Politics

Indiana political blogging

Sometimes it’s really entertaining

for all the

wrong [link deprecated: http://www.blueindiana.net/showDiary.do;jsessionid=38F64BC3DD2AF56DA297D48ACAA576E0?diaryId=2332] reasons.

2019 Update: Lest it be lost to the ethereal ravages of time, this was the subject of the above posts.

From: gwelsh@indy.rr.com
Subject: Tyrion
Date: April 9, 2008 4:55:22 PM GMT-04:00
To: bil@bilerico.com

It’s quite interesting that you, of all people, would allow the anonymous postings of one Tyrion who has at times called me “crazy”, “bipolar”, a “liar”, “going over the edge”, “lost it”, and “left my brain in Charleston”, among other things, and who has falsely and with defamatory intent accused me of professional misconduct as an attorney. Obviously, you know the identity of this person. You can graciously identify the name of this person, or you can be named as a defendant in a lawsuit and be served with a subpoena commanding you to reveal his identity. Take your pick. If this guy wants to make it his hobby to professionally trash me on anonymous blog postings, then he can suffer the consequences of defending his actions in court. And if you want to serve as his enabler, you can suffer the consequences as well.

As far as I know, no lawsuits were ever filed.

Continue ReadingIndiana political blogging

Credibility

My post below about Butler student Evan Strange who asked Chelsea Clinton an inappropriate question spawned an interesting response. I received several emails from Butler student Lauren Laski defending her fellow student. I’m not going to go into detail of what they said, other than that Lauren really needs to take a logic course while she’s there at Butler. But I want to talk about this a little more, because I still think Evan’s a moron, but apparently I need to spell out why for some.

Let’s look at the question Evan actually asked: He asked Chelsea to give her opinion “on the criticism of her mother that how she handled [Bill’s affair] might be a sign of weakness and she might not be a strong enough candidate to be president.”

First, where the hell is this “criticism” coming from? Evan asked the question like everyone has heard this, and it’s a statement of the obvious, and that it’s a question in the minds of most Americans — but it really isn’t. There are a tiny handful of people out there making this criticism – but it’s not average Americans, it’s people like drug-addled Rush Limbaugh, who also thinks Clinton shot Vincent Foster and faked the moon landing herself. The criticism doesn’t have any legitimate basis; it’s a smear campaign like all the others coming from the same right-wing conspiracy nuts. Given that, the question really didn’t need to be asked.

But let’s even suppose there’s actual merit to the question. is Clinton’s “credibility” today affected by the decision she made ten years about how to handle her marital difficulties?

Of course not. The answer to that is so obvious that again, the question really need not be asked. Hillary’s choice about how to handle “Bill’s affair” was a choice that over 100 million Americans have had to face. What do you do when you have a serious problem in your marriage; is it better for your family to stick it out, or to get a divorce with the help of family law claims attorney? There’s no right or wrong answer to that question, as anyone who’s been through it can tell you.You can also contact attorneys from law firm for divorce charges as they can help you legally in dealing with the matters related to relationships. You have to pick what you think would be best for your family and even your community, and hope and pray that the decision you’ve made is the best one. You can also contact experienced divorce attorneys serving in Crossville to give you legal counseling and take the best decision for your future. And you may not know whether it was for decades.

But no matter which option you pick – there’s not a moral failing in making it. Suggesting that Hillary’s credibility is in question over the choice she made to stay married is also calling into question the credibility of 100 million other Americans who’ve had marital difficulties and had to make that choice. That’s a pretty audacious thing for a 20-year-old unmarried college student to do. If Evan has anyone around him who’s been divorced, they should be bitch-slapping him right about now.

I believe that the above answer to Evan’s “question” is obvious to 99% of America. Most people understand exactly what Hillary went through when her marriage got such a public and painful challenge, and most people would have the common sense not to judge her for how she handled it. Most people would never ask such a question in the first place.

Now let’s go back to Evan’s claim that he’s a Hillary supporter and was trying to help her out. I don’t have any evidence as to his real motivation, but his body language and tone belie what he’s saying. Anyone with common sense would understand that asking this question does nothing to help the Clinton campaign – perhaps Evan is genuinely lacking in that common sense, but I don’t think so.

It’s my opinion that Evan wanted to be on national television, that he didn’t mind causing Clinton some bad news cycles, that he was savvy enough to know that Monica’s name uttered in a room with Chelsea Clinton would be explosive, and that he was willing to make himself and the state of Indiana look dumb to ask the question.

Lauren claimed that Evan didn’t intend for his question to make the news. That’s a bit of a stretch, considering that he had interviews with 12 different media outlets; appearing on Fox News and the Today Show, among others. If he was sincere about his question to Chelsea and his motivation in asking it, when the media came calling he would have said “no comment.”

Continue ReadingCredibility

Butler student insults Chelsea Clinton

Leave it to an idiot Hoosier to embarrass the state of Indiana now that we’re in the national spotlight. I’m sure it’s the first of many bonehead moves Hoosiers will make when they see television cameras. From the Chicago Tribune:

INDIANAPOLIS – The college student who got a stinging brushback from Chelsea Clinton when he asked about the Monica Lewinsky scandal said Wednesday he’s a Clinton supporter who was trying to get her to show “what makes Hillary so strong.”

Evan Strange, a Butler University student who works on the school’s newspaper, The Butler Collegian, said he had asked Chelsea Clinton her opinion “on the criticism of her mother that how she handled the… scandal might be a sign of weakness and she might not be a strong enough candidate to be president.”

…

Strange’s question at Chelsea Clinton’s appearance Tuesday at the school brought a stinging rebuke from Clinton’s daughter. “Wow, you’re the first person actually that’s ever asked me that question in the, I don’t know maybe, 70 college campuses I’ve now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business,” Chelsea Clinton said during the campaign visit for her mother.

Evan, you’re a dumbass. And you’ve made us all look like dumbasses. Thanks, idiot. If you want to know what Evan looks like so you can, perhaps, throw a mudball at his head if you see him in the street, here’s a video of the moron trying to explain is his idiot question.

Continue ReadingButler student insults Chelsea Clinton

links for 2008-03-22

Continue Readinglinks for 2008-03-22

WTF? ABC News is full of shit

via Shakeville – this lovely gem appeared on ABC news yesterday.

What the hell is this about? Do they actually think that WE think this is news? Do they think anyone seeing this wouldn’t recognize it for the sexist, misogynist smear job that it is? I was sorta halfway still on the fence between Obama and Clinton, given how close they are on issues, but I’m not anymore. I’m going to vote for Clinton because the media is fucked up. Not a rational reason I know, but I don’t give a shit.

The economy is in the toilet, it’s the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion and other countries are refusing to convert American money for travelers because the dollar is so weak. THIS is what ABC has to say? Unbelieveable.

This is NOT news

Continue ReadingWTF? ABC News is full of shit

What the liberal hawks got wrong

Slate has an interesting series of articles posted by several liberals who supported the Iraq war in its early stages, entitled “Why Did We Get It Wrong?” I applaud their willingness to recognize that they were indeed wrong, but I wonder why they’re not asking the other question — why didn’t they listen to the people who had it right? There certainly were a lot of them who did have the right answers, but they were pretty much shit on and ignored by Slate and lots of other liberal hawks.

Reading each of the essays is an exercise in skepticism, because none of their arguments really ring all that true. They sound like excuse-making after the fact. Among the cheap rationalizations, Richard Cohen’s argument stands out in my mind as particularly pathetic:

Anthrax. Remember anthrax? It seems no one does anymore–at least it’s never mentioned. But right after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, letters laced with anthrax were received at the New York Post and Tom Brokaw’s office at NBC. In the following days, more anthrax-contaminated letters were received by other news organizations–CBS News and, presumably, ABC, where traces of anthrax were found in the newsroom. Weirdly, even the Sun, a supermarket tabloid, also got a letter, and a photo editor, Bob Stevens, was fatally infected. Other letters were sent to Sen. Tom Daschle’s Capitol Hill office, and in Washington, D.C., a postal worker, Thomas L. Morris Jr., died. There was ample reason to be afraid.

…

For this and other reasons, the anthrax letters appeared linked to the awful events of Sept. 11. It all seemed one and the same.

Anthrax is never mentioned because people on the right want it swept under the rug. I said it at the time and still believe it — the Anthrax letters were sent by a domestic, right-wing Christian terrorist. It’s the only explanation that makes sense, given the targets of the attacks — liberal politicians, the figures prominently labeled as “liberal” media. Notice no one from Fox News got a letter.

Another telling clue is that false Anthrax scares had been directed at abortion clinics country-wide, including here in Indianapolis, for months and years before the real ones took place in 2001 and 2002.

(In fact, that’s where I first met the late Julia Carson — at a candlelight vigil on the Circle to call attention to the threats here in Indianapolis, sometime in 1998 or 1999. No one had called her and asked her to speak; she just showed up because she heard about the vigil and wanted to light a candle and stand with a group of women. I had a long conversation with her about Planned Parenthood, women’s rights, gay marriage and a number of other topics. She was funny, articulate and very kind.)

But back to the point — Anyone with eyeballs could see that the two threats had nothing to do with one another. I can’t imagine why Cohen is making the excuse that they’re linked. He suggests Saddam had “messed with anthrax” but I never heard any evidence of that. It was clear from news accounts the source was from inside the United States; that it wasn’t smuggled into the country, there wasn’t any evidence that any foreign-born person could have gotten close to getting ahold of the substance; all the links to the strain used were domestic, and people with right-wing Christian beliefs. His excuse is just silly, and strains credulity.

Continue ReadingWhat the liberal hawks got wrong

The Ripple Effect: How my post on Jon Elrod has spread

I presumed yesterday’s post on the special election would cause some consternation, but it’s always interesting to see how these things play out. Bil Browning of The Bilerico Project asked me to cross post my entry there, which I though would be fun.

From there, Abdul Hakim-Shabazz, radio personality and erstwhile former blogger at IndyUndercover got all up about it on his “I’ll admit this blog is mine” blog Indiana Barrister, and apparently has asked Jon Elrod if he’s gay on his radio show.

I’m presuming the answer he gave is no — I don’t listen to the show and haven’t heard one way or another what he actually said.

It’s really cute that in his blog post Abdul says “As one of the premiere bloggers in this state…” Aw. I’ll bet your mom calls you every morning to tell you how handsome you are, too, Abdul. That doesn’t mean it’s true, except in the “state of confusion in Abdul’s head.” Good grief.

Then Gary Welsh at Advance Indiana got all on the case about Abdul even mentioning it either place, referring to my blog post as “a baseless rumor the campaign of Andre Carson has been spreading about Republican Jon Elrod for the past two months.”

Dunno where that description comes from, as I haven’t heard a word about Elrod’s sexual orientation from the Carson campaign. I’m certainly not from the Carson campaign — I’m voting for him against my preferred wishes, and I only posted the entry yesterday morning. But it’s convenient for Gary to reassign the issue to Carson, since he can then claim it’s based in homophobia, as Welsh’s commenters immediately do on his post.

It’s a lot harder for Gary claim my motivation as homophobia – especially when he has a moratorium on talking about me on his blog. I believe I’m one of the people he refused to mention.

Whether any of this changes what I think about voting Elrod — I’ll have to get audio of Elrod’s answer and see what I think about it, and whether I believe his answer. I’m glad that he’s at least been asked publicly a question that half a dozen people emailed me to mention they wondered themselves. If the question is in that many people’s minds, it should be addressed.

Continue ReadingThe Ripple Effect: How my post on Jon Elrod has spread

March 11 District 7 Special Election

I’ve been saying I’m going to write about the March 11th special election, and I haven’t forgotten that. I actually have had a REALLY long post written about it since Friday, but I’ve revised it 10 times and can’t quite get out what I really want to say… so I’m starting over.

Hopefully you’ve all figured out by now that Julia Carson’s District 7 seat as a U.S. Representative is being filled by a special election on March 11th. Whomever wins will still need to campaign again to be chosen in this May’s primary race and to be re-elected in November if they are the candidate.

The two contenders for the seat are Democrat André Carson and Republican Jon Elrod. Elrod is currently my rep in the statehouse, having upset Ed Mahern for 97th District in 2006.

So, where do I stand? As I mentioned in a comment on a previous post, I’ll be voting for André Carson, although he’s not my favorite candidate, and I’ll be supporting another democratic candidate in the May primary.

I really don’t believe Carson has enough political experience to be a U.S. Representative yet. His only other elected office has been a few short months on Indianapolis’ City-County Council. He has no experience in higher Indiana offices, no experience at the Indiana Statehouse, all of which should be prerequisites for an office at the federal level.

There are several people much more qualified for this office than Carson, some of whom actively sought it, like David Orentlicher, who is our representative for the 86th District in the Indiana Congress.

Why Carson over Elrod?

I’ll get to that, but let me start off with some of Elrod’s good points:

Elrod does talk a good game on gay issues. Many gay people in Indianapolis are campaigning for Elrod because he stands out as a lone Republican voting against SJR-7 and against other homophobic legislation in the Indiana Statehouse, and I can see that’s a great thing. There are several gay households in our neighborhood that have Elrod signs in their yards.

However, these same folks are studiously ignoring that Elrod hired a notoriously anti-gay company to build his website – a company that has actively lobbied for SJR-7 and for other legislation destructive to the gay community. I don’t think that’s a deal-killer as far as voting in my eyes, but it does suggest that Elrod doesn’t have a complete awareness of gay issues, or who he might accidentally be in bed with politically in the Republican party.

Elrod also really gets himself out there. I held a long conversation with him in my front yard when he was running in 2006 for District 97, and numerous other people in our district also reported talking to him. He’s definitely a “get out and meet the people” guy. I’ve talked to him twice since that initial meeting, too.

So what’s wrong with Elrod?

I’m not voting for Elrod because I strongly believe that he’s gay.

Yep, you heard that right.

I really, really think that Jon Elrod is gay, and I’m voting against him for that specific reason. I have no real, verifiable concrete evidence that Jon Elrod is gay. None whatsoever. I have no smoking gun, no secret lover, no rumor or innnuendo from within the gay community. I have nothing but instinct.

That man sets off my gaydar at 5 miles away. I’m not kidding.

I’ve been out and active in the gay community for over 20 years. My gaydar is a finely tuned, high performance machine at this point. When it occasionally misfires – and I admit it does – it always because people fly under the gaydar; never because I’ve had a false positive. I never suspect someone is gay when they aren’t; I always suspect they’re straight when they’re gay. I suppose it’s possible that Jon Elrod is straight and I’m mistaken. But I really don’t think so. Not at all.

There’s also not much evidence to contradict my belief; he’s good-looking, single, definitely metro-sexual, and I’ve never seen a girlfriend/beard, although there might be one.

So… IF Elrod is gay, shouldn’t I be voting for rather than against him?

In theory, yes.

Vote for a gay man? In a heartbeat – I’d be thrilled to.

Vote for a gay Republican? – that’s conceivable. If I thought he was the right guy, I just might. I don’t cross the aisle often in my voting, but it’s definitely not off the table, depending on the person.

But vote for a closeted gay Republican? Absolutely fucking not. I’d rather cut off my own arm and beat myself in the head with it.

In the year 2008, there’s absolutely no reason why anyone running for public office should be in the closet, even in Indiana. Especially in Indiana. There’s so much at stake for gay people in Indiana that it would be an utter betrayal of trust to be a closeted elected official, and I really, really believe Elrod is.

What I don’t get is why I’ve never heard this elephant it the room (if you’ll pardon the pun) discussed in the gay community.

I CANNOT be the only person who thinks Elrod is gay. So if all these other gay people are supporting him, are they doing so also suspecting that he’s gay, and wanting to have him in office because of that, despite the closeted status?

I sure hope the hell not, because the very idea makes me sick to my stomach, it’s so disgusting. The self-loathing involved in doing something like that would be overwhelming to me, and one of the most pitiful things for a gay person to do that I can imagine.

I really don’t believe that Jon Elrod is a true friend to the gay community of Indianapolis, and I don’t believe he’s the best person for the job of U.S. Representative for District 7.

Continue ReadingMarch 11 District 7 Special Election