Archive for October 8th, 2008

It looks like JLT, realizing that without TV commercials she’s going to have to multiply herself, has employed our favorite surrogate out in the state. John Cardwell has been touring the state blabbering more about FSSA. See articles here and here.

I’ve covered extensively Mr. Cardwell’s fake interest group- the Indiana Home Care Task Force, as well as his union connections. Mr. Cardwell is also a contributor to Jill Long Thompson (he’s given at least $700 to Mitch’s opponents). Why can’t the media do the basic examination we have?

As previously reported, the “task force” is a one-man shell game only the founders of Enron could have accomplished.  The closest thing we could find to a membership roster as reported in the Kokomo Perspective: Legislative Commission coming to Kokomo:

Within the Task Force, organizations such as United Senior Action, Indiana Alliance for Retired Americans, ACLU, The Generations Project, and Hoosiers First have taken a leading role in addressing the privatization issue.

Now, who runs these organizations?

(Read more after the leap) (more…)

1. What are the Republican GOTV efforts going to be in Indiana? 

2. Will any Republican apart from Mitch advertise in Indiana?

3. Can we get Governor Palin to do two campaign stops: one in southern Indiana with Sodrel and the other in northern Indiana with Puckett?

4. Which party is going to learn more from this primary election cycle: the Democrats regarding their strange super delegate process or the Republicans regarding nominating someone who doesn’t mirror the rank and file members of the Party?

5. Will we see a  non-partisan media emerge after this election cycle?

Now here’s a different concept.

9th District Republican Party Chairman Larry Shickles has really an interesting idea. He sent a letter today to Mike Jones, 9th District Democrat Party Chairman proposing a debate between Congressman Sodrel and Congressman Hill and Eric Schansberg.

Not that much a big idea right?

Wrong.

Shickles is proposing a debate where the candidates are hooked to a lie detector. Now there’s a concept.

An excerpt of that letter follows:

“As you know this is the fourth matchup between Baron Hill and Mike Sodrel. Voters that I have talked to are tired of the same negative ads, the annoying phone calls, and having their mailboxes stuffed with mail pieces saying the candidates want to actually raise the price of gas or cut veterans’ benefits. Voters deserve the truth in order to make an informed decision on election day.

Therefore, I propose that we as 9th District Chairmen organize one debate in which Hill, Sodrel and Libertarian Candidate Eric Schansberg are allowed to ask a pre-determined number of questions of the other two candidates while connected to a polygraph lie detector. I will contact Sodrel’s and Schansberg’s campaign and I ask that you contact Hill’s campaign. If the candidates agree to this format, the 9th District Republican Party will pay all the costs associated with securing and running the lie detectors.

While this format may be unusual, I feel strongly that voters need to be able to make a clear decision without all the usual spin. If the candidates agree to this we can look forward to a fun and informative debate. In the event that scheduling another debate is an issue, I propose we use the lie detector equipment during the Jasper debate on October 21 and release the results afterwards.”

I’d watch this one.

But… I can hear Eric Schansberg (and Eric this is only because you are a Libertrian…) say that lie detectors are not 100% accurate… and Baron Hill will say something along the lines of being afraid of needles…

C’mon Eric… try something different. I think this debate would do you ALL some good. Plus imagine the press you could get…

Anyone want to put money down on that Mike Jones will NOT reply to this invite/request?

Too bad. This might be the only way to actually get some truths out of Baron Hill for a change.

If you looked at debate outcomes based purely upon points, McCain carried the evening. He landed many hits on Obama. Indeed, it was probably the best McCain has been on economic issues in the entire campaign.

However, the debate does not in and of itself change anything. McCain remains behind though two recent polls show a narrowing of the race. My own theory on this is that Obama has undergone a sort of second convention bounce due to the market crisis, but one that has been eroded with the passage of time, the reassertion of more partisan and ideological viewpoints, and the airing of information about Obama’s relationship to some of those responsible for this situation. Palin’s debate performance probably also helped. Bounces are transitory; I suspect that Obama’s recent lead will pass in a similar fashion. That’s not to say that McCain will suddenly return to the lead, only that the race will not appear as decided as it now looks in polling.

With regard to the debate itself, Obama made several notable gaffes. He said that computers were invented by the U.S. government.

Obama also said that we should have intervened against Germany to stop the Holocaust. we were at war with Nazi Germany as it was happening. It’s hard to intervene more than that.

At a fundamental level, however, such mistakes don’t matter. McCain owns the town hall format, and he owned this debate. That was to be expected. He emerged from it the winner. But that expectation doesn’t give McCain the sort of surge he needs to deflate Obama and establish himself in the lead. It does, however, probably end the media narrative that the race is over (as if narrowing polling doesn’t indicate that already).