Palin says that contested primary elections are good for the tea party movement. I think most folks would concur. After all, doctors used to prescribe blood letting for the health of their charges. Then again, folks who get their content from duh media are often misled due to media bias. For instance, http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/02/19/... wherein John Edwards, the all time leader of the flakes, was seriously proposed to the nation as a VP. He lost the experienced flake title to Obama more recently as Obama's experiences amounted to being a State senator(curious that Abdul our expert on all things Illinois does not report on the vast accomplishments of Senator (from Illinois) Obama. It sure wouldn't take long to report on all of them…like two seconds.
Meanwhile, if we wanted to sort out all these primary contests we would be well advised to purchase more National Enquirers at the supermarket checkout stand since they are an unbiased media. I'm sure they could help us out with at least some of these candidates.

While the Bayh news is shocking, there is a lot more going on in the Indiana statehouse and the city of Indianapolis.

Don't get too obsessed with one story.

I'm sure pascal also relished reading about proposed-VP Sarah Palin's adultery as reported in The National Enquirer: http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/65481

Nick, with all due respect, this is the kind of story that comes along once or twice in a decade, perhaps less…

Evan Bayh is despised by many on this blog, but, here's what he did for Indiana: changed it from one-party dominance. When he assumed the governor's chair, we were 24 years (maybe 28…?) of the same party, almost entirely in control of the legislature and Statehouse.

I was part of that transition. There were many good Republicans serving. But I can tell you first-hand, the intertia and nonsense that were embedded in state government took two or three years to shake out. Hell, some folks say it took one whole term. Some of the crap I saw went beyond D-R politics. Deeply-embedded crap. Some of it was trying to protect long-held philosophical outposts (Dept. of Labor/IOSHA is one example). But most of it, to be honest, was protecting personnel fiefdoms…jobs, money, ratholes of too-long-tolerated bureaucratic stalling. You could blow up the entire State Office Building Complex, and I swear to God state government would run just fine tomorrow. The waste is unfathomable. And as bad as it is now, it was hugely worse in 1989.

Evan single-handedly made the Democrats a party to reckon with. In some ways, Mitch has done the same for the other side now. Pendulums have a way of swinging back. It took a little too long here, and we got a lot of very bad government as a result.

Evan's resurgence helped pave the way for a sea-change in Indianapolis politics, too. The first Democratic Unigov mayor ever. Ditto a council.

Granted, we didn't handle it all that well in some cases, but Bart was and is a Bayh protege.

When a game-changer like that steps aside, yeah…it shakes the political foundations to their core. On both sides of the aisle. I cannot remember a similar incident in my five Hoosier decades.

Can anyone else?

The Blade has done a much much better job of governing even as his cutting the size of government has gone pretty much unnoticed. Got a License Plate lately? It looks like he is going to get himself a do-something legislature and fix what can be fixed about our socialist model of so called education. Give Mitch a free hand and there won't be anything for the next governor to fix-he is a real executive and will turn a well running machine over to someone like Mike Pence.

And the next step is to change our state from two party dominance.

Ogden On Politics penned a retrospective on former Republican Councilman Ed Coleman's first year as Libertarian and his achievements.

http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2010/02/ed-colem...

Funny thing is when I look back, the best things achieved on the council in the past year were spearheaded by the Libertarians. I can't think of a thing the Republicans or Democrats did for us that mattered. Can anyone else?

The protection of property rights, personal freedom, and gun rights are extremely important to the well being of our freedom and Ed Coleman was there for us in spite of the roadblocks he got from the GOP. Looking back over the past year, Ed Coleman and the Libertarians did good things for Indy.

Palin may be a lot of things, Wilson, but she's no adulterer.

Amen

Perhaps, Pascal. Perhaps.

To answer your question, yeah, I've gotten a license plate at the branch lately. I use the mail for renewals, but they screwed it up, so I had to go in. Saw the “In God We Trust” license plates and was reminded why the BMV gets me so steamed. Customer service was faster, but far-from-friendly…even surly. Those folks have a chip on their shoulders about something…not a single smile in my 30-minute visit—not even close.

But I tip my hat to Mitch on a multitude of issues. He is a leader. He royally screwed up one of our most-expensive departments, FSSA, by handing a contract over to a buddy. A costly error. But he called himself out on the error, albeit late, and moved on. I've never, ever seen a governor do likewise. Think Bob Orr. Friendly guy, but errors galore, and he never would admit them.

Except, in the end, he did divorce Josie….hmmmm…..

Melyssa, dear Melyssa, your constant cheerleading for the Libs is fascinating and consistent. God 'bless ya. Never let facts get in the way (pssst….Ed isn't liked by anyone…he's viewed as a goof)

Gun rights are not the perview of the CCC. Never was, never should be. Pray tell what Ed or the Libs did about property rights. I missed that whole chapter.

You're partially right, TA. Gun rights are not the perview of the CCC, at least as far as establishing them. That comes from the US and Indiana Constitution. It is the duty of all government bodies in Indiana to make sure that those apply. So if there is a guns' right issue on the city level, the City-County Council is the government body that can address it.

And before anyone else comes in and says the Parks Board or whatever else, while that might be technically correct, I'd much rather have an elected body handle it legislatively than an appointed board handle it by policy.

Indiana is looking at major changes to its representation in Washington in the next couple of years.

The new Census may cut the number of Indiana seats in Washington.

Everyone knows that Burton really needs to go.

Lugar will retire at some point.

Plenty of changes already coming for other representatives with less seniority. (Didn't someone else just “resign” for family health reasons?)

Everyone should be concerned about the states bench strength to fill these positions in the future. Keep in mind these legislative positions have only ONE vote in a very large pool of Congress.

Indiana should only send people who can get Committee Chairmanships, has Leadership Skills, is Articulate, is Intelligent, and Worthy of Respect.

Indiana does not need the person who thinks its his turn, or the person with the best LOCAL good old boy connections.

Hopefully we don't make a HUGE mistake that costs our state dearly.

TA is right on the money about the state government bureaucracy entrenchment. And, if you don't like the license branches, you should have seen them when they were a completely political fiefdom.

I will say that Evan Bayh wasn't perfect, though. There was the Hoosier Lottery, and more than one selected leader ending up being something less than desirable.

Of course Ed is not liked by the GOP, he put sunshine on the rats and interferes with their game plan. Do you really think they would do anything but try to marginalize him? That is what is always done to people who stand up for what is right in a sea of corruption. It's textbook, TA.

I do know however that Ed Coleman is liked by his constituents. You know, the regular people out there that vote. I predict he will be re-elected because the people he represents like him. And that is what is important.

In answer to your question, property rights were protected by the Libertarians standing up for business owners on the smoking ban.

TA, please read Ogden's retrospective of Coleman's first year.

And TA, I'm a Libertarian because the party is principled. It does what it promises to do. The Libertarians are not hypocrites. The Libertarians are the best of what the Democrat and Republican parties are supposed to represent, but do not.

The people would do well, were the senior to follow the junior senator's lead.

There's been west end Market leadership on several issues. But, this 1 / 2 / 3 commission schedule masquerading as “caps,” is a nightmarish distraction from the assessment inequities. Removal of words like “uniform & equal” from the state's constitution is contradictory to its very purpose. Business interests in this state appear to be clay footed & cowardly quiet, willing victims without martyr status who inspire little more than relocation; the faux-gressive “logic” that “lead” Indiana banks in becoming acquired vs. acquiring concerns. Indiana's economic landscape has been shaped, by vision & a profound lack thereof…

Name, I don't even know what all that means.

Have you had your coffee yet?

Melyssa, your comments were read, heard, and politely filed in the “she is nice but wrong” column. I know many of Ed's constituents who are pissed off. Royally. Some pretty average ones and some important ones. Who think he's a goof.

I will follow your advice and read the column, though.

Peace out.

TA, Of course Coleman has angered some partisan party people like Ernie Shearer. However, among regular people I know, people who are fed up with what our politicians are doing to our freedoms, Ed is well liked.

There is one consistent thing you can say about Ed, you know where he stands. He's not running some secret political agenda. He's principled. He can be trusted to look out for the Constitution. And that is more than I can say for anyone else on the council except Christine Scales, who also puts the Constitution and her constituents ahead of party.

And, TA? I would much rather have a principled councilor who looks out for the Constitution and the interests of regular people, than I would a councilor who looks out for party first. And most of the councilors put party first.

It's unfortunate that Senator Bayh voted for health “reform”. He's been the most outspoken Democrat I know of (more than most Republicans) on the consequences of overspending. But, he had a choice between party and constituency.

Reading more about it, I can understand why the deficit reduction commission amendment was voted down. Too much mistrust from each side because both tax increases and spending cuts would be on the table. The parties have to initially build trust to eventually get to the big ticket items. They need a bipartisan “wading pool” project that goes well. They've got to tackle the yawning chasm of acrimony.

Or, we can just keep spending money we don't have. Eventually, we don't have to worry about this silliness.

TA,

I think you got your figures wrong. R's only controlled the Governor's Office for 20 years and there were times during that period the Ds had the house. It was Republican dominance just not as much as you suggest.

TA,

The CCC certainly has the legal authority to pass an ordiance making it legal to have guns in city parks. Whether or not the current prohibition could survive a constitutional challenge is another story…especially if the Supremes do as I expect and incorprate the 2nd Amendment. But certainly the CCC has the authority to pass an ordinance allowing guns.

TA, I agree with most of what you have to say. Being a strong Rebublican I did vote for Bayh. He was the best man at the time. My only problem with him is that when he sold his vote on healthcare, Indiana did not get a penny. Other states got millions and Bayh did not get our state our fair share of the pot.

Other than that I think that he was for the most part a good man for the job.

I find it very interesting that both parties seem to want to castrate a person because they once voted for someone in the other party.I see a tide changeing where that wil not be an issue much longer. Vote for the best person for the job. How does that sound Tom John?

TA I do enjoy your comments, I wish that everyone was as interested as you. Even though you are a little misguided.

The problem might be decaf TA, but somehow like tax “caps,” me last post was in “name” only.

With a couple of days remaining, Senator Lugar could make this a banner week!

And sure, there's been random leadership in the State House, however, the 1 / 2 / 3 “caps” are a failed gimmick, a distraction. Removal of the words “uniform & equal” from the state's constitution as it applies to taxation is antithetical to its purpose; the quality of leadership that exposed Indiana banks as acquisition targets for outa state banks. The quality of public policy (a reflection of leadership or absence thereof), does affect the economic landscape of our state; right?

I'm done on the Coleman subject, friend Melyssa. I am pretty confident where most voters put him.

Your observation about putting party first, presumes that we have 29 councillors who are swift enough to know what the party wants. Or what anyone wants. On some votes, I am pretty sure that's true. But the collctive cerebral matter on our council is frightening for a major American city.

While the participants in this forum are not representative of Indiana voters does anyone suppose that a candidate who has done the following will have any chance of election? Voted FOR the stimulus package of 787 billions plus which created not the first job. Voted FOR TARP which was a payoff to Wall Street for stealing from us in the first place. Voted FOR the bailing out of the Auto Companies who have been stealing from us for decades in collusion with their overpriced workforce. Voted FOR Obamacare. Would not a candidate who expressed Hoosier values have voted differently? The person who did this is like the guy who cuts a Ginenormous silent fart on the ballroom floor and then waltzes away…. That would be Evan for one-are there others who have voted the same way that need to be shown the door?

Why are people so wrapped up about the 2nd Amendment to the federal Constitution?

Our Indiana Constitution is quite clear on the right to self protection, and protection of the state of Indiana.

Article 1, Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

No qualifiers…and no regulation of the right allowed per our Constitution.

Alas, lawyers in a robe said that our Constitution didn't protect handguns — see Matthews v Indiana, 1958.

http://beldar.blogs.com/ A serious post concerning vital interests of Indiana citizens preparing to select folks to represent them and their interests. While appreciating the vivid concern of just who gets to squat over the molehill that is Indianapolis there are other issues whose impact should command attention.