Indiana Education Reform: Who Got a Mandate?

The 2012 election is now a few days behind us.  What's left now is just trying to decipher what it all means.  Sometimes, it's easier to tell what voters want.  Other times, though, the voters send confusing messages with their decisions at the polls.

When it comes to education reform in Indiana, voters sent the more confusing message.

First, they elected a new Superintendent of Public Instruction.  Many in the political circles around the state were surprised by the outcome of this one.  Incumbent Tony Bennett spent well over a million dollars on the race, and was supposed to win without much trouble.  Glenda Ritz seemed to be unheard of by most as they headed into election day.

She won, though, with big numbers.  Quite an upset.  And when that happens, you have to accept that it is a clear message and mandate to other politicians: we support what she stands for...make it happen.

But then something else happened.  The Republican majority in the General Assembly, the very ones that put the recent education reform and voucher program in place, grew.  And they grew a lot.  The voters of Indiana gave the GOP a super-majority in both houses of the General Assembly, and they gave them a Republican governor, too.

Basically, Indiana voters told the GOP, "Here's our State.  We trust you.  Do with it what you wish."  And when that happens, you have to accept that it is a clear message and mandate to other politicians.

The problem we're faced with, though, is the voters mandates are in conflict with each other.  The goals of the new Democrat Superintendent of Public Instruction and the goals of the super-majority General Assembly are not going to be the same.

Of course, both sides are claiming their mandate is the superior one.  Governor Mitch Daniels and Governor-Elect Mike Pence announced that the election of Ritz does not mean that there will be any rollback of the voucher programs.

Democrats are crying foul, saying Ritz's huge numbers mean that, in fact, it is their mandate which should take the lead.  Jon Easter of Indy Democrat Blog titled a post on the issue, "Indiana GOP Leaders Losing Ever-loving Mind??"

So what should our politicians do?  That thing which all politicians should do: compromise.  The GOP should allow Glenda Ritz to do her job in the way she best sees fit, in accordance with the laws in place when she took office.  Ritz should accept that, and do the best job that she can with what she has to work with.

What shouldn't our politicians do?  Try to out-do the other side and create a war.  The GOP should wait until after the 2014 elections (and the mandates they may bring) before they attempt to expand any of the reforms they have put in place.  Glenda Ritz shouldn't put a fight up against the General Assembly asking for the reforms of the last few years to be rolled back.

For all intents and purposes, both sides should agree to not make any major changes for now.

Don't believe that is what is going to occur, though.  Political parties love to ram through legislation when they have no opposition to fear.  Expect the GOP to spend the next two years doing whatever they want to whoever they want.

That's what the voters said to do, I guess.  But if they use that authority to actually lower the powers of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and step all over another mandate the voters gave at the same time, don't expect the Democrats to be quiet about it.  Tread lightly, Republicans, or you'll see your new found powers evaporate just as quickly as you obtained them.

Email from Dems on Recent Polls Conspicuously Misleading

I received a bulk email today from State Democratic Party Chair Dan Parker. In it, Parker discussed some recent polling results and interpreted them. The polls was conducted by the Indiana Chamber, and can be found here and here.

Don't get me wrong, I don't expect an email I receive from any political party to be without bias.  The logic in this particular email seemed so flawed, though, that I felt it worth pointing out.

From the email (emphasis mine):

Just like two prior polls, the surveys conducted by the Indiana Chamber and MajorityPAC show Joe Donnelly and Richard Mourdock within the margin of error -- just a couple points apart!
These numbers prove what we've known all along: Hoosiers don't want a Tea Party candidate who hides everything from public records about his failed auto worker lawsuit to the billionaires backing his campaign.

Here's where I get confused.  Parker seems to believe that polling that shows Two of the three candidates within the margin of error indicates that Hoosiers don't want Mourdock in office.  But if you are going to apply that math to Mourdock, doesn't it apply to Donnelly as well? I mean, if such a tight race is an indicator that we don't want one candidate, doesn't it also mean we don't want either?


Parker also fails to mention something else: the poll also asked about Indiana's Gubernatorial race.  In the results from that section of the poll, Republican Mike Pence is absolutely obliterating Democrat John Gregg 50-32%.  I'm curious what that kind of spread means about whether Hoosiers want Gregg of not, based on Parker's logic from above.



As for the poll, I also find the lack of Libertarian questions interesting.  While the polls did choose to include Libertarians Andy Horning and Rupert Boneham in their "if the election were held today" questions, they were left out of all other questions in the poll.  Also, the Libertarian party was left out of the question about party identification.  I guess this partial inclusion is better than the many polls that exclude Libertarian candidates altogether.  I wish, though, that Libertarians would get included in all questions, not just a couple here and there.

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.

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.