I believe Mr. Schneider possesses these qualities and has demonstrated each of them to a greater extent than any other candidate. I would encourage you to vote for him without reservation.
Good post, but lacking in one regard: Scott Schneider does not “play well” with others — he is too conservative for Indiana and especially the district, too dogmatic. We don’t need any more senators of the ilk of Mike Delph or Brent Waltz. And since Ryan Vaught will be a stooge of the monied corporate interests, (and has diddly-squat experience) that leaves John Ruckelshaus. Ruck has legislative and govt experience, is conservative, and importantly, is well liked by all different factions. He’s been involved in the business side of things, and is talking about education and training as critical to Indiana’s future. Plus, and this is important, he has been involved with the GOP for decades. He’s worked for the party. The current GOP leadership is making a mistake trying to shove Ryan Vaughn down everyone’s throat, especially in this district. If you doubt that, ask Toby McClamroch. But Ruckelshaus is acceptable to all of these factions, plus he has the right kind of temperment and experience for the district.
I have to respectfully disagree, although we all enjoy the beauty of picking our candidates. Ruckelshaus is (another) attorney who has made a lot of money via government and enjoys a high income lifestyle as a result. He may talk about “education and training” but has no experience in either. I think if you want someone with an attorney/lobbyist mentality, then Ruckelshaus is your man. Schneider is a small business owner who has been in the political arena not for profit or personal gain, but on the basis of bettering the community he represents. I’m also not sure how you could say he is “too conservative” for northern Marion County (who elected him Counselor) and Hamilton County. Both are conservative in demographic. I do respect Mike Delph after seeing his character both publicly and privately. Brent Waltz on the other hand…that’s a whole different story that could probably be it’s own issue!
I appreciate your thoughts — one correction or clairification: I don’t think Ruckelshaus is an attorney, nor do I think he made a lot of money in state government — the legislature does not pay that well, and I don’t think his pay at workforce development was all that lavish. And I think that Ruckelshaus is fairly conservative, though not as extreme as your man Schneider. This district is not as conservative as you think, and those representing it need to be able to appeal to some Indepdendent’s and some D’s
A correction for J: unless I am missing something, John is not an attorney (he certainly has not practiced as one) and has worked more in business than government for the last several years. His time in the Daniels administration was fairly limited.
Both jerry and J (you aren’t the same person, are you?) have pointed out the relative contrasts between Scott and John fairly well. In my discussions with each of them, I find them both fairly conservative in outlook–I’m not sure that they would actually disagree much on any particular subject. Scott is a “dogmatic” conservative who is fairly uncompromising and a good conservative will not find faults with his positions. John, on the other hand, is experienced in the process and will probably compromise on what he considers unimportant in order to get agreement on what he considers important.
You have left Chris out of the discussion, which is interesting enough on its own.
This is why I asked the question about leadership. What are we looking for as a leader? It is a question that I am asking myself a lot in this decision.
Scott is not afraid the shake the trees when needed. His time on the CCC proved that. Both of you have valid points for Ruck and Scott. I like them both, and know both of them from hanging around the Washington Township GOP club.
Frankly, I think this “playing well with others” leads to some of the problems we have in legislative members and leaders where things get watered down and nothing seems to get done. I do take offense to the statement of putting Mike Delph and Brent Waltz in the same group, that’s not even fair. Mike Delph is a great State Senator and frankly we could use a couple more like him. Brent Waltz … well….
Wouldn’t it be grand if Ryan Vaughn were to go down on the first vote? (no pun intended)
My hunch is it will take 5 votes to pick a successor. After the third there will be some serious arm twisting and no doubt some threats leveled at ward chairpersons whose PC’s aren’t “going along with the program”.
Michael, I was talking with John yesterday (I have spoken with John, Scott, and Chris extensively on two occasions each) and he indicated that the bottom candidate on each round will be removed. So the most we can go is three rounds. My guess is two rounds and I will explain why after the vote.
But back to leadership: is shaking the trees leadership? I’m not arguing one way or another–just asking the question.
Oh. I thought it was like slating where it was up to candidates to drop out unless they were below a certain threshold. So say with these four candidates it goes 30-30-30-10 – the candidate receiving 10 drops out … then 2nd vote goes 35-33-32 it would depend upon someone to drop out or someone twist some arms to get votes to change in the next round
To answer your question Joel – I think so. But that’s just one opinion.
Guess I was a little confused on which John C. Ruckelshaus was running for office. John C. “Jack” Ruckelshaus is a local attorney, former member of the IPS school board, former Indianapolis city-county counselor, and served formerly as a state Senator from 1957-1964. Apparantly his son, by the same name, is the one running. It looks like he served as a state representative from 1990-1992 and lost to Lubbers in the 1992 Senate redistricting race. He has a resume as a small businessman and lobbyist (for builder’s association PAC and currently employed by cable telecommunications lobby).
All that to same, I would still lean toward Schneider as a reliable representative. I like candidates who’ve avoided being employed as a lobbyist in their past, particularly one who is currently employed as such. I don’t think shaking the trees necessarily equals leadership, particularly in the Senate where trees are shook less often and more polite discourse is the norm more often than not. However, Schneider reflects well core Republican values and the majority demographic opinion of the district he would represent.
At some point we are going to have to get our hands around what a lobbyist is. There are more than one kind–the professional influence peddler and the person working in an industry that wants to be able to talk to people in government are both registered lobbyists. You want to stay as far as possible from the first. The second is fine.
John falls into the second category. He is not employed as a lobbyist, but lobbying is part of his job.
I guess it is semantics… He’s lobbying as part of his employment, which is the reason his employer hired him in the first place- to use his previous government position to connect & lobby current legislators. One may do it more than the other, but it seems to me that they are in the same boat. I’m not saying it’s the end of the world but given other qualified candidates without such a career on their resume, I give negatives points to the lobby.
J, here is the difference in my book. 1) We are choosing someone to “lobby” for us in the Senate for the next 3 years, so it is actually a plus if someone has ties and relationships with the people he will be working with; 2) if the concern is that he has skin in the game, then I would argue that all 4 have skin in the game–none of them are doing it for purely altruistic reasons; 3) the professional lobbyist will use his contacts for anyone who has the money while the part-time variety has chosen an industry or company with which to align himself.
BTW, I have finally talked with Ryan Vaughn, which was very interesting. I will relate my more detailed thoughts on all 4 candidates tomorrow night.
I understand that professional lobbyists will advocate for anyone who will pay them $$$. A part-timer will only lobby on behalf of a segment of the market who is paying him for very specific lobbying. I liken this to a the difference between a woman of the night “working the street” for anyone with cash and an escort who is a bit more discerning with her clientele.
I obviously don’t liken them, in reality, to the world’s oldest profession, but just making my point that it’s still the same job. I understand the practicality of using contacts, etc., but I ideally would like a candidate who is going into the profession without being poisoned toward a certain segment of the population.
Click for more info
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Recent Posts