Jon Elrod-Fake Republican
By: Brian Sikma
Jon Elrod is the leading contender to be the Republican candidate in the 7th District special election to replace the late Rep. Julia Carson (D). According to one website, Elrod is a Fake Republican.
A Republican state representative from Indianapolis, Elrod represents a heavily Democrat district. Elected in 2006, he ran without the support of the pro-family, pro-traditional values groups that normally help Republicans win in tough races.
Elrod’s candidacy raises some concerns. His positions on judicial and social issues are to the left of even some Democrat members of the Indiana General Assembly. In an interview with the pro-gay rights blog Advance Indiana, Elrod’s position on hate crimes legislation was cited as being in favor of such politically correct, community divisive, and judicially discriminatory legislation. A fundamental principle of good government is that the government is to govern actions, and not thoughts. Thomas Jefferson summed up the role of government well when he said that “The legislative powers of government reach to actions only, not to opinions.”
On the subject of marriage Jon Elrod has said that he will not support any amendment to the Indiana Constitution declaring marriage to be the union of one man and one woman. According to Elrod, the separation of church and state negate any influence that the state should have on the definition of marriage. That reasoning has some problems since it holds that the state may never act in the same arena as the church and that religious beliefs should not influence the state. It’s similar to the old “you can’t legislate morality argument” when instead the argument should be “whose morality are we legislating?”
For those who raise the point that Elrod is pro-life and an advocate for fiscal responsibility, that may be the case, but we don’t know if that is the case because Elrod is still very early in his political career and is untested on these issues. Elrod had to be a nice guy to win his House seat, but being a nice guy doesn’t mean you have the experience or the positions that a proven conservative would have.
What does all of this mean? It means that a known conservative candidate needs to jump into this historic race. With the election of Greg Ballard, this district just may be winnable by a Republican. But that Republican will have to be proven and clear on where he or she stands on the issues.
When you want people to vote Republican, you’ve got to run a true Republican. If there is a conservative Republican considering jumping into this drama, I say: “do it, we need someone who represents the core values our Party to run.”
Left: Photo of Jon Elrod’s booth at the Indy Gay Pride Event.
December 20th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Good Grief, Sikma, what a disgrace you are. Speaking as an eighth generation member of an Indiana family that first associated with Republicanism before the Civil War, as a businessman, and decorated air force officer, go find your own party, rather than continue to degrade ours. The leading lights of Republicanism, beginning with Lincoln especially, but proceeding through Roosevelt, Wilkie, Lugar, and Hudnut, would sooner sit down with a Republican like Elrod than a Republican like you. Who are you to say what a Republican is?
My understanding, by the way, is that Mayor Ballard attended some of the same events in the gay community as did Elrod. Get a clue.
December 20th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
I agree with you 100% Brian. I have been a Republican my entire life. But I could not sleep at night knowing I voted against my principles. The party is changing fast. I pray they find their way back before they loose us completely. I vote issues, and the Republican party is straying from where they came from. It saddens me. I do not support this man either. Thanks for taking a stand.
December 20th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Brian,
I wanted to point out that the picture from Indy Gay Pride Event was not Jon Elrod’s booth but the Log Cabin Republican’s booth. At the booth, you would have also seen material and signs for Ryan Vaughn, City County Councilman–at his request (and he won). You would have seen material for Governor Daniels–at his campaign’s request. You would have also seen at the event a booth from the Secretary of State’s office, Todd Rokita. Last year you would have seen material from Carl Brizzi’s campaign.
Republicans who are winning believe in Reagan’s idea of the “Big Tent” and believe that our laws should apply equally to everyone.
December 21st, 2007 at 8:12 am
You don’t know Jon Elrod, apparently.
December 21st, 2007 at 8:13 am
Jane, you are WAY off the mark. By returning to principles of liberty and equality, the Party is increasingly (one hopes) rejecting the intervening years in which it was seized by an agenda of self-righteousness and intolerance.
Teddy Roosevelt earned opprobrium when he invited Booker T. Washington, an African American, to dine with him at the White House in a segregationist era, in contravention to the conservatives of his day. It is clear where you and Brian would have been at the time… not applauding him but condemning him. The values of intolerance for which you speak are not a statement of the principles of Great Republicanism, but a corruption of them.
December 21st, 2007 at 9:47 am
Chris - remember though Teddy Roosevelt was elected President as a Republican though he wore his “Progressive” [in other words, Liberal] stripes very proudly in an era where the Party was at a crossroads - Conservatism or Progressivism. The actions of nominating Taft and the later resulting split with T. Roosevelt forming the “Bull Moose” ticket led to Democrat Woodrow Wilson being elected President. The Conservatives essentially took control of the GOP. In today’s political environment, Theodore Roosevelt would be a Democrat.
Now back to the topic at hand and Representative Jon Elrod, he’s definitely not of the “hard core right” as say myself or other contributors to this blog. However you cannot disagree with me, Marion County and the area encompassing the 7th CD is the most “liberal” CD in Indiana. Sure, the 1st CD is always Democrat though you have the union influence north of I-80/94 with its thumb on the scale. Marion County is not blue, it’s not red. It’s definitely a shade of purple. Greg Ballard’s election as Mayor reinforces the fact this is still very much an issues oriented county.
Jon and myself had this conversation before and we agree that we’re both Republicans, we’re definitely of the “agree to disagree” on various social issues including SJR-7. I will say that based upon who is in the field now for the 7th CD on both sides, I will support Jon Elrod.
Jon and I agree on one topic 100% - 2nd Amendment rights. You have a right to defend your life and your property if necessary. We also agree on fiscal policy - minimum amount of government that takes care of the basics. He referred to it as “small government close to the people”. Those two issues are much more reasonable than the positions of the party opposite.
While Jon may get tagged by some as a “RINO” or a “Fake Republican” similar to Scott Keller, keep in mind as least Jon has not gone out campaigning AGAINST another Republican [that I am aware]. Scott Keller did join Jackie Nytes in campaigning against Republicans. Just looking at the makeup of the 7th anyone will realize a “hard core right winger” will not win. It would take a moderate Republican to win in the 7th. In my opinion, Jon is moderate enough to represent all sides of the 7th well, compared to the past umpteen years of both previous Representatives where our side had no representation and the Left received all the attention.
December 21st, 2007 at 9:47 am
The GOP is a very big tent for the left-leaning. But it’s certainly not a party for people who believe in governed government or constitutional rights. The history of the party is all over the ideological map (Hoover really started the New Deal, and Teddy was the original Tree Hugging/anti-business liberal), but constitutional Republicans like Senator Taft (not the president), Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul have always been exceedingly rare.
If you want your politicians on a leash but you want all citizens free, then you’re a Libertarian.
Quit fighting it.
Join us and win. At last.
December 21st, 2007 at 9:57 am
It doesn’t really matter who’s booth that is, when it has Elrod signs and the worker is wearing an Elrod shirt its basically an Elrod booth. (If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, its a liberal . . .err, I mean a duck.)
You don’t grow the party by offending its base of its support, particularly when those voters hasve shown a willingness to skip candidates or not vote. In fact, Karl Rove has pointed out that were it not for the Marriage Amendment, the president would have lost Ohio, and the entire election. That issue brought people to the polls who also supported Republicans who supported it, like the President.
The problem with people like Elrod is that voters begin to see candidates like him and conclude that there’s no difference between the two parties, so what’s the use.
By the way, Mr Douglas has a real weird view of history. He apparently has forgotten where the GOP stood under Lincoln and the Democrats who stood in his way and in the way of those principles through the 60’s when without the GOP the Civil Rights Act would never have passed. (Dr. King was from a Republican family. in the 50’s half the African-American Vote went to Republicans. ) But there is a world of difference between skin color and a moral matter like the spiritually, physically, and emotionally hazardous behavior of gay sex. That’s why in Michigan 60% of African Americans voted for that state’s marriage amendment.
Elrod’s support for gay marriage won’t draw African American voters in Indianapolis to his campaign .. it will do just the opposite.
BTW . .. the Republican party was founded on two principles . .. most people don’t know both of them .. one was ending slavery, the other was ending polygamy. Now we are headed toward polygamy by remaking marriage into an anything goes situation.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:46 am
Conservative Dad, you are absolutely right about the early Lincoln and the progressive wing of the Republican Party in the 1960’s (pre-Karl Rove).
What proves to be an electorally winning strategy is not what is at stake… is the soul of the party and the degree to which the Party will be driven by intolerance. See what happened to Cincinnati when they passed an anti-gay city county council measure… economic migration out and urban economic collapse at the precise time that gays were leading in rebuilding neighborhoods in Downtown Indy.
Liberty and Freedom, Dad, not religious imposition.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:12 am
Cincinnati was recently rated one of the top family friendly states in the nation. Indianapolis was not . . . nor was San Francisco.
To say that MLK or Lincoln would support your gay rights agenda is to rewrite history and to secularize the moral and religious beliefs that drove them.
Chris, your name pops up on blogs pushing your agenda all the time. You seem to really have an ax to grind . . . and you seem to be driven by an agenda to push homosexuality upon children, schools, and all of Hoosier society . . even churches. In fact, rumor has it, that your so hate filled that even some friends running some gay blogs have banned your diatribes. (This will honk you off even more, but you should really look into your deep spiritual need. . . your on a spiral downward. . May I kindly suggest reading the New Testament then praying about it asking God to reveal himself to you, since you’re already labeling me and others as a religious bigot.)
Liberty and Freedom Chris, not homosexual intolerance this isn’t Canada or the Netherlands, though I know that disappoints you. It is you who want to force a belief system upon Indiana through your leadership in the gay rights movement. You have demonstrated that quite well over the years.
December 21st, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Conservative Dad, nothing is as impressive as someone processing rumors under the veil of anonymity. Perhaps you can advise which blogs you are referring to; I would be happy to enlist the editors in my defense.
Cincinnati ranked family friendly by whom? And did the ranking appear before the city reversed it’s anti-gay measures or after?
Would you agree that Lincoln never considered himself a Christian, and was attacked by Christian fundamentalists in his day as being a non-believer in the divinity of Christ? Was he not a great and moral man nonetheless? Is not the attempt to depict him as driven by religion a re-write of history?
How about removing the cloak of your anonymity, by the way? Why should you be viewed as at all credible?
December 21st, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Since Lincoln is being cited as not considering himself a Christian, I want to take a moment to share some interesting quotes from President Lincoln himself.
“In regard to this Great Book [referring to the Bible], I have but to say, I believe the Bible is the best gift God has given man.”-A. Lincoln speaking on 9/5/1864 in an address to the Committee of Colored People from Baltimore as taken from Vol. 1 page 382 of the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln by Carl Sandberg
“The only assurance of our nation’s safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion.”-A. Lincoln as quoted on page 392 of America’s God and Country by Wm. Federer
December 21st, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Brian, you have not successfully countered. I think in those two quotes, you have exhausted in all of Lincoln’s writings any remote reference to Christianity. What’s more, they make no reference to Christianity, or the divinity of Christ, whatsoever. (Neither, might I add, does the U.S. Constitution.)
December 21st, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Chris, I would not suggest that you assume that the Constitution can be understood without looking at the Declaration of Independence’s reference to the laws of nature and of nature’s God. If you’re not driving at that then fine, but just remember that the Constitution is best understood when viewed through the prism of the Declaration.
Merry Christmas, Chris!
December 21st, 2007 at 7:51 pm
I had a post two hours ago that never appeared regarding Lincoln, Christ, Heaven, Chris’s need for the later two and Cincinnati’s ranking as best place to raise a family that never appeared .. oh well. . . my fault. . not to technically savy. I think I closed my web browser by mistake.
Chris there are other statements from or about Lincoln and faith. For example, he stated this after receiving a gift of a Bible from a group of African-Americans from Baltimore:
“In regard to this great book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to men. All the good Savior gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man’s welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it.” [Sept. 9, 1864]
Then there is this from a friend of Lincoln’s and a reporter named Brooks.
Mr. Noah Brooks, sometime after that, longtime friend and newspaper correspondent, said, “I have had many conversations with Mr. Lincoln, which were more or less of a religious character, and while I never tried to draw anything like a statement of his views from him, yet he freely expressed himself to me as having a hope of blessed immortality through Jesus Christ.” Lincoln said that he had found the peace that had eluded him all of his life. “Therefore, being justified by faith” he now had peace with God. When a lady connected with the work of the Christian Commission later came to see him, he said: “I had lived until my boy Willie died without realizing fully these things [about the Gospel]. It showed me my weakness as I had never felt it before, and if I can take what you have stated [as to what a Christian is] as a test, I think I can safely say that I know something of that change of which you speak;
There is also a letter from Mrs. Lincoln talking about how the president’s faith deepened toward the end of his life, that claims that he was going to make a bold public profession of his faith but he was shot before this happened. Lincoln’s pastor and family friend Dr. Francis Vinton, rector of Trinity Church made similar predictions of a public pronouncement.
He reportedly observed: “From that day there began a change in Lincoln that even his wife Mary noticed. His religious views began to dramatically change. There is a remarkable letter that comes to us from an Illinois clergyman who talked to Lincoln after this time. He said this to Mr. Lincoln (Again, I commend him for his boldness): “Mr. President, do you love Jesus?” After a long pause, Mr. Lincoln solemnly replied: “When I left Springfield I asked the people to pray for me. I was not a Christian. When I buried my son, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ. Yes, I do love Jesus.”
Since you already have labeled me in your mind by now as a religious bigot, I’ll say this to you . . At this time of Christmas, Chris, the question for you is do you love Christ as Lincoln seemed to come to? If not, perhaps you should take this time of Holiday celebration to read the new testament and pray about who Jesus was and if this man can change your life and meet your needs of your heart in ways no other man ever will.
December 21st, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Just wandered into this thread since I found a “gotta hate gays” litmus test to be especially appalling for a party that claims to represent less governmental influence and a history of civil rights progress. But now that I’ve read the comments too, I feel compelled to respond. Anyone advocating discrimination has no right to pick up the mantle of Lincoln - Christian or not.
As the editor of Indiana’s only LGBT blog that Chris has contributed to, I can easily dismiss Conservative Dad as one of those folks who knows they have nothing to argue with. Instead, they throw out a ‘rumor’ they’ve made up themselves in a desperate attempt to discredit the other person. As the person you’re ‘rumoring’ about, allow me to spell it out clearly enough for a wingnut to understand. You aren’t telling the truth.
Chris was a great contributor to bilerico.com. With 63 contributors over the life of the blog (and 50 currently active and blogging), we have contributors join and leave with regularity. As Chris is Republican to his core and I trend Democratic, I always enjoyed arguing with him on the site as we debated issues back and forth. I never had to throw out baseless accusations though to win my points against him. It’s a shame you’ve had to resort to such tactics in a desperate attempt to obfuscate your own bigotry against gays and lesbians.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:11 pm
I would urge all who are participating in this debate to really consider what Conservative Dad says in his latest post. As a Christian, I do not hate gays, I only hope that they will realize that the satisfaction and acceptance that they desire is not to be found in their lifestyle but in the forgiveness of Jesus Christ.
It is not the role of the government to convince men of any religious faith, but it is the role of government to enforce the general principles of morality, informed by Judeo-Christian principles, that are necessary to the well being of society. Marriage is one of those principles that the government needs to protect.
Marriage, by it’s very nature, is exclusive of many things. Just as two men do not make up a marriage, neither should two minors, or a mother and son, or a father and daughter, or a man and two women make up marriage. The definition of marriage is applied equally to all. That is the equal justice mandated by the state and federal constitutions.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:21 am
Brian, I’ll get you some additional writings from Lincoln when I have some time to look them up again. But I would note that even by those accounts, Lincoln’s drive against slavery well preceded the transformation that those correspondents depict. And apparently, a religious perspective grounds your attempts to demean the lives of your fellow citizens. Certainly, religious perspectives, Christian, Muslim, and no doubt others, have been behind some of mankind’s worst inflictions upon each other in Europe, the Middle East and in North America.
Stalin and Mao did no better with an atheistic philosophy, but they created their own religions in personality cults. It is telling that Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, described precisely in advance of their rise how they would create a religion and what effect this would have on the popular mind. The terrain in Germany was fertile, for as described in 1917 by the departing U.S. Ambassador James W. Gerard, the church in Germany even under the Kaiser reinforced both the rule of monarchy and the public antipathy towards the Jewish. The same was true under the rule of the Czars. Though the monarchies were overthrown, the popular church-promoted antipathy towards Jews remained so strong as to fuel the population’s participation in their massacre. As one latter day philosopher put it: “With or without religion, good people will do good. For good people to do evil, that takes religion.”
The ambassador described a cultural difference between the German culture and that of the already diverse America, a difference in emphasis between the imposition of government and the freedom of the individual, and a resistance change. It is interesting that the Ambassador in 1917 felt that the only hope for Germany would be its embrace of liberal values in the classic sense over the conservative mindset which gripped the Germans. He felt it would take total defeat before such values prevailed. Little did he know of the massacre of the Jews and World War which would follow before German conservatism would finally find its defeat. Incidentally, the onerous state-sponsored welfare programs which stifled competition and inflicted costs existed even in the Kaiser’s day.
Your attempt to define same sex couples out of the institution of marriage based on tradition is no different from the attempt to define racially mixed couples out or religiously mixed couples out. It is group thought prevailing over individual civic and religious freedom and conscience, inflicting injustice and inequality. It is un-American. It is un-Christian.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:31 am
Thank you to Bil Browning of Bilerico for setting the record straight, so to speak, about my past participation and subsequent retirement from postings to that blog… www.bilerico.com… Bil responded quite without any request from me, and I am grateful.
I also drive the point home: “Conservative Dad” used a veil of anonymity to spread a rumor subsequently proved baseless. Conservative Dad, as I have asked on other blogs of anonymous posters who attack from the shadows: Do you remain anonymous because you fear your name discredits your views or because your views discredit your name?
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Chris, the atheistic belief/worldview has lead to the death of millions. The Soviet Union under Stalin murdered 50,000,000 people. That regime was not a cult of personality. Some may have been impressed with Stalin, but many of the citizens of the Soviet Union hated Stalin. Communism didn’t fail because of failed leaders; it failed because it was based on failed principles.
Some have perverted Christianity to further their own ends, but religion isn’t the problem: false ideas about what is good and what is bad is where the problem is.
Chris, I’m not going to keep debating you because I don’t think we’re going to agree, but let me recommend this resource to you: http://exodus.to/help/?option=com_content&task=view&id=327&Itemid=147
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
“Some have perverted Christianity to further their own ends, but religion isn’t the problem: false ideas about what is good and what is bad is where the problem is.”
Brian, you are both correct in this statement, and guilty of it.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Brian,
I was a little surprised that you provided the Exodus website. I have known Chris for several years and he has never given me the impression that he struggles with “unwanted” same-sex attractions or that he is looking for a way out.
He is well adjusted, successful, thoughtful, and in a committed relationship.
He values individual rights and responsibilities, and he values religious freedom.
There are Christians who see homosexuality as sin and there are Christians that do not. It sure does not seem like it is government’s responsibility (nor do they have the expertise) to referree a theology debate. If government has a role, it is to make sure both Christians have the freedom to their religion and to make sure all citizens have the same rights and responsibilities.
Perhaps you should check out: www.jesusmcc.org or www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:44 am
Actually, David in this statements of me are quite right. While I might have taken a pill, were one available, two decades ago when I realized I was gay in order to become straight, today I would consider it to be a pointless betrayal of the partner with whom I have built a happy life. We are perfectly comfortable with who we are, with our friends and family, and as they are (it appears)with us. The only imperfection in this picture is the busy-body bigot who in this land of freedom seems determined to interfere in our lives as if our lives have any impact on him whatsoever.
As a human being, an American, a Hoosier, a Christian, and gay, I have no need to be ashamed, nor am I. As a Republican, however, I am ashamed of the deep intolerance with which our Party has become associated through its relatively recent infection by big-government get-in-your-life zealots, an infection from which we are recently, thankfully, hopefully beginning to emerge in Indiana and nationally, however fitfully. If we could take a pill and all be rid of THAT, now that would be a pill worth taking.