Indianapolis, Indiana – Hoosier Access is partnering with the Marion County and surrounding counties Young Republican groups to host a debate of the GOP senate candidates Saturday April 10, 2010 at 10:00am (location TBA).  The candidates participating in the debate include former Senator Dan Coats, State Senator Marlin Stutzman, financial advisor Don Bates, Jr. and local businessman Richard Behney.  Former Congressman John Hostettler has also been invited, but has not yet confirmed his attendance.

This is the first event partnership between Hoosier Access and the Indiana Federation of Young Republicans (IFYR).  State IFYR Chairman Daniel Kinnamon said, “The Indiana Federation of Young Republicans is excited to be co-hosting this event with Hoosier Access.  There are many issues unique to the 40 and under demographic which our next US Senator with have to address.  How will the next Senator address the issues of deficit spending, jobs and national security?  We look forward to a healthy positive debate, allowing the candidates to show their differences, and allowing the central Indiana population to get a close look at the next U.S. Senator.”

Hoosier Access will be also broadcasting the event through a live video webcast at www.hoosieraccess.com.

Hoosier Access Co-founder Josh Gillespie said, “More and more people are getting their information from the internet and this debate provides a means for Republican voters from central Indiana and from all over the state to get information on the candidates first hand through a live webcast even if they can’t attend the event in person.”

The County Young Republican groups that are participating include: Boone, Hancock, Hamilton, Hendricks, Johnson and Marion.

This event is open to all regardless of age.

###

The Senate District 17 candidates will debate live at the Merillat Centre for Arts on the campus of Huntington College and broadcast here on Hoosier Access!

The forum will include Whitley County Councilman Jim Banks, Huntington resident and Coffee D’Vine owner Ron Fusselman, and Huntington County Commission President Tom Wall, as well as any candidate that is announced prior to the forum.

Dr. Dwight Brautigam, professor of history and chair of the Department of History and Political Science, will host the event, with Gary L. Snyder of HuntingtonPolitics.com and Kris Underwood, radio personality, acting as the candidate moderator and the audience moderator, respectively.

Scheduled start time of the debate is 7:00pm.

Media Advisory
For Immediate Release
Monday August 3, 2009

Hoosier Access to Partner in First Blogger Moderated Congressional Debate in Indiana

Indianapolis, IN. – Hoosieraccess.com in conjunction with Huntingtonpolitics.com and HoosierPundit.com will be hosting and web casting live, the first blogger led congressional (5th District) town hall forum. The forum, hosted by Gary Snyder and HuntingtonPolitics.com, will be held August 25th at the Dan Quayle Vice Presidential Learning Center in Huntington, Indiana starting at 6:00 p.m. Scheduled to attend are: Dr. John McGoff, Brose McVey and Mike Murphy. Luke Messer and Congressman Dan Burton declined to participate.

Scheduled to moderate the debate will be Mark Warner of Hoosieraccess.com, Gary Snyder of Huntingtonpolitics.com and Scott Fluhr of Hoosierpundit.com.

In addition to questions from the moderators, questions from 5th District constituents will also be taken prior to the debate. Questions from constituents must be sent to Gary Snyder at snydergaryl@yahoo.com and submitted by August 11, 2009.

For more information on the debate, please contact Gary Snyder at (260) 479-7006 or at snydergaryl@yahoo.com.

###

Editor’s Note:  I came across this article yesterday and felt that it merited republication here on Hoosier Access.   It is thought provoking and timely as we debate the various pros and cons of the Kernan-Shepard report on local government.  Some may disagree with Mr. Ladwig’s points, and others might be more sympathetic-as I am-to what he is saying.  Individuals on both sides should realize, however, that we should not rush through these reforms or dismiss them out of hand.  They deserve debate and discussion because they have the power to greatly impact Hoosiers in a very real way.

By: Craig Ladwig

Strip away a multi-year, bigwig publicity campaign, complete with unctuous news coverage and a last-minute statewide tour, and the premise of the governor’s move to consolidate local government was just this:  People in Indianapolis are smarter than the rest of us.

The governor now says he is “embarrassed” for those in his party who opposed the plan (successfully, so far). The comment implies that they did not do their homework or that they were too dumb to understand economies of scale.

On the contrary, the senators in opposition clearly had thought through the issue. They may have read a comprehensive survey of the academic literature showing mixed results for consolidation of local governments. Or a forensic accounting that debunked not only the tax cuts but the savings promised by a typical consolidation campaign.

In any case, isn’t a smaller, more accountable government what Hoosiers want, not necessarily a more centralized one, however efficient?

(Read More Below the Fold)

Indianapolis Star, January 25, 2009

To the Editor:

Regarding the January 20 editorial in the Indianapolis Star, I believe I have heard quite enough about “unity” in the wake of Barack Obama’s inauguration as President of the United States.

President Obama has a number of public policy goals that I and many other Americans disagree with, such as his support for abortion rights, his promise to increase taxes, and his support for “hate crime” legislation. It is foolish to expect these differences to be brushed aside in the name of “unity” or bipartisanship.

Obama’s political adversaries have both the right and the responsibility to point out where they believe his policies to be ineffective, counterproductive or destructive. That can and should that be done in a civil way, without personal attacks and unnecessarily inflammatory rhetoric, but it must be done.

Whether I like it or not, Obama is my President, and I wish him the best. But he does not get a holiday from criticism and commentary on his policies and/or the way he runs his administration. To suggest otherwise does a disservice to political discourse and sound public policy.

Scott Tibbs

Had a terrific brainstorming session yesterday with members of the Valparaiso University Law Republicans and a former State Party staff member.  We talked in wide ranging topics from fundraising and party structure to engagement and recruitment.

By: Brian Sikma

The mantra of hope must now be converted into the policies of change.  Riding the tide of continued dissatisfaction with Republicans, particularly the incumbent President, and the very long coattails of a charismatic presidential candidate, Democrats solidified and increased their hold on the United States House of Representatives in November of 2008.  They now hold a 256-178 advantage over the minority party.

After the formal ceremonies that accompany the start of every new Congress were over, the majority party brought up as it’s first item of business in the 111th Congress a series of modifications to the House Rules.  These rules govern proceedings of the House and, although of limited direct importance to the American people, can dramatically impact how and what gets done in the House.  In some instances the success or failure of legislative proposals that impact millions of Americans hinges directly on what the rules do and do not allow.

If it was Speaker Pelosi’s desire to use her power, and the power of her majority, to broaden the discussion in Congress and allow for a level of transparency and openness in government that would be equal to the importance of the business they are conducting, one would never know.  By passing H. Res. 5, the changes to the House Rules, the Democrat majority effectively returned the House to the era of backroom deals among powerful committee chairmen who wielded power based on their longevity of service and not their competence or clarity of purpose.

H. Res 5. contains two very important changes to the House Rules:

1) It removes the three term, six year, limit imposed on committee chairmen.  After decades in which committee chairmen were able to expand their power as a result of holding a key position for so long, and after the House Banking scandal that revealed these chairmen and other members were abusing their position at the expense of the public, Republicans imposed term limits on committee chairmen.  The reason was simple: a limited term would prevent too much power from going to one member of Congress and would stimulate new ideas and fresh insights in the committee process.  More than anything, term limits on committee chairmen are about openness and honesty in government.

2) It prevents the minority from making serious changes to bills that either raise taxes, spend money, or both.  A motion to recommit is a procedure that the minority uses to keep the majority accountable and honest.  When Democrats were in the minority, they used this tool, and when Republicans were in the minority, they used this tool too.  By not allowing the minority to offer alternatives to tax increases, unwise spending, or flawed new programs, House Democrats are depriving millions of Americans of their voice in the House (minority party members will not be able to request changes to legislation being voted on) and positioning themselves to ramrod their proposals through without the contributions of the minority.

Because Congressman Joe Donnelly, Congressman Baron Hill, and Congressman Brad Ellsworth voted “Yes” on Roll Call 6, the vote to pass H. Res. 5, take action today by writing your local newspaper and condemning the actions of Rep. Donnelly and his party by choosing to let committee chairman possess an excessive power with little accountability and choosing to shut down the voice of the minority party, a voice that represents well over 113 million Americans.

Baron Hill, Mike Sodrel, and Eric Schansberg met in Jasper at the Vincennes University campus there on Tuesday evening to face off. There were plenty of cameras, but no non-media recording and no lie detectors.

The debate was impactful and revealing, at least for those that saw it (which is probably a distinct minority of voters; likely Baron’s intention from the start).

Your humble correspondent was present, and I liveblogged the entire thing. I didn’t have a chance to post it until now, because I typed it into a Word file rather than attempt to post and continually update that post live (too big a chance for an error or something resulting in the browser or the internet eating my work).

The debate had two segments. For the first (televised) hour, the candidates were each on stage individually for twenty minutes with a panel of three questioners. During the second hour, the candidates shared the stage and took questions from the audience. The audience was not friendly to Baron Hill; the questions were not to his liking (which was a distinct change from a number of the panel questions, which were frequently dainty softballs).

I have four posts linked after the fold about this (one for each candidate’s segment and one for the audience question period).

(Read about each candidates Q&A after the leap)

Last night was it.  It was the final opportunity for John McCain to make his case against Barack Obama.  His last chance to spar one on one with him and take the kind of stand Republicans have been begging for since the first debate and since the economy tanked on us a couple of weeks ago.  This was it.  If John McCain was going to break through and resonate with a majority of voters, Wednesday night was his chance to show he’s the fighter and Maverick he claims to be.

Did he do it?

Outside of praying to the heavens “Dear God I hope so”, McCain did achieve a few things last night that desperately needed to be done.

(Read more after the leap)

That pretty much describes Jill Long Thompson’s performance last night in the final gubernatorial debate of this election cycle.  Think that’s me just being partisan?  Guess again.

Matt Tully writes in his column today:

With a petty performance, Democrat Jill Long Thompson spoiled what could have been an insightful gubernatorial debate Tuesday evening.

The two other candidates in the debate, Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels and Libertarian Andrew Horning, actually provided plenty of insight and even a touch of introspection as they answered questions intended to give voters a glimpse into their leadership styles. But Long Thompson repeatedly used her response time to take out-of-place potshots at Daniels.

Tully went on to give positive performances of Governor Daniels (though noting one miscue in a comeback of his own to a Long Thompson attack that Tully also deemed petty) and Andy Horning, calling their portions of the debate insightful.

But one thing that came out of JLT’s attacks were out of the blue comments about investments of the state’s money in the stock market, specifically Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, claiming we’ve lost millions (or as one uninformed, supposedly objective commenter put it, “billions”).  As I mentioned on Abdul this morning, the Governor isn’t responsible for how our state’s money is invested.  And as Abdul rightly noted, only the State Treasurer can direct where the state’s money does go when it’s invested.

Bill Ruthhart, in his column, notes:

(Read more after the leap)

It’s the last presidential debate.  Will McCain be able to land a badly needed body blow?  Either way we’re interactively live blogging it!  Check back at around 8:45 tonight.

Bonus feature to the live blog (if we can get it to work), you’ll be able to view the debate in our webcast screen!

**Update By Mike – We’ll have audio of the debate on the live blog for your convenience. We won’t have video.

Click here to watch and participate.

If you sat through tonight’s debate and hadn’t seen the other two, you didn’t miss anything.  Just a few highlights.

• For what seemed like the first half hour, we got everybody’s personal story (and I swear it seemed like for the the 5,000th time, we heard that JLT grew up on a farm, has a some high falutin’ degrees of some sort and she’s pretty ticked off about all the change that needs changing except it’s not change)
• Andy Horning mentioned the constitution in one single answer a total of eight times
• JLT’s ethics code while a congresswoman was to not drink the soft drinks the lobbyists provided at receptions.

That’s pretty much it. So let me plug my appearance on Abdul tomorrow morning.

I’m going to be on Abdul in the Morning tomorrow morning at 7:10am with Blue Indiana’s Thomas Cook to talk about the shindig in Bloomington this evening and to talk about tomorrow night’s final presidential debate.

So tune in WXNT 1430am at 7:10am or log on to the WXNT website to hear the live stream.