Comments on: IN State Senate 30 Special Election

By: HoosierAccess » Blog Archive » IN SD30 Caucus Wrapup

HoosierAccess » Blog Archive » IN SD30 Caucus Wrapup — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:29:50 +0000

[...] IN State Senate 30 Special Election [...]

By: J

Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:03:39 +0000

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.

By: Joel Harris

Joel Harris — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:42:22 +0000

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.

By: J

Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:02:11 +0000

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.

By: Joel Harris

Joel Harris — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 04:25:22 +0000

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.

By: J

Sat, 18 Jul 2009 08:11:43 +0000

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.

By: Michael Jezierski

Michael Jezierski — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:01:12 +0000

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.

By: Joel Harris

Joel Harris — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:37:13 +0000

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.

By: Michael Jezierski

Michael Jezierski — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:25:10 +0000

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”.

By: Joel Harris

Joel Harris — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:18:00 +0000

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.