Archive for December, 2007

I guess the last 24 hours of Bart Peterson’s administration aren’t going to be ticking by all that easily. If you haven’t heard the forecast for tonight, here it is:

From the Indy Star:

Much colder, windy weather and up to 4 inches of snow are in the New Year’s forecast for central Indiana..

The National Weather Service issued a snow advisory late this morning in effect from 6 p.m. tonight to 7 a.m. Tuesday.

The snow could begin this afternoon and continue tonight, with a total accumulation by morning of 2 to 4 inches and west winds gusting to 35 mph.

Overnight lows should dip to the low 20s. Tomorrow’s New Year’s Day high may only reach to the mid 20s, with a 40 percent chance of snow showers and winds gusting to around 30 mph.

Wednesday’s high may only reach 19. Northwest winds of 15 mph could drive wind-chill readings to 6 below zero.

So Bart will have some shoveling to do before he leaves a little before noon tomorrow. Of course, the flip side to that is, Greg Ballard is immediately put on the spot to make sure streets continue to get salted and that road ways are taken care of.  At that point all eyes will be on Ballard to make sure he’s up to the job.  It looks like he will have his first real test just after he’s sworn in.  So much for an uneventful transition.

Of course, the weather prediction has never been wrong has it?

Why is it that the Governor (and his campaign and those around him) so frequently see fit to create this image of calculated ambiguity when it comes to the marriage amendment?

Two interesting quotes from a recent discussion over at Veritas Rex:

“Should the legislature vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in this session?”
“It’s up to them. As a believer in traditional marriage and a supporter of the law we have on the books now, I agree with the idea of protecting it against some creative judicial ruling in the future,” Daniels said.

“I do believe there are other things more important to our future,at least other things that a governor and the people around him can try to work on,” he aid. “And, secondly, I’m always trying to bring this state together, and we don’t have, I don’t believe, the luxury of division.”

I’m not sure the political environment among social conservatives will allow Mitch Daniels to continue to hold to both of his statements.

Sooner or later, the Governor will have to dance with those that brought him to the ball, or they’ll find somebody else (and with gubernatorial bid rumblings from Eric Miller, there most definitely is somebody else).

An interesting nonpartisan study from Notre Dame, looking at the 2002 race for the 2nd Congressional District, makes reference (PDF warning) notes some interesting mud about Jill Long Thompson that will doubtless soon be flying in the Democratic gubernatorial primary (and if not in it, then certainly later):

Alexa sent out a series of negative mailings attacking Long Thompson for allegedly voting against Medicare and bouncing twenty-one checks in the House bank scandal while in Congress.

And given that Bill Alexa was a Democratic primary challenger to Jill Long Thompson, I suspect that it won’t be above Jim Schellinger (or his surrogates) to launch similar attacks.

I’m surely not the only one that notices the irony in some recent whinings and moanings from some folks over at the Indiana Democratic Party’s mouthpiece blog and at a certain echo chamber.

Is the Guv right to suggest that the cost of a special election is worth trading away five months of representation in Congress?

While I understand the money argument, and am definitely sympathetic to those who are frustrated with how close the special election date will be to the May primary, I’m inclined to always default to the position that offers representation in the Congress over the one that doesn’t. Of course, I don’t live in the district so maybe my opinion doesn’t count.

Oh, would that they have been so concerned about the 7th District being represented in Congress by someone when the late Madame Carson was missing scores of votes and hiding her ill condition from her constituents, all so that her family could cash in on a death benefit.

The list of those running for the 7th Congressional seat seems to always be growing for Republicans and Democrats, thanks to the ever churning rumor mill. But no one has thrown their hat into the ring for the Libertarians. That is, until now?

According to Bart Lies:

Another hat in the ring?

We hear rumblings that Melyssa Donaghy is considering running for the 7th District congressional seat as a Libertarian. Melyssa recently won the Sam Adams Alliance’s “Sammie” award for her tireless efforts protest the ever-increasing property tax burden in Indiana. She also worked many long hours as part of the grassroots effort that successfully replaced the evil Bart Peterson with Greg Ballard. Perhaps it’s time we sent a fighter to Congress, instead of a ?’er

Melyssa was able to create quite the following when she helped establish the Hoosiers for Fair Taxation this past year to protest the rising property taxes here in Indiana. She also helped garner support for current Indy Mayor-Elect Greg Ballard during his race to unseat Bart Peterson.

Libertarians haven’t been able to crack more than a few percentage points in any major elections in Indiana, but Melyssa could break the mold should she run. She would be quite the candidate to watch in this upcoming cycle making 2008 all the more interesting politically in Indiana and in the 7th CD in particular.

I think a logical question has to be asked in would she make a bigger impact in the race running as an Independent rather than a Libertarian? (Libertarians, please take no offense, but it is a logical question as more Independents have been elected to major offices in Indiana and nationally than Libertarians.)

(H/T - Bart Lies and the Digital Farmer’s Blog)

Apparently, Indy Undercover is back and under new management. So long Joe….but hello…V?

From the re-introductory post:

Please take into consideration that this will be a non-biased blog and will consider all aspects of the city’s wants and cares. I want input from all ends of the users including, conservatives, liberals, religious persons, and any other view point not looked upon on Indyu1.

Hmmm, this should be very interesting. Either way, welcome back to the blogosphere IndyU.

Greg Ballard announced today at a reception at the IFD Union Hall that former Marion County prosecutor Scott Newman has been named as his Public Safety Director. This is a bit of a surprising move considering many thought that former PSD under Bart Peterson, Robert Turner was going to be named PSD under Ballard.

Stay tuned for more info as it becomes available.

*Update* - Here is the Star’s report on the Newman appointment.

Interesting list from the New York Times here via Club for Growth.

Any Hoosiers who should be added to the list?

Editor’s Note: State Representative and 7th District Congressional candidate Jon Elrod (R-Indianapolis) has submitted the below op-ed in response to Brian Sikma’s earlier post that covered that another website is referring to Elrod as a “fake Republican”. We appreciate that many opinions on issues can be heard and read here at Hoosier Access and so we thank State Representative Elrod for offering his take on where he stands on the issues.

By: State Representative Jon Elrod (R-Indianapolis)

I have been accused on this website of being a fake Republican. I have spoken with Mr. Sikma, and he is an intelligent young man. But because he has decided against editing his post in light of our conversation, I feel compelled to respond.

I would like to clear up a few misconceptions. First, my opposition to the gay marriage amendment is based on the same rationale that co-director Josh Gillespie stated. This is a principled view shared by many Republicans that even C.S. Lewis might have supported:

There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.

Mere Christianity, 1952.

Second, my hate-crimes support is for an aggravating factor at sentencing, not a “new crime.” It means when someone spray-paints “Jews Leave” or “Jesus Freaks” on a house, he should be punished more severely than for “Class of 2008.” Judges do this already and it should not be considered controversial.

Mr. Sikma is entitled to his opinions to the contrary. That does not make him a “true” or “fake” Republican. Neither of these views are core to being a Republican. For me, the top ten issues for Republicans would be as follows, in no particular order:

1. Fiscal Conservatism: balanced budgets; spending limited to inflation absent an emergency; funded social security, medicare, and medicaid; end pork barrel spending and earmarks.

2. Strong Military and Defense: peace through superior firepower; fulfill our promises to our veterans.

3. Market Based Economy: tariffs and subsidies hurt more businesses than they help.

4. De-Regulation: less bureaucracy means more small business and entrepreneurship opportunities, which is the surest way to more jobs.

5. Right-to-Bear Arms: gun control disarms only the law-abiding; vigilance is required to prevent encroachment.

6. Tax Reform: the tax system must be simplified and more fair; too many tax breaks and loopholes result in corporate welfare; the fair tax and flat tax are possible solutions.

7. Reduce Entitlements: from terrorism insurance to mortgage fund bail-outs, the government giveaways must stop; personal responsibility must be demanded from its citizens.

8. Immigration Enforcement: the immigration laws on the books must be enforced; the borders must be secured.

9. Strict Constructionist Judiciary: if the constitution is silent on an issue, such as abortion, states can regulate and prohibit; judges are not free to legislate from the bench.

10. Federalism: the federal government should not intervene in state issues, which are those issues enumerated in the Constitution and cannot be addressed adequately by the states.

The fundamental tenets of Republican thought are reasoned discourse and pragmatism. It is founded on a mistrust of government and a deep skepticism regarding what it can accomplish. To paraphrase Reagan, government is not the solution, it is the problem. If only our presidential candidates held half of those beliefs.

Mr. Sikma seems to place the Defense of Marriage Act ahead of the Contract with America. I won’t comment on whether that makes him a RINO, but we clearly do not share the same priorities.

Rumors are swirling that another Republican might be preparing to throw his hat in the ring to run for the Republican nomination in the 7th Congressional special election. Brian Howey reports that Barnes & Thornburg attorney and Indy sports talk show host Milt Thompson might be weighing a bid to join State Representative Jon Elrod in the race.

Thompson’s Impressive bio reads:

Milton “Milt” O. Thompson is “of counsel” with the firm of Barnes & Thornburg and president and CEO of Grand Slam Companies, a sports, entertainment, and recreation management consulting firm. A former certified contract advisor with the NFL and NBA Players Association, he represented top professional athletes in all sports. He sits on the Indianapolis Indians Baseball Club board of directors and the board of Indiana Sports Corp. He currently hosts ESPN950’s weekly radio show “Playing for Keeps,” which features the business of sports, and he previously hosted television shows including “Hoosier Know It Alls,” “Focus on Indianapolis Sports,” and the public affairs show “Indiana Focus” on local station WNDY-TV.

By: Brian Sikma

“Congressman Donnelly Votes to Allow Hoosier Taxpayers to Keep More of their Money.” So blares the headline of a press release issued by Rep. Joe Donnelly’s (D-IN) Congressional office. The press release touts Joe Donnelly’s vote to patch the Alternative Minimum Tax for the next year so middle income families will not be hit with a tax designed decades ago to insure that the very rich contribute something in income taxes.

This vote is a good vote, but unfortunately Joe Donnelly voted against fixing the AMT before he voted to fix the AMT. On December 19th, Donnelly joined 351 other House members in voting to protect American taxpayers from a tax increase. Just two days earlier, on December 17th, Joe Donnelly voted with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and the wishes of Speaker Pelosi to adjourn the session without passing AMT relief.

According to the press release, Donnelly declared that “With the increasing costs of energy, healthcare, and education, the last thing Hoosiers need is to be paying higher income taxes.” That is true, but why did Joe Donnelly vote to adjourn the session when his constituents needed him to fight for tax relief?

Joe Donnelly is part of a Democrat Majority that has failed to pass necessary spending bills, welcomed illegal immigrants, stolen a floor vote, tried to raise taxes on energy companies and spent more time fighting with the President over Iraq than paying attention to cleaning up the culture of corruption that exists in the earmark process.

To top all of this off, the PAYGO spending rules heralded by Donnelly and the rest of the Democrat Majority had to be violated in order to pass AMT reform. The Democrat Majority can’t even govern itself according to the rules it laid out at the beginning of the year. If you can’t govern according to your own rules how can you expect to effectively govern the rest of the country?

We managed to survive one year under a Democratic Congress, but how did those Democrats perform during that year?  I can write long posts sometimes, but instead of boring you with alot of talk detailing how and where the Democrats failed, I’ll rely on some visual aids to get the point across.

First, watch the video below.  Apparently the DNC took credit for this utterly uninspiring and very odd TV ad that was run during the ‘06 election.  Arguable the quality of the ad’s message was a harbinger of what the Democratic Congress would do.

Now, to see how those Democrats performed once they were “applied directly to the problem” (in reality they became the problem), watch this video.