Ogden on Politics

Ron Paul's Campaign Claims to be Ahead in Delegate Count in Race for GOP Nomination

2012-02-11T22:18:00.002-05:00

Even though Ron Paul is the only remaining GOP candidate to not have won a state, his people are claiming that they are actually ahead in the delegate count. A most interesting interview by Rachel Maddow of MSNBC.

Romney Narrowly Wins Maine; Ron Paul Misses Victory by Less Than 200 Votes

2012-02-11T20:31:00.002-05:00

Mitt Romney

This is what counts as a big victory for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney...a 194 vote victory in the Maine caucus over Ron Paul.

Romney edged out Paul 39% to 36%, 2,190 votes to 1,996, with 5% of the vote stubbornly still out. Rick Santorum finished third with 18% and Newt Gingrich finished last with 6%.

Delegates are allocated proportionally in Maine, including by congressional district. Maine only has 14 delegates and it is expected that they will be split fairly evenly between Romney and Paul. Santorum may also get a delegate or two.

In 2008, Romney won Maine with over 50% of the vote. Romney's raw vote total dropped some 700 votes from 2008 to 2012, while Paul's more than doubled.

Local Attorney Paul Ogden to Seek Republican Nomination as Marion County Superior Court Judge

2012-02-10T17:49:00.002-05:00

Dear Family, Friends, and Supporters,

Today I filed with the Secretary of State's Office to run for Marion County Superior Court judge in the May 2012 primary.

Growing up on a farm outside Madison, Indiana, I never thought my career path would lead to running for judge. One of five sons of a factory worker/small time farmer and a secretary, I certainly learned the value of hard work and dedication. There is nothing like stacking hay on a wagon in 95 degree heat to build a work ethic.

My brothers and I fortunately were the first generation in my family to have the chance to pursue education beyond high school. For me that included a year at Hanover College followed by three at Ball State University. At Ball State, I majored in political science and spent a semester interning in the Indiana State Senate. After graduating from Ball State, I went to Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis.  In law school, I served as editor of the school newspaper and president of the Student Bar Association.

After graduating from law school in 1987, I became a Deputy Attorney General, representing the then Indiana Department of Highways in eminent domain and employment matters. The work experience though that most impacted me though was when I began clerking with Judge Buchanan on the Indiana Court of Appeals. I spent 3 1/2 years at the Court doing legal research and writing draft legal opinions.  The experience of writing judicial opinions and having the late Judge Paul H. Buchanan as a mentor was a life-changing experience.

After leaving the Court, I worked on my own as well as at a couple law firms, including the minority- owned Roberts & Bishop, where I still have many friends today. Along the way, I was general counsel for Midwest Title Insurance Company and led the development of a division regulating title insurance at the Indiana Department of Insurance. I have seen about everything there is to see in my 24 years plus of practicing law.

I have also been very politically involved. In 1986, I became a Republican precinct committeeman in Pike Township.  I have also served as a Vice Ward Chairman, a Ward Chairman, President of the Pike Township GOP Club and have worked on a number of campaigns as well as run for office myself.   I also have taught political science at both IUPUI and the University of Indianapolis. When I haven't been busy doing that, I've also done some writing, winning the First Place Award for "Issues Writing" from the Indiana Society of Professional Journalists several years ago for an article I wrote on grading ISTEP exams that appeared in the Indianapolis Monthly.

While I believe wholeheartedly in my Marion County Republican Party, I am disappointed that the power and authority of grass roots party workers has been virtually eliminated in favor of party bosses calling the shots. When I first started in 1986, party workers still had real influence and elected officials knew they had to stay in touch with those workers to be endorsed by the party. Slating conventions featured numerous races that had had multiple candidates eagerly seeking out the support of party workers.

A couple weeks ago, the Marion County GOP had a slating convention at which 16 of 17 races were uncontested. The only contested race was for Superior Court Judge. In that race, several Republican judicial candidates had withdrawn before slating with the exception of Judge Carol Orbison. Judge Orbison said during her speech to the convention that she was told a committee of power brokers had met before slating and decided she should not run for re-election. She did not heed that warning and was not slated, though she has filed to run in the primary. The fact is, party leaders now appoint the vast majority of those who vote at slating, people who just to show up and vote the way leadership wants them to vote. Candidates know party bosses have almost complete control over the endorsement process.

But when it comes to slating of judges, there is an additional problem.  It is a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct to pay slating fees, according to a 1992 opinion by the Judicial Qualifications Commission.   The party chairmen claim that slating fees, which total at least $12,000, are "not mandatory." Yet since that 1992 opinion there has never been a judge slated who hasn't paid the fee.  Retired judges all say the slating fee is mandatory. Nobody is being fooled with the claim that slating fees for judges are "voluntary."

I refuse to pay a slating fee in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. I also don't think party bosses, sitting in a room, should pick the Marion County judges.  Party workers and the party electorate should be the ones putting those judges on the court.

Although we have many fine judges in Marion County, the current system undermines the independence and impartiality of the judges.  As provided by the notes to the Code of Judicial Conduct, "judges and judicial candidates must, to the greatest extent possible, be free, and appear to be free, from political influence, and partisan interests." When partisan issues come before the court, judges, faced with the possibility of not being slated next time, are under an enormous pressure to rule the "right way," i.e. the way the party bosses want them to rule. No better example exists than the Peterson v. Borst case a few years ago in which every Republican judge voted for the plan passed by the Republican majority to redistrict the Indianapolis council and every Democratic judge voted against it.   (To clarify, there were judges who abstained from the vote.)

Judges should not be players beholden to one side or another. They should be umpires with their decisions flowing from the constitutions, statutes and rules which judges are sworn to uphold.   Ours is not a system in which the laws should apply differently based on who is standing before the tribunal Yet that sadly is too often the case. I promise that as a judge everyone will stand before me with equal footing.  I do not care if one side is a big corporation represented by the most politically connected downtown law firm while the other side is a person too poor to afford an attorney. The law is the law is the law. If the law is with the pro se litigant, that person wins. Period.

The question has been asked by many people what happens to my blog Ogden on Politics. Having closely reviewed the Code of Judicial Conduct, I am aware that I am not permitted as a judicial candidate to make promises to support certain positions.  Also, I cannot as a candidate take positions on issues that may possibly be before me as judge. I can talk about judicial philosophy, ideas for operating the courts more efficiently, and others matters relating to judicial administration. I can also talk about issues that are unlikely to come before me as a judge...but if they unexpectedly do, I need to, and will recuse, myself.

In short, I will continue my blog, but focus more on national issues and issues that are unlikely to be the sort that will land before the Marion County Superior Court.   The posts will be a bit rarer as I will be busy campaigning.

Thanks to all of you who have given me encouragement as I have written Ogden on Politics and who will give me encouragement as I move forward with this professional challenge. I could not do it without you.

Sincerely,

Paul K. Ogden
Candidate for Marion County Superior Court Judge

Paid for and authorized by the Ogden for Judge Committee, Adam Lenkowsky, Chairman and Treasurer.

Vote Lugar for Senator ... of Virginia

2012-02-09T14:57:00.001-05:00

Is Lugar Claiming A False Residence on His Federal and State Tax Forms?

2012-02-09T08:52:00.001-05:00

Senator Richard Lugar

Senator Richard Lugar lives full-time in Virginia and has no Indiana residence. Yet he obtained Indiana license plates on his car by filling out documents for the the Bureau of Motor Vehicles saying he lives at 3200 Highwoods Court, Indianapolis, a house he sold 35 years ago. The BMV has tried to mail him correspondence at that address which is returned because, of course, Lugar doesn't actually live there. Certified Fraud Examiner Greg Wright obtained all the information to confirm these facts.

So Lugar is willing to lie to the BMV saying he lives 3200 Highwoods Court residence. What other government agencies is he lying to? How about the tax agencies? Does Lugar pay Indiana income taxes? If so, does he put down the 3200 Highwoods Court address? Does he put down 3200 Highwoods Court on his Indiana tax form? Does he put it on his federal tax form? Does he not know those documents are signed under threat of perjury?

For the record, Virginia, where Lugar lives, has a top income tax rate of 5.75%. Indiana has a flat income tax rate of 3.4%. Not that that would be Lugar's motivation for reporting the 3200 Highwoods Court address on his tax returns. That motivation appears to be nothing more than arrogance and a belief he is above the law everyone else has to follow.

Fox News Reports Democrats Have Begun to Dig Into Expenses Associated with Lugar's Lack of Indiana Residence

2012-02-08T23:20:00.000-05:00

Fox News reported on how Democrats have been digging into Sen. Richard Lugar's expense records. It seems when you don't have a residence in the State, we taxpayers have to spend a lot of money on travel and putting the Senator up in hotel rooms:

Lugar Spokesman David Wilkie

..The Indiana Democratic party has combed through records going all the way back to Lugar's first year in the Senate, 1977.

The hundreds of pages of itemized travel expenses were passed along to Fox News. Among the findings offered by the party is that the six-term US Senator has spend almost $50,000 in travel expenses just visiting his home state.

The expenses are necessary, in part, because Lugar has no home in Indiana. The Indiana Senator lives in the Washington DC suburb of McLean, Virginia. So, virtually every time Lugar stays in Indiana there's an added cost."...

Another of the Indiana Democratic Party's findings puts a finer point on the issue. It says Lugar appears to have expensed 325 nights in Indiana over a 21-year period, from 1990 through 2011.

The suggestion is that Lugar's time in the state has been limited to less than a year over the course of two-plus decades. The Lugar campaign says that suggestion is completely false."(Senator Lugar) spends a quarter of the year, every year in the state," says campaign spokesman David Willkie. Willkie notes from February 1st of 2011 and 2012, Lugar has spent 89-days in Indiana. And while Lugar is not "domiciled" in Indiana, he does own a farm in the state which he still manages....

The fact is we taxpayers put Sen. Lugar up in nice hotel rooms when he decides to come back to Indiana. Willkie does not point to any other place Lugar stays while in Indiana. Even Lugar has said he doesn't stay at the farm as it is "too rustic." So Willkie's reference to that is nothing more than a disingenuous diversion. If Lugar has spent more than 325 nights in Indiana over the last 21 years, Willkie he ought to be able to identify where the Senator was staying during that time.

It's shameful that we have a Senior Senator who "visits" Indiana instead of lives here.

Lugar Includes Phony Residence in Primary Filing; Senior Senator Exposes Republicans to Loss of the Seat Should He be Re-Elected

2012-02-08T16:40:00.001-05:00

With all the fuss raised about Senator Richard Lugar voting using someone else's house as his Indiana "residence," a house he sold 35 year, one would think that smarter legal minds would have prevailed in his camp and the Senator would have identified property he or a family member actually own as his Indiana residence. Apparently Lugar's arrogance though overrode that legal advice. In filing for May's primary yesterday, Senator Lugar identified as his "complete residence address" 3200 Highwoods Court, Indianapolis, Indiana 46222, a house he sold 35 years ago and is currently occupied by the Hughes family.

Sen. Richard Lugar

In a CNN interview, Lugar indicated he "maintained" a home in Indianapolis for "political purposes." Really? Does Lugar contribute to the mortgage at 3200 Highwoods Court? Does Lugar mow the grass? Does Lugar take out the garbage?

Actually Lugar hasn't stepped in the house for some 30 plus years. Yet he claims to "maintain" the house, signing documents under oath that he resides at that address, including absentee voter applications and other documents. Former Secretary of State Charlie White gets seven felonies filed against him for doing one time what Lugar does as a matter of course every time he votes. White is exactly correct. The voter fraud statutes do not get applied to popular people like Lugar and Evan Bayh. The Senators get a pass even though what they're doing by voting someplace where they clearly do not live, violates the same laws White was convicted of violating. The application of our criminal laws should not depend on whether a person is liked or not. But in this state shamefully it does.

In the form, Lugar declares that "I am a registered voter of Precinct 006 of Wayne (or of Ward 29 of the City or Town of Indianapolis), County of Marion, State of Indiana." That of course is 3200 Highwoods Court. Hopefully someone will challenge his and his wife's absentee ballot when they are received at that precinct in May.

Most importantly, Lugar has now opened up the Republican Party to a challenge that could cause the GOP to lose the seat. The Senate is exclusive determiner of the qualifications of its members. If Lugar wins the primary and goes on to win the general election, it is very possible the Democrats, particularly if they still have a majority in the Senate, will challenge Lugar's qualifications to represent Indiana. One of the qualifications in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution is that a Senator be a resident of the state he or she is going to represent. By arrogantly declaring 3200 Highwoods Court as his residence on a declaration of candidacy, a residence he clearly does not live at, Lugar has shut the door on claiming another, more appropriate address in Indiana as his residence.

Lugar's filing shows that he clearly believes he is above the law that others are required to follow. For that alone, he does not deserve to be re-elected.

Who Kidnapped and Brainwashed Jim Bopp?; Conservative Activist Endorses Pretend Conservative Mitt Romney

2012-02-08T09:41:00.000-05:00

American Spectator has a story asking what happened to Ann Coulter, the conservative firebrand who from the beginning has been a fervent supporter of Massachusetts liberal turned moderated turned pretend conservative Mitt Romney. Here is a paragraph from that column:

Terre Haute Attorney Jame Bopp

"But something has happened to Coulter. I don't have firsthand knowledge that she was kidnapped by RINO Team Six and taken to an offshore medical facility where she was forced to undergo a gruesome surgical procedure, but many of her recent columns suggest that something of the sort must have occurred. What else could explain her endorsement of Mitt Romney? Once immutable where her core convictions were concerned, she has executed a vertigo-inducing volte-face in order to promote a brazen opportunist whose positions on the big issues were the opposite of hers before he began running for President. She relentlessly trashes Republican "moderates" like McCain, yet now supports a candidate who makes the Arizona Senator look like Barry Goldwater by comparison."

I had the exact same thoughts when I read the email yesterday from Terre Haute attorney and conservative activist James Bopp in which he endorses Mitt Romney as the conservative choice.

I first met Jim in 1995 when we both worked on the Rex Early for Governor race. Jim is a very personable guy, a person who has consistently stood for conservative causes, including being a strong supporter of the pro-life movement. I've watched Jim's legal career develop after that. Jim heads the James Madison Center for Free Speech, an outfit based in Terre Haute that takes on political free speech cases all over the country, a cause which is near and dear to my heart.   One of the cases Jim took on involved representing me a decade ago in the Southern District in a successful effort to invalidate a statute prohibiting candidates from passing out literature with more than one candidate's name mentioned, unless that literature was previously filed with the county election board.

I should also mentioned that Jim actively supports anti-SLAPP legislation.   SLAPP lawsuits that are those filed against private citizens to try to keep them from speaking out about public issues. The purpose of the lawsuit is not to win, but rather to drive up the legal costs for the private citizen so much so that he or she will give up and agree to not speak out anymore in settlement of the lawsuit. The tactic, often employed by well-funded corporations with deep pockets, is repugnant to Free Speech.

Jim recently received headlines for being on the winning side of the Citizen's United case. I'll have to disagree with Jim on that one. After reading that opinion, I thought it nothing more than an activist opinion that, based on a creative interpretation of the Constitution, inappropriately usurped legislative power substituting instead what the court thought the best policy was, the exact sort of thing we conservatives have for decades criticized liberal judges for doing...the same sort of judicial B.S. that led to Roe v. Wade.  Nine times out of 10 though, Jim is on the right side on political free speech issues.

Back to the Bopp endorsement. This is from the email that went out to conservatives:

My Fellow Conservatives,

Like all conservative Republicans, and most Americans, I believethat the future of our country, and the preservation of our way of life,depends on the defeat of President Barack Obama and his replacement with apresident who supports free enterprise, limited government, traditional familyvalues, and a strong national defense, based upon the principles of our UnitedStates Constitution.

Because of my obligations with the Republican National Committeeand my belief that any of the major Republican presidential candidates wouldadvance our conservative principles, I have stayed neutral, hoping that onecandidate would emerge with the demonstrated ability and support to take on anddefeat President Obama. That candidate has now emerged and, as a result, it istime to put aside our minor intra-family differences, to end the increasinglydivisive primary fight, and to unite to focus on achieving our shared goal ofdefeating President Obama.

That candidate is Governor Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney is a true conservative. One does not have to guesswhat Mitt Romney would do in office. He served for four years as Governorof Massachusetts and has a record that conservatives should be proud of.

As Governor, Romney fought for social conservative values. Hevetoed bills that would have authorized state funding of embryonic cloning,would have changed the definition of human life from fertilization toimplantation and would have given young women the morning-after abortion pillwithout a prescription. He promoted abstinence education in public schools.When the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, he left nostone unturned to set aside that ruling. And in contrast to the ObamaAdministration’s war on the Catholic Church by mandating their institutions toprovide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs in their health care plans,Governor Romney vetoed a bill that would have required Catholic hospitals tooffer abortion-inducing drugs to potential rape victims.

Of course, it is true that Romney had a conversion to the pro-lifecause, not unlike other Republicans such as Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.We should not only embrace him as a result of this conversion, but alsorecognize that he is a success story. But the best test of the sincerity of aconversion is deeds, and Mitt Romney was “consistently pro-life” as Governor,according to the President of Massachusetts Citizens for Life.

On the issues currently deemed the most important by the Americanpeople, the economy and federal taxes and spending, Romney also has aremarkable record. As a private investor in struggling businesses, Romney wasvery successful in turning them around. As governor, he issued more than 800vetoes and cut taxes 19 times. The result, in a state with an overwhelminglyDemocratic legislature, is that he closed a 3 billion dollar budget gap andturned it into a 2 billion dollar rainy-day fund.

Mitt Romney’s success in the first five primary states, includingwins in New Hampshire, Florida, and Nevada, have revealed an emerging consensusamong Republican voters that he is the most electable – the most likelyRepublican candidate to defeat Obama. Romney has the broadest support among allelements of the Republican party electorate, has the most appeal toindependents and swing voters, and is, therefore, the most electable of all. Itis time, therefore, to celebrate the result and concentrate all our energy onachieving a general election victory.

Et tu, Jim? Say it ain't so.

Santorum Stuns GOP Establishment With Three State Sweep; Scope of Romney Rebuke by GOP Electorate is Staggering

2012-02-08T08:42:00.000-05:00

Rick Santorum

Last night was a huge night for former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. Think Silvester Stallone playing "Rocky," an underdog boxer from Santorum's home state who was a huge underdog taking on the world champ, Apollo Creed, but went the distance even knocking down the champ in an inspired performance. Of course, Rocky eventually lost that match in a split decision which might also ultimately be Santorum's fate. But for now let's look at the three punch combination that put Mitt Romney on the canvas last night.

MINNESOTA
Santorum won the Minnesota Caucus with 45% of the vote. Ron Paul was second with 27% of the vote while Romney finished third with 17% and Gingrich fourth with 11%.. Romney did not win a single county in Minnesota, a state he won in 2008 by a 41% to 22% margin over eventual GOP nominee John McCain.

MISSOURI
Although the Show-Me (I hate that nickname) State had a non-binding primary, i.e. a beauty contest, that didn't award any delegates, Missouri is still a signficant swing state with considerable population centers of St. Louis and Kansas City. Santorum won the state going away with 55%, the first GOP candidate to get a majority vote in a primary or caucus in 2012. Romney finished second with 25% and Paul at 12% brought up the rear. (Gingrich did not compete in Missouri). Santorum won every county in Missouri as well as the independent city of St. Louis.

Mitt Romney

COLORADO
Polls leading up to the Colorado caucus consistently showed Romney with a double digit lead. Voters though had other ideas. Santorum won the state with 40% of the vote. Romney was second at 35%, Gingrich third at 13% and Paul at 12%. Again, this was a state Romney competed in during the 2008 election cycle and won, defeating McCain by a 41% to 22% margin.

COUNTY BREAKDOWN:
Here is an interesting tidbit. There were 265 counties involved in last nights primary/caucuses, including 64 in Colorado, 87 in Minnesota, and 114 in Missouri. Here is the scorecard when looking at how many counties each candidate won:

Santorum: 236
Romney: 16 (all in Colorado)
Paul; 4 (all in Minnesota)
Gingrich: 1 (in Minnesota)
Tie (Santorum-Romney in Colorado): 2
Tie (Santorum-Paul in Minnesota): 2
Undetermined: 4 (all in Colorado)

CONCLUSION:
Gingrich was not a factor in the three races last night as he spent his time leading up to those states spending his time and money in Florida which he lost handily to Romney. Santorum and Paul's strategy of bypassing Florida to work on the next round of states appears to have paid off, especially for Santorum, big time.

Rocky, i.e. Rick Santorum, showed how vulnerable Mitt Romney in a race where there is only one conservative. It appears that Romney desperately needs Santorum-Gingrich splitting the conservative vote in order to be the front runner.

WHAT TO EXPECT:
The Romney independent PAC will step up its assault on Santorum. Romney's way of winning this race appears to try to viciously savage anyone who dares challenge his right to the GOP throne. What should be alarming to his campaign though is that attacks on Santorum leading up to these three states did not seem to work and possibly backfired against Romney driving down his numbers. Since Santorum doesn't have the baggage Gingrich does, he's more difficult to attack than the ex-Speaker. Romney's message that Santorum is an insider while he's an outsider is not really a credible message for the former Massachusetts governor who has every GOP establishment figure supporting him.

Jurors Stunned When Charlie White Did Not Present a Defense; Jury Foreman Says Jury Probably Would Have Acquitted White if He Presented Evidence

2012-02-07T19:35:00.000-05:00

Former Secretary of State
Charlie White

WRTV obtained an exclusive interview with the Charlie White jury foreman. The foreman says the jurors wanted to hear from the defense and likely would have acquitted had White offered the same evidence he had presented to the Election Commission:

Jurors were stunned when the defense didn't call any witnesses in the voter fraud trial of Secretary of State Charlie White, the jury foreman told RTV6.

Speaking for the first time since White was convicted of six felony charges early Saturday, foreman Gregg Weidman said it was a shock when White's attorney, former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, rested his case without calling any witnesses.

"I don't know if you saw the reaction when Mr. Brizzi said he wasn't going to call anybody, but I looked around the jury, and everybody's eyes were about this big, like, you have to be kidding," Weidman told RTV6's Derrik Thomas.

The case centered on White's residency. He said he lived at his ex-wife's house and registered to vote at that address. But prosecutors said he actually lived with his fiancee and now wife at a Fishers condo, which was outside his Fishers town council district.

Prosecutors presented voter registration documents, loan applications, emails and 600 pages of cellphone records and called several witnesses.

In the face of that evidence, Weidman said jurors wanted the defense to show them something to challenge the presentation.

"Most of us felt that if the ex-wife would have testified, or the new husband had said, 'Yeah, he was living in our basement,' that would have been very telling. It would have been nice to actually hear from the new wife, too," he said.

When asked if he believed the jury would have acquitted White based on such testimony, Weidman said, "I feel we probably would have."

To see the rest of the article, click here.

Civil Discourse Now Discusses Best and Worst Presidents with Guests Mike Kole and Jeff Cox

2012-02-07T08:29:00.000-05:00

Part 1 (Criteria for Rating Presidents)
Part 2 (Most Mediocre (Average) President)
Part 3 (Worst President)
Part 4(Best President)
Part 5 (Best President - continued)

Why Barack Obama Will Win Re-Election Against Likely GOP Nominee Mitt Romney

2012-02-06T10:52:00.000-05:00

This time last year, I was fairly certain a Republican nominee would take out the unpopular President Barack Obama. Now I'm fairly certain that President Obama will win re-election. Here's why:

President Barack Obama

1) The Economy is Improving. The unemployment rate in January of 2012 was 8.3% down steadily from August 2011 9.1% and down greatly from the peak on Obama's watch, i.e. 10% in October, 2009. Further, we appear to have made it out of the double digit recession. GDP was at .4% in the first quarter of 2011, and then went to 1.3% for the second, 1.8% for the third, and no 2.8% for the fourth.

While I believe Presidents get far too much credit for a good economy and far too much criticism for a bad one, it is a political fact of life that Presidents get judged on how the economy does while in office. Obama is now running for re-election with a growing economy that is creating jobs. Likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney stumbled when asked about the improving economy, and suggested it would have improved more were it not for Obama's moves in office. That's not a winning message.

2) Obama is Much Better Suited to Appeal to Economic Populism than Romney. The last few years have seen the rise of two economic populist movements, the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street (and its variations). Although the former hails from the right and the latter is from the left, they are not unrelated in their philosophy. Both hate the use of government to take money from Main Street and hand it to Wall Street. The Republicans though are on the verge of nominating Mr. Wall Street, a card carrying member of the 1% and a person who supported the corporate bailouts so despise by the Tea Party and Occupy groups. While Obama's supported those bailouts and he is hardly a "man of the people," when your opponent says he is not worried about poor, makes $10,000 bets, and says his making $374,372 to give eight speech is "not much money," it won't be hard for Obama to appeal to the populist sentiment that gave rise to the Tea Party and Occupy crowd.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney

3) Romney is Not Well Liked by His Own Party. There have been five state primaries/caucuses thus far. Romney has yet to hit 50% despite being much better financed and organized than his opponents. Repeatedly weak GOP challengers have risen above Romney in the polls, not because of those candidate's strengths, but because of their dislike for Romney. There has been a consistent formula for Republican presidential victories, i.e. building a coalition between fiscal and social conservatives. Romney is not trusted by social conservatives in the party given his sudden transformation on key issues and even fiscal conservatives have doubts about him because of Romneycare and his support of corporate bailouts. Romney is only actively supported by about a 1/3 of the electorate and that seems to be only because they're repeatedly told he is the best candidate to beat President Obama.

4) Obama is a Much More Skilled Politician. Romney is a gaffe machine, a person who apparently doesn't think bother to think before he talks. Romney is not trusted by much of the GOP electorate and is barely beating a very weak Republican field. In 2008, Obama beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2008, even though Clinton was herself a skillful politician and had far more money and better organization than the NonRomneys who are often beating Romney in the polls.

5) Romney Has Exploitable Baggage. While issues associated with Bain Capital, Romney's tax returns, and hefty speaking fees have only a modest impact in a Republican primary race, that all changes when Romney goes to the general election round. Expect the Democrats to dig up several persons whose lives have been negatively affected by Romney's decisions while leading Bain Capital. It doesn't matter if the strategy is fair or not, the fact is, coming off the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, people aren't going to like a Republican candidate who has the cold business sensibilities of Mr. Potter from It's a Wonderful Life.

It is possible Romney could beat Obama in a general election. After all, the economy could dip sharply before the election propelling Romney. Or President Obama could reverse course from 2008 and run a disastrous political campaign. But while the window is open for a Romney victory, it's only cracked open a few inches.

Animal Rescure Groups Win Awards

2012-02-05T14:09:00.004-05:00

Press Release:

“OrdinaryPeople Doing Extraordinary Work” Win Cash in Rescue Rally

Six all-volunteer animal rescue groups from the GreaterIndianapolis area were awarded cash prizes for their rescue of dogs and catsfrom Indianapolis Animal Care & Control between October 15, 2011 andJanuary 15, 2012. Fourteen groups participated in the second Rescue Rally,sponsored by local animal welfare organization Move to ACT.

Winners and their prize totals were:

1^st EveryDog Counts Rescue $2,300.00

2^nd ARPO 1,550.00

3^rd MendedHearts Rescue 1,400.00

4^th LuckyDog Retreat 900.00

5^th FlyingHerd Dog Rescue 800.00

6^th Loveof Labs 450.00

Participants competed to see which could rescue the mostdogs, cats, special-needs animals, black dogs and cats, and animals who hadspent the most time at IACC. More than 250 homeless animals were pulled fromIACC by Rally participants, who found them foster or permanent homes.

Black animals were highlighted because they are oftenoverlooked by potential adopters. Fifty-five black dogs were rescued during theRally, with the largest number, 28, pulled by Every Dog Counts Rescue.

Physically challenged animals are also among the last to beadopted, and each of the winners listed several among their rescues. MendedHearts Rescue claimed additional prize money for rescuing a sight-impaired dog,as well as the most cats rescued.

Pet Supplies Plus donated gift cards to the winners.

“Rescue Rally is possible because of the generous support ofmany local businesses and individuals who care,” noted Warren Patitz of Move to ACT. “They recognize thatall-volunteer rescue groups use their donations responsibly to achieve resultsfor the animals.

“These groups are the lifeblood of the animal rescue effort.They’re just ordinary people doing extraordinary, life-saving work.”

For more information, contact:

Carolene Bash

317-641-9300

***

See also: http://www.movetoact.org/

CNN Covers Lugar's Lack of Indiana Residency While Local Media Blackout Continues

2012-02-04T23:38:00.002-05:00

Although the local media continues with the media blackout on the Lugar (lack of Indiana) residency story, it is started to be picked up by national news outlets. As reported by CNN:

Senator Richard Lugar

Republican Sen. Dick Lugar of Indiana responded Friday to recent reports that show he doesn’t live in the state he’s been representing for more than 35 years.

The longtime senator told CNN he maintains a residence for “political purposes” in Indianapolis but doesn’t live at the physical address-staying in hotels around the state, instead.

Lugar pointed to a loophole in Indiana law that protects his residency status while he lives and works in the Washington, D.C. area.

According to the state’s constitution, an absent individual does not lose residence as long as he or she is away “on the business of the State of Indiana or the United States.”

The longtime senator listed his voting address as 3200 Highwoods Court in Indianapolis but said his actual home is located in McLean, Virginia–a Washington suburb.

Brad King, co-director of the Indiana Election Division, said as long as an individual establishes residency before he or she leaves the state for work, the law permits that person to remain a resident, no matter how long that person is gone.

As for voting standards, King said voters must list a residence when they first register to vote, but they’re not required to show proof of residence.

If they move, they’re directed to indicate a change of address but, again, not required to prove the change.

The rest of the story can be read here.

Lugar claims he "maintains a residence for 'political purposes' in Indianapolis?" Really? Where is that residence? The 3200 Highwoods Court, Indianapolis, Indiana address Lugar signs under is his residence when he goes to vote was sold 35 years ago and he hasn't stepped a foot in that house since then. It is unclear where exactly this "residence" is that Lugar claims to be "maintaining" in Indiana and if he is doing so, why doesn't he list that address as his residence instead of someone else's home?

King's comments, while correct, could be confusing as reported. First, you have residency as a qualification for U.S. Senate. The U.S. Constitution requires that you be a resident of the State you are elected. The Indiana Constitution and state says you don't lose that residence because of your service in public office. That means if Lugar spends 11 months out of the year in D.C. he is not considered a D.C. resident instead of an Indiana residence. That makes perfect sense. But you can lose your Indiana residence for another reason besides your service in D.C....namely that you give up that Indiana residence, which is what Lugar did when he sold the home and didn't establish any other residence. Lugar stays in hotel rooms when he comes to Indiana. Further, it should be noted that it is highly questionable that Indiana law can somehow supplement or change a federal constitutional qualification provision regarding residency to serve as U.S. Senator. Past court decisions have not allowed states to supplement federal constitutional qualification provisions such as a state providing for term limits for their members of Congress.

The second concept is voter fraud/perjury. King is right that a person only initially lists a residence when they register. However, the absentee ballot application Lugar repeatedly filled out to vote specifically requires him to identify his residence under penalties of perjury. And when Lugar voted, he had to affirm under oath he was still living at the address he registered using. Lugar has repeatedly signed under penalties of perjury that he lives at 3200 Highwoods Court in Indianapolis when he has voted. Lugar though knows perfectly well he hasn't lived at 3200 Highwoods Court in decades.

There is nothing in the law that gives Lugar a pass on voter fraud and perjury, allowing him to falsify his residence under oath. And there certainly is nothing that excuses his wife, Char, who has done the same thing. What White was convicted of is jaywalking compared to the criminal charges Lugar and his wife could easily be charged with but aren't being charged because they, unlike White, are popular and powerful.

It's great that the national media is starting to cover this story. It's shameful the Indianapolis Star and local television stations continue to be afraid to report a story, especially in light of the massive coverage given the White voter fraud charges.

Felony Convction Removal Statute Appears to Require White's Reinstatement as Secretary of State if His Class D Felonies are Entered as Misdemeanors

2012-02-04T19:44:00.002-05:00

Charlie White

Under Indiana law, the conviction of White for felonies results in his automatic removal from office. Even if White's convictions for Class D felonies are reduced to Class A misdemeanors, at sentencing, which White's counsel has indicated he will ask for pursuant to IC 35-50-2-7, the felony conviction removal statute, i.e. IC 5-8-1-38, keeps White from returning to office. Or does it? Below is paragraphs (b) and (c) from IC 5-8-1-38:

(b) Any public officer convicted of a felony during the public officer's term of office shall:
(1) be removed from office by operation of law when:
(A) in a jury trial, a jury publicly announces a verdict against the person for a felony;
(B) in a bench trial, the court publicly announces a verdict against the person for a felony; or
(C) in a guilty plea hearing, the person pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a felony; and
(2) not receive any salary or remuneration from the time the public officer is removed from office under subdivision (1).

(c) The subsequent reduction of a felony to a Class A misdemeanor under IC 35-50-2-7 or IC 35-38-1-1.5 after the:

(1) jury has announced its verdict against the person for a felony;
(2) court has announced its verdict against the person for a felony; or
(3) person has pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to a felony;
does not affect the operation of subsection (b).

That seems pretty clear-cut. But the statute continues on and that is where the law appears to favor White. Quoting now from paragraph (d) of that same statute:

(d) If the conviction is:
(1) reversed;
(2) vacated;
(3) set aside;

(4) for a felony other than a felony arising out of an action taken in the public officer's official capacity, reduced to a Class A misdemeanor under IC 35-50-2-7 or IC 35-38-1-1.5; or

(5) not entered because the trial court did not accept the guilty plea;
and the public officer's term has not expired, the public officer shall be reinstated in office and receive any salary or other remuneration that the public officer would have received had the public officer not been removed from office.

One important rule of statutory interpretation is that specific statutory provisions control over general. (d) is more specific than the more general (c) when it comes to the effect of a reduction of a conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor. So if (d) at all applies to White's situation, that one would apply instead of the more general (c).

It appears that the way the paragraphs operate is that (c) is intended to apply to felonies the elected official commits in the course of his job and (d) is intended to apply to felonies not committed in his official capacity. Regardless, specific still controls over general and paragraph (d) would seem to apply.

Looking at (d)(4), White was convicted for a felony other than a felony arising out of an action taken in the public officer's official capacity." His term has not expired. Therefore, if his convictions are reduced to misdemeanors by Judge Steve Nation, White is back in office. In fact the law requires that he be reinstated. Governor Daniels recognized that in his announcement appointing an interim Secretary of State.

My guess is that a deal will be struck that White will officially resign in exchange for the reduction of the felonies to misdemeanors. That would avoid his mandatory reinstatement but allow White to possibly keep his law license and avoid the stain of being a convicted felon.

Of course, it would have been easier for White if he had actually presented evidence at his trial and secured an acquittal, but that is water under the bridge.

Charlie White Convicted of Six Felony Charges; Why Did White's Counsel Abandon Winning Election Commission Strategy to Instead Not Present Exculpatory Evidence to the Jury?

2012-02-04T09:11:00.005-05:00

Early this morning, Secretary of State Charlie White was convicted of six of the seven felony charges against him, including voter fraud and perjury. All six of the charges had as their factual basis that White was living at the condo he had purchased and not at his ex-wife Nicole's house. The seventh charge was a charge that had contradictory facts when compared to the other charges, namely that White had signed an affidavit to occupy the condo within 30 days when he closed (actually it is an "intent" to occupy) but was actually living at the ex-wife's house instead of the condo.

Former Secretary of State Charlie White

At trial, White's defense attorney, former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, chose to employ the tactic of not putting on a defense at all. That is an old defense attorney trick to send the message to the jury that the defendant considers the prosecution's case is so weak that it does not even be justify a response. It is a tactic best used when the defendant really doesn't have any exculpatory evidence to present that might sway the jury. A good example would be a criminal case where the only witness is the defendant himself and you don't want to give away the defendant's 5th Amendment right not to testify.

What is mystifying is that White did have evidence to present, boatloads of evidence in fact. The factual issue - whether White was living in the condo instead of the ex-wife's house, was addressed in a proceeding before the Election Commission, headed by three individuals, including ex-Democratic Hamilton County Judge Buddy Pylitt. Commission members first heard the all-circumstantial case presented by Democrats which were based on documents White had executed which suggested the condo was his email address. For example, White signed a benefits package when he started working at a downtown law firm in which he used the condo address as his address. He also received some mail at the condo address.

Carl Brizzi

At the Commission hearing, White, also through attorney Brizzi, matched the Democrats' circumstantial evidence, providing documents to the Commission showing White had also signed documents on which he used his ex-wife's address as his residence and also received mail at his ex-wife's address. But while the circumstantial cases were offsetting, White also had four witnesses - himself, his current wife, his ex-wife and her new husband that were available to offer direct evidence, i.e. testimony White was actually spending nights at the ex-wife's house. At the Commission, Brizzi called two of them, White's current wife and then fiance Michelle, who testified she did not want to live together before marriage, which had been delayed due to the statewide campaign, and that White was living at his ex-wife's house. The most powerful witness though was the ex-wife, Nicole, who confirmed they had an arrangement that White could stay at her and her husband's house so he could spend more time with their son, pending the nuptials and move into the condo. She also talked about White receiving mail at the address.

The Commission, in a unanimous vote, found the Democrats had failed to meet their burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence...a mere tipping of the scales) and decided as a matter of fact that White was living at the ex-wife's house and had yet not moved into the condo yet. On administrative appeal, Judge Louis Rosenberg accepted White had not yet moved into the condo and was living at the ex-wife's house, but said the ex-wife's house was a temporary living situation (because he was going to move into the condo) and thus the ex-wife's house couldn't qualify as a residence under Indiana law. In his ruling, Judge Rosenberg appears to have a missed another statute that deals with people with temporary living situations and which allows them to claim that temporary abode as a residence to vote.

But the living situation, as found by the Commission, would not have supported the six felony charges White was convicted of. Those charges were completely based on the fact that White was living in the condo. Yet when it came to the criminal trial, where the burden of proof was much higher for the prosecution (beyond a reasonable doubt), White didn't introduce any evidence or call any witnesses. Strange to say the least. Why abandon a strategy that had worked very well and one would have thought would have worked even better with a lay jury for which White just had to create reasonable doubt? In particular, why not call the ex-wife, Nicole, to testify? She alone could have created reasonable doubt. Since she had already testified under oath, it is unlikely she would have suddenly changed her story.

Plus, there was another option. After the prosecution restes, White's counsel could have moved for a directed verdict on the basis that the prosecution's case, even if completely true, was not enough to support the criminal charges. Although such motions are rarely granted, once the judge ruled against White, he could have then presented a case instead of relying on the jury to make the determination that the prosecution's case by itself did not support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unfortunately for White now, it is virtually impossible to get a conviction overturned based on insufficiency of the evidence. Also, the tactics employed by counsel cannot be raised in an effective assistance of counsel claim.

NOTE: My apologies for the headline. I inadvertently wrote "sex" when I meant "six" as in felony charges.

Former Congressman David McIntosh Appears Poised to Return to Congress

2012-02-02T13:06:00.001-05:00

With Congressman Dan Burton exiting the race for 5th District, it appears that former Congressman David McIntosh becomes the front runner...or at least according to a survey conducted by McLaughlin & Associates that was commissioned by the McIntosh campaign.

Former Congressman David McIntosh

The survey dated January 31, 2012, the day Burton announced his retirement, shows Burton leading McIntosh 37% to 31%. The other major candidates, former Marion County Coroner John McGoff and former U.S. Attorney Susan Brooks, clocked in at 11% and 7% respectively.

The survey suggests that once Burton is removed from the race, most of Burton's voters go to McIntosh by a 38% to 14% margin. Given McIntosh's conservative credentials as a former Congressman and 2000 gubernatorial candidate, that's not surprising. McGoff and Brooks are considered to be more moderate and reportedly voiced support for President Obama's bailout of the auto industry at a candidate forum, a position antithetical to the the position of tea party activists and many mainstream conservatives.

It appears that McGoff and Brooks' best hope is that state Senator Mike Delph enters the race and splits the conservative vote with McIntosh. Delph has solid credentials with the tea party crowd and would be a formidable candidate should he choose to run. However, the lateness of the Burton retirement announcement has left Delph at a decided disadvantage organizationally should he decide to enter the race.

Marion County Judge Gives NFL Blanket Authority to Seize Any Property League Deems Infringing

2012-02-02T08:00:00.003-05:00

I used to do trademark and copyright infringement work for a number of national and international companies. I have never heard of an order giving the a copyright/trademark holder the blanket authority to seize unidentified private property of unidentified infringers at will. I discussed this with another attorney who has worked in this area and he too has never heard of this. I can't imagine how the judge has the authority to issue such an order. According to the Indianapolis Business Journal:

Marion Superior Court has granted temporary restraining and seizure orders to the NFL, along with the New England Patriots and New York Giants, after they requested injunctions on Jan. 25.

The orders give the NFL and the two Super Bowl teams the authority to seize unlicensed merchandise without notice. Those caught selling items without proper trademarks face financial penalties and will have their merchandise confiscated.

“Previous trademark protection efforts during the Super Bowl period demonstrate that the professional infringers who ‘work’ the site of the game will defy or avoid temporary restraining orders and will continue to sell their counterfeit merchandise in any possible manner,” the NFL said in its suit. “The only effective way to combat this problem is to seize the goods at the point of sale.”

The restraining and seizure orders take effect at noon on Friday and last through Monday, the day after the game.

...

“Plaintiffs have shown that notice need not be given because vendors and manufacturers of counterfeit NFL merchandise have no business identity and cannot be identified, located or notified … and if so notified would flee with the counterfeit merchandise,” Judge Cynthia Ayers wrote in granting the orders.

...

To see the rest of the article, click here.

The fact is federal and state law enforcement officials already have the power to treat selling and/or possession of infringing materials as a criminal offense and seize the property pursuant to an arrest. For a court to give the power to seize private property as a civil violation to a private entity whenever that entity feels it has been wronged, well that is quite remarkable and unlikely to be upheld if ever challenged. Of course when a lawsuit doesn't actually identify a defendant before an order is issued, it's really hard to take an appeal. Is there anything we won't do for the NFL?

Were Republican Slating Candidates Required to Sign Postdated, Notarized Withdrawal Forms?

2012-02-01T22:37:00.004-05:00

I don't normally post unconfirmed rumors I receive, but this post is more a request for confirmation of the information I received. After all, demands made upon candidates in conjunction with slating are difficult to confirm as the candidates don't want to speak out lest they jeopardize their candidacies.

I was told today by a very well placed source that candidates at the Marion County GOP organization were required to sign post-dated, notarized Primary Candidate Withdraw Forms (CAN-10) that would be filed should a non-slated candidate try to file in the primary to run against the slate.

Supposedly the Marion County GOP House delegation refused to sign the form.

Looking at the form, I believe a notary who falsified the date the candidate was appearing to sign the form would probably be in jeopardy of losing his or her notary license.

Anyone who has information on this practice can contact me at this email: pogden297@comcast.net

Ogden on Poliltics Endorses Richard Mourdock in Race Against Richard Lugar

2012-02-01T11:40:00.000-05:00

After giving it some thought, Ogden on Politics has decided to endorse Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock in his race against incumbent U.S. Senator Richard Lugar.

State Senator Richard Mourdock

While I have written several blog posts discussing Lugar's residency and his fraudulently using someone else's address as his own, I have not delved into the other issues in the U.S. Senate race. At the outset, let me highlight one of them - immigration - an issue on which my position is a lot closer to Lugar's than Mourdock. I believe an enforcement only approach is unrealistic. As an attorney, who has dealt with some immigration clients, I have seen how horribly broken the current naturalization process is. We need comprehensive immigration reform. We certainly don't need to punish law-abiding children of illegal immigrants who had nothing to do with their parents decision to enter our country illegally.

But on the other issues, Mourdock is the hands down winner in my book. Let me hit some of them.

Senator Richard Lugar

LUGAR IS NOT A RESIDENT OF INDIANA. Lugar has a million dollar home in Virginia. When Lugar comes to Indianapolis, he stays in hotels. He has no residence in Indiana and for the last 35 years has been using someone else's address for registration and voting, signing documents under oath that he lives at that address. What Charlie White is accused of doing is jaywalking compared to what Lugar admits to have been doing. If Lugar wants to run for Senator for Virgina, I'm fine with that. But he should not be using someone else's house, claiming it is his Indiana "residence."
LUGAR SUPPORTED CORPORATE BAILOUTS. Lugar was 100% supportive of the corporate bailouts, preferring Wall Street over Main Street. Lugar supported the GM and Chrysler bailouts. Lugar supported Obama's $700 million TARP bailout of the financial industry which did nothing to avoid the recession. Meanwhile the financial industry executives rewarded themselves with bonuses paid for with our tax dollars.
LUGAR SUPPORTS EARMARKS. Much of the problem with unnecessary spending would cease with ending the practice of "earmarks," burying pork barrel spending in the budget bill. Lugar is fine with the current system. Mourdock is not.
LUGAR DOES NOT SUPPORT SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS. Lugar has supported gun control while in Congress, earning a D+ rating from the NRA and an F from the Gun Owners of America. Mourdock meanwhile earned an A from the NRA.
LUGAR VOTES FOR LIBERAL JUDICIAL NOMINEES. Lugar takes the position that the U.S. Senate should not consider a nominee's judicial philosophy in deciding whether to confirm the nominee. As a result, Lugar has voted for every liberal, activist Supreme Court justice, including Obama's appointment of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. He also voted for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a Clinton appointee. I do not believe in unilateral disarmament when it comes to considering appointees to the federal judiciary. Democratic Senators are considering judicial philosophy and issues when deciding the fate of federal judicial appointees. Mourdock understands that Republican Senators should do the same.
LUGAR HAS POOR CONSTITUENT SERVICES. A few years ago, I had the need to contact federal and state officials about a problem my uncle was having with the overzealous Corp of Engineers who had cited him for using a bulldozer to push some dirt to shore up a creek bed wall that was collapsing on his farm. The state officials were great. Very helpful. Then Sen. Bayh and then Congressman Baron Hill acknowledged the problem and tried to help. The Lugar staffer was terrible. He wouldn't even wait for me to outline the problem. He immediately assumed my uncle had done something he shouldn't have done and concluded my uncle should spend tens of thousands of dollars complying with the Corp's ridiculous requests, including that my uncle plant certain weeds in the creek bed, kill other weeds that were not desirable, and hire a plane to fly over the creek bed and photograph the area. I later called back Lugar's national office to complain about the staffer and was assured someone from Lugar's office would call me back to discuss it. At least two years have passed and I'm still waiting for that phone call. I don't know if Mourdock's constituent services will be better than Lugar's but most assuredly, they can't be any worse than Lugar's.

Richard Mourdock has been a fine State Treasurer and seems much more in tune with Hoosiers on the issues than Virginia resident Richard Lugar. I wholeheartedly endorse Mourdock for U.S. Senator.

Charlie White and the Crime of the Century...Not: Persecution of Secretary of State Rests on Shaky Foundation of Circumstantial Evidence

2012-01-31T16:02:00.001-05:00

Charlie White committed the crime and the century and should be punished. That is the sentiment out there...that White did something terrible and should resign. Exactly what he did that was terrible is rarely specified because frankly most people pontificating about White's guilt have not a clue about the facts of the case. When people do try to state the facts, they often get them wrong. Whether White is convicted or not, the early decision to remain silent in the face of accusations was
a PR disaster resulting in White being convicted in the court of public opinion. For an elected official, that is usual fatal to one's reputation regardless of actual guilt or innocence.

Secretary of State Charlie White

A close examination of the facts reveal how much of a witchhunt the effort is to get Charlie White. It is a persecution, not a prosecution. People who say it is not political, because Republicans have also called for his resignation, overlook the fact that something that is political doesn't have to be partisan. Of course, the Republican Governor would like to appoint the Secretary of State. White wouldn't cooperate though and good for him.   He earned the position and shouldn't leave based on trumped up political charges.

About the facts of the case, they are actually simple. White lived in an apartment at 6994 Pintail Drive.    In 2010, he bought a condo at 13086 Overlook Drive with the plan of marrying his fiance, Michelle, and moving in.

Traveling the state to campaign for Secretary of State delayed the marriage. Michelle, who had been burned before in another relationship, did not want to live together before marriage. So while Michelle moved into the condo, White made other living arrangements, namely to live at his ex-wife's house at 7527 Broadleaf Drive pending the marriage and White's move into the condo.

Before the 2010 primary, White had his registration change from 6994 Pintail Drive (the apartment) address to 7527 Broadleaf Drive (the ex-wife's house where White's was living.   White did exactly what he should have done.  You register where you are living, not where you are to be living in the future.  The factual findings of the Election Commission was that White was living at his ex-wife's house and was properly registered. The decision by Judge Rosenberg overruling the Commission did not find that White was not living at the ex-wife's house, but that it was a "temporary" residence and therefore he shouldn't have registered there. There was nothing in the opinion indicating out where else White could have been registered.)

Six of the seven felony charges lodged against Charlie White require that the jury reach a different conclusion than did the Election Commission, namely that White was living at the condo instead of at the ex-wife's house. Today I stopped by and heard the prosecution's first two witnesses.  It appears from those witnesses testimony that the prosecution's case with regard to those six charges is built on a shaky foundation of circumstantial evidence. The witnesses testified that White identified the condo address as his address on employment documents, for example. But under cross-examination by White's counsel, Carl Brizzi, those witnesses admitted they had no idea whether White was living at the condo.

Below is the summary of the charges included in the indictments:

Count 1. (Submission of a False, Fictitious or Fraudulent Registration Application, a Class D Felony) of the White indictment says that White by "knowingly or intentionally sending a voter registration change of address forms to the Hamilton county Board of Voter Registration representing his new address [as] 7527 Broad Leaf Lane, Fishes, Indiana, when he knew he was or would be living at 13086 Overview Drive, Fishers, Indiana, at the time of the next election (May Primary 2010))"
Count 2 (Perjury a Class D Felony, IC 35-44-2-1(a)(1)) of the White indictment says that he executed a form changing his 6994 Pintail Drive to 7527 Broad Leaf Lane, when he knew at the time of the statement he was residing at 13086 Overview Drive.
Count 4 (Voting in Other Precinct, a Class D Felony, IC 3-14-2-11) of the White indictment says
that he committed the offense of "voting in Other Precinct, to wit: knowingly or intentionally voting in Delaware Township Precinct 12 indicating his residence was 7527 Broad Leaf Lane, Fishers, Indiana, when in fact he resided at the time at 13086 Overview Drive, Unit 5-B, Fishers, Indiana, which is located in Fishers, Fall Creek Township, Precinct 5.
Count 5 (Procuring, Casting or Tabulating a False, Fictitious or Fraudulent Ballot, a Class D Felony, IC 3-14-3-1.1(2)) of the White indictment says that he knowingly cast a vote in Delaware Township, Precinct 12 when he in fact lived in an address at 13086 Overview Drive which put him in Fall Creek Township, Precinct 5.

Carl Brizzi

That prosecutors were out to get White and looking for anything to use against him is evident from the fact that they obtained the newlywed couple's marriage application and thus White became probably the only person in the State's history charged with perjury based on an address put on a marriage application:

Count 6 (Perjury on a marriage application, Class D Felony) of the White indictment rests on the allegation that Charlie P. White did commit the offense of Perjury, to-wit: knowingly or intentionally making a false statement under oath or affirmation, knowing the statement to be false or not believing it to be true, to-wit: stating on his marriage license application to the Hamilton County Clerk's Office and made under affirmation of the truth thereof, that his residence was 7527 Broad Leaf Lane, Fishers, Indiana when it was 13086 Overview Drive, 5B, Fishers, Indiana.

But the persecutors, er prosecutors, weren't done yet. They obtained a copy of White's documents he signed closing on his condo and found White signed the 30 day occupancy affidavit, thus leading to Count 3, the only Class C felony charged:

Count 3 (Fraud on a Financial Institution, Class C Felony) of the White indictment says that White "did commit the offense of Fraud on a Financial institution, to-wit: by knowingly or intentionally executing or attempting to execute a scheme or artifice to obtain money, funds or other property owned by or under the custody or control of a State or federally chartered or federally insured financial institution by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representation or promises, to wit: representing in a real estate closing transaction that he intended to reside at 13086 Overview Drive, Fishers, Indiana within (30) days of February 26, 2010, and said misrepresentation was material to the said Charlie P. White obtaining the loan and more favorable interest rate."
There is no indication that White's lender ever complained White did not immediately move into the condo. Rather this charge was completely a creation of the special prosecutors looking for anything to hang Charlie White with. The problem with the charge though is that the affidavit deals with "intent" to occupy. Unless the prosecutors can prove that it was not White's "intent" to occupy the condo when he signed the document, which would be nearly impossible, the jury should acquit.

White did exactly the right thing when he registered at his ex-wife's house, the only address at which he could have legally registered.

Count 7 (Theft, Class D Felony) of the White indictment says that White "did commit the offense of Theft, to-wit: knowing or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of the Town of Fishers, Indiana, with the intent to deprive the Town of Fishers of any part of the value and use, to-wit: taking his pay as a Council member for Fishers Council District 2 during the period of approximately November 5, 2009 through September 28, 2010, when he did not reside in said Fishers Town council district."

Even if White is found to have been living at his ex-wife house during the May 2010 primary, there was a period of time after he got married and moved into the condo later that year when White was outside the district in which he was elected. That's what White admitted saying he made a mistake in doing. But it is not clear that it was a mistake. But Fishers town councilors, while elected from districts, serve at large. Even if he had to resign, the suggestion that his accepting his token salary from the council for those few months is "theft" is a reach to say the least. The fact is White continued to do his Fishers Town Council work even after he moved into the condo. The fact White might have been disqualified as a councilor because he moved out of the district from which he as elected doesn't mean he somehow stole his salary. In fact counsel for the Fishers Town Council disagreed with White when he tried to return his salary for that period.

The persecution of White needs to be brought to an end. If the jury acquits him, as it should, the question will be how White can restore his reputation. That might prove to be the most difficult hurdle in the end.

Judge Carol Orbison Files to Run Against Marion County GOP Judicial Slate

2012-01-30T20:55:00.000-05:00

As reported here, Marion County Judge Carol Orbison was targeted for defeat by GOP county leadership because she would not pledge to drop out if she was not endorsed at Saturday's slating convention. Orbison lost at Saturday's convention, with four new candidates - Amy Jones, Clayton Graham, Jim Joven and Helen Marchal - slated to fill three vacancies and Orbison's spot.

Orbison today filed to run as a candidate against the slate according to the Secretary of State's Office.

Marion County Republican Party slating has had its credibility strained to the breaking point by the practice of party leaders using a large pool of appointed convention goers solely to vote the way leadership wants in slating contests. That large pool of appointees can easily outvote the elected precinct committeepersons who do yeoman's work for the party. As a result, candidates know the process is rigged from the beginning, and usually drop out if they don't receive the support of leadership. That is reflected in the fact that candidates in sixteen of seventeen races decided at Saturday's GOP slating had no competition.

It's time for the State Republican organization to take a look at Marion County GOP slating and how party leaders use of the process has undermined the grass roots strength of the county organization. The Marion County GOP grass roots will never be rebuilt as long as party leaders prefer using the party to consolidate their own power rather than give that power to party workers.

Civil Discourse Now Discusses Super Bowl Sign Ordinance with Guests Pat Andrews and Matt Stone

2012-01-30T10:25:00.001-05:00

Part IPart IIPart III

Why are Marion County Democrats Holding Their Slating Convention the Day After Deadline for Filing to Be a Candidate?

2012-01-30T01:13:00.001-05:00

Marion County political party leadership historically takes a dim view of people who file to be candidates before slating has taken place. The reasoning is that the early filing insults party workers who are supposed to be making the decision about who the candidates should be.

The deadline for candidates (for judge, state representatives, state senate, precinct committeemen, state delegate, county-wide offices, etc.) to file is noon on Friday, February 10th. Why then are Marion County Democrats not holding their slating convention until Saturday, February 11th?

Many people assume that a candidate who is slated is an official candidate. Not true. Slating has no legal effect whatsoever. A person who is slated still has to file the proper paperwork by noon Friday, February 10th, or that person is not a candidate. Again, that's the day before the local Democrats slate candidates.

If Democratic candidates-to-be wait to file until after slating, there is a vacancy on the ballot which I believe is unilaterally filed by the Democratic county chairman, i.e. Ed Treacy.

Lack of Competition at Marion County GOP Slating Reveals How Rigged Process has Become; Leadership Has Undermined Legitimacy of Endorsements While Stripping Grass Roots Party Workers of Influence

2012-01-29T09:17:00.000-05:00

Marion County Chairman Kyle Walker

Yesterday, Marion County Republicans held a county-wide convention at Ben Davis High School to endorse candidates for the upcoming election. Those events used to attract a room full of party workers and scores of candidates working the crowd. Many if not most races were contested with each candidate working weeks to personally meet with party workers to assure them he or she is the best candidate.

Since I became a precinct committeeman in 1986, the number of "mummy dummies," non-working party members who are appointed by the county chairman for the sole purpose of attending a slating and voting "the right way," i.e. the way leadership wants them to vote, has increased markedly. Now the pool of mummy dummies is so large that party leaders, such as Marion County Chairman Kyle Walker and Hamilton County resident David Brooks have almost complete control over the process. Party workers, those hard working men and women who are elected to represent their community as PCs, are completely outvoted by appointees of party bosses who have ensured their favorites will win.

Don't think the candidates haven't taken notice. Candidates who used to spend months convincing PCs and Ward Chairmen to support them at slating, now drop out before slating if they don't have the support of the county chairman. The candidates know that they can't beat the system GOP leadership has rigged to render meaningless the actual party workers' vote in the slating process.

At the convention yesterday, 17 races were up for endorsement. These include House Districts 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 97, 100, Senate Districts 30, 32, 35, and 36, county coroner, county treasurer, county surveyor and superior court judge. Sixteen of the 17 were uncontested, with the only contest being for superior court judge.

In the superior court race, 10 candidates were to be slated to fill the 10 places on the primary ballot. The leadership had already picked the 10 they wanted and that list did not include Judge Carol Orbison. The candidates were only allowed to give one minute speeches (how can you convince a crowd in one minute?). Leadership also made doubly sure that Orbison wouldn't win by employing a rule that slating attendees had to vote for 10 candidates or their ballots wouldn't count. That meant party workers who wanted to back Orbison but not the leadership-backed judicial candidates had no choice. They could vote for Orbison, but the price was voting for 9 candidates the leadership wanted.

I don't blame Judge Orbison one bit if she decides to run in the primary in May. After all, party leaders have stripped slating of all legitimacy. The picks on Saturday do not reflect the wishes of party workers...they represent the wishes of party bosses who have so rigged slating that candidates aren't even participating in the process anymore.

The question is whether State GOP chairman Eric Holcomb will step in and address the problems with Marion County GOP slating. The system, now completely dominated by leadership, leads to a weak party county organization which ultimately affects statewide GOP candidates. That's not something that Holcomb should overlook. The lack of a strong Marion County GOP organization is a weak link in the state GOP chain.

IBM Wins Judgment on Cancelled FSSA Contract; Conflicted Barnes and Thornburg Attorneys Cost Taxpayers Millions More

2012-01-27T08:44:00.000-05:00

I don't have time to review the order, so I'll just publish the IBM press release. It appears that the Barnes & Thornburg attorneys, who have an enormous and unwaivable conflict of interest in the case by its dual representation of the State of Indiana/FSSA and its current representation of ACS, which was an IBM subcontractor on the Medicaid privatization project, lost a key ruling in front of Marion County Superior Court Judge David Dreyer:

Indianapolis,IN...January 26, 2012...Indiana Superior Court Judge David J. Dreyer hasrendered a $40 million judgment in favor of IBM in its legal dispute with theState of Indiana over a Family Social Services Administration (FSSA)modernization of the State's welfare eligibility system. Judge Dreyer ruled Wednesday, January 25, that the State is required tocompensate IBM after taking over its rights in connection with subcontractsassociated with the project. Later Wednesday, the FSSA issued a press releaseregarding Judge Dreyer's rulings that was incomplete and misleading, ignoringthe $40 million judgment in favor of IBM.

"Judge Dreyer, contrary to what the State's press release wouldhave the citizens of Indiana believe, made a series of rulings in support ofIBM's position in this case," said IBM spokesperson Clint Roswell."This is just the latest attempt by the State to obfuscate what reallyhappened in the project, and we look forward to the scheduled February 27start of the trial so we can finally spotlight the true facts of themodernization project."

In his ruling, Judge Dreyer:

Held that deferred Fees are to be litigated at trial. Contrary to the State’s press release, the Court did not reject IBM’s claim for $43 million in deferred fees, but ruled that this matter must be resolved at trial.
Rejected the State’s request for judgment that IBM was in breach of the contract. In Judge Dryer's words: “The Court cannot find that IBM breached the agreement -- let alone that any breach was material.” (Order Denying the State’s Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Its Claim for Breach of Contract, page 2.) In fact, the Court found that “ State officials praised IBM's performance under the contract.” (Page 2)
Dismissed the State’s claim that IBM was unjustly enriched by the payments it received from the State.
Limited the State’s damages claims, eliminating tens of millions of dollars of specific claims, capping the State’s remaining claims far below what it had been seeking, and dismissing all State claims for punitive damages.
Found that the evidence supporting IBM on the State's claim of breach includes, in Judge Dryer's words: "statements by State officials contending that many of the problems arising with modernization were in fact attributable to matters beyond IBM’s (or anyone’s) control, such as the economic downturn compounded by a series of natural disasters." (Order Denying the State’s Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Its Claim for Breach of Contract, page 3, Par. “Fourth.”)
Retained IBM’s claim for payment of its equipment costs. Contrary to the State’s press release, the Court ruled only that IBM cannot seek return of its equipment. IBM’s claim for over $9 million owed for that equipment will be resolved at trial.

IBM has maintained that fulfillment of contractual obligations is the veryessence of a successful business or organization. It maintains that the State'srefusal to honor its contractual commitments endangers the State's businessenvironment and will act as a deterrent for businesses considering moving to orexpanding their operations IBM remains confident that the State of Indiana and its courts will respect thefreedom of contract rights of companies that do business with the State ofIndiana, and affirm that the State cannot confiscate private property withoutproper compensation.

Other attorneys in the state have to follow the conflict of interest rules in the Rules of Professional Conduct. Not the politically-connected Barnes & Thornburg, however. Now we taxpayers are out more than Barnes outrageous legal fees.

While Romney's Fortunes Rise in Florida, New Polls Show Gingrich Leading Nationally For First Time

2012-01-27T08:23:00.004-05:00

Newt Gingrich

The last five polls out of Florida, released the last two days, show a consistent Mitt Romney lead in Florida of 7-9 points over South Carolina primary winner Newt Gingrich.

While Romney's boat has clearly risen in Florida, what is interesting is that he has for the first time since mid-December fallen behind in national polls. A new NBC poll just released this morning from NBC News/Wall Street Journal shows Gingrich with a nine point, 37-28 lead among Republicans. This comes on the heals of two other national polls released this week from Gallup and Rasmussen showing Gingrich, respectively, with a six and seven point lead respectively.

By the way, all this information can be found at www.realclearpolitics.com

Polls Show Romney Going From Eight Points Down to Eight Points Ahead in Just Three Days

2012-01-25T23:22:00.000-05:00

Mitt Romney

The polling in the Republican presidential nomination has now swung back the other way. After his South Carolina win, Newt Gingrich almost immediately wiped out Mitt Romney's lead in Florida and moved several points ahead. That lead faded almost overnight as polls show Romney regaining the lead.

The poll I found the most telling in terms of the recent trend in Florida is the last two Insider Advantage (IA) Florida polls. In a 1/22 poll, IA's poll had Gingrich leading Romney 34-26. In a poll conducted on 1/25, IA shows Romney leading 40-32. While Gingrich only lost 2 points on his total, Romney gained 14 points. Santorum and Paul were down 3 and 4 points respectively in the poll. The remaining 5 point increase in Romney's numbers were undecideds breaking his way as the January 31st primary draws near.

Gingrich has a week to turn things around. If he fails, Romney will have resurrected a campaign that was beginning to flounder.

City Begins Strong-Arming Local Merchants Over Failure to Get License Before Displaying Official Super Bowl Sign

2012-01-25T18:17:00.002-05:00

Is anyone surprised?On Saturday Civil Discourse Now show we will discuss the Super Bowl sign ordinance and display our own political protest Super Bowl sign. Let's see if the City asks us to take it down.

Gingrich Now Leads National Polls

2012-01-24T22:55:00.001-05:00

Two national polls released today show former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has moved ahead of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Rasmussen has Gingrich over Romney 35-28, while Gallup Tracking has Gingrich ahead 31-27.

ACS Issues $20 Ticket With 51 Minutes Remaining on Parking Meter

2012-01-24T09:14:00.002-05:00

This is the $20 parking ticket I received from the ACS police last Thursday. I have also posted below a photo of the kiosk showing I had 22 minutes remaining on the meter when I returned to the car. The meter was set to expire at 3:18. The ticket was written at 2:27. There was 51 minutes remaining on the meter when the ticket was written.

I want to thank City officials for voting to give away control of these parking meters and 70% of the revenue for the next 50 years. Now with this asset in the hands of a politically-connected company, I know that I can complain and elected officials will hold ACS's feet to the fire. After all, ACS screws up and provides bad service, the City won't renew the company's contract in 2061.

Gallup Tracking Poll Shows Gingrich Within One Point of Romney Nationally

2012-01-23T14:41:00.002-05:00

Mitt Romney

An updated tracking poll released by Gallup today shows Mitt Romney's national lead cut to one point. A week ago, the Gallup tracking poll showed Romney with a 23 point lead on Newt Gingrich. Romney's numbers appear to be in free fall. Expect Romney to go bitterly negative against Gingrich as he tries to salvage his campaign.

Gingrich has skillfully figured out how to play the economic populist, outsider card. While Gingrich as a 20 year plus politician and lobbyist is hardly the ideal messenger for the tea partyesque cause of populism, he is far better suited than the uber-wealthy Romney. The former Masssachusetts governor has yet to figure out that having a parade of insider, establishment figures announce their endorsement of him is not helpful when it comes to attracting voters looking for an outsider to take on the problems in Washington.

Indianapolis Mayor Ballard Ignores Former Tea Party Supporters, Endorses Lugar in Race Against Mourdock

2012-01-23T13:46:00.001-05:00

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard

Given he has governed as a RINO, I guess we shouldn't be surprised by Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard endorsing RINO Sen. Richard Lugar. Still it is noteworth that Ballard actually began his political career as part of the movement that is now known as the Tea Party, a movement which strongly opposes Lugar and supports State Treasurer Richard Mourdock. Ballard has completed the sell out of those folks. From Senator Lugar's press release announcing the endorsement.

INDIANAPOLIS (Jan. 23, 2012) - Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard this weekend endorsed U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) in his bid for re-election. Ballard made his endorsement official Saturday when introducing Lugar at the annual Lincoln Day Dinner in Wayne Township on Marion County's Westside.

"President Reagan said, 'Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they have made a difference in the world, but the Marines don't have that problem,'" Ballard said. "Everyone knows I'm a Marine. But we have with us tonight a Navy man who doesn't have to wonder if he's made a difference in the world. He is making an incredible difference. That man is Dick Lugar."

Ballard said Lugar's leadership and vision on the local, state and national level have always been "decades ahead of its time."

To see the rest of the press release, click here.

I guess next we can expect Mayor Ballard will endorse Mitt Romney.

The Myth that Party Workers Actually Choose Judicial Candidates at Marion County Slating Conventions

2012-01-23T09:59:00.000-05:00

One of the myths is that the slate of Marion County judicial candidates is decided by party workers at slating conventions. Party leaders will insist that democracy is involved as these conventions are attended by working party precinct committeepersons elected at primaries.

What is not well-known is how party leaders manuever to eliminate, pre-slating convention, any choice these party workers may have. First, you have a slating fee of $25,000 which knocks out a lot of lawyers who would be terrific judges. (As noted previously, the slating fee is actually a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.) Second, you have the fact that the vast majority of people at the convention will be appointees of the county chairman. Many of these people are appointed solely for the purpose of attending slating conventions and casting a vote the way the leadership in the party wants. These people are the so-called "mummy dummies" as they're supposed to keep quiet and vote "the right way." Sure elected PCs have a vote at the slating convention, but their votes are nullifed by the leadership appointments. that are there to outvote the elected PCs if need be.

The effect of the chairmen appointments means leadership can, before the slating convention begins, control the outcome. Judicial candidates know this and as they learn they are not supported by leadership, they drop out before slating. That's happened with respect to the Republicans. Several judicial candidates who have put extensive time in seeking organization support have now dropped out because leadership told them they would not win slating. Only 11 candidates now remain for 10 spots on the Republican slate.

Should we really have party leaders picking our judges?

See also:

Update on Slating of Marion County GOP Judicial Candidates, Wedensday January 18, 2012

Marion County Judicial Candidates Should Say "No" To Slating Fees, Monday, November 21, 2011

Code of Judicial Conduct Prohibits Marion County Judicial Candidates From Paying Slating Fee, Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Gingrich Almost Overnight Surges Past Romney in Florida (w/Update on Rasmussen Poll)

2012-01-23T08:38:00.003-05:00

Newt Gingrich

The last several polls have showed Mitt Romney with a double-digit lead in Florida. Those polls showed leads of 22, 24, 26 and 15.

Yesterday, a day after the South Carolina, Insider Advantage did a poll of the Sunshine State. The result showed Newt Gingrich with an eight point lead over Romney.

It appears the non-Romney's are coalescing behind the former Speaker. That spells trouble for Romney. If the former Massachusetts Governor can't win Florida, where he is supremely organized and has money to compete in the state's several media markets, then his nomination becomes doubtful. The nomination could be over pretty quickly, but over with Gingrich as the nominee rather than Romney.

UPDATE: Rasmussen also released a poll today confirming the Gingrich surge. That poll shows Gingrich with a nine point lead, a 31 point swing from a previous poll just 11 days ago showing Romney with a 22 point lead.

Does Indy's Super Bowl Clean Zone Violate Free Speech Clause of Indiana and U.S. Constitution?

2012-01-23T08:01:00.002-05:00

Over at Civil Discourse Now, Mark Small raises the possible unconstitutionality of the "Clean Zone" an ordinance which sharply restricts any type of commercial signage within a mile of the stadium before and after the big game. If you own a pizza shop and you put a sign in the window to offer a discount to the out of town visitors to our fair city, you're in violation of the City's clean zone ordinance and can be fined.

The "clean zone" is a restriction on commercial speech. While the courts have allowed more restrictions on commercial than political speech under the First Amendment, Indy's Clean Zone is so restrictive and onerous, I'm not sure it could pass a constitutional challenge. I could see a contrarian downtown merchant filing for an injunction to get the "clean zone" knocked out for Super Bowl week.

Clearly the clean zone ordinance does not apply to, nor could it, to political speech. Merchants could erect signs complaining about the clean zone ordinance or the city's subsidies to the big game which now result in the Capital Improvement Board estimating it will lose $800,000. Some analysts have suggested the figure will be higher.

See other articles I have written on the subject:

Friday, July 1, 2011, City Decides Agreed-Upon Mile Radius Super Bowl "Clean Zone" Is Not Big Enough; Ordinance Would Grant Licensing Administrator Unlimited Power to Create Clean Zones

Saturday, July 11, 2011, Indianapolis Downtown Businesses: Beware the Super Bowl "Clean Zone" Ordinance

See Pat Andrews of Had Enough Indy's numerous articles on the subject:

Friday, July 1, 2011, Superbowl Ordinance Before City-County Council

Tuesday, July 19, 2011, Superbowl 2012 - What Are They Trying To Hide?

Wednesday, August 10, 2011, Superbowl Ordinance Back At Council Committee Tonight

Saturday, January 14, 2012, Super Bowl Ordinance Should Have Included Review Process

Gallup Tracking Poll Documents 18 Point Drop in Romney Lead in Six Days

2012-01-22T17:03:00.001-05:00

On January 15, 2012, Gallup released a tracking poll showing Mitt Romney leading nationwide by 23 points. Today Gallup released an update on its tracking poll showing an 18 point drop in Romney's support, in just six days, making the spread 30-25 in favor of Romney.

Expect Newt Gingrich to almost completely close the gap in Florida polls early this week.

Why the Conventional Wisdom About Romney's Organization is Wrong; South Carolina Voters Disbelieve Romney is "Most Electable" Myth

2012-01-22T13:21:00.003-05:00

Yesterday, Newt Gingrich won a huge victory in South Carolina's primary. Gingrich finished with 40% of the vote while Mitt Romney had 27%. The 13% spread reflected a more sizable Gingrich victory than even the latest polls were predicting.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich

In a race for third place, Rick Santorum edged out Ron Paul, 17% to 13%.

A number of political analysts have suggested that this is the end of the road for the former House speaker, that Gingrich doesn't have the organization that Romney has and therefore won't be able to compete in the races ahead. I don't buy that and here's why. Romney can have a great organization in every state to come, the problem though is at the end of the day when voters go to vote and see a ballot with a Romney choice and a non-Romney choice . Head-to-head, with a single anti-Romney, Romney loses.

An unpopular candidate can be rehabilitated if he or she is not well known. But if the candidate is very well known by the electorate and disliked, all the organization and money the candidate has cannot fix that perception of the candidate. Romney is strongly disliked by 2/3 of Republicans. Even if he is lucky enough to get the nomination, the narrow band of establishment Republicans who support him will not provide enough of a foundation to win a general election. Most people in this country, when asked an ideology refers to themselves as "conservative." Nominating a Massachusetts liberal turned moderate turned pretend conservative isn't a way to win a general election.

Finally, an overlooked story out of South Carolina is that the voters of that state rejected the notion that Mitt Romney is the most electable. Exit polls showed that of South Carolina voters who said "electability" was the key factor in their vote, 50% voted for Gingrich while Romney received 40%. Romney's chief argument for his nomination from the beginning has been that he is the "most electable." If voters in other states follow South Carolina's lead in viewing Gingrich as the most likely to beat President Obama, the case for nominating Romney is over.

What Will Happen Today in South Carolina? Ogden on Politics Predicts

2012-01-21T08:28:00.001-05:00

Newt Gingrich

Polls the last few days show former Speaker Newt Gingrich pulling ahead of former Mitt Romney in South Carolina. It is a stunning development. This past week, the former Massachusetts Governor went from having a big lead in the South Carolina and on the on the verge of going a solid 3 for 3 in state contests to being 1 for 3, with the only win being New Hampshire, a state where he has a home.

Romney claimed "electability" as his ace in the hole. Indeed that at times seemed to be the only argument for his nomination. But this week Romney proved himself to be a very flawed candidate, with a tin ear to the world in which people live paycheck to paycheck. That Romney consistently was showed as the most "electable" in polls represented nothing more than people simply repeating to pollsters what the common perception was of Romney was. There was no foundation behind the conclusion, no reason to believe a terribly flawed Romney, despised by his own party, would be a good general election candidate.

Further clouds are on the horizon. If Rick Santorum finishes fourth, which is very possible, he may choose to drop out further consolidating the anti-Romney vote with Gingrich.

PREDICTION: The finish today will be Gingrich, Romney, Paul and last Santorum. The third and fourth place finishers could flip but I'm predicting Paul eeks out a third place finish.

Ogden on Politics Endorses Ron Paul as Best to Carry Conservative Republican Banner

2012-01-20T18:07:00.003-05:00

Ron Paul

For several week, nay months, I've been trying to figure out which Republican to support for President. They all - well maybe not Mitt Romney - have an attraction for someone like myself who believes in limited government but also believes in personal freedom. After much consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the polices Texas Congressman Ron Paul advocate most closely match what I believe in. Paul thus receives the Ogden on Politics endorsement, which along with 3 bucks, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Let's first dispose of the challengers.

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney was never a serious option. He represents everything wrong with the establishment wing of the GOP, which wing mocks Republican voters who actually believe in the conservative values that they vote on. Romney is the ultimate elitist running in the age of populism. He doesn't understand working men and women and, what's more, he does not seem to care about them. He has flip-flopped on a number of social issues. I have no problem with people's views evolving over time, but Romney changes his views to try to win votes. He has no core values, except the fervent belief that he should be President. Romney is the Republican equivalent of Evan Bayh.

Romney's ace in the hole, that he is somehow more electable than the other Republican candidates, is a myth. When 2/3 of your own party can't stand you and will consider any alternative, no matter how flawed, those people are very likely to stay home or vote for the Democrat or third party in the Fall.

Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich is another option. I've done enough divorce work to know to take an ex-spouse words with a grain of salt. While Gingrich clearly has some troubling personal baggage, I do believe in redemption. Maybe Gingrich has turned a new chapter in his personal life. I'm far more troubled by Gingrich's professional baggage, such as his lobbying for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or whatever he was doing for them. Gingrich seems to apply different rules to the conduct of other public officials than what he applies to himself.

Gingrich though is a terrific debater, the best of the bunch. On the campaign trail he is the intellectual equivalent of Obama and more skilled with presidential camapign joust and parrying than the President. While, like Romney, Gingrich has flip-flopped on issues, unlike with Romney, you get the sense Gingrich does have a conservative core. I do like the fact that Gingrich is willing to be reasonable on immigration policy and open-minded on other issues. But it's hard not to forget his participation in the "man is causing dangerous global warming" television commercial with Nancy Pelosi.

Rick Santorum

Of the field, Iowa Caucus winner Rick Santorum, is probably the most likable on a personal level. I do like his commitment to the pro-life cause and that he is willing to live the philosophy regarding the sanctity of human life. I think fiscally he's fairly solid, though he like virtually every member of Congress has earmark and other issues. But I don't like Santorum's lack of tolerance when it comes to social issues. I realize the entire Republican field, sans Ron Paul, is against legalizing same sex marriage, Santorum though seems to take that position a step further, with his condemnation of homosexuality. While it's not my cup of tea, I don't understand how allowing same sex marriage endanger the institution of marriage. Even though many of us disagree with same sex marriage, we need to be more tolerant of homosexuality.

Rick Perry

Texas Governor Rick Perry was my original favorite. I saw him as having a stellar record in Texas and someone who could unite the fiscal and social conservatives in the GOP. But while Perry on paper was a strong candidate, he was a bust on the campaign trial. Perry's poor performance in the debates killed him, though he at the end, too late, began to improve. Further, Perry turned me off with his desperate and misguided play to religious conservatives by believing that religiosity equals intolerance. The last straw for me though was Perry's debate declaration that we should send troops back into Iraq. Ugh.

That brings me to Texas Congressman Ron Paul. I didn't reflexively walk in to the Paul camp. I have concerns. One issue that is hardly mentioned is age. Ronald Reagan, at 69, is the oldest President ever elected. Ron Paul is 76, almost as old as Reagan was when he left office. But times have changed from the 1980s. People are living longer, but more importantly, they are living healthier lives into their senior years. Ron Paul is one of the brightest minds on the stage, the only intellectual rival to Gingrich. I am over my concern about his age.

The biggest concern I had along the way was Paul's involvement with the well-publicized racist newsletters for which economic analysis. In one of the media interviews I saw, Paul did the right thing. He apologized and basically confessed he was negligent when it came to reviewing what others were writing in the newsletters. I like it when people are willing to admit to mistakes. More importantly though Paul went on to make an extremely compelling case that he is the most sensitive candidate when it comes to issues that disproportionally impact minorities and, in particular, African-Americans. Paul talked about the failure of the War on Drugs and the high incarceration rates. Further, Paul understands probably better than anyone that taking away civil liberties to fight crime, ultimately opens the door for the law-abiding to have their rights taken away.

On other issues, I often disagree with Paul. On foreign policy, I agree with Paul that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, or at the least not made a long-term project out of it. But on Afghanistan, I disagree with the Texas congressman. We were right to go into Afghanistan because of the events of 9/11 and terrorism practiced by Al Quada. I think Paul should be more concerned about terrorism and dangers such as Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

Ron Paul

While a lot of Republicans talking heads fault Ron Paul for his isolationist policies, which I agree go too far, they are willing to support an interventionist foreign policy that is even more extreme. We need a GOP nominee who will finally question the need for bases all over the world and the level of defense spending that eats up half of the nation's budget. As far as the politics of foreign policy, the isolationist wing of the GOP is alive and well and growing larger every day. Ron Paul though seems to be the only candidate who understand that.

Where I am most in sync with Ron Paul is on economic policy. I think Ron Paul's focus on the budget deficit is long overdue. But rather than just pay lip service to addressing the debt, Paul is the only one willing to seriously rethink the bloated role the federal government has assumed in our daily lives. Cutting that role of government is frankly the only way the cuts necessary to be made can be made.

A Facebook friend faulted pro-life Ron Paul's for not being pro-life enough because he did not think the federal Constitution should be interpreted to ban abortion. Ron Paul is exactly correct. Roe v. Wade is an abomination because the constitution is silent as to when life begins and the right to an abortion. The majority of justices simply invented an fundamental right to abortion based on another made up right, a general "right to privacy" which, by the way, also isn't mentioned in the Constitution. To twist the language of the federal Constitution to ban abortion would be judicial activism every bit as bad as Roe v. Wade. Two wrongs do not make a right. Ron Paul believes not only in the Constitution, but that when that document is silent as to rights, the people, through their elected representatives have a right to decide what the best policy is.

My support of Ron Paul can be summed up as this. While I often think the policies he advocates go too far, he is at least going in the right direction. I can't say that for the other candidates. I can't say that anyone on the Republican stage would actually reduce the size of our federal government or protect our hard-fought liberties like Ron Paul would. That's why Ogden on Politics is glad to endorse Ron Paul for President. Don't forget to take this opinion along with your $3 for a Starbucks coffee.

Gingrich Suddenly Leading in South Carolina; Romney Has Very Bad Day on Campaign Trail

2012-01-19T22:24:00.000-05:00

Five South Carolina polls were released today. Unbelievably former Speaker Newt Gingrich leads in three of them. Before today, Mitt Romney had led in 10 straight South Carolina polls, including the last four by double digits.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The issue over Romney's 15% tax rate and his saying $374,327 plus to give 9 speeches was "not very much" income seems to be hurting Romney even within Republican ranks.

Meanwhile the news out of Iowa is that former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and not Romney, actually won, the Iowa caucus.

It was all in all a very bad day for Mitt Romney. The only saving grace was the airing of the interview with the second wife of Gingrich's where she suggested he wanted an "open marriage" if the relationship was to continue. I doubt that will have much of an impact, given people tend to discount anything an ex-spouse says. I could be wrong though. After all, I did not foresee this enormous comeback by Gingrich in South Carolina.

How is State's Agreement with Amazon Not a Public Record? (w/Correction)

2012-01-19T08:00:00.002-05:00

WRTV (Channel 6) reported that it tried to get a copy of the state's agreement with Amazon that the company would start collecting sales tax in 2014. WRTV was told that by administration officials that the agreement was "confidential" citing IC 6-8.1-7-1. The new public access counselor Joseph Hoage apparently backed up this position.

The relevant part of IC 6-8.1-7-1 reads:

(a) This subsection does not apply to the disclosure of information concerning a conviction on a tax evasion charge. Unless in accordance with a judicial order or as otherwise provided in this chapter, the department [of Revenue], its employees, former employees, counsel, agents, or any other person may not divulge the amount of tax paid by any taxpayer, terms of a settlement agreement executed between a taxpayer and the department, investigation records, investigation reports, or any other information disclosed by the reports filed under the provisions of the law relating to any of the listed taxes, including required information derived from a federal return, except to:

(1) members and employees of the department;
(2) the governor;
(3) the attorney general or any other legal representative of the state in any action in respect to the amount of tax due under the provisions of the law relating to any of the listed taxes; or
(4) any authorized officers of the United States;
when it is agreed that the information is to be confidential and to be used solely for official purposes.

The State is apparently claiming that this is a "settlement agreement" under the statute and thus a confidential public record.

But wait a second. "Settlement agreement" is a legal term of art. It is an agreement reached to resolve pending or threatened litigation. There was litigation that was pending against Amazon that was dropped following the agreement. But the lawsuit was filed by the shopping mall magnate Simons against Amazon. Neither the Indiana Department of Revenue or any other state agency was a party to the lawsuit. The statute clearly doesn't apply. The agreement is not a "confidential" record under the statute.

Unfortunately, the PAC's office during the Daniels' administration has been a rubberstamp of administration decisions. It should be more independent and aggressive. WRTV should not take the PAC's decision as the final word and should pursue disclosure through the courts. Transparency in government is an extremely important concept that should not be abandoned at the doorstep of the rubberstamp PAC.

CORRECTION: The lawsuit was actually filed by Simons against the State of Indiana. Still Amazon was not a named party to the litigation. Therefore the agreement between the State and Amazon is not a "settlement agreement." Any agreement between the Simons and the State to dismiss the lawsuit would be.

Wishard Hospital's Bonds Downgraded by Rating Agency; Should Taxpayers Get Out Their Wallet?

2012-01-18T18:41:00.000-05:00

Big news on the financial front. Fitch Ratings has downgraded the ratings of $218.8 million of tax general obligation bonds and $465 million in lease revenue bonds which were issued by the Indianapolis Local Public Improvement Bond Bank (Health and Hospital Corp. of Marion County).

New Wishard Hospital Groundbreaking

Remember these Wishard bonds were financed out of the income stream of HHC, supposedly without raising taxes. Now it appears HHC will have to pay higher interest on the money borrowed to finance the facility. Not to worry though...the referendum that passed in 2009 provided that we taxpayers would be on the hook if the HCC could not pay for the facility out of its cash flow generated from from higher-than-normal Medicaid payments for its extensive nursing home operation.
Here are some tidbits from the report:

HOSPITAL OPERATIONS RISK: The rating downgrades reflects Fitch's increased focus on the financial risk related to the operation of the hospital as outlined in the July 15, 2011 press release 'Fitch Refines Methodology for Rating Tax-Supported Debt of Public Enterprises', which is available at 'www.fitchratings.com'.

CHALLENGED HOSPITAL FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE: HHC's Wishard Hospital financial operations are weak and vulnerable to changes to state and federal funding given the large number of Medicaid, Medicare and indigent patients. However, qualitative factors are strong, including an experienced management team.

STRONG SECURITY: Debt service on the bonds is secured by an unlimited ad valorem tax pledge of HHC, a component unit of the consolidated city of Indianapolis-Marion County. (Comment: we taxpayers are on the hook for the bonds to an unlimited amount.)

...

REPLACEMENT HOSPITAL FACILITY

...

HHC is legally obligated to fund the annual debt service on the 2010 A and B bonds using a dedicated property tax if other revenues are not sufficient to fully pay the bonds in any given year; however, HHC currently funds 100% of the debt service for these bonds through operating revenues. In addition, HHC will contribute $150 million ($80 million to date) in accumulated reserves to the Wishard replacement project, leaving approximately $150 million in reserves, which Fitch considers an adequate operating cushion.

To see the rest of the report, click here.

Update on Slating of Marion County GOP Judicial Candidates

2012-01-18T15:48:00.000-05:00

While in court this morning, I was given an update on GOP slating for judges. More on that in a second. As way of background, in the May 2012 Primary, Republicans and Democrats will nominate 10 candidates each. Twenty judges will be elected in the general election. So winning the primary is tantamount to winning the general election.

In Marion County the parties have "slating," a party endorsement process where party workers are supposed to meet and decide who to support going into the primary. Candidates not "slated" are expected to drop out, leaving the parties' voters with no choice going into the primary.

The GOP judicial slating fee is about $25,000.   It used to be you received 80% of that back if not slated. Now I do believe they're giving a smaller percent back if not slated and nothing back if you run against the slate. In 1992, the Judicial Qualifications Commission issued an advisory opinion that the payment of a slating fee (which back then was much less) by a judicial candidate violates the Code of Judicial Conduct. When that opinion was issued, the Marion County party chairmen began claiming the judicial slating fees were "voluntary" and therefore did not violate the rule cited by the Commission. Some 110 judicial candidates have been slated since that 1992 opinion. I am not aware of a single judicial candidate who has ever been slated without paying the slating fee.  If you do not pay the $25,000 slating fee, you can forget about getting slated.

When it comes to the slating process, party leaders tell hard-working precinct committeemen (PCs) that slating is their right to have input into the process and that any candidate who runs against the slate is personally insulting the work they do. What party leaders do not tell those PCs is that for every one one of them, the party leaders will have appointed at least two or more individuals as Ward Chairmen or to fill vacant PC positions. Many of these people are just appointed for slating only, so-called "mummy dummies."    Mummy-dummies' only job is to show up at a slating convention and vote the right way, i.e. the way the party bosses who appointed them expect them to vote. The party leaders make sure they have the votes to outvote actual working PCs who might have an independent though on who they want slated.

In theory slating conventions are attended by elected PCs who work hard and are rewarded by party leaders with the right to have a big influence on party endorsements. Instead slating has become a charade, a way party leaders can pick the parties' nominees while pretending that grass roots party workers are the ones making that choice.

Now to the update. The gossip is that when asked at a party meeting whether she would consider running in the primary if not slated, Judge Carol Orbison (honestly) answered that she had not ruled out that option. That response supposedly doomed her slating.

According to my sources, slating set for January 28th is already over.  The four candidates that would fill Orbison's position and that of the three retiring GOP judges are Helen Marchal, Jim Joven, Amy Jones and Clayton Graham. The rest of the judges will be reslated. Apparently there is no reason to even show up for slating. The GOP leadership has spoken.

While we are fortunate enough to have some quality judges in Marion County, it is despite the slating system, not because of it. Whether it is the requirement that judges pay slating fees that violate the Code of Judicial Conduct or a slating process dominated by party leaders, clearly the Marion County slating process is not conducive to an independent judiciary.

See also:

Marion County Judicial Candidates Should Say "No" To Slating Fees, Monday, November 21, 2011

Code of Judicial Conduct Prohibits Marion County Judicial Candidates From Paying Slating Fee, Tuesday, August 23, 2011

New Poll Shows Gingrich Making Huge Gains Nationally, Within Three Points of Romney

2012-01-18T14:08:00.001-05:00

Just when you thought it was over, a new national poll is released showing Newt Gingrich with a huge gain and only three points behind Mitt Romney. Rasmussen reports:

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich
The race for the Republican presidential nomination is now nearly even with Mitt Romney still on top but Newt Gingrich just three points apart.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters nationwide shows Romney with 30% support and Gingrich with 27% of the vote. Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, who was running second two weeks ago, has now dropped to 15%. Texas Congressman Ron Paul captures 13% support from likely primary voters, and Texas Governor Rick Perry remains in last place with four percent (4%). Another four percent (4%) like some other candidate in the race, and seven percent (7%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

But the story in the new numbers, taken Tuesday night, is Gingrich’s jump 11 points from 16% two weeks ago. Romney’s support is essentially unchanged from 29% at that time, while Santorum is down six points from 21%. Paul’s and Perry’s support is also unchanged. Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman earned four percent (4%) of the vote at the start of the month but dropped out of the race this week. This suggests that many voters are still looking for an alternative to Romney and currently see Gingrich as that candidate.

At some point though Gingrich has to win a state primary or caucus. If the non-Romney vote continues to be divided, that is unlikely to happen.

Romney Makes Campaign Gaff, Says $374,372 to Give Eight Speeches is Not Much Money

2012-01-18T07:16:00.002-05:00

Under pressure to release his tax returns, yesterday on the campaign trail Mitt Romney said that his effective tax rate was about 15%, a rate much lower than many working men and women, but is a rate that reflects long term investments.

Mitt Romney

Fortunately for ex-Massachusetts Governor, the focus on his tax returns and the tax rate he pays is diverting attention from a far more damaging statement. Romney said that, in addition to investment income, he also gets "speaker’s fees from time to time, but not very much.” In fact, in the most recent year, Romney made $374,327.62 in speaker’s fees, at an average of $41,592 per speech, according to his public financial disclosure reports.

Americans have no problem electing wealthy men and women to office. What they balk at though is electing candidates who they believe do not understand the plight of average Americans, especially when the country remains mired in a recession. Romney with one speech makes just under the median American household income of $46,326. With just eight speeches he matches several years of income for ordinary folks. Yet he considers that to be "not very much" money?

For a smart man, Mitt Romney can be incredibly stupid at times. He might get a pass in Republican circles for such ill-advised comments. But when he goes to the general election round, his tin ear when it comes to the economic plight of average Americans will be an albatross hanging around the nominee's neck. As I've said, Romney

He's unlikely to get a pass from the American people when he is the nominee and is squaring off against President Barack Obama.

Civil Discourse Now Discusses Right to Work

2012-01-17T08:01:00.000-05:00

Civil Discourse Now discusses Right to Work with guests, labor lawyer William Groth and Indianapolis attorney Jeff Cox.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Celebrating the Progress We Have Made in Race Relations

2012-01-16T09:43:00.001-05:00

Today we celebrate the life of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. King, a leader of the civil rights movement for much of the 50's and 60's, was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

When it comes to race relations, people like to focus on the negative. To hear some of those who decry racism, we have not made any progress in this country...American society is embedded with racism as bad as ever. Whenever I hear such claims, I wonder if those people are simply ignorant of history or are hell-bent on using racism as a political issue.

Although I was just a six year old child when King died in 1968, I do though know something of civil rights history, When King's movement started in the 1950s, many places, including Indianapolis, had racially segregated schools. Several states had miscegenation laws that criminalized marriages between people of different races. (Virginia's law persisted until 1967 when it was struck down by the Supreme Court.) In some communities, blacks were required to use different restrooms, not allowed to eat at "white" restaurants, and had to ride at the back of buses. On the political front, there were many counties in the south, where few if any blacks were registered despite the fact African-Americans made up a majority of the county.

Today, racial segregation, mandated by law, is a thing of the past. Forty years after King's death, Americans elected Barack Obama, an African-American as President. Even the one political group (falsely) labeled as racist, the tea party, last year enthusiastically embraced Herman Cain, an African-American business man, as a presidential candidate. On a relationship level, people in Indianapolis do not even bat an eye at seeing a mixed race couple. Indeed at one point, where I live, Pike Township, was deemed to have the highest percent of mixed marriages in the country.

My recounting of these successes is not meant to diminish the very real racism that still exists. But I think if King were alive today he would be quite proud of the racial progress we have made in this country. Today, as we celebrate his life, we should also pat ourselves on the back. We've come a long way.

Minority Leader Lacks "Clean Hands" to Challenge Unfair Partisan Moves by Indianapolis Council Democrats

2012-01-15T11:29:00.001-05:00

MIke McQuillen

Jon Murray in the Indianapolis Star blog "Deep Fried Politics" reports on the committee flareup that sparked Minority Leaders Mike McQuillen's loud protest this past week.

After meeting today, City-County Council leaders from both parties ironed out committee assignments, three days later than planned. In the end, Republican Minority Leader Michael McQuillen didn’t get what he wanted — a return to one-vote margins between the parties on most committees — but he was able to keep each committee stocked with no fewer than three minority party members. (Except on Rules and Public Policy, which Majority Leader Vernon Brown and President Maggie Lewis had already voted to give just two Republicans Monday night.)

The upshot: Most committees will now have a margin of five Democrats to three Republicans, a supermajority for the majority party. That was accomplished by adding one Democratic member to what previously were seven-member committees. The deviations are on Public Safety, with six Democrats and three Republicans; the Rules committee, with six Democrats and two Republicans; and Ethics, which by law has three members from each party. The overall party split on the council is 16 Democrats and 13 Republicans.

To clarify, what Brown was trying to do was to change the normal majority-minority ratio so that the Republican had less of a minority presence on the committees. McQuillen is of course right to have complained. Brown was trying to change a practice that has existed for several council reorganizations.
McQuillen's problem is that he does not have "clean hands" to go very far challenging the Democrats' integrity when it comes to such issues. He supported the ourtageous $225,000 contract given by former Council President Ryan Vaughn gave to Hamilton County resident and Marion County GOP hatchetman David Brooks. (Brooks was one of Vaughn's key supporters during his bid for the Senate.) Then McQuillen voted for the 2011 lame duck redistricting map even though the law requires the council to redistrict in 2012.

You can be a partisan yet still treat the other side with fairness. Let's hope McQuillen takes that approach during the next four years.

Senator Lugar Falsified Residence in Presidential Candidacy Declaration

2012-01-13T14:17:00.000-05:00

Sen. Richard Lugar

When Sen. Richard Lugar goes to vote, he signs documents under oath that he lives at 3200 Highwoods Court, Indianapolis. As I noted last year, the Marion County Recorder's office shows the house at 3200 Highwoods Court, Indianapolis was deeded from a family named Gootee to David and Elizabeth Hughes in 1989. Lugars' deeding of the property had to have taken place before the 1989 Gootee deed, most likely well before that. I would have gotten those records when I researched the issue, but the Lugar transaction were paper only and preceded the computerized records in the office. Nonetheless, Lugar admits he hasn't lived at the 3200 Highwoods Courts' house in decades.

I am not sure what statute in the Indiana Code allows a sitting U.S. Senator and his wife to sign under oath they are living at someone's house in order to cast a ballot. An investigation by Greg Wright, who filed a complaint with the State Election Commission against the Lugars for voting fraud, also uncovered that the Lugars have used the 3200 Highwoods Court address as their address with the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles and that BMV mail to that address was returned.

Now, Wright has uncovered more legal violations by Sen. Lugar. In Lugar's 1995 Statement of Candidacy he signed when he ran for President, he stated that his address was 3200 Highwoods Court in Indianapolis. The document was signed with the warning that there could be penalties under federal law for submitting false information. Where is the exception in the federal law that allows Lugar to claim someone else's address as his own when running for President?

Mitt Romney's Treatment of Family Dog Shows Candidate Has Unpresidential Character Flaw

2012-01-13T10:14:00.001-05:00

Photograph of since departed Seamus

I am not one to usually watch Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, whose views I generally find repugnant. But recently I ran across her detailing the story of Mitt Romney and his dog Seamus which I found interesting. Below she quotes a 2007 Boston Globe story by Neils Swidey and Stephanie Ebbert:

The white Chevy station wagon with the wood paneling was overstuffed with suitcases, supplies, and sons when Mitt Romney climbed behind the wheel to begin the annual 12-hour family trek from Boston to Ontario … Before beginning the drive, Mitt Romney put Seamus, the family’s hulking Irish setter, in a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon’s roof rack. He’d built a windshield for the carrier, to make the ride more comfortable for the dog.

[...]

As the oldest son, Tagg Romney commandeered the way-back of the wagon, keeping his eyes fixed out the rear window, where he glimpsed the first sign of trouble. ”Dad!” he yelled. ”Gross!” A brown liquid was dripping down the back window, payback from an Irish setter who’d been riding on the roof in the wind for hours. As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust, Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station. There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the highway. It was a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management.

A couple days ago, Swidey published an update to that 2007 article in light of Romney's opponent's making an issue of the dog story:

To me, Romney’s critics have focused on the wrong part of the anecdote. It’s not that Romney put his dog on the roof. Remember how different standards were in 1983. Back then, I was a kid sloshing around in the cargo section of my family’s station wagon, competing with my equally unbuckled younger sister to see how many passing truck drivers we could get to pull their horns. I’ll take the Romneys at their word that Seamus loved his alfresco rides. Hell, my dog loves doing all kinds of things I don’t, chief among them luxuriating in the stink of other dogs’ duffs. What is beyond debate, though, is that this far into this particular trip, Seamus had ceased enjoying his ride. Faced with such irrefutable evidence, most people, I suspect, would have relented and let the ailing dog cram into the back of the wagon, even if logic dictated that cleaning up a repeat episode of his gastric distress would be a whole lot messier than if he were returned to the roof.

I totally agree with that assessment. The problem is Romney saw an animal in distress and instead of putting the dog in the station wagon with the family, he chose to put the dog back in exactly the situation that caused that distress. It says a lot about Romney's cold, heartless, unsympathetic character...not good traits for someone running for President in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Columnist Notes How Ron Paul's Libertarian Support is Changing Republican Party

2012-01-13T08:57:00.000-05:00

Ron Paul is quietly changing the GOP in ways that many Republicans do not presently understand. All I can say is "ditto" to this excellent Washington Post column by Charles Krauthammer that recognizes the transformation. Click on the link to read the whole article:

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas)

There are two stories coming out of New Hampshire. The big story is Mitt Romney. The bigger one is Ron Paul.

Romney won a major victory with nearly 40 percent of the vote, 16 points ahead of No. 2. The split among his challengers made the outcome even more decisive....

But the bigger winner was Ron Paul. He got 21 percent in Iowa, 23 in New Hampshire, the only candidate other than Romney to do well with two very different electorates, one more evangelical and socially conservative, the other more moderate and fiscally conservative.

Paul commands a strong, energetic, highly committed following. And he is unlike any of the other candidates. They’re out to win. He admits he doesn’t see himself in the Oval Office. They’re one-time self-contained enterprises aiming for the White House. Paul is out there to build a movement that will long outlive this campaign.

Paul is less a candidate than a “cause,” to cite his election-night New Hampshire speech. Which is why that speech was the only one by a losing candidate that was sincerely, almost giddily joyous. The other candidates had to pretend they were happy with their results.

Paul was genuinely delighted with his, because, after a quarter-century in the wilderness, he’s within reach of putting his cherished cause on the map. Libertarianism will have gone from the fringes — those hopeless, pathetic third-party runs — to a position of prominence in a major party.

Look at him now. He’s getting prime-time air, interviews everywhere and, most important, respect for defeating every Republican candidate but one. His goal is to make himself leader of the opposition — within the Republican Party.

Paul won’t quit before the Republican convention in Tampa. He probably will not do well in South Carolina or Florida, but with volunteers even in the more neglected caucus states, he will be relentlessly collecting delegates until Tampa. His goal is to have the second-most delegates, a position of leverage from which to influence the platform and demand a prime-time speaking slot — before deigning to support the nominee at the end. The early days of the convention, otherwise devoid of drama, could very well be all about Paul.

.. The Republican convention could conceivably feature a major address by Paul calling for the abolition of the Fed, FEMA and the CIA; American withdrawal from everywhere; acquiescence to the Iranian bomb — and perhaps even Paul’s opposition to a border fence lest it be used to keep Americans in. Not exactly the steady, measured, reassuring message a Republican convention might wish to convey. For libertarianism, however, it would be a historic moment: mainstream recognition at last.

Put aside your own view of libertarianism or of Paul himself. I see libertarianism as an important critique of the Leviathan state, not a governing philosophy. As for Paul himself, I find him a principled, somewhat wacky, highly engaging eccentric. But regardless of my feelings or yours, the plain fact is that Paul is nurturing his movement toward visibility and legitimacy.

Paul is 76. He knows he’ll never enter the promised land. But he’s clearing the path for son Rand, his better placed (Senate vs. House), more moderate, more articulate successor.

And it matters not whether you find amusement in libertarians practicing dynastic succession. What Paul has already wrought is a signal achievement, the biggest story yet of this presidential campaign.

What if Romney Loses South Carolina?; Is Gingrich Poised to Rebound?

2012-01-12T08:56:00.001-05:00

Being the first Republican presidential candidate to win Iowa and then New Hampshire, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is supposed to have the GOP nomination wrapped up. But does he?

Newt Gingrich

A new Insider Advantage poll out of South Carolina, the next stop for the candidates, shows Romney with only a 23%-21% lead over former Speaker Newt Gingrich. The poll also showed significant support among other Non-Romneys, Santorum 14%, Paul 13%, Huntsman 7%, Perry 5%.

Gingrich is also being aided by an independent Super PAC financed by billionaire Sheldon Adelson. Finally Romney is getting some of his own medicine ... an "independent" Super PAC designed solely for the purpose of attacking an opponent, namely him.

Perhaps the defining of Romney has come too late. Perhaps the candidates not named Romney will continue to divide the NonRomney vote. But if Gingrich wins South Carolina and knocks out a couple NonRomneys along the way, Romney's sure nomination might be out of the window. Romney does not matchup well with any GOP candidate in a one-on-one race.

I am greatly troubled by Newt Gingrich's personal and lobbying baggage. Still, if he is the only option to Mitt Romney (and Barack Obama), I will support him. Romney has not a conservative bone in his body and is rightly disliked by virtually every Republican who is not in the presidential game for the sole purpose of personally cashing in if the former Massachusetts Governor wins.

Actually the best scenario would be a brokered GOP convention where the factions in the GOP can nominate a quality Republican nominee. That is a highly unlikely scenario, but it would certainly be best for the party.

Will Republicans Make Fatal Mistake of Nominating Another Thomas Dewey to Face Harry Truman Wannabe President Obama?

2012-01-11T09:36:00.001-05:00

Gov. Thomas Dewey

I said several months ago, before the Republican primary season, that President Barack Obama would run a Harry Truman-style re-election campaign in which he rallied for the common man and against the big business and the do-nothing Congress. I just didn't know at the time the Republicans would play along with the Obama strategy by nominating the second coming of Truman's 1948 opponent, Thomas Dewey. Yesterday former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney won a solid victory in New Hampshire's primary with 40% of the vote. His next closest challenger was Ron Paul with 23% of the vote.

Like Romney, Dewey was a governor of a northeastern state, serving as governor of New York from 1943 to 1954. Romney was also governor of a northeastern state Massachusetts. Dewey was an advocate for big business interests and favored an unfettered interventionist foreign policy. Dewey was part of the more liberal establishment wing of the Republican Party. Romney is too. Dewey had a privileged childhood; Romney's was even more privileged. He was born a multi-millionaire.

The driving force right now in politics is economic populism. While they have different goals, both the tea party and occupy movements are essentially populists movements that rail against the use of government to aid big business. If the Republicans proceed to nominate Mitt Romney, which is growing more likely, the tea party populist energy of the party goes out the door as well as the newly energized, Ron Paul-led libertarian wing of the GOP.

A Romney nomination gives Obama the opportunity to run a non-holds barred populist campaign, reminiscent of the then unpopular Truman's 1948 whistle-stop campaign against Dewey. Romney's time at Bain Capital, in which he worked to reorganize companies by laying off working men and women, might be intellectually defensible from a macro-economic standpoint. But in the world of politics, it is easily exploitable.

The polls showing Romney the "most electable" against Obama are a mirage. Nominating Romney, a card carrying member of the so-called 1% in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, is like feeding fresh meat to a lion. Truman, er President Obama, will rip Romney to shreds.

If the GOP does nominate Romney, there will be one stark difference between the the 1948 and 2012 presidential elections. The result. The Truman-Dewey contest was close. An Obama-Romney race will be a landslide for the President.

See Advance Indiana's excellent take on this issue posted today: "Will The American People Elect Gordon Gekko President?"

Democrats Join Marion County Republican Party

2012-01-10T22:42:00.003-05:00

How many Democrats can you name in this picture? (click to enlargen)

Englehart Group Produces Boots on the Ground Rally Video for Ron Paul In New Hampshire

2012-01-10T21:13:00.002-05:00

If you want to know why Ron Paul, one of the oldest individuals to ever run for President, scores so well with young people, this "Boots on the Ground Rally" video produced by local political media guru Englehart Group provides the answer:I particularly like the comment about how the Romney supporters are motivated simply by a desire to get on what they think will be a gravy train. It is so true.

Civil Discourse Now Debates Citizens United and Campaign Finance Limits

2012-01-10T20:54:00.001-05:00

Here we discuss Citizens United and campaign finance limits with guests Nicholas Martin and Jeff Cox. FYI, we've made some technical improvements to the program and will be doing more such improvements in the future.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Indianapolis Hospitality Workers Sue for Wage Violations

2012-01-09T09:18:00.001-05:00

Below is a press release I received concerning an unfair wage claim lawsuit being filed by Indianapolis hospitality workers:

Indianapolis, IN:Hotel workers in Indianapolis filed a lawsuit in federal court today againstHospitality Staffing Solutions (HSS) and ten major hotels for wage and hourviolations. This landmark lawsuit is the broadest wage and hour case in thehistory of the Indianapolis hotel industry. If the lawsuit is certified as acollective action, eligible employees as a group could be entitled to as muchas ten million dollars in back pay. An action was held this morning in front ofHSS offices with hotel workers and community supporters in conjunction with thefiling of the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed against HSS, a national subcontracting company based inAtlanta. HSS operates in almost every downtown Indianapolis hotel. The currentlawsuit also implicates the Hyatt Regency, Hyatt Place Airport, Marriottdowntown (LaSalle), JW Marriott (White Lodging), Westin (Host Hotels), Conrad(Kite Realty), Embassy Suites (Simon Property Group), Canterbury (TurnerWoodard), Holiday Inn Airport, and the Omni Hotel, all of which use HSS tosubcontract workers.

Thislawsuit is not the first time that HSS has stirred controversy. In 2010, HSSand the Hyatt Indianapolis were fined $50,000 by Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration (OSHA) for record keeping and training violations. Two yearsago, hotel workers won a $20,000 from HSS and two Hyatt hotels in Pittsburghthrough a class action lawsuit.

Indianapolis city government has spent millions of taxpayer dollars subsidizing the downtown hospitality industry. While this city has rebuiltits economy with service industry jobs, hotel workers in Indianapolis are someof the lowest paid in the nation. Hotel workers here start at $7.25 per hourand are offered few or no benefits. Now, some of the hotels that the city haschosen to subsidize are being accused of illegal activity, of not even payingtheir employees the minimum wage. Meanwhile, these hotels are slated to makethree to four million dollars each during the week of the Super Bowl alone.During the Super Bowl, room rates in downtown hotels are expected to cost morethan $1000 per night.
Workersin the lawsuit allege that HSS and area hotels regularly fail to pay them forall the hours they work and force them to work off the clock and withoutbreaks. In addition to wage and hour violations, the lawsuit also alleges thatcurrent contracts between hotel employers and HSS create an unfair monopolypower of HSS over hotel labor in Indianapolis. The federal Wage and HourDivision of the Department of Labor is currently investigating HSS practices inIndianapolis hotels.

“Everyday I was told by my Hyatt manager to come in to work early and work beforeclocking in, and forced to work through my breaks without being paid,"says Martha Gonzalez, a plaintiff in the lawsuit who used to work as a housekeeperat a Hyatt hotel through the HSS agency. "I am supporting my threechildren and often there was not enough money in my paycheck to pay forfood."

Some may try to impugn this lawsuit and the attendant publicity as being part of a comprehensive strategy against the Right to Work legislation. It very well may be. Nonetheless, that does not mean the claims in the lawsuit do not have merit. I have personally talked to workers in the hospitality industry and have been told stories about their being ordered to do work off the clock, the movement of overtime hours to short weeks so the employer won't have to pay time and a half and waitresses and bartenders who are told to do non-tip work at subminimum ($2.13 an hour) wage. When I ran for Pike Township School Board, I was told by bus drivers and monitorsthey were often told to do runs off the clock and they fear they had of retaliation for complaining. Some tried talking to School Board members (including one supposed pro-worker member who immediately became pro-administation upon election) and they would not even look into the matter.

A debate over the Right to Work legislation and the value of unionization will be reserved for another time. Nonetheless, Indiana already has very strict wage laws in place. The failure to pay these employees their wages means the employers are subject to treble damages plus attorney's fees.

Our laws, however, are only so good as the public officials who enforce them. I have no doubt that these worker abuses have been raised before. Did public officials listen to their complaints and investigate them? We should not have gotten to the point of where a lawsuit needed to be filed. The law is clear. You cannot make people work off the clock. You have to pay them overtime. We taxpayers are subsidizing the hospitality industry to the tune of millions of dollars. Is it too much to ask that they follow the law?

Republican Council Majority Failed to Stand Up for Taxpayers; Will New Councilors End the Rubberstamping of Indianapolis Mayor Ballard's Corporate Welfare Projects?

2012-01-09T02:05:00.000-05:00

I don't know when I have ever been more disappointed in a group of Republicans than the GOP majority on the Indianapolis City-County Council that presided for the last four years, a period which mercifully ended December 31st. Never did I imagine how badly GOP councilors would turn their back on their collective responsibility to look out after the interests of taxpayers and ensure that deals entered into by local government with private business interests are in the public's best interest.

Councilor Zach Adamson

Let's look at the dismal fiscal record of the Republican council majority elected in the 2007 elections:

Agreed to give the Pacers $33.5 million in taxpayers money to operate Conseco Fieldhouse for three years while the team gets 100% of the basketball and non-basketball revenue on a building paid for 100% by taxpayers.
Approved a contract to let a private company, ACS, have 70% of the City's parking meter revenue for the next 50 years for a small upfront investment, a deal according to IBJ which will net the company as much as a billion dollars.
Agreed to put the City on the hook to finance $100 million for the private company Buckingham to develop North of South (now "CityWay"), a project that every private lender turned down as too risky.
Said nothing while the Ballard administration agreed to use $6.35 million of the public's money to build a parking garage in Broad Garage which it then will give away to Keystone Construction, which isn't required to put up anything on the project.. Keystone will get 100% ownership, 100% of the parking revenue and 100% of the rent from the commercial space in the building; the commercial space went from 20% in the original contract to now being 35%.
Approved tax increases to bail out the Capital Improvement Board without asking for any accountability from the CIB.
Approved giving away Georgia Street to a Indianapolis Downtown Inc., with IDI getting to keep all the profits the company can make off the street fixed up with our tax dollars.

Those are only a few occasions where the Council GOP majority had a chance to stand up for taxpayers and ensure that their interests were being protected. Instead those Republican councilors consistently chose to rubberstamp various corporate welfare schemes pushed by Mayor Ballard.

I shouldn't lump all Republicans together. Councilor Christine Scales opposed several of the measures listed above, and caught grief for having done so. Her Democratic opponent Kostas Poulakidas, backed by the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce, actually criticized Scales for not being more supportive of corporate welfare, including the CIB tax increases.

While Scales was the lone Republican voice for taxpayers, I have to give credit to the Democratic minority, or at least a number of the council Democrats, people like Brian Mahern and Angela Mansfield. They and other Democrats questioned whether the taxpayer-funded deals were in the best interests of the public and voted against them when given the opportunity. While Republicans claim to be fiscal conservatives, it was the Democratic councilors who were the fiscal conservatives during Ballard's first term.

Today marks the first council meeting with the newly-elected Democratic majority. Now that the Democrats have a majority will they use their new clout to provide a much needed check on Republican councilors' reckless spending of taxpayer money on Ballard corporate welfare schemes?

I am hopeful. Newly elected Democratic councilor Zach Adamson has shown an interest in fiscal issues and was willing to speak out the horrible parking meter deal and the outrageous Broad Ripple Parking Garage giveaway People also speak highly of Democrats John Barth and Vop Osili as well as Republican Jeff Miller and he other newly-elected councilors. Let's hope these new councilors do their jobs and stand up for taxpayers better than the Republican rubberstamp majority did during the last four years.

Suffolk/7 News Tracking Poll Shows Romney's Support in New Hampshire Eroding Over Past Week

2012-01-08T11:48:00.001-05:00

Mitt Romney

Suffolk/7 News has started doing a daily tracking poll to gauge the race in New Hampshire. Here are the past weeks' results for Mitt Romney.

1/2 43%
1/3 43%
1/4 41%
1/5 40%
1/6 39%
1/7 35%

Fortunately for Romney, that same tracking poll, which shows an erosion of his support in the Granite State, does not show any definite trend toward a non-Romney candidate.

During last night's debate, the non-Romneys were more interested in attacking each other than going after Romney. The strategy is to be the last non-Romney candidate in order to take on the former Massachusetts governor one-on-one. Unfortunately for those candidates they may end up killing everyone off leaving only Romney.

Will Unrealistic Expectations of Huge Romney Win in New Hampshire Turn a Victory Into a Defeat?

2012-01-05T20:32:00.001-05:00

By all accounts, former Massachusetts Governor Matt Romney should win next week's New Hampshire primary easily. Two polls released today show that Mitt Romney comfortably leading the Granite State.

Suffolk/7News Tracking
Romney 41
Paul 18
Santorum 8
Huntsman 7
Gingrich 7

Washington Times/JLZ Analytics
Romney 38
Paul 24
Santorum 11
Gingrich 9
Huntsman 8

What is unfortunate for Romney is that expectations have been so built up about his performance in New Hampshire that he is unlikely to match those expectations. The NonRomneys are beginning to attack Romney and it is likely his numbers are going to suffer as a result. The media though gauges winners and losers by performance versus expectations. If Romney barely breaks 30% next week, which I think is quite possible,l it might be viewed as a setback instead of as a win.

Indianapolis Star Gets Facts of Charlie White Decision Wrong; Judge Did Not Find White Was Registered to Vote in Precinct He Did Not Live In

2012-01-04T23:25:00.001-05:00

Carrie Ritchie of the Star this morning penned an article about the upcoming (and now over) hearing on whether Marion County Judge Louis Rosenberg's decision removing Charlie White from office should be stayed pending appeal. Here's a sentence from that article (which apparently is no longer on-line) which purports to describe the Rosenberg decision:

Marion County Judge Louis Rosenberg ruled last month that White was ineligible to run for secretary of state in 2010 because he was registered to vote in a precinct where he didn't live...

Actually Judge Rosenberg's opinion doesn't say that at all.

Secretary of State Charlie White

In the opinion, Judge Rosenberg quite properly accepted the Commission's facts as true (a judge can't reweigh the facts on judicial review). In doing so, Judge Rosenberg recognized the facts were that White was living at his ex-wife's house and that he had not yet moved into the condo. White had registered at his ex-wife's house. Thus he was registered to vote in a precinct where he was living.

The relevant statute provides that one's residency place for voting is "permanent" place where one is living:

IC 3-5-2-42.5: “”Residence” means the place (1) where a person has the person’s true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment; and (2) to which the person has, whenever absent, the intention of returning.”

The crux of Judge Rosenberg's opinion was not that White was registered some place where he was not living, but rather that his living arrangement at the ex-wife's house was "temporary" in that it was only until he was ready to move into the condo. Thus, Judge Rosenberg concluded White was not properly registered at his ex-wife's house.

There are two problems with this interpretation. First, everyone no matter what their living situation is, has a "residence." Judge Rosenberg's decision though leaves White without any residence. He could not have legally registered at the condo because he had not yet moved in there. He could not have legally registered at his apartment because he had long ago moved out. The only place White could have legally registered was at his ex-wife's house where he was living and where he was registered to vote.

Second, the opinion does not address IC 3-5-5-18, which deals with the situation in which one might have only a temporary place like White was experiencing:

“Notwithstanding IC 3-5-2-42.5, an individual with a nontraditional residence whose residence is within a precinct, but is not fixed or permanent, resides in that precinct.”

That statute is meant to deal with the situation in which a person is staying someplace temporarily and has no permanent residence. In that situation, the person's residence is deemed to be where the person is staying temporarily and the person is allowed to register at that address even though that temporary living situation is not a permanent residence. The law allows the person to register in that precinct using that temporary address, which is exactly what Charlie White did.

I can excuse the Star for getting a legal decision wrong. What I find inexcusable is that the newspaper refuses to report on much, much more serious acts of voter fraud and perjury committed by former Senator Evan Bayh and his wife and Senator Richard Lugar and his wife. Evan Bayh votes using the address of a $50,000 condo he owns in Indianapolis when he has a $2.3 million home in Washington where he and his wife live and work full time.

Meanwhile Richard Lugar and his wife, Char, have been voting for decades signing documents under oath that they reside at 3200 Highwoods Court, a house on the northwest side of Indianapolis that they they sold three decades ago and haven't stepped a foot in since. There is no statute that allows Richard Lugar, who lives in hotels when he comes back to Indiana, to get a pass on voter fraud and perjury statutes because he is a U.S. Senator. But even if such a statute were to be invented to excuse the Senator's otherwise felonious conduct, where is the law that gives Char Lugar a pass? She is not a U.S. Senator.

Former Washington Township School Board member and certified fraud examiner Greg Wright has filed a complaint with the Election Commission over the Lugars' voter fraud. Has the Star even so much as reported it? Of course not. Reporting those facts does not fit the Star's agenda of protecting the popular and powerful while mercilessly going after unpopular people like White who do not have the ability of a Bayh or Lugar to fight back.

See also:

Thursday, December 22, 2011, Court Finds White's Living at Ex-Wife's House Was Temporary and Thus Not His Residence; Flawed Rationale Leaves White Without a Residence

Friday, December 23, 2011, Did Court Miss Statute Dealing With "Nontraditional Residences" In Deciding White Case?

Is Romney's Free Pass From Negative Attacks About to End?; Gingrich Vows To Return Fire

2012-01-04T19:51:00.001-05:00

Mitt Romney

In the midst of the negative TV ad onslaught in Iowa, an interesting fact emerges. During the Iowa caucus season not a single negative ad was run against Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Such has been the course of this campaign. The Non-Romneys bitterly rip each other apart hoping to take on Romney one-on-one. When Romney sees a Non-Romney passing him in the polls, an independent expenditure committee, Restore our Future, funded by unlimited contributions by Romney's Wall Street corporate friends, including money from 10% of this country's billionaires, swings into action funding a flurry of negative ads tearing down the candidate who had the temerity to pass the ex-Massachusetts Governor in the polls. But when it comes to Romney, the Iowa Caucus winner has consistently received a pass when it comes to negative attacks.

Newt Gingrich

Romney should be incredibly popular in his own party since he has not faced the negative ads others have faced. But Romney is not popular...his support in the GOP has been stuck at 25% since, oh, about 2006. Imagine what the result in Iowa would have been if if Romney faced the barrage of negative commercials that Newt Gingrich faced?

Romney's negative attacks, or rather those of Restore Our Future, which is not at all connected to Romney's campaign (yeah, right), might have awakened a bear in Iowa. Post-Iowa Gingrich is vowing to end Romney's free pass and begin hitting him with negative advertising defining him as the unprincipled flip-flopper who thinks he can buy the nomination. While Gingrich may have lost the nomination in Iowa, he can do the Republican Party a favor by exposing Romney for the person he is. It is about damned time.

GOP Establishment Needs to Wake Up and Smell the Coffee: Libertarian Republicans are an Important Part of the GOP Coalition

2012-01-04T11:39:00.000-05:00

Texas Congressman Ron Paul did not prevail in Iowa, finishing third with 21% of the vote. But the significance of his performance cannot be overstated. Paul four years ago received less than 10% of the caucus vote with a raw vote total of 11,841. Paul won just one county.

Ron Paul

Fast forward to 2012. Paul finishes third in the Iowa Caucus with 21% of the vote. Paul's 26,219 caucus vote total is a 121% increase from 2008. Meanwhile Iowa winner Mitt Romney's vote total declined by 6 votes from 2008 to 2012 despite a weak field and a (slightly) higher turnout than 2008. Romney won only 17 of Iowa's 99 counties. Paul won 18.

On Facebook, some Ron Paul supporters have linked to an audio (see below) clip of Republican operative Dee Dee Benkie, who hails from Indiana, talking about concerns the Iowa Republican establishment had about a Ron Paul victory. While the clip does not suggest fraud was involved to keep Paul from winning- as some people inaccurately suggest - Benkie's observations reveal a GOP establishment that clearly does not understand the significance of the growing Ron Paul-led libertarian wing of the GOP both in terms of sheer numbers and youthful energy.

Yes, the GOP Establishment does not get it. Ron Paul's appeal is not as some sort of cultish figure. Rather he represents the ideas of millions of Republican-leaning voters, people who believe in personal and economic freedom and who want to see our interventionist foreign policy scaled back. Does Ron Paul go too far in some of the polices he advocates? Absolutely. But Ron Paul would, and is, taking the GOP in a direction that a lot of Republicans want to go. The GOP establishment would be wise to wake up and smell the coffee Ron Paul is brewing.

75% of Iowa Caucus Voters Reject Mitt Romney; Massachusetts Governor Shows Himself To Be One Of The Least Electable Republicans In The Field

2012-01-04T00:48:00.000-05:00

I write this past midnight with 98% of the precincts reporting in Iowa. Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, with 25% of the vote, has a 5 vote lead over former Massachusetts Governor and Establishment Favorite Mitt Romney. Romney may well still pull off a win in Iowa, a win he would no doubt trumpet as proof of his ace in the hole, that he is the most electable candidate in a weak Republican field.

Balderdash.

The first thing a candidate for President is supposed to do is consolidate his base. Romney has been campaigning for president non-stop for at least six years. Even if he pulls off a win, his performance in 2012 both percentage-wise and raw vote wise, is still no better than it was in the Iowa Caucus four years ago, against a substantially stronger field.

Mitt Romney

The headlines out of Iowa should be that fully 3/4 of the GOP electorate rejected Romney in the Iowa caucus, a figure which is consistent with nationwide polls, Yet the establishment wing of the GOP, those folks who mock libertarian and tea party Republicans for actually believing candidates' positions on issues matter, insist Romney, a liberal Republican turned moderate, is the best hope to beat Obama.

Balderdash.

Economic populism is being coming an increasingly dominant force in the electorate. People are sick of government using its power to bailout big corporations while leaving ordinary folks high and dry. Populism presents a unique opportunity for Republicans to reach out to working men and women.

In the classic Wall Street v. Main Street match, there are a lot more voters living on Main Street. Yet who does the Establishment want to nominate? Mr. Wall Street, Mitt Romney. As a card-carrying member of the 1%, Romney does not begin to understand the concerns of every day Americans who have suffered through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Nominating Romney is to completely concede the populist card to President Obama.

During this election cycle Republican voters have considered some very flawed candidates. Through it all 3/4 of them have consistently chosen the flawed candidates over Mitt Romney. It is preposterous for the establishment types to continue to assume that the 75% who have consistently rejected Romney will eventually bite their tongue and vote for him as the nominee in the general election. No, what they will do is stay home or vote for Barack Obama.

The lesson from the Iowa Caucus is that Mitt Romney is not the most electable. Rather he is just about the least electable Republican in the field.

Civil Discourse Now Tackles Upcoiming 2012 Elections With Guests Jon Easter and Matt Stone

2012-01-03T11:47:00.000-05:00

Segments are approximately 14 minutes apiece.

Part 1 (Indiana Congressional Districts)

Part 2 (Indiana Congressional Districts)

Part 3 (U.S. Senate)

Part 4 (Governor)

Part 5 (Presidential)

Ogden on Politics Revises Iowa Caucus Prediction, Predicts Santorum Win, Romney To Finish Third

2012-01-03T07:57:00.001-05:00

I hereby revise my Iowa Caucus prediction. I now predict the order of the finish will be:
1) Santorum
2) Paul
3) Romney
4) Perry
5) Gingrich
6) Bachmann

Bet the farm.

Ogden on Politics Hands Out Awards for the Year 2011 in Indianapolis Politics

2012-01-02T10:42:00.000-05:00

Political Winner
1) City Contractors - A very profitable year for those doing business with Indianapolis. Buckingham received a $100 million loan backed by taxpayers for a project that no private lender would fund. The City agreed to have taxpayers building a parking garage in Broad Ripple and give away all the parking revenue and revenue from commercial rents to Keystone Construction. The Indiana Pacers received the second - $10 million - of the City's $33.5 million payment to operate a facility, constructed by taxpayers, but from which the Pacers already get 100% of the basketball and non-basketball revenue. In 2011, the ACS parking meter contract started. For the next 50 years, ACS will receive 70% of the City's parking meter revenue all for a measly upfront investment that the company will earn back in about 6-7 years.

Mayor Greg Ballard

2) Mayor Greg Ballard - I can't say his team ran a great campaign. After all, Ballard's opponent, Melina Kennedy, never hit him on the unpopular corporate welfare, insider deals and misplaced priorities that put things like libraries and parks behind handing over taxpayer dollars to corporate insiders. I have to admit, I was surprised. I did not think the Democrats would choose to lose an election if winning meant tackling the City's pay-to-play climate that puts taxpayer money in the pockets of politically-connected companies. (See #1 above.) Looking back that assumption was naive. I don't agree with the panelists on Indiana Week in Review that Ballard improved as a candidate. He just was never challenged - he was a weak candidate from beginning to end. Nonetheless, a win is a win is a win. And Ballard won.

3) Councilor Christine Scales - She ran on principle and won on principle. I had doubts campaigning as a nice person who wouldn't take the low political road would work, but it did if only by a few hundred votes.

Political Loser

1) Ed Treacy - In a year his party should have easily won 18 seats or more on the council, the Democrats barely escaped with a 16-13 majority, only because the four at-large seats followed the Democratic baseline.

Marion County Chairman
Ed Treacy

Instead of taking the Republican councilors head-on for their votes in support of the insider deals that most Democratic councilors, to their credit, opposed when given a chance to cast a vote on the council, Treacy chose to tackle obscure often irrelevant issues, often distorting Republican councilors' votes in the process. He also tried to play the race card. Treacy though had plenty of ammunition to use against the Republicans. All he had to do was hit the councilors' on votes on unpopular Ballard proposals like the ACS 50 year parking meter contract, the Pacer give away, etc., hitting the districts with direct mail. Instead Treacy did not want to take the populist route and challenge the taxpayer giveaways to politically-connected companies, undoubtedly because he supports them himself.

2) Melina Kennedy - It's a tired theme, but a political strategist could have easily designed a campaign that hit Ballard on areas where he was vulnerable, and made Kennedy a winner. But she deliberately avoided populist type issues which would have played well with the electorate, choosing instead, when she attacked, to do so only in a very general manner. Like Treacy, she was willing to lose an election if the cost of a win was challenging Indianapolis' corporate welfare culture.

3) Taxpayers - In an era of economic populism, neither Republican or Democratic party leaders, or their top candidates, were willing to ask tough questions about whether these corporate welfare, insider deals are in the best interests of the people. Well that's not quite fair. I think there is a possibility that newly elected councilors, people like Zach Adamson, John Barth and Jeff Miller, might start asking questions that the previous Republican rubber-stamp majority failed to ask.

Biggest Political Surprise

Councilor Janice McHenry

1) Councilor Janice McHenry's Re-election - She's a terrific door-to-door campaign, the best I have ever seen, but Ed Treacy can't win a 60% Democratic district?

2) Christine Scales' Re-election - I have to say, given the resources her opponent had, I had doubts we'd see her back on the council. But then again, her opponent actually criticized the Republican for not being more supportive of the Ballard corporate welfare agenda. Go figure.

Best Political TV Ad
1) Bill Levin's ad shot in Broad Ripple the morning after a rain. The ad was done locally by the Englehart Group. For the life of me I don't know why well-funded candidates choose to go outside the state for TV production when Blair Englehart does far better work here locally.

Worst Political TV Ad
1) Mayor Ballard's Ads - The ads showed constantly changing images that were on the screen for a fraction of a section and used Ballard's voice instead of a professional voice-over-artist. Dreadful.

2) Melina Kennedy's Ads - While her ads were more visually appealing than Ballard's, there was no coherent theme or consistent message to the issues.

Best Political Blogger (Republican-leaning)
1) Advance Indiana - Gary Welsh and I have gone around a few times, but no one is a better political blogger not only locally but in the state. His grasp of detail and memory of events is phenomenal.

Best political Blogger (Democratic-leaning)
1) Indy Democrat - Jon Easter is not as independent as Welsh when it comes to the issue, but his observations are always informative and interesting.

Best Political Reporter
1) Kara Kenney (WRTV) - Although she doesn't strictly do political reporting, when she does she is willing to delve into details that other reporters will not touch.

2) Norman Cox (WRTV) - While other statehouse reporters are content on just reporting the conventional wisdom, Cox is willing to do investigatory work and look at issues from other angles.

Worst Political Reporter

Jim Shella

1) Jim Shella (WISH) - Shella gave up serious reporting years ago and has been mailing it in ever since. If you want the conventional wisdom reported without any actual investigatory work done, Shella is your man. Shella loves rubbing elbows with the powerful and influential in the Statehouse, and he will not report anything that challenges the existing power structure.

Worst Political Columnist
1) and 2) (TIE) Matt Tully and Erika Smith (Indianapolis Star) -In a city rife with corporate welfare and now scandal, these columnists can't seem find anything controversial to write about. God forbid they ever write something challenging the status quo in this City.

3) David Hoppe (Nuvo) - In a recent column, Hoppe noted that the bike lanes were poorly designed, caused traffic problems and no bicyclists were using them. Yet Hoppe supported them based on his conclusion they were part of a deliberate plan by the city to not help bicyclists, but to make driving less convenient so that public transportation would take off. And that was one of Hoppe's better columns.

4) Steve Hammer (Nuvo) - I used to think there was a clever Hunter S. Thompsonesque quality to Hammer's writing. That disappeared long ago. Hammer has been running on fumes ever since. Like Hoppe, Tully and Smith, Hammer can't seem to find anything controversial in Indianapolis to write about even though bloggers and TV reporters are uncovering interesting stories every day. Instead he chooses to remain on the sideline while others do all the heavy lifting.

President Pence and the Myth of Romney as a Strong General Election Candidate

2012-01-01T10:57:00.001-05:00

Yesterday during the Internet TV show Civil Discourse Now a comment by panelist Jon Easter refreshed my memory that Congressman Mike Pence was at one time considering (or at least he said he was) a run for the White House.

Congressman Mike Pence
(R-Indiana)

I had forgotten all about that.

Looking at the GOP field leading up to the big Iowa Caucus next Tuesday, it occurs to me that Congressman Mike Pence, like him or not, would be a giant in this very weak GOP field. Pence is personable, understands the media better than just about anyone, articulates a consistent conservative message that hits the major Republican constituencies, and doesn't have the baggage that many of the Republican candidates have. Pence likely would have been able to consolidate the 75% anti-Romney sentiment out there in the GOP. Heck, he could have even drawn support away from former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

The polling showing Romney is more electable in a general election is a farce. I believe people are simply repeating a commonly held assumption to pollsters, not stating their support of Romney in a contest versus President Obama. After all, at a time when economic populism is starting to dominate the electorate, Romney is unquestionably part of the 1%, the very type of person disliked by both right Tea Party and left Occupy Wall Street.

President Obama, who comes from a humble background, is positioned to use economic populism to draw support from Republicans who don't like Romney's elitist background and pro-Wall Street persona. Pence as the GOP nominee would have been able to compete toe-to-toe with Obama on that and other fronts.

When I heard Pence was considering a run for the White House in early 2011, I was of the belief the congressman was not ready, that he would finish well back in the GOP field. I was wrong. He could have been well on his way to winning the nomination.

Marion County Law Enforcement Partnership Encourages Those Celebrating on New Year's Eve to Violate State's Public Intoxication Law

2011-12-30T11:00:00.001-05:00

From the Indianapolis Star:

State's agency's logo encourages people
to violate public intoxication law

Local police will conduct extra patrols and sobriety checkpoints across Indianapolis from 11 p.m. Saturday through 5 a.m. Sunday as part of an effort to get impaired motorists off the roads. The Downtown Indianapolis area and other places near popular drinking spots will be the focus of the effort.

The effort, called "DUI: Taskforce Indiana," is a project of the Marion County Traffic Safety Partnership.

Oficers from five agencies are involved: the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, Cumberland Police Department, Speedway Police Department, Lawrence Police Department and the Indiana State Police.

A grant from the Governor's Council on Impaired and Dangerous Driving funds the effort. Officials with the partnership advised anyone considering drinking alcohol to pre-arrange transportation options that don't involve getting behind the wheel -- such as riding with trusted designated drivers or hiring cab drivers.

Here's the thing. Even if you use a designated driver or ride in a cab, under the current interpretation of our law you are in a "public place" and can be convicted of public intoxication.
Here's part of what I wrote on my blog after the Supreme Court ruled on that issue last summer:

On Tuesday, the Indiana Supreme Court handed down Brenda Moore v. State of Indiana. A recitation of the facts are in order:

[Brenda Moore] had consumed two tall cans of beer at her sister's house on the evening of December 5, 2008. A friend of [Moore's] brother asked for a ride to visit a friend. [Moore] explained to him that she could not drive because she had been drinking but he could drive her car if he had a license. The brother's friend then drove the [Moore's] car with [Moore] riding as a front seat passenger. When an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer pulled over the car because the license plate was not working, the officer determined that the driver did not have a valid driver's license and that [Moore] could not operate the vehicle because she was intoxicated. The car was stopped on a public roadway, East 13th Street in Indianapolis. The officer observed that [Moore] had red, glassy, bloodshot eyes and slurred speech; she needed to lean against the car for balance; and she admitted that she had been drinking that night. She admitted, "I couldn't walk. So I couldn't have driven."

Moore was charged with Public Intoxication, a class B misdemeanor.

An Indiana Supreme Court decision in 1966, Miles v. State, 216 N.E.2d 847 (Ind. 1966), declared that a person parked alongside a highway was in a public place for the purposes of the public intoxication statute. Moore's argument was that considering the inside of a car to be a public place was against what the legislature intended when it passed the public intoxication law. She also argued that it was against the public policy of encouraging sober drivers to drive those who are too intoxicated to get behind a wheel.
Senator Michael Young
(R- Indianapolis)

Here's what I wrote in a followup article:

...Next year, when Senator Mike Young (R-Indianapolis) reintroduces his bill to reform Indiana's public intoxication law, he will be met with fierce resistance from law enforcement officials and prosecutors who will plead that the legislature not limit their "law enforcement tools" and who will assure the legislators they will exercise "discretion" wisely in using those tools.

If they will exercise their discretion reasonably, why did the IMPD officer use his "discretion" to not arrest Brenda Moore? Why did the Carl Brizzi's Marion County Prosecutor's Office exercise the "discretion" to not prosecute her? Here's another question, why did Attorney General Greg Zoeller appeal the decision to the Supreme Court to get the Court of Appeals decision in favor of the passenger thrown out and in the process deal a blow to successful designated driver programs all over the state, including programs run by the Indiana State Police who Zoeller represetns? Zoeller had the "discretion" to not appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

Here are some other questions. Will Chief Paul Ciesielski use his "discretion" to order IMPD officers to NOT arrest passengers of designated drivers for public intoxication? Will Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry use his "discretion" to say he will not prosecute passengers of designated drivers for public intoxication? Oh, and here's a question for the organization Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD): Do you support the Brenda Moore decision?

Remember folks, this case originated out of Marion County. IMPD, one of the law enforcement agencies involved in the partnership encouraging people to use designated drivers, did the arrest of Brenda Moore. The Marion County Prosecutor, who is head of this partnership, is the one who did the prosecutioni of Brenda Moore. The Attorney General represented the State on appeal in the Brenda Moore case in an effort to uphold her public intoxication conviction. The State also encourages people to violate the law. This from the Governor's Council on Impaired and Dangerous Driving located on the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute website:

Impaired driving is no accident - nor is it a victimless crime. It's not easy to tell when you' ve had way too many, but even one too many means you shouldn't drive. Tragedies that result from alcohol-related crashes can be prevented if everyone exercised some simple precautions:

Plan ahead. If you expect to consume alcohol, designate a sober driver before going out and give that person your keys;
If you are impaired, call a taxi, use mass transit, or call a sober friend or family member to get you home safely;

These suggestions can get you arrested for public intoxication.

Senator Greg Taylor
(D- Indianapolis)

Will these same agencies in 2011 support Senate Bill 97, introduced by Senators Mike Young and Greg Taylor so that passengers of designated drivers can no longer be arrested for public intoxication? Don't bet on it. Law enforcement officials love the discretion to arrest people using the public intoxication law which, by the way, does not require a chemical test to verify the person is actually intoxicated.

I have other questions. Will IMPD pledge to not arrest people for public intoxication when they are using a designated driver or taking a cab ride home after celebrating on New Year's Eve? Will Prosecutor Curry pledge to not prosecute people for public intoxication if they are acting responsibly by using a designated driver or taking a cab? Such a position has been taken by Hancock County officials. Yet our Marion County law enforcement officials and prosecutor thus far have refused to make that same pledge...all the while encouraging people to violate the law.

Latest Iowa Poll Shows Santorum Surge, Three Way Tie At Top With Six Candidates in the Running

2011-12-29T11:53:00.000-05:00

Insider Advantage released a poll today that shows how extremely competitive next Tuesday's Iowa caucus should be. Three candidates - Texas Congressman Ron Paul, Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former Speaker Newt Gingrich are all tied at 17% (when rounded off). Three other candidates - former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Texas Governor Rick Perry are all in double figures.

Let's look at the detailed polling results.

Total Support
Paul 17.3
Romney 17.2
Gingrich 16.7
Santorum 13.4
Bachmann 11.8
Perry 10.5

Support Among 18-29 year olds
Bachmann 24.6
Paul 21.6
Gingrich 16.3

Support Among 30-44 year olds
Paul 20.9
Bachmann 20.2
Gingrich 19.6

Support Among 45-64 year olds
Santorum 19.5
Paul 17.5
Romney 17.0
Gingrich 16.l8

Support of those older than 65
Romney 28.3
Perry 15.8
Gingrich 13.4

Men
Paul 23.1
Gingrich 16.8
Bachmann 15.5

Women
Romney 23.3
Gingrich 16.7
Santorum 15.8

Independents
Paul 32.9
Santorum 14.6
Gingrich 12.8

Note: There were not enough black or Hispanic voters polled to offer reliable comparisons of the support each candidate had within particular races/ethnicities.

Insider Advantage conducted a poll just 10 days earlier. Here is the result of that poll.

Iowa (12/18)
Paul 23.9
Romney 18.2
Perry 15.5
Gingrich 12.9
Bachmann 10.1
Santorum 2.9

Conclusions:

The conventional wisdom is that Paul, Romney and Gingrich are competing for first place in Iowa. Actually this poll shows it is more open than that. Santorum, Bachmann and Perry all have an outside shot of winning the caucus.
Santorum seems to surging, taking advantage of the support for other candidates dropping. His numbers went from 2.9% to 13.4% in just 10 days.
Gingrich's support actually went up from 12/18 to 12/28, from 12.9% to 16.7%. That doesn't seem consistent with other polling which shows support for the former Speaker wilting under constant attacks.
Romney has the most appeal to women while Paul is strongest among male voters.
Paul has a strong appeal to Iowa independents. He is undoubtedly will bring new voters to the Iowa caucus.
Romney does not appeal to independents in Iowa. Only 9.5% of the independents in that state identify Romney as the candidate they would support. He is not just behind Paul when it comes to independents, he's also behind Santorum (14.6%) and Gingrich (12.8%).

Santorum Surges in CNN Poll of Iowa Voters While Romney Takes Lead

2011-12-28T18:23:00.000-05:00

Rick Santorum

CNN released an interesting Iowa poll today.

Iowa (12/21-12/27)
Romney 25
Paul 22
Santorum 16
Gingrich 14
Perry 11
Bachmann 9

In reviewing whether there has been movement in polls, it is best to compare a recent poll to an earlier poll conducted by the same polling outfit. CNN did a poll in Iowa back in late November, early December.

Iowa (11/29-12/6)
Gingrich 33
Romney 20
Paul 17
Perry 9
Bachmann 7
Santorum 5

Public Policy Polling also released a poll today. PPP's poll though showed Paul maintaining a lead.

Iowa (12/26-12/27)
Paul 24
Romney 20
Gingrich 13
Bachmann 11
Perry 10
Santorum 10

PPP released an Iowa poll ten days ago that looked like this:

Iowa (12/16-12/18)
Paul 23
Romney 20
Gingrich 14
Perry 10
Santorum 10
Bachmann 10

CONCLUSIONS: I have always expected one of three of the non-Romney candidates, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, or Texas Governor Rick Perry, to defy expectations and be deemed a winner with a second or third place finish in Iowa. If it is Perry or Bachmann it would be a resurrection. But given the CNN poll, I'm more inclined to think it will be Santorum going to New Hampshire with momentum. The campaigns of the two other candidates will be on life support.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich appears to be in real trouble. His Iowa expectations have already been built up but his numbers are falling like a rock. He's likely to end up in 3rd or worse in Iowa, but more importantly as measured against expectations he is almost certainly to fail.

Congressman Ron Paul and former Massachusetts Mitt Romney appear positioned to fight it out for the top spot in the Iowa caucus. I think though Romney's surge is unfortunate for his campaign. He wasn't expected to win Iowa, but suddenly some polls are showing him leading that state. But I doubt he can compete in that state against Ron Paul's superior organization and enthusiastic supporters.

As of today, I expect the media will deem Ron Paul (1st place) and Santorum (2nd or 3rd place) as the "winners" of the Iowa caucus.

Ron Paul's Success Pushes Republican Party in a More Libertarian, More Isolationist Direction

2011-12-28T09:23:00.001-05:00

After the election last month, I wrote an open letter to my Libertarian friends arguing that the third-party strategy was not working and suggested if the party adherents were to become involved in the Republican Party (the party to which most Libertarians lean) they would immediately become an impact player influencing policy and election outcomes.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul

That letter undoubtedly irritated many of my Libertarian friends. I have a lot of respect for Libertarians, especially their consistent dedication to a philosophy I share at least 80% of the time. Libertarians make up some of the brightest minds in politics today and while the party organization is small, they are very well-organized and bring an enthusiasm that neither party can match. The problem though is the two party system is so firmly ingrained in voters' minds that Libertarians start every election giving the two major candidates a huge lead. Libertarians, and their small government, pro-liberty ideas, are left on the sidelines after every election.

My suggestion of being a small case libertarian within the Republican Party, is rejected by most libertarians. Libertarians believe the leadership as well as the party's policies, is impervious to change and that the route to change is the third party strategy. Yet the tea party became a major player on the state and national political scene not by being a third party but by working within the GOP to effect change and to nominate candidates.

While Libertarians insist their third party strategy is the best, their favorite Libertarian, Ron Paul, is proving them wrong. Ron Paul used his libertarian philosophy to get elected as a Republican congressman from Texas. Although a marginal presidential candidate in 2008, he is today one of the top three candidates in the race for the GOP nomination.

Peter Beinert who writes for the political blog "The Daily Beast" has penned an article that sums up my thoughts about the impact of Ron Paul on GOP politics:

We haven’t even said goodbye to 2011, but I want to be first in line with my person of the year prediction for 2012: Ron Paul. I don’t think Paul is going to win the presidency, or even win the Republican nomination. But he’s going to come close enough to change the GOP forever.

...

Even after World War II, Mr. Republican—Robert Taft—opposed the creation of NATO and called the Korean War unconstitutional. Dwight Eisenhower worked feverishly to scale back the Truman-era defense spending that he feared would bankrupt America and rob it of its civil liberties. Even conservative luminaries like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater who embraced the global anti-communist struggle made it clear that they were doing so with a heavy heart. Global military commitments, they explained, represented a tragic departure from small government conservatism, a departure justified only by the uniquely satanic nature of the Soviet threat.

The cold war lasted half a century, but isolationism never left the conservative DNA. And when the Soviet Union collapsed, some of America’s most prominent conservative intellectuals—people like Irving Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Pat Buchanan—argued that the GOP should become the party of Coolidge and Taft once again. The Republican Congress of the 1990s bitterly opposed Bill Clinton’s wars in the Balkans, and Buchanan, running on an isolationist platform, briefly led the GOP presidential field in 1996. Even the pre-9/11 Bush administration was so hostile to increased military spending that the Weekly Standard called on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign.

Given this history, it’s entirely predictable that in the wake of two disillusioning wars, a diminishing al Qaeda threat and mounting debt, someone like Ron Paul would come along. In Washington, Republican elites are enmeshed in a defense-industrial complex with a commercial interest in America’s global military footprint. But listen to Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh and see how often you hear them demanding that America keep fighting in Afghanistan, or even attack Iran. According to a November CBS News poll, as many Republicans said the U.S. should decrease its troop presence in Afghanistan as said America should increase it or keep it the same. In the same survey, only 22 percent of Republicans called Iran’s nuclear program “a threat that requires military action now” compared to more than fifty percent who said it “can be contained with diplomacy.” Almost three-quarters of Republicans said the U.S. should not try to change dictatorships to democracies.

....

Since the Iowa caucuses generally reward organization and passion, I suspect Paul will win them easily. That would likely propel him to a strong showing in libertarian New Hampshire. Somehow, I think Romney and the Republican establishment will find a way to defeat him in the vicious and expensive struggle that follows. But the dominant storyline at the Republican convention will be figuring out how to appease Paul sufficiently to ensure that he doesn’t launch a third party bid. And in so doing, the GOP will legitimize its isolationist wing in a way it hasn’t since 9/11.

In truth, the modern Republican Party has always been a house divided, pulled between its desire to crusade against evil abroad and its fear that that crusade will empower the evil of big government at home. In 2012, I suspect, Ron Paul will expose that division in a way it has not been exposed in a long time. And Republicans will not soon paper it over again.

The Beinert article focuses on foreign policy, saying what I've always said...there are a lot more isolationist-leaning Republicans out there than is reflected by the interventionist GOP presidential contenders who make up the rest of the field. But Paul will influence more than Republican foreign policy positions. On a whole host of domestic issues, including things like civil forfeiture, the war on drugs, same sex marriage, you are seeing Republican voters support more libertarian, pro-freedom positions. Ron Paul is tapping into that growing segment within the GOP.

When Ron Paul loses the GOP nomination, which is likely, a lot of Libertarians are going to suggest that is proof that working within the party does not work. Balderdash. Ron Paul's success in becoming a top tier GOP presidential candidate makes him an impact player within the GOP. Ron Paul is a trail blazer for a more libertarian, more isolationist Republican Party. As a libertarian Republican, Ron Paul will have done more for the libertarian cause than all the candidates who ever ran for office as a Libertarian.

Sheriff Layton Deserves Praise for Closing Privately-Run Women's Jail

2011-12-27T13:27:00.001-05:00

A few years ago I had a client, "Gail," a former nurse, who spent some time in Liberty Hall while awaiting trial on a DUI Charge. Liberty Hall is the women's jail off of Washington Street, run by Community Education Centers.

Liberty Hall

Gail had severe health problems, including a severe life-threatening ulcer that was dangerously near a bariatric incision in her stomach. (The fact she could kick the smoking habit made that problem worse.) Gail told me how she arrived from Jail #1 at the start of the weekend and couldn't access her medication until the following Monday because the jail had no medical staff present during the weekend.

Gail said she was often pressed into service dealing with inmates' medical problems because the jail did not have staff available. This included women who were pregnant and experienced medical problems.  The jail did not have medical care 24/7 even though it housed as many as 250 female inmates. Guards, lacking any sort of medical training, would distribute prescribed medication, which I understand is not permitted.

The stories Gail told about medical issues at Liberty Hall were shocking. While in jail, Gail tried writing to Sheriff Frank Anderson about medical problems at Liberty Hall.  Anderson ignored her. Even when Gail filed a lawsuit about the problems, Sheriff Anderson refused to even so much as order a review on the medical and other problems at Liberty Hall. That was always the case with Sheriff Anderson. When it came to the privatized jails in Marion County, he refused to exercise any oversight whatsoever over the private contractors. While Jail #1, operated directly by the Sheriff, was very well run, the privatized jails in Marion County were rife with problems, problems Sheriff Anderson wasn't interested in addressing as part of his job.

One of the legacies of Sheriff Anderson's hands-off approach to the private jail contractors was the death of Amber Redden who died in February after suffering internal hemorrhaging because of an ectopic pregnancy.   Unlike Anderson, Sheriff Layton quickly swung into action. According to a WRTV report at the time, Sheriff Layton said he lost faith in Liberty Hall:

"I was quite disappointed, and I was upset by the death of this young woman," Layton said.

Staff members talked with an on-call nurse as Redden's health deteriorated before her death, Layton said.

"But those personnel weren't medically trained. They saw one thing and thought it was something else," he said.

...

Layton said he will assign deputies to the Liberty Hall and Marion County Jail II, another privately run facility.

"I need to put my own people in there … to make sure things are getting done the way I would want them done," Layton said.

Sheriff John Layton

The problems at Liberty Hall and at Jail II, which is run by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) were repeatedly documented and made known to Sheriff Anderson, who refused to even acknowledge the existence of those complaints. Despite the several inmate deaths and injuries at the private jails, as well as other problems like poor security and inmate trafficking, not once during his eight years in office did Sheriff Anderson conduct any investigation or exercise any real oversight with respect to the facilities. Under Sheriff Anderson, CCA and CEC were all but given a blank check to run the jails as the private companies saw fit, even if the way those jails were operated violated Indiana and federal law.

Back in March, I applauded the action Sheriff Layton took with respect to the private jails. (See below link.)

Yesterday it was announced that Liberty Hall would be closing, CEC's five year contract to run the facility having come to an end. Although not renewing the contract was billed as a cost-cutting move, I have no doubt that the problems with private jail contractors were a consideration of Sheriff Layton's. In addition to the poor management that CCA and CEC offer, I think the Sheriff recognizes that the claimed taxpayer savings offered by private jail contractors don't stand up when all the costs of these facilities are reviewed.

It is refreshing to see Sheriff Layton taking seriously his oversight responsibility when it comes to these private jails. My hope is that he is able to end CCA's contract to run Jail #2 early or decides not to renew it when the contract runs out. The Marion County Sheriff's Department does an excellent job running Jail #1. Putting Jail #2 under the Sheriff's Department would undoubtedly result in a better run facility with savings to taxpayers.

Unfortunately Gail passed away before seeing the action Sheriff Layton has taken with regard to the private jails, and Liberty Hall in particular. I am sure she would have been thrilled.

See also:
Tuesday, February 22, 2011, Another Marion County Jail Death; Will New Sheriff John Layton Investigate Medical Care at Private Jail Facilities and Demand Accountability?

Monday, March 7, 2011, Sheriff John Layton Orders Changes at Privately-Run Jails

Decision of Virginia GOP to Adopt New Policy Verifying Signatures on Candidate Petitions Cost Gingrich Position on Primary Ballot

2011-12-26T13:44:00.000-05:00

One of the most difficult things in mounting a campaign for President is complying with ballot access laws that vary widely from state to state. To get on the primary ballot, some state (or state party organizations) require presidential candidates to obtain a certain number of signatures from registered voters state-wide, by congressional district, by county or of some combination thereof. The heftier the signature requirements are the more difficult it is to get candidates on the ballot.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich

That brings us to Virginia. Former Speaker New Gingrich, from nearby Georgia, has led former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in the two December polls done in the state, 41-15 and most recently 30-25. But Gingrich failed to secure enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot in Virginia. Only former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul obtained enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Here is a dirty secret about politics. Signatures on candidate petitions are often not checked. To check to see whether individuals who signed are registered voters is a very tedious process. Individuals might sign a candidate's petition several times, but they can only be counted one time. People may sign with fake names and/or addresses. Canvassers hired to obtain signatures, are often paid on a per signature basis, and thus have a tempting incentive to fake signatures. Or an overly enthusiastic supporter may decide to fake names to help the candidate qualify. Indeed that is exactly that happened here in Indiana with the petitions to get then candidate Barack Obama on the 2008 Democratic Primary ballot. It turns out that many of the signatures on Obama's petitions were (allegedly) forged, including that of former Indiana Governor Joe Kernan.

Any audit of the validity of signatures on a candidate's petitions is going to knock down the count. The question is how much and whether the prospective candidate has enough of a cushion of signatures to survive the verification process. That is why if 10,000 signatures are required from a congressional district in a state, you don't submit just 10,500....you submit 13,000.

It turns out that the petition signature verification process which ensnared Gingrich and Texas Governor Rick Perry is new. The process was initiated following a 2011 lawsuit was filed by an independent congressional candidate who complained that his petition signatures were reviewed for validity while the Republican candidate in the district was not. While that case is still pending, apparently the Virginia GOP decided it best to have a blanket policy of validating the signatures of all primary candidates. Richard Winger, of writing the blog, Ballot Access news provides some excellent background:

There are currently many news stories and blog discussions about the Virginia presidential primary ballot access law. Some large blogs, such as Red State, have over 300 comments about the story. Some defend the current Virginia ballot access laws on the grounds that in past presidential elections, a fairly large number of Republican presidential primary candidates managed to qualify.

But what has not been reported is that in the only other presidential primaries in which Virginia required 10,000 signatures (2000, 2004, and 2008) the signatures were not checked. Any candidate who submitted at least 10,000 raw signatures was put on the ballot. In 2000, five Republicans qualified: George Bush, John McCain, Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer, and Steve Forbes. In 2004 there was no Republican primary in Virginia. In 2008, seven Republicans qualified: John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Alan Keyes.

The only reason the Virginia Republican Party checked the signatures for validity for the current primary is that in October 2011, an independent candidate for the legislature, Michael Osborne, sued the Virginia Republican Party because it did not check petitions for its own members, when they submitted primary petitions. Osborne had no trouble getting the needed 125 valid signatures for his own independent candidacy, but he charged that his Republican opponent’s primary petition had never been checked, and that if it had been, that opponent would not have qualified. The lawsuit, Osborne v Boyles, cl 11-520-00, was filed in Bristol County Circuit Court. It was filed too late to be heard before the election, but is still pending. The effect of the lawsuit was to persuade the Republican Party to start checking petitions. If the Republican Party had not changed that policy, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry would be on the 2012 ballot.

Civil Discourse Now Discusses Indiana's Voter ID Law, Early Voting and Vote Centers

2011-12-26T12:33:00.000-05:00

Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4

Did Court Miss Statute Dealing With "Nontraditional Residences" In Deciding White Case?

2011-12-23T20:56:00.000-05:00

Secretary of State Charlie White

I have to give credit where credit is due. Doug Masson, an attorney who runs the excellent blog, Masson's Blog, does an excellent summary of Marion County Judge Louis Rosenberg's opinion that concludes that Secretary of State Charlie White was not eligible to be elected Secretary of State because he was not legally registered at his ex-wife's house. In the process, Masson does some research and hits on a statute that appears to have been overlooked by the parties, or at least was not discussed in the opinion. Before looking at that statute, let's first review the residency statute that is at the heart of the Charlie White case:

IC 3-5-2-42.5: “”Residence” means the place (1) where a person has the person’s true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment; and (2) to which the person has, whenever absent, the intention of returning.”

Judge Rosenberg concluded that White had moved out of the apartment but had not moved into the condo. However, he said White's stay at the ex-wife's house could not have been his residence because he was only there temporarily awaiting the move to the condo. As I have argued, by law everyone has a residence and the only residence White could possibly have claimed is his ex-wife's house where the facts are he was living.

Attorney Masson though raises another issue, the possible applicability of a statute not discussed in Judge Rosenberg's opinion. That statute is IC 3-5-5-18:

“Notwithstanding IC 3-5-2-42.5, an individual with a nontraditional residence whose residence is within a precinct, but is not fixed or permanent, resides in that precinct.”

That seems to deal exactly with the facts of White's living situation. The statute says that even if he is staying temporarily at his ex-wife's house, he is a resident in that precinct. And that is precisely where White registered to vote.

Court Finds White's Living at Ex-Wife's House Was Temporary and Thus Not His Residence; Flawed Rationale Leaves White Without a Residence

2011-12-22T20:42:00.001-05:00

Secretary of State Charlie White

In a decision handed down today, Marion County Circuit Judge Louis Rosenberg ruled that Secretary of State Charlie White was unlawfully registered at his ex-wife's house. Because of that unlawful registration, Judge Rosenberg ruled that White was ineligible to be elected as Secretary of State and that the second highest votegetter in the race, Democrat Vop Osili, should be awarded the office. The Election Commission, whose decision Judge Rosenberg overturned, has already indicated it intends to appeal.

Before delving into the decision, it is first necessary to look at the three residences at which White lived and the dates of those registrations

Broad Leaf (previous marital home): Before 2006
Pintail Apartment: January 2007
Broad Leaf (ex-wife's home); February 22, 2010
Overview Condo: September 22, 2010

The law Judge Rosenberg was applying is IC 3-8-1-1 which says:

(b) A person is not qualified to run for:

(1) a state office...

Unless the person is registered to vote in the election district the person seeks to represent not later than the deadline for filing the declaration or petition of candidacy or certificate of nomination.

That deadline to file the declaration of candidacy for Secretary of State was July 15, 2010.

In the decision, Judge Rosenberg looked at the evidence heard before the Commission. While counsel for the Democrats had argued that White had moved to Overview Condo and should have been registered there, that is not what Judge Rosenberg focused on. Rather the judge decided that the evidence established that White was living at that Broad Leaf house where he was registered when he voted in the May primary and even as late as July 15th, but that the stay in the Broad Leaf house was "temporary" and thus did not meet the definition of "residence." IC 3-5-2-42.5 states:

"Residence" means the place:

(1) where a person has the person's true, fixed and permanent home and principle establishment; and

(2) to which the person has, whenever absent, the intent of returning.

Judge Rosenberg concluded that because White did not have a lease at the Broad Leaf home, did not have an ownership interest in the home (he had quitclaimed it to his now ex-wife as part of the divorce), and could at any time be asked to leave, that White was a "guest" and since it was not his "permanent" home he should not have registered there. The decision states:

The finding of the Commission that White intended to reside at the Broad Leaf address until he was married appears to render that house a temporary residence in the same sense as a stay in a school dormitory until studies are completed is a temporary or a stay in a hotel while searching for or starting a job might be temporary.

Marion County Circuit Court
Judge Louis Rosenberg

In the opinion, Judge Rosenberg suggests he need not make a determination of White's residence, i.e. where White should have been registered.  I disagree.  When a judge determines that the place where one is staying is "temporary" and thus not the person's "residence," that means there is another location that the person is living which is his or her permanent living quarters, i.e. the person's residence. With regard to White, what is that location?

Reading between the lines it appears even Judge Rosenberg agrees it would not have been appropriate for White to register at the Overview Condo since the evidence was that he had not yet moved in. It is also unlikely that White should have continued using the Pintail Apartment to vote and run for office from when his lease had long expired and he had moved out. Certainly the Democrats would have been screaming about voter fraud (and quite rightly) if White had tried that.

If registering at White's ex-wife's house was improper because it was a "temporary" stay for White and he could not have registered at the Overview Condo because he had not yet moved in there and he had long ago move out of the Pintail apartment, then where should White have been registered on July 15, 2011?   Applying Judge Rosenberg's rationale, renders White without a residence on July 15, 2010, a decision which not only disenfranchises him but makes him ineligible to run for Secretary of State.

I don't agree with that conclusion.   With all due respect to Judge Rosenberg, who I truly believe is one of our best judges in Marion County (I'm not just saying that), I believe his interpretation of "temporary" is far too narrow and was never to be interpreted in such a way as to disenfranchise people by leaving them without a residence.  Certainly this decision will be appealed to the Court of Appeals and the Indiana Supreme Court. I would guess that the decision, which overturns the result of an election, which courts historically oppose doing, will almost certainly be overturned. It might be the appellate courts decide on narrower grounds, such as that the Democrats waited too long to raise the issue - that it should have been raised before the election.

Note: In writing this I struggled to avoid using the contradictory phrase "temporary residence" as the court did in its opinion. By definition a "residence" is a "permanent home." (See above.) Therefore, if it is a "temporary" abode it cannot be a "residence."

Was Brizzi's Decision to Drop Investigation of DCS Following Infant's Death Connected to His Becoming DCS's Landlord Months Later?

2011-12-22T14:44:00.000-05:00

The legendary news commentator Paul Harvey used to conclude his daily show in a segment called "The Rest of the Story." In the segment, Harvey would provide interesting, unknown background to an event that happened. This is my version of the rest of the story on the purchase/lease of the Elkhart Building to the Department of Child Services (DCS) which has led to the indictment of a politically-connected real estate broker and two attorneys.


Former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi

Let's turn the clock back to late November 2007, to review a portion of an Indianapolis Star article talking about the tragic events involving the Tijuana Bailey:

Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi wants to know why the state Department of Child Services did not notify police after a caseworker determined TaJanay Bailey was physically abused in 2006.

A hospital emergency room visit documented bruises on the toddler’s body after a May 2006 visit with her mother, Charity Bailey, and Bailey’s boyfriend, Lawrence Green.
Bailey and Green now face charges of murder and neglect in the death of the 3-year-old Tuesday.

Brizzi said the abuse was among the worst he’d seen in a criminal case, and he planned to try the case himself. He said prosecutors could use the victim’s age and the use of torture as statutory aggravators when they press for a life sentence.
About 5:30 a.m. Tuesday, Bailey woke TaJanay and saw she “had boo-booed and peed herself,” Bailey told police. She said she took the girl to the bathroom to clean her off, the affidavit says, and Green then began “whipping TaJanay with his black leather belt.”

In his statement, Green told police he did hit the girl, but Bailey was already screaming at her and striking her, too. Bailey hit the girl in the head with her knee, knocking TaJanay’s head against the wall, Green told police. Police called to investigate TaJanay’s death were appalled at the condition of the apartment, in the 4100 block of Edgemere Court.

Police say Bailey and Green abused TaJanay over the past two weeks, including hanging her on a coat hook by her T-shirt, beating her with a belt and knocking her in the chest for wetting her pants. While hanging from the hook, the girl’s shirt left marks under her arms and on the back of her neck, said a probable cause affidavit that Brizzi filed Wednesday.

James W. Payne, director of the state Department of Child Services, said Wednesday that he is prohibited by law from talking about specifics of the case, including whether police were notified. But he pledged an aggressive review of the way TaJanay’s case was handled to determine whether the agency or its workers did anything wrong, and what could be done to prevent similar tragedies.
At this point, he said, nothing indicates a system breakdown or individual misconduct contributing to the death. He said the review will take about two weeks. “These tragic events will, unfortunately, occur,” he said. “We know we can’t protect and prevent everything.”

Brizzi said his office had not been able to find a police report resulting from the 2006 hospital visit. The injuries should have prompted a police investigation because even the doctor noted physical abuse, he said.

“Someone from the government . . . went in and said it was OK for her to return to the home,” he said. “I’m not sure where the blame lies, but we have a dead 3-year-old little girl.”

DCS Director James Payne

In December of 2007, Prosecutor Brizzi announced he intended to do a thorough investigation of DCS and how state officials dropped the ball on protecting Tijuana Bailey. This is how Gary Welsh of Advance Indiana described that followup article now no longer available for free on-line:

According to a story in the Indianapolis Star, Marion Co. Prosecutor Carl Brizzi expressed deep concern about DCS's handling of the case and promised a complete and full investigation. Specifically, Brizzi wanted to know why DCS officials had failed to notify police after they learned Tajanay had been physically abused in the home in 2006 and why she had been returned to that same home. At the time Brizzi made those comments, Tajanay's tragic killing was all over the news. As time passed, we never heard from Brizzi again about DCS.

According to my sources, Prosecutor Brizzi's decision to investigate DCS was met with fierce resistance by officials in state government, including Governor Daniels himself who reportedly was furious with Brizzi's public announcement that the intended to investigate DCS and its head, former Marion County Judge Jim Payne. The planned investigation went nowhere.

Three months later, in February of 2008, Brizzi became a 50% silent owner of a building in Elkhart, an ownership acquired without putting any money up for purchase. Five months later, Brizzi and Attorney Paul Page became landlord of DCS as the agency rented the Elkhart space for an office. Issues behind that deal has led Page, another attorney, and real estate developer John Bales to be indicted last week by a federal jury.

Was there a connection between the decision by Brizzi to drop the investigation of DCS and his later becoming the landlord for tenant DCS in a deal in which he did not have to put up any ownership of the building? If so, the people involved could well be charged with obstruction of justice.

It is possible that Brizzi decided to not press forward with the investigation because of a lack of evidence DCS did anything wrong, at least criminally. However, a later investigation by the Indianapolis Star, reported in May of 2010, suggests DCS almost certainly failed in its responsibility to protect Bailey:

The Indianapolis Star has obtained documents that reveal the Department of Child Services placed 11-week-old Destiny Linden with a foster family even after an advocate warned the agency about the care and safety of other foster children in the home.

A week later, Destiny was dead.

She was placed with the family in April, five months after DCS was accused of ignoring warnings prior to the death of TaJanay Bailey -- a 3-year-old fatally beaten in November after DCS returned the toddler to her mother and the woman's boyfriend.

In both cases, it was an advocate who watches out for the best interests of children in state care who raised the red flags.

According to a report written by the advocate, Destiny's foster parents, Everett and Kimberly Coleman, did little to supervise children in their care, including leaving them to prepare their own meals and failing to treat a child burned while ironing clothes. The advocate specifically recommended that all children be removed from the home. But DCS continued placing children, including Destiny, in the foster home and even increased the number of children the couple were licensed to care for in early April.

The advocate who raised concerns about the Colemans -- just like the advocate in TaJanay's case -- was so unsatisfied with DCS' response that she turned to the courts in hopes of persuading a judge to order the removal of the children.

In both cases, the child died before the courts could act -- and in each instance, DCS workers insisted after the children's deaths that they were not made aware of the full extent of the advocates' concerns.

One other fact the cases share: There has been no independent investigation of the agency's actions.

Was that "independent investigation" of DCS that Brizzi promised diverted by the Elkhart lease deal with DCS?

Civil Discourse Now Discusses Whether US Should Have Interventionist Foreign Policy

2011-12-21T23:53:00.001-05:00

Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4