We Don’t Need Change for Changes Sake
Have you noticed how many primaries in big time districts there are going on in Indiana? Sure I give attention to Dan Burton’s 5th CD race (he is my Congressman after all), but senior Republicans across Indiana are taking it on the chin this primary season. From Luke Kenley and Teresa Lubbers in the State Senate to Cindy Noe and Mike Murphy in the State House, incumbents are in the fight for their elective lives. We may agree or disagree on whether those people should go or not, but I tend not to voice my opinion on those races because I don’t live in the District (though after interviewing Cindy Noe for HA Radio, I tend to be a big fan of hers).
But my State Senator, Beverly Gard, who represents SD 28 (Hancock and Henry counties with Fall Creek Township in Hamilton) is in a primary fight herself. I’m voicing my opinion on this race because I live in her district. It seems that one trait her primary shares with Congressman Burton’s is that most of her detractors don’t even live in her district. It is true that her opponent, Terry Michael is an openly gay Republican. He’s the only gay Republican elected in Indiana as Fall Creek Township Assessor in Fishers. Kudos to him for getting elected in Fishers as a gay Republican. I’m impressed.
(Read more after the leap)
Now I have nothing against against Terry for being gay or for being a gay Republican. But his campaign appears to have been built around saving his assessors job rather than being a state senator, going against the governor’s plans for local government reform and advocating on his socially liberal agenda. With the election of Brent Waltz and Greg Walker, we have seen our State Senate move away from moderate fiscal tax and spend, to a more conservative fiscal policy that is moving with Governor Daniels to bring more income into the state coffers and streamline local government. Frankly, his values be they fiscal or social don’t connect with the Senate District 28. His liberal environmental policy would cost Hoosiers more than it would save and would turn away business.
Senator Gard has always fought for her constituents. You don’t become Chairwoman of the Energy and Environmental Affairs Committee in the State Senate and Chairwoman of the Agriculture, Environmental and Energy Committee for the Conference of State Legislators, just by being around for a while. Her past experience, that started with a major in Chemistry from the University of Tennessee and with the Eli Lilly Company, has given her the education she needs to work on Energy and environmental issues. Raising kids in the very agricultural Hancock county has kept her in regular contact with the farming industry here and in Henry County to make sure that their needs are met. On environmental issues she is pursing logical steps for Indiana to help clean our air and our water while also pursing steps in renewable energy that make sense for Indiana.
Again, I nothing personal against Mr. Michael. I am sure he has served ably at Fall Creek Township Assessor. But this isn’t about change for changes sake. We need true fiscal and social conservative leadership in the Indiana Senate. Mr. Michael has not proved he is for these issues.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Josh,
When you offer “Kudos” to a gay Republican being elected it must make most Republicans wonder if you are gay or Pro-Gay.
I’ve heard that Jon Elrod and Scott Keller are working to get more gays into the Indiana Republican Party, but I’m surprise that Hoosier Access seems to be Pro-Gay, too.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Josh,
Isn’t your employer a leader in the Hamilton County Republican Party?
April 16th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Stay on target here “facts”. That has nothing to do with the post. But it’s good to see you’re back causing trouble. Only you could read that post and try to turn it on it’s head.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
No facts. I own my own company and work for myself. Gillespie Total Strategies, LLC.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Josh,
You did not address my real question.
Is Hoosier Access a Pro-Gay Republican blog?
April 16th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
And Facts you’re not sticking to the topic of the post.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Josh,
I will take that as a yes, that Hoosier Access is a PRO-GAY REPUBLICAN BLOG.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
What part of the section below from our easily accessible “about” page do you not understand?
“Hoosier Access is a community driven blog that is committed to the politically conservative ideals of limited government, economic policies that enable capital growth in our communities while encouraging fiscal restraint in the government sector, and the preservation of traditional moral values such as the sanctity of life and the centrality of traditional marriage.”
April 16th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Based your your writings,
I’m not sure you understand what it seems to say.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Josh,
Here’s something interesting.
I post on several other blogs, but this is the only one were anyone criticized me for “not sticking to the topic of the post”, using capital letters to emphasize point, etc.
It’s really funny.
Based on what I’ve seen of your personality you are probably the first born and maybe an only child. You also seem to go emotionally from free spirited when you write to up tight when someone disagrees with you.
There’s an old song you might want to listen to, “Have you ever been mellow?…”
April 17th, 2008 at 6:28 am
Facts, from the perspective of a gay Republican, I am amused that you would say that Hoosier Access is a pro-gay Republican blog. I have seen from its authors only the most reluctant sympathy for the gay community, and even less that could be interpreted as public policy respectful of gay citizens. Further, I have seen advocacy by some of its authors of policy and positions damaging to gay citizens.
But I do find myself wondering what your agenda is, for clearly you have one and will not state it plainly. I understand your anonymity, for based on your writings thus far to announce your name or your agenda would only discredit them.
Own up to who you are and what you stand for, and perhaps then you could be taken more seriously. Otherwise you are either a coward or operating on the basis of plainly discreditable motives.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:26 am
chdouglas,
You either don’t understand the concept of blogs or you are playing ignorant. The idea of blogs, in my opinion is to share ideas and debate without having to worry about identities.
By the way, “chdouglas” does NOT announce your name either. If you are so willing to announce your name, please list your full name on the blog. If you’d like to include your full contact information, please do that as well. As for me, I have no interest in “announcing” my name or contact information and I would not recommend that other do so either!
It’s funny that you say you find yourself wondering what my “agenda” is, “for clearly you have one and will not state it plainly.”. If it is so clear that I have an “agenda”, it should be clear what it is.
My goal is to discover truth and share it with others.
As far as Hoosier Access, I am seeking to discover the philosophy of the “owners” or directors as they seem to call themselves. It seems to me that Hoosier Access is a covert Pro-Gay, Republican blog and I think people would like to know that.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Thank you Chris–that response comes best from you.
facts, my experience here is that there are some contributors here (commenters) who are “pro gay” agenda people. Most are not. A few are very anti-gay agenda or even anti-concessions to the gay agenda. I am predisposed (in the sense of my previously thought out positions) fairly anti-gay agenda, but am willing to listen to arguments. As much as Chris and I have butted heads, we largely try to respect each others arguments and hone each others arguments through our discussions.
Most, while opposing homosexuality on a moral level, have no interest in expressing this part of morality into government’s public policy.
The directors of the site are collectively social conservatives opposing gay marriage, which is not necessarily an “anti-gay” position, but certainly not a “pro-gay” position. Most, if not all of the contributors to this site, as well as the directors of the site are NOT is “go get the gays and burn them in a big pile if they won’t recant.” Does that make the site pro-gay? Certainly Chris doesn’t believe so, and he would be a good person to ask.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:09 am
facts, chdouglas is a username. You can change what displays in your profile, but for some reason the default is your username. His full name is Chris Douglas and he has posted here for a long time. Regulars know his name and he has not hidden his name or his agenda.
We do not, however, understand what you mean by “Pro-Gay”. I tend to think that you are the kind of social conservative that argued that REAL conservatives had to support Huckabee for President because he was the only pro-life candidate. This argument was based on the erroneous assumption that there is only one way to be pro life. I am guessing that you have only one way to be “anti-gay” and anything else is “pro-gay”.
So tell us: what constitutes being pro-gay?
April 17th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Facts, I am Chris Douglas, a founder and managing director of Hendrickson, C.H. Douglas & Gray, LLC, an asset management and financial planning firm in Indianapolis, Indiana. The information on the firm is readily available: 9000 Keystone Crossing, Ste. 755, Indianapolis, IN 46240. (I was listing my full name until the format here changed.)
Native Hoosier. Direct 8th generation descendant of John Douglas, a Kentucky settler and nephew of Daniel Boone, who fought and died in the Revolution alongside Israel Boone at the Battle of Blue Lick; David Douglas, his son, who crossed into Indiana as among its first settlers, became an abolitionist, founded churches as part of the New Light movement, and gave refuge as part of the underground railroad to slaves escaping from the South; Maurice Douglas, David’s Grandson, who with others founded Indiana Farmer’s Mutual, became an Indiana Senator and one of a very few who publicly opposed the Ku Klux Klan’s takeover of Indiana, an act of courage that ended his political life; and innumerable businessmen, school teachers, and farmers.
Decorated Air Force Officer. Boy Scout. Named to the Indianapolis Business Journal’s Forty under 40, Indianapolis Monthly’s Best of Indy, and the Indiana Leadership Forum (a Republican organization). Founding president and board member of the Indianapolis Rainbow Chamber of Commerce; a founder of Indiana Equality; a founding steering committee member of Indiana’s Interfaith Coalition on Nondiscrimination.
Life Long Republican adhering to a family and Republican Party tradition of concern for the rights of citizens, one tradition of the GOP that perhaps competes with yours.
You may rest easy; I suspect the bloggers of Hoosier Access would be shocked to hear themselves described as harboring a “Pro-Gay” perspective, although I certainly would urge them toward it if by “pro-gay” is meant a stance of concern for the well being of gay citizens in Indiana.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Joel,
It seems strange to me when a person who calims to be Gay is defending a blog that they say is NOT respectful of Gays.
I think Hoosier Access is more than respectful of Gays. Josh even gives Kudos to a Gay elected official for winning his election in Fishers, Indiana. When Hoosier Access gives Kudos to a Gay individual for their success, I would say that HOOSIER ACCESS is PROMOTING AND ENCOURAGING THE GAY COMMUNITY!
Hoosier Access seems to want to encourage Gays, but does NOT want to be seen as promoting Gays.? Personally, I don’t think Republicans can have it both ways, even though the Log Cabin Republicans have be trying it for years.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Wow. Chris that is an impressive resume.
My primary question for you is, What keeps you from being a part of the only party with a history of promoting the Gay community?
April 17th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Chris,
I when to your website.
You sure look like the “stereo typical” Republican. LOL I hope that does not offend you.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:26 am
facts, gays who choose to be part of the Republican Party are typically those who think of themselves first as fiscal conservatives or defense conservatives or like Chris believes that Republicans respect individual liberty more than the Democrats do. In other words, they know that they disagree with at least a significant segment of the Republican Party on social issues, but issues that are more important to them align them with the Republicans.
So what are we as a Party or as a blog to do with people who agree with us on certain things but not others? I think your approach would be, “Terry Michael is gay and should be kicked out of the Republican Party” regardless of his other positions. What is the litmus test that we must apply to a person to decide if they are a Republican?
I think Josh’s kudos were because being openly gay in the Republican Party makes it very difficult to obtain elected office. His honesty, integrity, and guts are admirable. That does not mean that he agrees with him–and, in fact, the blog post first shows that Josh does NOT agree with him and second DISCOURAGES him from running against Gard.
Now maybe I’m smoking something here, but I have never thought of NOT taking every opportunity to bash someone on everything about them as “encouraging” them.
You missed the point of the post. You are missing the general theme and approach of the site.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Facts, I would be interested to know…. are you in fact Republican?
April 17th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Joel,
I don’t think Terry Michael should be kicked out of the Republican party. I think he should consider joining the Democrat Party.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Chris,
You did not answer my question:
What keeps you from being a part of the only party with a history of promoting the Gay community?
April 17th, 2008 at 11:48 am
facts, you ignore that the Republican party is more than just gay social issues. You are assuming that just because someone is gay that their single political issue is gay rights. If their biggest issues is, say, fiscal restraint, then they certainly do not have a home in the Democrat party.
You are engaging in political ID based on a single issue which simply does not work. You can’t even broaden that to a particular “leg” of conservatism (e.g. social conservatism).
April 17th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Facts - you are nothing more than an anonymous coward and a shill for the Moonbats. Mr. Douglas nor anyone else has to answer your questions. Unless you have something to contribute to the conversation, then get the f*** back to TDW or wherever you came.
Ditto to what Joel just wrote, I’ll add the Democrats would support NAMBLA if it would gain them some votes. Anything to pander for a vote for them. No principles whatsoever. NONE.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Michael,
Your comments are extremely rude and I would hope even your own Hoosier Access directors would tell you that you crossed a line.
Your language and attack on the Democrat Party are uncalled for!
The interesting thing is that I have been contributing to the conversation. You and your fellow Hoosier Access directors appear to be “control freaks” (for lack of a better word). You guy want to control every aspect of the conversation.
As long as this is an open forum, I will share my opinion as I see fit. We really should try to keep this conversation civil.
Do you guys still believe in the First Amendment?
April 17th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Hm. The plot thickens.
Facts, it would seem that you are an agent provocateur.
There is a considerable basis upon which I will be able to demonstrate that progress for the glbt community in Indiana, while opposed by some in both parties, has depended upon acts of Conscience in the Republican Party as necessary as in the Democratic Party; that these acts of conscience (of varying degrees of either decency or courage) have a history extending back to Bill Hudnut, traveled forward in various ways through Senator Lugar, Sue Anne Gilroy, various Republicans on the Editorial Board of the Indianapolis Star, Tom John, Todd Rokita, Scott Keller, Lance Langford (supported by Beurt SerVaas and even Jack Cottey), Mitch Daniels, Bob Garton, and others who I would propose to let speak for themselves. In each instance I have had the privilege of insight into events depending on these individuals that have produced precedents and progress when it had hit a barrier beyond which it could no longer travel in the Democratic Party in Indiana.
I have also witnessed covert and not-so-covert efforts emanating from the Democratic Party in which anonymous attempts have been made to drum up Republican conservative reaction against those who would be so bold as to be able to stake a claim on the interests of the gay community, which attempts work demonstrably against the interests of the gay community in achieving progress. These attempts have often been cloaked as having come from Conservative Republicans when in fact their authors were Democrats.
Has yours been such an attempt?
April 17th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Your language and attack on the Democrat Party are uncalled for!
Truth hurts. Not like riding a bicycle with the seat missing but it still hurts.
You guy want to control every aspect of the conversation.
Our blog. Our rules.
As long as this is an open forum, I will share my opinion as I see fit. We really should try to keep this conversation civil.
Until one of the directors gets tired of your silly posts and pushes the “ban” button.
Do you guys still believe in the First Amendment?
Talk about your crossing lines. Look up from your talking points and pay attention. In case you didn’t realize it the 1st Amendment dealt with government retribution against the press in the case where the press was critical against said government. The First Amendment is why there is no “State Owned Media” as per se (unlike Pravda, La Granma, etc.)
April 17th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Chris,
So you think that the Indiana Republican Party is more progressive on Gay rights issues than the Indiana Democrat Party?
When it comes to blogging I refuse to accept labels. It is my opinion that labels like Democrat and Republican can be barriers to communicating.
During this blog, I have trying to define “Hoosier Access”. I am convinced that I now know more about who they are (and it has not been pretty, as you have seen).
Getting people take a public stand can prove to be a powerful tool in future encounters. I have try not to allow who I am to be important in this discussion.
The only thing that Hoosier Access can PRESUME about the persona, “Facts”, that I have created for a period of conversations is that I have said that I support Mays For Congress.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Michael,
Aren’t you the ONLY Republican who ran At-Large for City County Council in Marion county and LOST.
Even in the biggest Republican win in over a decade, you were the ONLY LOSER.
Based on what I have seen here, I am not surprised!
April 17th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Unlike your screen name, you do NOT have the facts, Facts.
I was not the “only” Republican who came up short in 2007. I came in 5th behind Barbara Malone in the primary yes, but there were 8 on the ballot for 4 spots on a day when the election was so fouled up no telling who could have won that day.
Kurt Webber came up short against Monroe Gray. Bruce Schumacher came 1 fouled up precinct (THANKS, BETH!) short against Angela Mansfield. Mike Healy ran against Paul Bateman but realistically didn’t stand a chance. Even Mike himself admitted that to me. Scott Keller was dumped in favor of another Mahern. Gary Whitmore and Bruce Henry came oh-so-close to taking out MMA and Jose Evans, respectively. Hoosier Access correspondent Adam Longworth fell short of Vernon Brown.
Want to talk about losers how about your sides’ “unbeatable” quartet of Rozelle Boyd, Joanne Sanders, King Ro, and Ron “The Cop Slapper” Gibson. Three of them went down in flames with Joanne Sanders squeaking out the win.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Facts, you are right that labels can sometimes get in the way of things. The reality is Hoosier Access is not necessarily a “Republican” blog–though most probably are. It is a conservative blog. Conservatives do not always agree on things and there is nothing wrong with that. It is one of the reasons to have a blog. Even social conservatives can disagree on certain things. I have seen SoCon arguments for same-sex marriage. I have seen (more) SoCon arguments against same-sex marriage.
But you are the one that wants to add labels. You want to tell the world that Hoosier Access is a “Pro-Gay” blog. If you refuse labels–quit trying to label HA.
While you are at it, there is no call for ad hominem attacks. We have libertarians that post here that got 2 percent of the vote–that doesn’t mean that they do not have valid ideas or that they have aggravating personalities (the opposite seems to be true to me).
April 17th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
can we ban him now?
He’s making me dumber.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Michael,
If you look at my previous posting, you will see that I said “Republican” & “At-Large”.
You were the ONLY LOSER!
April 17th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Well that ok. There’s only one LOSER in this discussion…
Engage in discussion or go away.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
“If you look at my previous posting, you will see that I said “Republican” & “At-Large”.
You were the ONLY LOSER!”
And Ruth Hiland, Jerry Sedam, and some else whose name escapes me were???
Answer: Also At-Larges on the ballot for the Republicans. Also “losing” as you put it “No-Facts”.
*I’ll be glad when Jimmy Paycheck loses his primary bid so She Whom Is Never Named Here will reclaim her blogmistress duties at TDW so facts will have somewhere else to hang out rather than here…..
April 17th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Fact, I am not saying the Republican Party is more progressive on glbt issues… I am saying glbt progress has depended on the Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party, and therefore service as a Republican is no less a contribution to the glbt community than service as a Democrat. To the contrary, I can observe that a great deal of progress in nondiscrimination would not have occurred had I and others not retained our Republicanism in spite of criticism from both Republicans and from members of the gay community.
And I have the Entrepreneur’s appreciation for what risks a business person takes, how they should be rewarded, and left unburdened. And I still retain honor and respect for Ronald Reagan, Bob Orr, Dick Lugar, and George Bush Sr, and I believe that Reagan was right about the Soviet Union when too many Democrats seemed to have lost their way into a sympathy with tyranny.
I should also observe that all sorts of historical sentiments play into a determination with regard to the Republican Party and beating back what I perceive to be a wave of intolerance that has swept through the Grand Old Party:
“Damn the Torpedoes”, “Never, Never, Never Give In”,and “Don’t give up the Ship!”
April 18th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
geez facts, can you give it a rest yet? it would appear to me that the only point to you initially stirring up this farce of a debate is just to cause–i mean you came from Left field(pun most definitely intended) and started spouting rhetoric–it’s no wonder carolene doesn’t have a shot to win….
GRRRR–i need an asprin–i’m losing brain cells by the second….