Gary Johnson to Return to the Hoosier State

Libertarian Party of Indiana Executive Director Chris Spangle confirmed on Facebook this afternoon that Gary Johnson will be returning to Indiana.  Spangle stated that Johnson will be at the Moral Fire Station in Shelbyville Wednesday at 6:00 pm. Spangle also indicated that Johnson will be in Indiana both Wednesday and Thursday, and other stops are being planned.

Johnson made a stop in Indianapolis earlier this month. He had a speaking engagement at IUPUI, followed by a fundraiser at the Rupert for Governor headquarters.

New Gary Johnson Ad

I know I risk turning this blog into the Gary Johnson Fan Page, but he's putting out good quality ads.

Here's the latest.

Please share with friends and family.  Please ask for him to be included in the debates.

Fill to Donate

Full NameEmailAmount$25$50$100$250$500$1,000$2,500$5,000

Gary Johnson: A New Ad

Gary Johnson has a new ad out.

I covered his first six ads in a series of posts on these pages a week ago.  I guess we'll consider this a follow-up.

Let's Talk Gary Johnson (pt. 6 of 6)

Now that the Republican and Democratic conventions are in the past, I want to spend a few days talking about the Libertarian Party's Presidential Candidate, Governor Gary Johnson.

He has a series of very well-produced commercials.  They are very upbeat and positive.  Unlike most political ads today, they spend their time to explain why Johnson is the best choice, instead of saying why the other guys suck.

Since you are unlikely to see these ads on TV too often, I am going to share them with you here.  Each day this week I will be posting one of Gary Johnson's ads.  I hope that, if you enjoy them and believe Gary Johnson should at least be considered by the voters, you will share these videos with your friends on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and in person.

Let's Talk Gary Johnson (pt. 5 of 6)

Now that the Republican and Democratic conventions are in the past, I want to spend a few days talking about the Libertarian Party's Presidential Candidate, Governor Gary Johnson.

He has a series of very well-produced commercials.  They are very upbeat and positive.  Unlike most political ads today, they spend their time to explain why Johnson is the best choice, instead of saying why the other guys suck.

Since you are unlikely to see these ads on TV too often, I am going to share them with you here.  Each day this week I will be posting one of Gary Johnson's ads.  I hope that, if you enjoy them and believe Gary Johnson should at least be considered by the voters, you will share these videos with your friends on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and in person.

Let's Talk Gary Johnson (pt. 4 of 6)

Now that the Republican and Democratic conventions are in the past, I want to spend a few days talking about the Libertarian Party's Presidential Candidate, Governor Gary Johnson.

He has a series of very well-produced commercials.  They are very upbeat and positive.  Unlike most political ads today, they spend their time to explain why Johnson is the best choice, instead of saying why the other guys suck.

Since you are unlikely to see these ads on TV too often, I am going to share them with you here.  Each day this week I will be posting one of Gary Johnson's ads.  I hope that, if you enjoy them and believe Gary Johnson should at least be considered by the voters, you will share these videos with your friends on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and in person.

Let's Talk Gary Johnson (pt. 3 of 6)

Now that the Republican and Democratic conventions are in the past, I want to spend a few days talking about the Libertarian Party's Presidential Candidate, Governor Gary Johnson.

He has a series of very well-produced commercials.  They are very upbeat and positive.  Unlike most political ads today, they spend their time to explain why Johnson is the best choice, instead of saying why the other guys suck.

Since you are unlikely to see these ads on TV too often, I am going to share them with you here.  Each day this week I will be posting one of Gary Johnson's ads.  I hope that, if you enjoy them and believe Gary Johnson should at least be considered by the voters, you will share these videos with your friends on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and in person.

Let's Talk Gary Johnson (pt. 2 of 6)

Now that the Republican and Democratic conventions are in the past, I want to spend a few days talking about the Libertarian Party's Presidential Candidate, Governor Gary Johnson.

He has a series of very well-produced commercials.  They are very upbeat and positive.  Unlike most political ads today, they spend their time to explain why Johnson is the best choice, instead of saying why the other guys suck.

Since you are unlikely to see these ads on TV too often, I am going to share them with you here.  Each day this week I will be posting one of Gary Johnson's ads.  I hope that, if you enjoy them and believe Gary Johnson should at least be considered by the voters, you will share these videos with your friends on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and in person.

Let's Talk Gary Johnson (pt. 1 of 6)

Now that the Republican and Democratic conventions are in the past, I want to spend a few days talking about the Libertarian Party's Presidential Candidate, Governor Gary Johnson.

He has a series of very well-produced commercials.  They are very upbeat and positive.  Unlike most political ads today, they spend their time to explain why Johnson is the best choice, instead of saying why the other guys suck.

Since you are unlikely to see these ads on TV too often, I am going to share them with you here.  Each day this week I will be posting one of Gary Johnson's ads.  If you enjoy these videos and/or you believe that Gary Johnson should at least be considered by the voters, I hope you will share them with your friends on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and in person.

Obama's Gay Marriage Statement: Right Message, Wrong Reason...Again

President Obama declared yesterday that he now agrees that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.  In an ABC News interview, Obama stated that his views have been evolving and that now, "it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."

This is an issue I feel strongly about.  I applaud Obama for publicly making this statement.

BUT...

This is the third time where Obama has seemed to only care about LGBT issues during a summer election season.  I'm glad he takes the stances he does, but I wish he didn't only do it when it was politically beneficial for him to do so.

You might remember that, in 2008, Obama campaigned on getting rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT).  When Obama was elected, though, DADT was an issue that fell by the wayside.  Obama's Democrats had commanding control of both houses of Congress (57-41 in the Senate and 256-178 in the House).  Obama had the ability to, upon inauguration, get rid of DADT very rapidly and with no chance of losing.

But he didn't.  If DADT was really that important to Obama he had the strength to bat it aside and not look back.  Instead, though, after Obama was inaugurated you never heard about his dedication to ridding the military of DADT again.  That is, until election season in 2010.

Suddenly, with an important election looming, Obama was again vocal about his dedication to get rid of DADT.  DADT became a hot-button issue of the 2010 election.  Obama and the Democrats campaigned long and hard on the issue.

I'm glad they campaigned on the issue in 2010.  And I'm glad they were successful.  Readers of this blog will remember that, on more than one occasion, I questioned the sincerity of Obama and DADT because of the timing gap.  And I still do.

Since forgetting about DADT for almost two years before (re)making it an issue on an election year, Obama again forgot about LGBT issues.  It was something that wasn't mentioned at all for nearly two more years.  Until today.

Today, as another election season begins to steam ahead, Obama suddenly cares about the gay community again.  This time stating that he is now in favor of the rights of gays to marry.

Based on his history, I'll have to make a prediction on how this will unfold.  I believe this will be a hotly discussed topic for the remainder of the election season.  I believe Obama will most likely get re-elected.  Then, I believe, we won't hear much more about gay rights.  That is, until 2014.  During 2014, Obama and Company will again suddenly make LGBT rights and awareness an issue.

I don't doubt Obama's support for these issues.  I just wish he'd focus on them because he's dedicated to them and it's the right thing to do.  Instead, he focuses on them because he's dedicated to his Party and it's the right thing to do for Obama.

(FWIW, the Libertarian Party has been openly committed to LGBT rights since its founding.  Most Libertarian candidates, such as Presidential contender Gary Johnson and Indiana Gubernatorial candidate Rupert Boneham, have made pledges dedicating to fight for equality if elected.)

Lugar Asks Voters to Break the Law in Effort to Re-Elect Him

Dick Lugar is desperate to win in Tuesday's primary election.  How desperate?  He's publicly calling for people to break the law to help make it happen.

Indianapolis Business Journal is reporting that Lugar has sent out a call for Independents and Democrats to cross party lines and ask for a Republican ballot in the primary.  He asks they will then use their vote to help him defeat challenger Richard Mourdock.

The problem with that is that it may be illegal for voters to cross the party lines as Lugar is asking them to do.  According to Indiana law, you can only pull a party's ballot in a primary if you cast at least half of your votes for that party in the previous general election, or if you intend to cast at least half your votes for that party in the next general election.

Independents may not be breaking the law very often by pulling a primary ballot that they normally wouldn't.  Democrats and Libertarians who pull a Republican ballot for the sake of the Senate or Presidential race, or some other reason, are clearly in violation and are committing voter fraud.

Is that an enforceable law?  No, not at all.  The only way the law could ever be enforced is if we moved away from a secret ballot.  That, of course, is never going to happen.

But whether it is an enforceable law doesn't change the fact that it is the law, and Dick Lugar is asking people to break it for his own political gain.

Rupert Makes Pledge to the LGBT Community on Marriage Equality

One of the more divisive issues in our communities today is the future of LGBT rights.  Marriage is at the forefront of this issue.  Whether you are for or against the rights of homosexuals to marry, the topic is hotly debated in just about every political arena.

Other issues the LGBT community are fighting for include inheritance rights and hospital visitation rights.  Without the ability to marry, if one partner in a homosexual relationship dies, then the surviving partner doesn't have the tax benefits on the inheritance that a similar heterosexual couple would have.  And if a LGBT partner is hospitalized, the other partner may not have visitation rights if the family disagrees...something that would obviously never be possible to happen against a spouse in a heterosexual marriage.

Over the last few years the fight for LGBT rights has become the civil rights issue of the generation.  There have been great advances in the fight.  A handful of states have started to allow gay marriage.  Hate crimes laws now include acts against homosexuals.  The public attitude has become welcoming enough that many that formerly would have stayed in the closet for their entire life are now comfortable coming out at an early age.

The obstacles yet to overcome far outweigh the advances, though.  While many now feel comfortable coming out that may not have, by doing so they face the potential to face dangerous bullying issues...especially while still of school age.  Entire segments of the population still fight against homosexuality; they fight over things like why people are gay and they fight over what rights the LGBT community may have.  They do everything they can do to "keep the gay away."

In politics, the fight is just as grand.  The Republicans, with little exception, fight with all their might to prevent LGBTs from having any kind of benefits at all.  For the most part, the gay community responds by rarely voting Republican.  And who can blame them?

Confusingly to me, though, the LGBTs turn their support to the Democrats.  While the Democrats don't go out of their way to fight against gay rights, they sure don't go out of their way to support them, either.  It feels like  the LGBTs just choose to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Examples?  Let's start with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Which Republican signed this bill that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and also keeps states from having to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state (despite the constitutional requirement to do so)? No Republican at all.  The bill was signed by Democrat Bill Clinton in 1996.

And what Republican signed into law Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT)?  Again, none.  The bill was signed into law by...you guessed it...Democrat Bill Clinton in 1993.

But, wait!  Democrat President Barack Obama got rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell, didn't he?!?  Yes, he did.  But let's look at how he did it.  Throughout the 2008 Presidential campaign, he indicated that getting rid of DADT was a priority to him. But how much of a priority did he make it once he took office in January 2009?  The answer is he didn't make it a priority at all.  In fact, after he was elected we never heard him mention it again for about 18 months.

Why did he wait for 18 months to bring it back up?  He had the majority in the House and the Senate.  If it was REALLY a priority for Obama, all he had to do was tell his friends in Congress to get the bill on his desk, and it would have been law in very short order.

Instead, though, Obama used the LGBT community to his political advantage.  He only made an issue out of it when he felt he could pick up a few votes with it.  He campaigned on its importance in 2008 to get votes.  Then he ignored them for nearly two years.  Then it suddenly became important again in 2010 when he could again use it as leverage for votes.  In the meantime, LGBTs spent two years either choosing to not serve in our military, or serving and hiding who they are.  Obama made them suffer for all that time so he could pick up a few more votes for he and his party.

The same attitude is going on right now in Indiana and it's Gubernatorial race.  Ask a member of the gay community what they think of Mike Pence and they are likely to despise him.  After all, Pence openly fights against gay rights.

But then ask LGBTs who they're going to vote for this fall and they are likely to say John Gregg.  Why?  Not because he's on their side, but because he's the lesser of two evils.

As my friend an fellow blogger Mike Kole recently wrote on his blog The Kole Hard Facts of Life, John Gregg is no friend to the LGBT community.  When it comes to LGBT issues, Gregg is suspiciously silent.  If he does support LGBT rights, he sure isn't saying so. And he may very well be against those rights...we just don't know.

If Gregg does support LGBT rights, why would he keep quiet about it?  There's only three possible reaons: A) He's embarrassed by his position;  B) He feels his position could harm him politically; or  C) He doesn't really support LGBT rights.

If you are LGBT, which of those makes you comfortable voting for Gregg?  Do you want to vote for someone who's embarrassed to support you?  Do you want to vote for someone whose principals are so low he'd hide his support for you to gain political advantage?  Do you want to vote for someone who is against you?  I bet the answer is "No!" to all three.

There is an Indiana Gubernatorial candidate that isn't John Gregg or Mike Pence, though.  And guess what, LGBTs, he's made a public pledge to support marriage equality and LGBT rights.

That's right, Rupert Boneham is a friend to the LGBT community.  He's not embarrassed by it.  He stands by his principals and admits it.  He will fight for you.

As we head into the fall elections, I hope you will remember that.  Of course, there are many more issues than just LGBT rights.  Rupert will be making several trips around the state in the next several months.  He makes himself very accessible and is always happy to talk policy with Hoosiers.  If you will be attending Circle City IN Pride this year, Rupert plans to be there all day at the Libertarian Party booth.  Please stop by.

Tully Misses Key Points in His "Why Vote in the Primary" Column

A reader wrote to the Star's Matthew Tully and asked him to pen a column on why it important to vote in the primary.  Tully did so in his column today and, for the most part, I agree with the points he's made.  He did leave out a couple bits of information that I think are important to know about the primaries, though.

First, it is important to remember that the primary votes are actually closed party business.  They are open to the public and taxpayer funded, but when you vote in a primary you are declaring yourself to be a member of that party.  This isn't a problem for lifelong Democrats or Republicans.  For the majority of people that declare themselves independent of a party label, though, you are making a statement of affiliation by voting in a primary.  

Actually, it may even be illegal for you to vote in a primary in certain situations. Although impossible to track and enforce, you are legally only allowed to vote in a party's primary if you the majority of the votes you cast in the last general election were for that party, or if the majority of the votes you intend to cast in the next general election are for that party.  Again, this is not possible to enforce, but like using the honor box in a parking garage, it's just the right thing to do if you are a person of integrity.

Second, you are giving the parties a LOT of information about yourself when you vote in the primaries.  In a world where everyone throws a fit every time Facebook changes their privacy policies, you should consider the information that you are giving the political parties each time you vote.

No, they don't know exactly who you vote for when you step inside the ballot box.  But it is a matter of public record which party's ballot you pull, how often you vote, and which elections you vote in.  For the purposes of marketing their candidates to you most effectively, the parties consider this some of the most valuable information they have and they use it a lot.  And I mean a LOT.

Every one of you that has ever voted is on a list that the political parties has.  And you are categorized.  Based on the information above, the parties label you in many ways.  "Hard R."  "Soft D."  Whatever.  Did you ever wonder how your neighbor got one mailer for a candidate, and you got a completely different one?  It's based on your voting histories.  Your neighbor votes more, or votes less, or never votes in the primaries, or always pulls the same party's ballot, or never pulls the same parties ballot, or whatever.  

Based on that information, the parties know to send the mailer that bashes a candidate to the voter they deem most susceptible to that message.  And the happy message to the voter that will respond to that.  And the Hard Rs and Hard Ds probably don't get much money wasted on them for mailers at all, because their votes are so predictable that no mailer will swing them.  It's voter profiling, and it happens constantly.

Third, if you are a member or supporter of a third party, such as the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party, then you don't get to participate in the primaries at all.  The two major parities have crafted it this way through legislation.  They don't want the third parties to be able to participate in the primaries because they don't want the third parties to know who their voters are.  The voter profiling that the two major parties do constantly and completely rely on is a benefit they don't want to give to anyone else.  They abhor competition.

So think about this before you go vote in a primary.  I'm not telling you to not cast your primary vote, I'm just saying that you should be aware of what you are doing when you do. You are saying "I'm a Republican, world!" or "Hey, Public! I'm a Democrat!"  You are submitting yourself to a world of intense profiling.  You are opening yourself up in ways you probably didn't want to know.

(As an aside, if there is a school board race or other non-partisan vote taking place along with the primaries, then you can always ask for a ballot that only includes those non-partisan races.  By doing so, you can submit your vote in those important races without making a party declaration.)

5 Reasons to Believe 2012 is Going to be a Big Year for Libertarians

Libertarians have been around long enough to have had good years and bad years.  They've won a few elections here and there, and have been appointed to plenty of offices.  People have shown an enormous interest in their political philosophy, but just haven't got around to voting for them in big numbers yet.

Still, the Libertarian Party has seen considerable growth.  Indiana represents one of the stronger Libertarian states in the nation and is often (not regularly, but often) included in main stream news stories about what's going on in politics around the area.

2012, though, represents a year that has the potential to really see the Libertarian Party explode.  If things come together right, this year has the makings to create a perfect storm for Libertarian growth.  It may not be the year that they win a ton of big elections, but it could very well be the year that sets them up for big wins down the road.

Here's five reasons why the LP just might make the leap into the mainstream this year:

1) Ron Paul - The longtime Texas Congressman is running for President.  He, for all intents and purposes, is a Libertarian.  He was even the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate back in 1988.  He's held office as and is running as a Republican, but has made no secret over the years that he is strongly committed to libertarian ideals.  People on both sides of the aisle, love him or hate him, have made comments that he is the most principled and consistent member of Congress in the last 30 years.  He also brings with him one of the most passionate and engaged group of supporters you'll find in a candidate.

But let me let you in on a little secret....Ron Paul is not going to win the Republican nomination.  And at the point where that is made official, either by his dropping out or by it becoming mathematically impossible, all of those hardcore Ron Paul supporters are going to have to turn their energy elsewhere.  Which brings us to...

2) Gary Johnson - The former New Mexico Governor also held office as a Republican.  He, too, was running for President as a Republican, but dropped out of the race after being excluded from early debates and not grabbing any real support from the GOP.  Even as a Republican, Johnson was also very libertarian-minded.  He cut costs and refused to sign any bill that increased taxes.  In fact, he refused to sign pretty much any bill that ever extended the size or scope of government.  Over his two terms as New Mexico's Governor, Johnson vetoed over 750 bills...a number that Johnson proudly states was more than all other governors at the time...combined.

Johnson doesn't have enormous name recognition across the nation, but he arguably has better name recognition than any of the Libertarian presidential candidates of the last several election cycles. According to a recent Public Policy Polling poll, Johnson is currently polling at 7% versus Obama and Romney.  

Seven percent doesn't sound like an important number, but is is.  You see, to qualify for participation in the Presidential debates, there are a handful of prerequisites.  Most importantly, you have to be on enough states' ballots to mathematically be able to win a majority of the electoral votes.  Being a Libertarian candidate, Johnson will qualify easily for that.  Another debate participation requirement is polling at at least 15% in five major polls leading up to the debates.

So why should you believe that Gary Johnson has a shot at polling at least 15% heading into the debates?  For that answer, we refer back to my #1...Ron Paul.  You see, when Ron Paul publicly acknowledges that he will not be the Republican nominee, he'll have to make a big decision about who, if anyone to endorse.  He could endorse Mitt Romney.  Since Paul will no longer be a Republican Congressman, something tells me his ideals may keep him from throwing his support that way.

Paul may choose to endorse no one...definitely a possibility since there are no Republican candidate will truly match with his political ideology.  But if Paul wanted to endorse the candidate that most shares his views, he'll be endorsing Gary Johnson.  And with Ron Paul's endorsement comes the possibility of gaining the support of a large chunk of Ron Paul's followers.  If enough of the Paul supporters begin to follow Johnson, Johnson will easily eclipse the 15% support number to find himself in the national debates.  

Making it into the debates will bring a lot of attention to the LP from people that have never considered them before.  Making it to the debate, for many who are skeptical about a third party, suddenly makes them viable.

3) Mitt Romney and Barack Obama - There are two kinds of Obama supporters...those that will support him no matter what, and those that supported hope and change in 2008 and find themselves disgusted with him today.  Those that are die-hard supporters will be voting for him in November no matter what.  Those that are disgusted are looking for another option.  

On the Republican side, it looks like that option will be Mitt Romney.  Hardcore Republicans will be supporting Romney because he has an "R" next to his name, but other other voters are unlikely to find Romney to be a refreshing option.

Those disgusted with Obama and not finding Romney refreshing are, in any other election year, those that are just going to stay home on election day.  If Gary Johnson can prove to them that he represents the change they want to see, then they just may be willing to go out and vote for him.  If not out of thinking he can win, then perhaps out of a statement of principle.

4) Rupert Boneham - It's taking a while for many members of the voting public to warm up to the idea of voting for a former reality TV star for Indiana's Governor, but it is happening.  When Rupert first announced he was considering an Indiana gubernatorial chase as a Libertarian, many, including this author, were unsure if it was a good idea.  A lot of people worked very hard for a lot of years to grow the positive public perception of the Libertarian Party, and letting a celebrity run for the state's top spot seemed a dangerous gamble with the potential to throw it all away.

After looking beyond his television past and furry beard, though, people are beginning to see Rupert's strong philanthropic side and sensible ideas for running the state.  Many skeptics are meeting with Boneham and walking away saying, "Hey, this guy is for real.  He's worth giving a listen to."  Really, in politics, getting people to open their ears to you is where it all begins.

But even if Boneham doesn't put a dent in Indiana politics, he's already increasing name recognition for the Libertarians.  From the second he announced he was running, there have been countless national news stories on the campaign.  Win or lose, the fact that Rupert Boneham running for Indiana Governor is great news for a Libertarian Party that has often had trouble getting into mainstream news.

5) Ross Perot - Whhhhaaaaaaaa?!!?  How in the hell, you ask, can Ross Perot help the Libertarians in 2012?

The simple answer is that he can't.  Ross Perot isn't going to directly do anything to help the Libertarians in 2012.  But he has the unique position of having provided a historical precedent that we all need to remember.

I'm old enough now that I have to consider that many of my readers don't know much about Ross Perot.  Perot is a Texas billionaire that ran for president as an independent in 1992.  He polled very strongly throughout most of the race, participated in the presidential debates, and ended up taking down about 20% of the popular vote in that year's election.

So what does an independent candidate from 20 years ago have to do with us today?  It has to do with the overused argument that people just aren't ready yet to vote for a candidate in a major race that isn't a Republican or Democrat.  Ross Perot, I submit, is evidence not only that we are ready to vote for such a candidate, but also that we have been ready to do so for at least twenty years.  Perhaps we've just been waiting for the right candidate to present themselves.

So does all this mean that 2012 is the Year of the Libertarian?  Maybe, maybe not.  It definitely has all the right pieces to make it happen, though.  It is going to be very interesting to see if the pieces will come together.

Gubernatorial Candidate Rupert Boneham Announces Birthday Money Bomb

Libertarian Gubernatorial candidate Rupert Boneham has announced plans for a money bomb style fundraiser.  Designed to be part of his 48th birthday celebration, the campaign plans has set a goal to raise $48,000 by his January 27th birthday.

Boneham's campaign is trying to capitalize on the success of money bombs by other politicians.  Most notably, Presidential candidate Ron Paul has had extreme success with his many money bombs.

In the most recent filings, Boneham submitted numbers well behind the major party candidates.  From the beginning, though, Boneham's campaign admitted the challenges to being a Libertarian candidate.  Part of that challenge, they admitted, was making the most of the funds they have.  Attention was pointed to the Rupert's Kids charity, which Boneham has ran with great success for many years without ever accepting a single government dime.

If you'd like to help Rupert out by contributing to his money bomb, you can do so by clicking here.

Indy Star Decides Rupert is not a Candidate Worth Mentioning



Rupert Boneham
(image credit: rupertforgovernor.com)



The Indy Star's Mary Beth Schneider had an article in today's paper about a candidate for Indiana Governor.  It started of with a lengthy discussion about how this candidate refused to shave his trademark facial hair despite pressure to do so.

There was even a quote from the gubernatorial candidate defending his position, as Schneider puts it, as not just a personal, but a political statement.

"If I shave this off," (he) said, "people would say, 'What else is he going to change to be governor?' I'm not changing anything to be governor. I am what I am."

If I didn't know better, I'd swear this article was about Rupert Boneham.  It's not, though.  The article is about Democratic candidate John Gregg, who has decided to embrace his mustache as a trademark of his campaign, even including it in his new campaign logo.

In fact, the article conspicuously fails to mention that Rupert Boneham is even a candidate in the Indiana Governor's race.

Gregg's Campaign Logo
(image credit: greggforgovernor.com)

Mike Pence?  Check.  Jim Wallace? Check.  John Gregg?  Obviously, check.  Schenider even mentions Gregg's primary "competition," J. Robert Casko, who, according to the article, has only raised $206.

But Schneider fails to include Rupert's name in any way as a candidate for 2012 Governor.  Boneham's absence from the article is especially notable since Schneider spends a significant portion of her article discussing Gregg's unwillingness to get rid of his facial hair.  Boneham - whose candidacy has brought national and international news stories - also has trademark facial hair that he has stated he will not get rid of.
Both candidates have obviously received pressure to do so.

In most races, I don't get to wrapped up in the fact that Libertarian candidates get ignored in media articles.  Often, the Libertarian candidates are poorly funded and do little campaigning. When a Libertarian candidate steps outside of that typical circle, though, they are just as worthy of coverage as any other candidate.

This is especially the case with Rupert Boneham.  He is on the path to running a well-funded, high-profile campaign.  For the Star to already begin heading down the path of failing to mention him goes beyond normal oversight of a Libertarian.  It is simply poor and sloppy journalism.

Ed Coleman Again Attacked with Lies by Sandlin Campaign.



Councillor Ed Coleman
(one of his infamous new suits?)

 Jack Sandlin's at it again.  I wrote on Thursday about Jack's neagative mailers; one attacking Ed Coleman with lies about an "attack piece" that didn't exist, and another with Jack taking credit for 4 years worth of Council votes while having only been on the Council for 11 months.

(To be fair, the Marion County Libertarian Party did send a less-than-positive piece on Sandlin.  It was sent, however, after Sandlin claimed to be attacked.  The only pieces that I am aware of having been sent before Sandlin's claim are the incredibly positive pieces I showed in the blog.)

Now, there's another mailer floating around on Sandlin's behalf attacking Ed Coleman.  This one, paid for by the MCRCC, makes claims that Coleman illegally used campaign funds to buy fancy clothes, and fly to Vegas for a night at a casino.

(On a personal note, I don't know what Sandlin considers to be a "Wild" night in vegas.  Frankly, I don't think that a $108 hotel room bill qualifies.)

New ad attacking Coleman

The fact is that Coleman made a trip to Vegas to go to Freedom Fest, one of the largest Libertarian festivals in the country, to seek fundraising.  Considering that his networking there may have been a significant step towards his campaign receiving a $50,000 donation seems to make the trip very worth while.  And the $108 casino expense that Sandlin implies was gambling?  That was Coleman's hotel room.

Fellow blogger Paul Ogden covered this earlier today.  It appears he has been in touch with Coleman's campaign. Coleman's response, via Ogden's blog:

"Freedom Fest is a large gathering of enthusiastic libertarian individuals every year in Nevada. The campaign invested a small amount for Ed to make the trip, because we saw an opportunity to fundraiser and receive attention on a national level.


The investment paid off and eventually helped Ed raise over $60,000 for his campaign, allowing us to spread Ed’s message of Lower Taxes, Balanced Budgets, and Public Safety."

Coleman's response goes on to say that Ed has focused on his health this year, a focus that has lead to his losing almost fifty pounds.  That weight loss lead to Coleman's need for new suits, a need which campaign contributors recognized and specifically donated for.
 
So, for the second time in days I have to wonder why Jack Sandlin has to resort to lies in his attempts to defeat Ed Coleman.  As I said in my previous blog, Sandlin is obviously scared.
 
I guess I should just be clear.  An $1,100 trip for the purpose of raising more than $60,000 for your campaign is not the misuse of campaign funds, even if that trip happens to land you in Vegas.  Another $880 on suits after losing 50 pounds is not a misuse of campaign funds, especially when money was specifically donated to your campaign for that cause.  There was no "Wild night in Vegas." There was a fundraising trip just like candidates everywhere take part in.
 
Jack Sandlin and the Republicans are turning to lies in their negative mailers simply because there just isn't anything true to be said about Councillor Coleman that would piss anyone off.
 
And Jack Sandlin and the Republicans are turning to lies in their own Vote for Jack mailers simply because there isn't anything true to be said about Sandlin that would entice anyone to elect him.

Sandlin Acting Scared on the South Side

If you haven't yet noticed, I hope you take a minute to turn your attention to a very interesting Council race that has been developing on the South Side.  Marion County's 24th district, located at the due-south side of town, along US 31 from I-465 to County Line, is shaping up as one of the more interesting races in this year's election.

Ed Coleman

The "battle of the mustaches" is between Libertarian Ed Coleman, currently an at-large councillor representing all of Marion County, and Republican Jack Sandlin, the current District 24 representative, appointed to fill the position last December after Mike Speedy left for his State House seat.  There is no Democrat running in the race. The word is, though, that Marion County Democrats are apparently making it clear through their inner circles that any Democrat who does not vote for Coleman is, in their view, essentially voting for Republican Sandlin.

Both have been out spreading the word about their campaigns and have sent several pieces through the mail.  Coleman has sent two or three mailers out so far and has thus far remained positive.  Sandlin has sent several mailers (mostly sent on his behalf from the Republican Party) which have been misleading at best.

This issue was tackled on Monday by fellow blogger Paul Ogden.  In his article "Mailing Brags About Councilor Jack Sandlin's Support of Mayor Ballard's Agenda BEFORE Sandlin Took a Seat On the Council" Ogden talks about how Sandlin, a councillor for a mere 11 months, takes credit for years worth of votes on the Council.

One of Sandlin's first misleading ads

I assume Sandlin is trying to play into the fact that most voters do not even know who their councillor is.  By making claims that are not even possible, Sandlin hopes to capitalize on the votes of voters who simply do not know better.

From Ogden:

"The only problem is, Sandlin did not take a seat on the Indianapolis City-County Council until late 2010. Bragging about Sandlin's support of the Ballard agenda when he wasn't even on the council seems to be at worst dishonest and at best sloppiness by party officials.


It is also a stretch to say he was "elected" and now should be "re-elected." Sandlin received his position when he won an unopposed precinct committeeman caucus vote to fill a vacancy when Councilor Michael Speedy was elected to the legislature."

Ogden is right on both points.  Sandlin's mailer starts by asking for you to "re-elect" him.  Simply, you cannot re-elect someone that was never elected in the first place.
 
Second, Sandlin takes credit for passing honestly balanced budgets each of the last three years.    Simply, again, you can't pass budgets that you were not part of the Council to even vote on. (I won't even get in to the "honestly balanced" statement, except to say Indianapolis does not have an honestly balanced budget.) His mailer, as you can see, is full of similar points that are simply impossible for an 11-month councillor to have achieved.
 
Sandlin's newest mailer, the first one I've seen actually paid for by his campaign, directly attacks Coleman for having "attacked" him unfairly.

Sandlin's recent "I was attacked" mailer



The first line of the mailer indicates that Coleman is trying to deceive the 24th District voters.  An interesting statement from someone claiming credit for 4 years of votes during 11 months on the Council.
 
The mailer also refers to Coleman's mailers as an "attack" on Sandlin.  If you look at the samples of Coleman's mailers that I have included, I am sure you you find that they are free of attacks on Sandlin. In fact, Coleman's campaign ads have been very good about staying centered on Coleman's achievements.
 

Back of one Coleman mailer

Front of both of Coleman's mailers

Back of the other Coleman mailer

I'm not going to get up on a pedestal and say that Ed Coleman is without flaws.  One thing that he is, though, is honest.  On more than one occasion I've heard members of other parties, even when disagreeing with him, refer to Coleman as one of the most consistent and principled members on the Council.  To suggest that Coleman is lying or being deceptive in his campaign materials is, as I show above, simply not true.
 
In fact, if there's a deceptive candidate this year in District 24, it's Jack Sandlin.

WISH TV Poll Shows Ballard with 11-Point Lead

WISH-TV just released a poll showing Mayor Ballard with a 44%-33% lead over challenger Melina Kennedy.  Libertarian Chris Bowen comes in with 2%, and the undecided vote comes in very high at 21%.  The poll had a 4.9% margin of error.

This poll very closely resembles the poll that Fox 59 received from the Ballard campaign.  I covered that poll and other aspects of the race in my Tuesday story "Kennedy Will Win...er, wait...No, Ballard Will Win...um, hold on..."

While this poll is not too far outside of the margin of error, especially when you add in the undecided votes, this is obviously horrible news for the Kennedy campaign.  Such an enormous apparent margin this many days before the election has the ability to possibly cause some Kennedy supporters to give up and not bother coming to the polls on Tuesday.

While I disagree with his position on this, that very possibility was something that Paul Ogden blogged on earlier Wednesday.

It will be very interesting to see how both campaigns react to this poll in the final days of what, before tonight, appeared to be a very close campaign.

Kennedy Will Win...er, wait...No, Ballard Will Win...um, hold on...

I was fully prepared to post my 2011 Indianapolis Mayoral prediction today.  My initial post was to declare my belief the Melina Kennedy would win the Mayor's race with 49% of the vote, Ballard coming in at 47%, and the remaining 4% going to Libertarian Chris Bowen.

With the lack of publicly available polls, I had to base my prediction on other things. First, the tone of the campaigns.  The Kennedy campaign seems to have gotten progressively nicer, while the Ballard camp seems to have gotten angrier lately.  Second, the lack of polls being released by the campaigns seemed to be an indicator of a tight race that neither side was willing to give up too much info on.


Third, there's a bunch of Republicans pissed off at Greg Ballard for things like the water company, the parking meters, the back-scratching of political buddies, etc.  While Bowen has ran a relatively quiet campaign and was excluded from most debates, I fully expected to see many Republicans either vote for him or take a pass on Mayoral voting altogether, rather than vote for Ballard or Kennedy. This, of course, would push Bowen's percentage up a bit.


There's been a sequence of news in the last day or so that has made me reconsider my position.  Twice.

First, word spread Monday of a couple of internal polls that Fox 59 had gotten a hold of.  One poll, from the Ballard campaign, was said to have been taken within the last week and indicated that he had a double-digit lead, 51%-39%, with Bowen coming in at 2%.  A second poll, from the Kennedy campaign, indicated that she had a 2-point lead that was within the margin of error.  Kennedy's poll was said to have been taken about two weeks ago.

Of course, both campaigns are likely to release polling information that shows them in the best light.  The fact that Kennedy's best shot at this was a two-week old poll that has her in a statistical dead heat with Ballard can't mean good news for the Kennedy campaign.  Abdul-Hakim Shabazz was quick to point out on his Indiana Barrister blog that those numbers are the exact same numbers released by Marion County Democratic Chairman Ed Treacy on September 23rd.  That coincidence is strong enough to make one doubt the validity of the Kennedy campaign statement that the poll given to Fox 59 is only two weeks old.

So, I began to rethink my initial prediction.  In light of this new information, I was willing to now say that Ballard was going to win re-election.  My new guess, based on that polling, was 52%-47%-3%. Ballard with a strong but not enormous win over Kennedy, and Bowen's numbers a little lower because of it.

OK, so I'm ready to run with this story now.  Right?

But wait...

This morning, Gary Welsh over at Advance Indiana wrote that early voting numbers are through the roof this year. According to his story, early turnout numbers are almost twice what they were at this time in 2007, and almost as high as last year's Congressional election year.

Traditional thinking would tend to indicate that is an incredibly strong sign for Kennedy.  Early voting is, as a rule, a Democratic stronghold.  While Republicans are now, at the last minute, trying to push their people for early voting, the Marion County GOP has been opposed to any expansion of the process this year.  It's all about votes when it comes to decision making for parties, so that opposition would lead you to believe Republicans are sure Kennedy and/or other Democrats favor strongly from early voting.

So let's sum this up.  Lack of polling results being released seems to be a slight favor to Kennedy.  But then some polling results are released but they are questionable but they seem to indicate a strong favor for Ballard.  But early voting results are through the roof which seems to be a good thing for Kennedy. (You get that?)

I guess I'll just split the difference and predict the race as 48%-48%-4%.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if we see a recount necessary on this one.