Indiana Democrats are pressing their attack on former U.S. Senator and Ambassador Dan Coats.  You can see it in their latest Internet ad.

I doubt many Republican primary voters will see this, however I get the strange feeling they will starting May 5th if Coats is his party’s nominee.

There’s nothing like a play on words.  I got a news release this afternoon from Indiana Right to Life saying it’s rescinding its endorsement of  Republican U.S. Senate candidate Richard Behney.

According to the release, Behney reportedly made some unflattering remarks about some of the organizations pro-life leadership…

“One of the things I’m most disappointed about in running for the United States Senate – I’ve met many people here – I’ve met many of these leaders – pro-life leaders – here in our state. And I’m convinced as sure as I’m standing here that they are more concerned with their egos and with their jobs than with saving lives.”

That led to this comment by Indiana Right To Life PAC Chairman Mike Fichter…

“Mr. Behney’s comment reveals an uninformed and cynical view of what drives Indiana’s pro-life leaders to invest their lives in the most selfless of causes by speaking on behalf of unborn children,” states IRTL-PAC chairman Mike Fichter. “Indiana’s pro-life leaders are mostly volunteers who give sacrificially of their time and money so that children they will never meet might be given a chance at life. This is the heartbeat of Indiana’s pro-life movement.”

Fichter, who has never met Behney, is not aware of Behney ever meeting with any member of the Indiana Right to Life board of directors or any president of one of Indiana Right to Life’s 38 county affiliates.

“An error of perception and judgment of this magnitude, and concerning allies in the fight for the unborn, has caused us to lose confidence in him and his reliability, so much so that we cannot recommend him to voters,” says Fichter.

It’s rare that  I write about abortion because of my personal views on the issue.  However, in this context, because the race for the U.S. Senate being so fluid and any current or eddy can change the dynamics of the race, this was something worth writing about.

Abortion is a heated issue, particularly in a Republican primary, and with every candidate trying be more pro-life than the next, this news may officially kill whatever chance Behney had left  winning his party’s nomination.

For the past few days, I’ve blogged about Arizona’s efforts to crackdown on illegal immigration.  Unfortunately, the state is violating the U.S. Constitution in the process.  So, how do you crack down on illegal immigration in a lawful, constitutional manner?  Easy.  There are lots of things Arizona can do.

• The state can refuse to do business with any company found guilty of hiring illegal immigrants.
• It can deny tax abatements and incentives to companies that have been found guilty of hiring illegal immigrants.
• It can revoke the license of any company found guilty to have hired illegal immigrants.

The key words in all that is “found guilty”  once the federal government has made the determination that a company has hired illegals, then I have no problem with the full hammer of the law being brought down.   However, if you are going to bring down the hammer, you want to make sure the punishment fits the crime.   Does anyone really want to put a major employer in their community out of work because of two or three bad hires?

Of course things like border security go without saying, but the only real meaningful way to address the problem of illegal immigration is to treat it like what it really is, an economic issue.  It’s basic supply and demand.  We as Americans demand cheap stuff,  and someone has to supply the cheap labor, i.e. illegal immigrants.

Let’s be honest, how much more would our food costs, our hotel services, and other menial unskilled labor costs, if we did not have the cheap supply of labor to do the job?  I’m not saying this is right, but I am saying that’s how it is.   If we want to keep the demand for illegal immigrants down then we need to conduct our economic activity as such.

We also need to address in a grown up manner the 9-12 million people already here.  You are not going to round them up and put them box cars and send them back to wherever they came from.  We need an orderly process to bring these people above ground and fully integrate them into society.    And before you scream amnesty, here’s a news flash, we do it all them time on other areas of law, taxes, parking tickets, etc.  Even a plea bargain is a form of amnesty lite.

If we want to truly tackle the illegal immigration problem, we are going to have to put our emotions and bumper sticker mentality aside, roll up our sleeves and get to work.  It’s a complicated issue that requires a lot of thought.  Who’s up for it?

Once again, I awake Sunday to lots of interesting political tidbits of gossip, rumor, innuendo, etc. etc.  So please allow me to share.  This information is a collection of what I garner from conversations and observations. And I  always say, take it for what it’s worth.

Brizzi Battle

• Embattled Marion County Prosecutor took his case to the airwaves Saturday afternoon in an interview on WIBC radio.   Brizzi repeated his argument that while he’s made mistakes, he’s done nothing illegal and plans to finish his term.   While I agree he may have done nothing illegal, the bigger issue is whether the perpetual stream of bad press is  starting to effect cases tried by the office?  My early estimate is probably.  I am hearing that in some cases where defendants have been found not guilty, jurors reached that conclusion, in part, because they didn’t trust the deputy prosecutor because of the bad press.  If  more of this continues, Brizzi may have to reconsider his position.

Senate Stuff

• There were a couple noteworthy events in the Republican race for the U.S. Senate.  Don Bates, Jr. called out Marlin Stutzman on fund raising.  He says Stutzman’s fundraising reports don’t match what he’s been saying publicly.  He says Stutzman’s claim that he raised $125,000 and had $50,000 in the bank was not true.   But that really only raised $75,000 in the first quarter and only had $14,000 on hand.  I got an e-mail with this same information in it from another political campaign a couple days before Bates’ announcement.
• Speaking of Senate, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is encouraging the candidates to play nice in this last week of campaigning.  It would be nice if people would listen.

7th District Stretch

• I was wondering when I was going to get the most draw dropping quote of a political campaign in any area race and I finally did Saturday night.  I moderated a debate between the Republican candidates for the 7th Congressional District.   The “I Can’t Believe You Said That With a Straight Face” award went to Wayne Harmon.  In his closing statement Harmon said one of the reasons he could beat incumbent Andre Carson in the fall was because “I’m a Christian and he’s a whatever.”

Attack of the Slate

• Expect the Marion County Democrat and Republican parties this week to step up their efforts to promote their slated candidates.   The Democrats may really want to kick their efforts into high gear, I was having a conversation several citizens who are not active in party politics and none of them could name who the candidates for Prosecutor were.  On the Republican race for Sheriff, I’m hearing while Bart McAtee has dominated the air war, Dennis Fishburn is ahead in the ground game with phone calls and identifying likely Republican voters for the May 4th primary.

Parties Party

• The Libertarian Party of Indiana may be seeing a benefit from this years anti-incumbent mood.  The LPIN had record attendance at their state convention this weekend with candidates running for offices from all over the state.  Some are really polished and some not so much, however more people involved and more competitive races are always good for the process.
• Speaking of party, I did some political satire at the Washington Township GOP club Lincoln Day Dinner this past Friday.  Just about everyone in Marion County who was running for something was there.  I jokingly said it would easier introduce the candidates by asking the people in the room who were not running for something to stand up and be recognized.  And just so you know, my satire was the Bob Newhart Abe Lincoln vs. Madison Avenue bit.  It went over quite well.  I’m still waiting for my agent to book me at a Jefferson-Jackson dinner. Of course with my luck it would a Jefferson Davis-Stonewall Jackson dinner.

Vote Tally

• And speaking of voting, the Marion County Clerk’s Office is reporting ore than 4,000 residents have voted by mail and about 650 people have come into the office and voted early.

That’s all for today.  Enjoy your Sunday.

There are a couple interesting columns in the print/on-line media this weekend regarding the Indiana Pacers.  On its editorial page the Indianapolis Star says there are a lot of questions that need to be answered before the city assumes operational control of Conseco Fieldhouse and Bill Benner opines in the IBJ how the Pacers leaving the city would not make Indianapolis a better place.

Allow me to throw a little more punditry into the mix.  With all due respect to the Indiana Pacers, I honestly believe that it isn’t so much that most Hoosiers don’t care if you were to leave the city, as much as it is they have more important things to care about; like their jobs, families, and this economy.

I’m not going to get into class envy here, but a family of four trying to get by on $40,000 a year could probably care less about what happens to Larry Bird and his $4-$5 million annual salary.  In fact the probably woudn’t mind seeing him leave based on his job performance.

I’m also willing to bet the most Indy residents would agree that if the city takes over the operational costs of Conseco from the Pacers then not only should the team pay rent, like most people do in the real world, but there’s no real reason why the city shouldn’t collect a nice bit of that non-Pacer revenue to the tune of $6-$8 million a year.

I think the public does understand the team does bring economic activity to downtown on game nights and that there are several businesses that could not stay open had it not been for the Pacers and the city could use the couple million dollars in taxes generated from the team’s salaries.

However, with all that said, with libraries possibly closing, infrastructure  needs that have to be met, school funding shortages, job anxiety, a rising homicide rate, it’s not that the Pacers aren’t important, but that people who have to work for a living have more important things to worry about.

Yesterday, I gave a brief history of our American Immigration law.   In this post, we’ll talk about the legal aspects of Arizona’s immigration bill (now law) and why I believe it violates several areas of the Constitution.  In fact, I could argue the Arizona law violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution as well as the 4^th and 14^th Amendments.

It is a well established legal precedent that the power to regulate immigration is exclusively a federal power.   And federal is superior to state law under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.   However, states are not totally precluded from addressing the illegal immigration issue.  For example, a state may refuse to do business with a company that has been found guilty of hiring illegal aliens.

In addition, federal law does allow state and local officials to arrest and detain illegal aliens under the following circumstances.   First, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) state and local law enforcement can arrest an illegal alien if the illegal alien is present in the United States and has been convicted of a felony and is back in the United States.  However, state and local officials can only detain that individual for as long as it takes to get them to federal immigration authorities.  In addition, the determination of whether someone is in the United States legally is a federal power, not a state or local one.

And numerous efforts by local governments to enforce immigration laws have been struck down as unconstitutional. For example, in Lozano v. City of Hazleton, the federal court struck down a local Pennsylvania ordinance that punished landlords or employers that were found to rent to or hire illegal immigrants.

Secondly,   the Arizona law allows the arrests of illegal immigrants based on reasonable suspicion.  Please note, the standard for an arrest is probable cause, a higher legal standard.  Reasonable suspicion is not enough.   In fact, the arrest based on reasonable suspicion violates the 4^th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.  Reasonable suspicion is good enough for a stop, but not enough for an arrest.

Thirdly, we all know who is going to be stopped by this law.  It is not going to be the student from the Netherlands who attends Arizona State University and has overstayed his visa.  It is going to be the Latino who is working on someone’s roof.   If he doesn’t have ID, under Arizona law, he’s going to jail.  A good friend is from Puerto Rico and is American citizen.  He actually has friends in Tempe.  If he’s out jogging while out visiting, and has no ID, he can be stopped and because of his thick accent, can be hauled off to jail and having committed no crime.  And because this law will like target Latinos and Hispanics, I think I could go to Court and successful argue it violates the 14^th Amendment rights to Equal Protection under the law because of its disparate treatment or disparate impact.

As I said in an earlier post, I can understand the frustrations that Arizona citizens must feel when it comes to the immigration issue.  But the solution is not at the state level it is to hold federal officials accountable.  In Indiana a coalition of small business owners are petitioning Senator Dick Lugar to work for comprehensive reform that not only secures the borders but responsibly deals with the reality of the 9-12 million illegal immigrants who are here.

Tomorrow: How to do meaningful illegal immigration reform.

That’s German for “Your Papers, Please.”  I also think it’s the new motto for the state of Arizona.  In an understandable but woefully misguided effort to crackdown on  illegal immigration, Arizona has gone just a bit too far, kind of like the Germans going into Gdansk.

The law basically does several things

• Makes it a crime for immigrants to be in the state without proper paperwork.
• It allows for the arrests of illegal immigrants based on “reasonable suspicion” and no warrant.
• It’s illegal to employ or transport illegal immigrants, even if they are family members.
• It also calls for illegal immigrants to be tattooed and herded into camps.

Okay, I made that last one up.  But it may as well be Berlin 1939 as opposed to Phoenix 2010.

Where do I begin?  First, the ultimate determination of citizenship has been the purview of the federal government since the founding of the Republic. Albeit the first citizenship law of 1795 was rather narrow, limiting citizenship to “free white persons” who resided in the United States for at least five years and renounced their allegiance to other nations.  That was later expanded in 1798 to 14 years.

Of course that’s also not the first time citizenship laws would restrict people of color. In 19th Century California Chinese immigrants were prohibited from testifying against whites in court.  The Naturalization Act of  1870 limited citizenship to “white persons and persons of African descent”; no Asians allowed.

And women weren’t all that better off either, in 1907 under the Expatriation Act  a woman who married a foreign national lost her citizenship.  In 1913 California passed a law making “aliens ineligible for citizenship” which also meant no Japanese or Chinese could own land.

Here’s an oldie but a goody, in 1923 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Indians from the Asian subcontinent could not become citizens.  Red feather; good.  Red dot; bad.

The list goes on and on.   Internment of the Japanese during World War II.  “Operation Wetback” which forced the return of undocumented workers back to Mexico, etc. etc.

So you might say my drawing a parallel between the state of Arizona and Nazi Germany is a bit much.  The Grand Canyon State is simply following the more tragic part of our nation’s history.

Tomorrow: We’ll discuss why state’s meddling in immigration law violates the Constitution of the United States.

Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Tony Bennett told me this morning that the state is ending its pursuit for “Race to the Top”  funds.  “Race to the Top” is a federal program that provides up to $4 billion for states that implement reforms in their education system.

Bennett says there was not enough support from the Indiana Teachers Unions for the state to take a second shot at the funds.   Lack of  union support was the one of the original reasons Indiana lost out on the first round of  “Race to the Top” funds.

Bennett told me this morning he made an offer to the Unions to meet him next Tuesday to work out a deal, however they turned him down.

Had Indiana been a “Race to the Top” participant, it would have received hundreds of millions of dollars for education.   Bennett says, for him,  Race to the Top was more about reforming schools than money.

However, I can’t help but think of the irony in all this that the teachers unions whine and complain about more money for schools and as soon as they get  an opportunity to get more money they turn it down.  Hmmm, it must be that whole accountability thing again.

So four debates for the U.S. Senate to replace the seat being vacated by Evan Bayh and what’s changed?  To be frank, not a whole lot.   Everyone said what they’ve said before and no one really strayed from the script.  However, something did dawn on me between the end of the debate at Franklin College and debate hosted by the Indiana Debate Commission.   I honestly think there is a really good chance for Dan Coats to walk away with the nomination and the Tea Party crowd will be responsible for his victory.

Take a deep breath, I’ll still be here.

Welcome back.  Here’s the logic behind my previous statement.  On a macro-level, Tea Party people by their very nature are not a top-down organization but more a grass roots collective of activists, in other words there are no leaders, more like coordinators.  And because of  that mindset, Tea Party groups are not likely to endorse any candidates, the best you can hope for is to win a straw poll.

Take that and add the fact they all have a disdain for anything with Washington attached to its name and Dan Coats, and to a lesser degree John Hostettler are not necessarily fan favorites.   So where does that leave the Tea Party voter, to split his or her vote amongst Richard Behney, Don Bates, Jr., and Marlin Stutzman.  You get enough people splitting votes…you see where this is going.

Now add in the fact that Coats has enough cash to not only be on television and radio across the state, but also he has enough cash to burn to show up on black gospel radio stations.  And you can easily see how he can attract enough non-Tea Party voters to squeak out a victory.   I’ve spoken privately a number of Tea Party activists who tell me they think/worry that Coats will win because they’re all divided over the other candidates.

Now I am not saying that the race is Coats’ to lose.   There is still an x-factor in this race that’s larger than almost any I’ve ever seen in 20 years of covering politics.  So anything can happen and it usually does.  The point I’m making here is that the since the Tea Party movement hasn’t coalesced around one “non-Washington” candidate under this scenario Coats is the likely victor.  Which would be ironic that the Tea Party people are so anti-Washington that by their own actions they indirectly elect someone with strong Washington ties.