Posts Tagged ‘Indiana’

Indiana’s Choice

May 2, 2016

For once, people actually care about how Indiana will vote in tomorrow’s primary. Indiana’s primary is held late in the season, the first Tuesday of May, and by that time both parties have usually all but decided who their presidential nominees are going to be. If the presumptive nominee has not actually acquired a majority of delegates, by the time Indiana gets to vote, at least he is in a position where he has the most delegates by a wide margin and most of the other candidates have dropped out. There may be one or two candidates hanging on, trying against the odds to eke out a victory, but everyone knows they have no hope. In the general election, Indiana almost always goes Republican and is not big enough or enough of a swing state for either candidate to bother fighting over.

This year it is different for Indiana. While Donald Trump is currently in the lead and some already  consider him the presumptive nominee, he has not yet managed to get a majority of delegates and may not have a majority when the Republican convention meets in Cleveland. Ted Cruz is still a viable candidate, though his chances of winning the nomination without some sort of convention manipulation of the delegate seems to be increasingly remote considering Trump’s recent string of victories. If Cruz can win Indiana, he might be able to break Trump’s momentum and at least deny him an outright victory before the convention. If Trump wins Indiana, Cruz might as well drop out, so Indiana voters might actually have some influence on the outcome of the 2016 election. Judging from the polls, Cruz has a decent chance of winning here.

I intend to vote for Cruz tomorrow because he is not Donald Trump, who I continue to distrust and dislike. It may be a futile gesture, however, since I am certain that Donald Trump will be the Republican candidate for president. By now, any Cruz victory will only delay this inevitable result. I really wish that the other Republican candidates had taken Trump seriously earlier in the race. They, and most commentators regarded Trump as a clown, until he started winning. By the time they realized that he was a greater threat than each other, it was too late.

I am going to go so far as to predict that Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States. I am not happy about this prospect, though he is preferable to either of the Democratic candidates. There are still many pundits who are assuming that a Trump candidacy will be a disaster for the Republicans, ending in a landslide victory for Hilary Clinton. The polls seem to affirm this, Trump has record high unfavorability ratings with just about every group, yet I am not sure the polls are telling the whole story. Trump has gone from victory to victory even as his opponents have been dropping out. One might think that the remaining candidates would have gotten the bulk of the anti-Trump votes while Trump’s proportion of the vote remained about the same, but that hasn’t been happening. Trump seems to have been gaining a treating proportion of the vote over time, as if the people who might have voted for Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, etc are deciding to support Trump. Somebody out there likes Trump, and despite what the liberals think, the majority of Americans are not hate filled bigots. Trump is obviously saying something that appeals to a great many Americans.

Without getting into a detailed analysis, I think that what appeals to most of Trump’s supporters is simply the idea that he is on their side and is willing to fight for them, even if it means he has to be politically incorrect or even crude. Most politicians try very hard not to offend any of the myriads of pressure groups who are perpetually offended and they back down and apologize just as soon as someone accuses them of racism, sexism, etc. Their public statements are bland and meaningless, and there is a feeling that they care less about the silent majorities who make this country work and more about the very loud minorities who seem intent on tearing the country down. People like a fighter, and Donald Trump is a fighter. He does not back down or apologize when someone claims to be offended, and people who are tired of having to watch every word they say like to see that. Trump is, at least in his public persona, a Jacksonian at a time when the Jacksonians are under attack.

I think that when the battle between Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump gets underway, the Democrats and the media, but I repeat myself, will throw everything they can at Trump. He will be a racist, sexist, Islamophobe, and the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler. I don’t think it will work. Many people in mainstream America, Trump’s natural base, have come to believe, with good reason, that the entertainment and new media is not on their side, that it is hostile to them and their values. If they believe that Donald Trump is on their side, attacks on Trump will be seen as attacks on themselves by people they already know despise them. And, of course, Trump will not simply sit by ignore Hilary’s attacks. He will respond and attack, thus ensuring that he continues to be seen as a fighter.

I guess I’d better get used to saying President Trump. I’m still not very happy about it.

Return of the Baron

March 28, 2016

Baron Hill was the Congressional Representative for the ninth Congressional district of Indiana, the district I happen to live in, from 1999 to 2005 and 2007 to 2011. Now he wants to be one of Indiana’s Senators.

David,

I have known Baron Hill a long time. I worked to get him elected to Congress and was honored to serve as his Chief of Staff — and I am thrilled the Indiana Democratic Party has endorsed him to be our next U.S. Senator.

Baron is the just the kind of man we need in Washington. He will start fixing problems again in Washington instead of playing political games that we see coming out of the Republican majorities right now.

Will you add your name to let Baron know he has your support in 2016?

Baron’s roots in this great state go deep. He grew up in Seymour as the youngest of seven kids, played basketball at Seymour High, and worked in his family’s small business. He’s seen firsthand the changes the past many years have brought to Indiana.

Baron knows we are at a turning point. Inequality is growing as working families are getting left behind. Special interests have a voice in Washington, but what about regular people?

He is going to be a voice for all Hoosiers — our voice. He’ll fight for an economy that works for everyone. He’ll work to grow our local businesses and make college affordable for our kids.

Baron knows Indiana is worth fighting for. But he needs us standing with him.

Will you add your name to show you’re on Baron’s team in 2016?

Baron Hill will do the job he is elected to do in the U.S. Senate, and he needs your help today.

Thank you for all you do.

John Zody
Chairman
Indiana Democratic Party

I remember Baron Hill very well. It’s not likely that anyone outside of the state of Indiana would know anything about Mr. Hill, although he did receive a certain amount of national attention before his defeat in the 2010 election. Here are a few videos to remind the viewer who Baron Hill is and why he doesn’t belong in the Senate

 

The political terrorists he refers to are his own constituents who happened to object to his vote supporting Obamacare. Because they were actually challenging him over his vote, he considered them to be the same as al-Qaeda.

Here is another.

 

This isn’t a town meeting in which the representative of the people of the ninth Congressional district responds to the concerns of the people, but an audience in which the Baron deigns to speak to his subjects.

There are a lot more videos of Baron Hill being dismissive or rude to his constituents at town hall meetings, etc. He is apparently something of a sore loser as well, if the people in this video are correct.

This is why Baron Hill was defeated in 2010. His name, Baron, seems to fit him very well. He acts with all the arrogance and condescension to his “inferiors” as some medieval baron. He is part of the problem of an arrogant and unresponsive political elite that is causing Americans to turn to outsiders for leadership, even such obviously unqualified candidates as Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. Baron Hill is the last person I would want to see in the Senate.

Some Thoughts About the Recent Controversy in Indiana

April 6, 2015

There has already been a lot written about the controversy engendered by the recent passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act here in Indiana and I don’t suppose I have much to say that hasn’t already been said. I am sorry to see my state become a front in the never ending Cultural War and I especially resent the slanders that the progressives have made about Indiana’s bigotry and backwardness. Still the experience has been edifying since the people on the left have once again demonstrated how mendacious, intolerant, ignorant, bullying, and just plain mean they are. This comes as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to their antics, but maybe those who have imagined that they could get by by minding their own business will learn better. There are a few random observations I would like to make about the whole situation. Maybe I am not the only person who has noticed these things.

I wonder if the people who have been comparing the RFRA to the Jim Crow laws of the Old South are really aware that Jim Crow did not permit racist business owners to discriminate against Blacks, they required them to discriminate regardless of what they might want. Now, of course, most White businessmen in the Old South were fairly racist and didn’t have much of a problem with segregation, but they didn’t necessarily want to discriminate against Blacks if such discrimination cost them. Owners of public transportation such as railroads didn’t particularly want the added cost of separate accommodations for Whites and Blacks. Owners of hotels and rental property found it burdensome to maintain separate facilities for Blacks and Whites.

What do you suppose would have happened if a business owner decided that due to his religious convictions it was wrong to discriminate against Blacks? Aside from from facing the full force of the law which required discrimination, it is likely that he would have lost most of his White customers. They would have boycotted him. Perhaps there would have been a campaign of intimidation led by the Ku Klux Klan to force him to comply with the local mores or close his business. Now, which side in this debate is using boycotts, intimidation, and ultimately the law to force compliance?

Am I the only one who finds the whole scenario of the gay couple walking into a bakery, florist, or wedding planner’s office, etc, asking them to provide for their “wedding” only to be refused on religious grounds and then suing the business into compliance just a little suspicious? I suspect that the majority of such businesses would have no scruples about taking their money and performing any desired service. Many wouldn’t want to be involved in any controversy. How is it then, that we keep seeing religious business owners getting into trouble? Are Christian owned businesses deliberately being targeted?  What would be the purpose of such a campaign, to provide object lessons for anyone who might not want to go along with the latest PC rules? Should I be fitted for a tin foil hat?

I would like to propose a thought experiment. Let us say there is a preacher, who we will call “Brother Bob”, who has routinely preached against homosexuality in a not very nice way. In fact, let’s say he was only a step above the Westburo Baptist Church. Now, suppose the congregation of Brother Bob’s church wanted to honor him for twenty years of service by throwing a party for him. To make the arrangements for this celebration, they go to a local caterer which happens to be owned by gay man named Jim, who finds Brother Bob’s preaching to be deeply offensive and hurtful. Should Jim be required to cater a party in Brother Bob’s honor even though it will make him feel uncomfortable?

I think that the majority of the tolerant progressives who have opposed the RFRA would say that Jim should not be forced to served Brother Bob since Brother Bob is a bigot and a hater and thus has no rights. They probably wouldn’t state their position in precisely those words, but that would be their position. The small minority who are actually able to think these things through and have some notion of adopting a consistent ideology might say that Jim should not be able to discriminate against Brother Bob regardless of his personal feelings. But why should Jim be forced to provide a service he doesn’t want to? Why should a baker be forced to bake a cake for a gay “wedding” if he doesn’t want to? Why is it so controversial to just let people mind their own business and live and let live?

The people opposed to laws like the RFRA say that they are not, in any way, opposed to religious freedom, just to bigotry. They graciously allow everyone to have their own opinion about religion provided that opinion is kept privately in the home or the church. Any attempt to live by the principles of one’s religion is only tolerated so long as the actions are in accord with progressive values. If the actions are not in accord with their values then they are bigoted and should not be permitted. Isn’t this a little like the old Soviet constitution which granted all sorts of civil rights to Soviet citizens but only so long as the use of those rights were in accord with socialism?

I wonder where all of this is going. I have to say that the hatred and disinformation directed at my state and some of the people who have only given honest answers to reporters is a little discouraging. I really don’t want to live in a country where I have to watch what I say for fear of losing my livelihood, or worse.

Indiana Rejects Common Core

March 27, 2014

Walter Russell Mead has some interesting things to say about Indiana’s recent rejection of the Common Core federal education standards. He approves of the move not so much because of any defect in the standard but from a sense that a one size fits all program for a nation as large and diverse as the United States is not desirable. Here are his reasons.

First of all, families should have as much freedom as possible to shape their children’s education. And the closer to the grassroots level educational decision-making resides, the more likely it is that parents can help shape important decisions about their kids’ education.

Secondly, it’s clear that our educational system is in the midst of a period of change, as it needs to be. Society is changing, the economy is changing, yet our educational system is still a product of the Industrial Age. It’s designed to produce people who are good at following directions, coping with boredom, and sitting still for long periods of time. Coming up with a new model suited for the 21st century is going to take time and experimentation. Letting cities and states (to say nothing of individual schools, whether public, charter, or private) try out new approaches is the best way to do this. Let a hundred flowers bloom.

More broadly, as the U.S. continues to grow, we need to work much harder to keep important decisions at state and local levels for the sake of national unity and the health of democratic society. The individual American has almost no influence over decisions at the federal level, but at state and local levels grassroots coalitions and social and civic organizations can make a real difference. America is based on the idea that ordinary people should be responsible for their own lives; a mass society dilutes that necessary freedom and authority. Our democratic society will wither away if Washington tries to make all our important decisions for us. Centralization of power also tends to exaggerate and heighten political polarization. Let Texas live as it pleases, and let Vermont be Vermont. America will be happier and more peaceful when smaller units of government make more of the really consequential decisions.

This last argument is one to keep in mind. We think of ourselves as a democracy, the sort of country in which the people rather than a king or dictator rules. Yet, how democratic can a country with a population of over 300 million actually be if all the major decisions are made by a centralized government in a distant capital? One person out of 300 million simply has no voice. Pundits and professional worriers always complain when fewer than half the electorate actually votes in any national election, but why should they? One person voting in any national election, presidential , senatorial or congressional really isn’t going to make a difference. As centralized government over a country as large as the United States can’t really be very democratic at all, despite the number of elections that are held. By necessity, any such government must tend to be despotic just in order to get things done. Three hundred million people are never going to come to any consensus on any issue.  For this reason,we would be a whole lot better if most of the decisions that affect people’s lives were made at the state and local level, where an individual could make a difference.

I also think that a lot of the so-called culture wars over social issues would be a lot less intense and divisive if we got away from the idea that the federal government should impose one solution over the whole country. Take same-sex marriage. Why not let California legalize it while Iowa could ban it? That way people in both places could be happy.The same could apply to abortion, gun control, and many other issues. If you don’t like the way an issue is handled in your state, well, it is easier to change policies at the state level and you could always move.

Of course, the progressives hate the very idea of the federal government yielding any of its power. It is a lot harder to make fundamental changes when you have to deal with 50 states than with one federal government. They always profess to love diversity, except in matters where diversity really counts.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Redrawn Map

September 17, 2013

I have been having fun with the e-mails that I have been receiving from the Democrats for quite a long time now, but fairness demands that I also have some fun with the e-mails that conservative groups send me, at least when they descend into silliness or apocalyptic paranoia. Such is the case with this one I got from Townhall.com.

Dear Reader,

The America you know and love could look completely different in a matter of weeks.

Under a plan circulating the D.C. corridor right now, up to 16 states are at risk to be terminated due to epic fiscal mismanagement.

These states would simply be wiped from existence and merged into their neighbors.

We’ve even seen the redrawn map of the U.S. and it’s nothing less than terrifying.

California may be forced to become a part of Mexico without any state strong enough to absorb it!

Last week Treasury Secretary Jack Lew even took the time to urge congressional leaders to take action before events unfold that could lead to this national tragedy.

But it may already be too late.

To see the redrawn map of the U.S. and learn if your state is targeted for potential termination, it’s essential that you watch this short video we’ve produced.

It could be the slight head start that saves your entire future.

View it here, for free, right now.

This is an advertisement for Wall Street Daily, some sort of financial newsletter that seems to cater to survivalists and doomsday preppers. The link leads to a video of a fake news report of the federal government defaulting on its debts. I didn’t have the patience to watch it all the way through so I haven’t seen the redrawn map. I think Indiana would be relatively safe since our fiscal situation is strong thanks to former governor Mitch Daniels. I hope they don’t add Kentucky or Illinois to our state. I don’t want them. I also have no objections at all to giving California back to Mexico. The nuts and the crazies have long since taken control of that state and run it into the ground. Let the Mexicans straighten them out.

 

Calling Them Out

August 14, 2013

Ivan Frishberg sent me another e-mail asking me to call out the climate change deniers in Congress.

David —

Today, all across the country, people are telling members of Congress that it’s not OK to deny the science behind climate change.

There are 135 climate change deniers in Congress — elected officials who refuse to believe that climate change is real, manmade, and dangerous. Today, we want everyone pointing and laughing at these folks.

It’s easy to join in. Can you help by sharing something on Twitter or Facebook?

Tweet at Speaker John Boehner, the lead climate denier in Congress — and call out the climate denial.


Or share this graphic on Facebook:

Call on Speaker Boehner to stop denying the science behind climate change.
Share on Facebook

It only takes a second — but if we do our jobs, it’ll be fun to watch these climate change deniers try to explain themselves.

Keep it up and tweet right now:

http://my.barackobama.com/Do-One-Thing-for-Climate-Change-Twitter

Or share the shame of climate change deniers on Facebook:

http://my.barackobama.com/Do-One-Thing-for-Climate-Change-Facebook

Thanks,

Ivan

Ivan Frishberg
Climate Campaign Manager
Organizing for Action

It seems to me that an important part of science is observation. For instance, I have observed that the high temperature on the day I write this is about 75°. This is unusually cool for Indiana in the middle of August. I am aware, of course, that one unusually cool summer does not disprove the theory of global warming, but then, if we were having an unusually hot summer, the climate change alarmists would be taking that as proof that the Earth was getting dangerously warmer.

I wonder why we are having such a cool summer. I am a little concerned. I believe I’ve said before that I would be a lot more worried if there were a worldwide cooling trend than a warming. It really wouldn’t take much of a decrease in global average temperature to affect agriculture adversely. Of course, this is only one year and I am sure next year will be more normal. In the meantime, I will enjoy the pleasant weather.

Secession

November 12, 2012

In the wake of the last election, there have been petitions to secede from the Union filed in twenty states, oddly not all of them “Red” states. I read the story in Yahoo News.

In the wake of last week’s presidential election, thousands of Americans have signed petitions seeking permission for their states to peacefully secede from the United States. The petitions were filed on We the People, a government website.

States with citizens filing include Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. Oddly, folks from Georgia have filed twice. Even stranger, several of the petitions come from states that went for President Barack Obama.

The petitions are short and to the point. For example, a petition from the Volunteer State reads: “Peacefully grant the State of Tennessee to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government.” Of all the petitions, Texas has the most signatures so far, with more than 23,000.

Of course, this is mostly a symbolic gesture. The odds of the American government granting any state permission to go its own way are on par with winning the lottery while getting hit by a meteor while seeing Bigfoot while finding gluten-free pizza that tastes like the real thing.

Didn’t we settle this matter about one hundred fifty years ago in the Civil War? If the North’s victory didn’t settle it, than the Supreme Court ruling of Texas vs White declared that secession was illegal and that the Constitution nowhere gave the states the right to leave the Union.

The Federal government isn’t likely to grant any of these petitions, no matter how many people sign them, and in fact cannot allow any state to leave the union these petitions are worthless, except as a means of demonstrating discontent. The only was for any state to secede would be for the state government to mobilize the National Guard and win independence. I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

Still, maybe I should sign the petition. I wouldn’t mind seeing my native state of Indiana join the family of nations as a free and independent country.

 

Election Day

November 6, 2012

I have just gotten home from voting. As usual, I voted an almost entirely Republican straight ticket. To be honest, I wish there were good people in both parties that I could support, but the Democrats have turned so far into Leftist ideology that even the decent people among them running for office simply cannot be trusted to behave decently. In any event, I voted for Mitt Romney for President, Mike Pence for Governor, and Richard Mourdock for Senator, along with the Republican candidates for Congress, State Legislator, and various local offices. There were four judges asking to be retained. I voted no for all four.

I have to say that I am very anxious about this election. I do not see how our country will survive another four years with Obama as President. I wish I knew who will win, but I simply have no idea.

 

Infant Left in Truck

August 15, 2012

 

Here is another story for my what were they thinking file. According to fox59.com, a couple from Bartholomew County Indiana decided to leave their four-month old infant in their truck while they went shopping.

Brown County Sheriff’s Deputy Nathan Tompkins made the 911 call Monday evening. He said he’d just pulled into the Jay C grocery store parking lot in Columbus when someone alerted him about the baby.

“As soon as I got up to the truck I could hear a baby screaming in the back seat,” said Tompkins. “I didn’t even think. I just, was like, this kid needs to get out of there.”

The temperature outside was around 75 degrees and although the truck windows were rolled down, Tompkins said the baby was in distress from the heat.

“When I pulled the child out of the seat I had to take a fleece blanket off of him,” he explained. “When I pulled him out of the seat, I immediately felt that his outfit was soaked through with sweat. And I could notice that there was water droplets on his head and on his face where he’d been sweating. And he’d also spit up. So there was vomit down his chin and all down, all the way down his belly.”

Tompkins said he held onto the baby until an ambulance showed up. Then, he said, the boy’s parents came out of the grocery store.

“It might have been 20 or 30 minutes before I’d seen the woman come out of the store.”

He said the couple is lucky the situation didn’t end worse.

“You can’t leave a child that young alone for any amount of time,” said Tompkins. “It’s a potentially fatal situation.”

It wasn’t quite as bad as it might have been. The temperature was not too hot and the baby was unharmed, but how could anyone leave an infant alone for any length of time? Four month old babies are completely helpless and there is no telling what could have happened. And, since they were a couple, if they didn’t want to take the baby into the store, couldn’t one of them stay behind to baby-sit?

I have to wonder if these people were thinking at all.

 

 

Lugar Lost

May 8, 2012

I just read that Richard Mourdock defeated Richard Lugar in the Republican Senate primary. from Yahoo News

Dick Lugar, the longest-serving Republican in the Senate, was defeated Tuesday as Indiana Republicans chose state Treasurer Richard Mourdock over Lugar as the party’s nominee.

With 37 percent reporting, Mourdock received 60 percent to 40 percent for Lugar in the Hoosier state’s Senate primary, marking a huge win for tea party supporters and conservatives across the country.

Conservatives had long targeted Lugar for defeat, arguing he represented a Republican establishment in Congress that has acquiesced to the Democratic party. They singled out Lugar’s votes for the bailouts, in support of the president’s stimulus and votes to confirm U.S. Supreme Court nominees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor as evidence of his “RINO” (Republican in name only) status.

National tea party groups such as FreedomWorks and the Tea Party Express as well as the state group Hoosiers for a Conservative Senate and others mobilized and invested in the race, casting the contest as a nationally significant battle to restore conservatism and hold leaders of the Republican establishment accountable.

Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum were among the high-profile politicians who offered public support for Mourdock’s campaign.

Lugar began the race with a major fundraising advantage and drew support from his extensive political network, which led to endorsements from the state’s popular governor, Mitch Daniels, and fellow foreign policy expert Sen. John McCain.

In the race’s last days, Lugar pivoted from arguing that Mourdock was inexperienced and flawed to branding himself as his party’s best hope of defeating Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly in the general election in November.

“Democrats understand Joe Donnelly will beat Richard Mourdock,” Lugar wrote in an email message to supporters Sunday. “This is serious. Losing our Indiana Senate seat to the Democrats is not a risk that Republicans can take.”

Donnelly ran unopposed for his party’s nomination Tuesday.

Democrats view Lugar’s loss as their best chance of capturing the seat, preferring to go up against a newcomer who spent the primary marketing himself to the far right instead of facing a longtime lawmaker who boasts support from independents and Democrats in the state.

 

It would seem that the Democrats are planning to label Mourdock an extremist for holding views that the majority of Hoosiers hold. Here is part of the statement from Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

“Unfortunately for Republicans, they seem to only have room for Tea Party candidates. That might explain why Mitt Romney has embraced so many far-right positions like endorsing a budget that would end Medicare as we know it to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, getting rid of federal funding for Planned Parenthood, and supporting the Blunt-Rubio Amendment and so-called ‘Personhood’ amendments. Mitt Romney called himself ‘the ideal Tea Party candidate,’ and his policies and positions back up the claim.

“The choice in this election could not be more clear. President Obama wants to move the country forward because America prospers when we’re all in it together; when hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded; when everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street, does their fair share and plays by the same rules. Mitt Romney, Richard Mourdock and the rest of the Tea Party Republicans are offering an economic scheme that is familiar and troubling: more budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy; fewer rules for Wall Street–the same formula that benefitted a few, but crashed our economy and punished the middle class.”

I wonder how she can say something like that with a straight face. It is Obama who has been busting the budget with trillion dollar a year deficits and different rules for his supporters on Wall Street. The TEA Party stands for fiscal sanity and limited government, the sort of things the founding fathers stood for.

The fact that Lugar lost is actually rather amazing. Just six years ago, he was so untouchable that the Democrats didn’t bother to field an opponent against him. I like it a whole lot better when politicians know they could lose their jobs.

In other news, it would seem that Luke Messer won the Republican primary for the sixth district with 42% of the vote. Mitt Romney won the presidential primary, of course, but he got 645 of the vote. Ron Paul got 15% and Rick Santorum got 14%.

 


%d bloggers like this: