An interesting story via The Hill. Considering the dire conditions facing Democratic challengers and incumbents across the country, I think the frustration is understandable:
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who is retiring at the end of the year, reported earlier this month having an eye-popping $10.8 million on hand. But he has given only $15,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) to keep his seat in Democratic hands, according to his fundraising reports.
[...]
DSCC Chair Robert Menendez (NJ) declined to discuss his conversations with Bayh.
"It's up to Sen. Bayh what he does with his money," said Menendez.
A spokesman for Bayh noted the senator has helped in other ways, giving $1 million to the Indiana Democratic Party in March.
"Sen. Bayh has an open mind but hasn't made any final decisions on what to do with the remainder of his campaign account," his spokesman said in a statement.
Not exactly a warm-and-fuzzy embrace from Menendez, eh?
For what it's worth, Bayh has come under fire for this same issue just about every election cycle, and he's always been pretty stingy with his campaign cash. So, to a certain extent, there's precedent here which may go to explaining the reluctance to open the ol' purse strings.
On the other hand, if the cash is being held in reserve for a future bid for statewide office, one has to wonder if the coinage might be better spent now rather than later.
If this year turns out very badly -- an Ellsworth loss, a loss of the Indiana House, and the loss of at least one congressional seat -- you have to think that Bayh will be spending the money anyway when it comes time to convince Hoosier Democrats that he shouldn't be blamed for bailing during one of the toughest years on record.
As the back-and-forth continues over debate scheduling in the Ninth District race, this one-off comment from Republican candidate Todd Young caught my eye:
"I don't think there's ever been a press inquiry we haven't responded to, or a question we haven't responded to," Young said.
Wait...what?
A brief look at just one of the major issues in this campaign -- Social Security reform -- provides numerous examples of Young refusing to respond to requests for a policy position. To wit:
In a written response, Young (left) dismissed Hill's [Social Security] pledge challenge as a campaign tactic and said Hill has yet to formulate any new ideas to insure the program's solvency.
Hill has questioned why Young will not say whether he supports that plan.
Young's campaign manager, Ryan Burchfield, said Tuesday that The Roadmap for America's Future is under study by the campaign.
Todd Young has literally made perfecting the political non-answer the backbone of his campaign. The closest he has come to breaking out of his carefully-crafted Washington talking points is to say he's going to take a look at someone else's idea for how to "fix" Social Security.
Last we heard from our Carmel-based Republican friend, ol' Young was hiding out in some undisclosed location while his Washington consultants airdropped stale national talking points into Southern Indiana in hopes of diverting attention away from Todd's decidedly lackluster post-primary performance.
It appears the more things change, the more they stay the same.
In classic D.C. fashion, the Young campaign's response to Congressman Baron Hill's reasonable request for their policy position on Wall Street reform was to release a statement on the subject... DIVERT ATTENTION QUICKLY! BARACKOBAMAPELOSIOHMYGOD!
In a statement, Young labeled the federal stimulus package as a dangerous waste of money.
"The stimulus didn't fuel the recovery. It didn't create jobs. And it didn't curb unemployment," said Young, who is running against Hill and Libertarian candidate Greg Knott for Indiana's 9th District U.S. House seat.
[...]
Young credited state government - which is headed by Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels - for implementing a low tax, small government agenda.
Just so we're clear, the position of the Todd Young campaign is that the national economic collapse that began while George W. Bush was president is Barack Obama's fault, and especially Baron Hill's fault. But that same economic collapse that began in earnest here in Indiana under Governor Mitch Daniels is somehow a badge of honor for the Guv and his crew.
In other news, down is now up, and two plus two does in fact equal five.
Yet again, this is the problem with taking talking points from Washington and trying to run a Southern Indiana campaign -- things just don't add up once you start trying to apply their national viewpoints to one specific corner of the Hoosier State.
Oh, and in case you were wondering, Libertarian candidate responded to Hill's request for a debate on financial reform. As with the conversation about Social Security, Todd Young and his top-dollar consultants are staying silent.
Over the weekend, Maureen Groppe penned a piece for the Star taking a look at the fundraising races taking place across Indiana in competitive congressional contests. Her take can be summarized as such:
Democrats have the cash advantage in each of the three House districts in Indiana that Republicans hope to seize this fall.
But the gap could narrow, and cash isn't always enough when you're facing powerful political headwinds.
The article cites the election of now-Reps. Baron Hill and Joe Donnelly in 2006 despite being outspent by their respective opponents.
What's important to note, though, is that at least in the case of Hill, he didn't need to spend as much because his name identification was already very high throughout the district -- he had, after all, already been elected in the Fightin' Ninth before.
And that's the biggest problem facing our Carmel-based friend Todd Young: it costs a lot of money to boost name recognition in Southern Indiana. There's a reason the GOP ran a guy named "Millionaire Mike" for all of those years.
In some ways, though, the Todd Young campaign strategy may see this as a feature, not a bug. Anti-establishment year or not, this part of the state is much more likely to support 'Generic Republican' this year than they are a Carmel native who has only lived in the district -- and Bloomington, at that -- for a few years.
Someone needs to tell Carmel-based Republican challenger Todd Young that less may in fact be more, but there are limits to everything. And when the long-shot Ninth District congressional candidates -- some of whom aren't even on the ballot -- start to earn more ink than you on a critical topic on the campaign trail, perhaps it's time to come out of hiding.
"He apparently has decided that his best strategy on Social Security is to simply say nothing," Hill said. "The voters of the 9th Congressional District deserve better. They deserve a congressman that will be up front with them instead of ducking questions."
Those words sparked a series of responses from Hill's opponents. All four candidates battling for Indiana's 9th District seat spoke with The Tribune in phone interviews Tuesday.
Libertarian candidate Greg Knott said Social Security is not what Hill described, but he also said it's not a Ponzi scheme.
"I don't think Social Security fits that definition," Knott said. "It is a rip-off."
"That's an irresponsible statement," Hill said of Young's remarks in a phone interview. "To say that is the same old political rhetoric. It scares senior citizens."
Notice what happened there. The story leads off with Congressman Hill stating his position on Social Security, segues to his Libertarian opponent... and then back to Hill, for lack of anything from Todd Young.
But hey, getting upstaged by a Libertarian challenger isn't the worst thing in the world. They're principled and all.
Wait, what? A write-in candidate?
Write-in candidate Jerry Lucas of Jennings County agrees with Young's decription of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme.
[...]
Lucas says steps must be taken to ensure those who are filing for Social Security claims are entitled to them.
"We're going to have to clean it out," Lucas said. "There's no such thing as solvent Social Security. It has become a cash hole."
...
And the response from the Young "campaign" was limited to this:
"Right now we're looking at the Paul Ryan plan," Burchfield said. "The thing that Todd wants to have done is verification that the plan's numbers can make Social Security solvent. If we can verify that they are good numbers and that the last-ditch effort to make this plan work is raising taxes, then he (Young) could sign on.
Well, that and some boilerplate references to tax increases and liberalism.
This is getting ugly, folks. What do you call amateur hour when it lasts for weeks?
When it comes to the success or failure of a political campaign, there's casual ineptitude when it comes to managing an effort, and then there's professional idiocy.
Ninth District Republican challenger (and Carmel native) Todd Young is no amateur, folks.
As if coming out vaguely in favor of privatizing Social Security wasn't bad enough, Young followed that train wreck by calling Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" and dismissing its role for hundreds of thousands of Hoosiers.
But wait, there's more!
In the aftermath of all this, Young has proceeded to completely ignore any and all requests to clarify his position on the subject. Nada. Zilch. The ol' goose egg.
All of which has provided Congressman Baron Hill the opening he needed to reveal the complete lack of substance behind Young's country-club-Republican-meets-Tea-Party bid for office. Via Dan Suddeath in the News and Tribune, the latest:
Democrat and incumbent Rep. Baron Hill criticized Republican challenger Todd Young on Wednesday for not signing a pledge to protect Social Security from privatization - a move that Hill made last month.
"My opponent's lack of comment is disturbing," Hill said. "He apparently has decided that his best strategy on Social Security is to simply say nothing."
Hill again brought up a video posted on the website www.youtube.com last month where Young refers to Social Security as "a Ponzi scheme" while addressing a crowd of supporters at a town hall meeting.
"Republicans in Washington have declared war on Social Security," Hill said. "Given the fact that my opponent was recently endorsed by D.C. Republicans and his statement that Social Security is a 'Ponzi scheme,' he seems to have the exact same agenda."
For any other campaign, this sort of story would probably be the last straw that spurred an otherwise sleepy operation into action. Not Todd Young, though -- policy positions are for those libruls out in Washington!
While he didn't mention his view on Social Security, Young responded to Hill's statement by questioning his allegiance to President Barack Obama.
On the heels of Congressman Baron Hill vocalizing his support for maintaining and protecting Social Security -- including an opposition to privatization -- Republican candidate (and Carmel native) Todd Young has been spotted at a recent Tea Party event advocating for... well, I'm not really sure what he's advocating for.
But he certainly doesn't seem particularly supportive of the Social Security program.
Now, let's be clear -- Todd Young is incredibly incoherent and unclear in this clip as to what the hell he actually thinks about Social Security. He's vaguely against privatization, but he also thinks it's necessary, and he also wants to transfer federal powers (see: Social Security) to the states, but he also wants to preserve solvency.
It's a convoluted, chaotic jumble of half-assed talking points and weird ideological stances.
And that's really the point.
Todd Young owes Southern Indiana a bit more of an explanation on what he actually thinks about Social Security. I don't know if this psychobabble works up in Carmel -- where Ponzi schemes are really the norm -- but methinks that the folks down along the River might want a little straight talk before November.
Let's just go ahead and say that any article headline featuring words like "disdain" and "contempt" is usually not one you want to be featured in. This weekend was no exception, with the Journal Gazette's Sylvia A. Smith taking aim at the Republican field of senate candidates for by and large ignoring their financial disclosure requirement.
Coats is well aware that his background as a Washington lobbyist is fodder for his primary opponents, not to mention the Democrats. By muffing the financial disclosure requirement, he made an error that was probably inadvertent but could be interpreted as deliberate.
Stutzman didn't hold back. He said Coats "refuses to come clean to the people of Indiana. Dan Coats appears to be totally owned by the Washington establishment and special interests."
[...]
But Coats left himself open to that kind of allegation when he relied on the advice of attorneys who can't decipher a simple requirement of when a report is due.
Was Coats inept, either personally or by choosing C-minus advisers? Or is he dragging his feet on the disclosure form to hide something? We don't know, but it is not comforting to consider either as a quality for a Senate candidate.
It's worth noting that Dr. Tom Hayhurst also missed the deadline -- something not omitted from the article. Still, his friends and neighbors (i.e., Hoosiers) can probably vouch for his comings and goings over the last few years. Dan Coats, on the other hand, can't say the same thing.
Special thanks to the reader who sent this picture along. I'm still waiting to see how the Coats campaign's brilliant "I have so much money I can't even begin to tell you how much I made as a lobbyist" talking points work out among everyday Hoosiers.
"Are you willing to say now how much you made as a lobbyist?" asked a reporter.
"I don't have that number," he responded.
Coats said his tax man is still compiling the facts.
In some ways, you sort of have to assume at this point that senator-turned-lobbyist Dan Coats is ready to embrace the "no news is good news" mantra for the rest of the primary election season. He is, after all, the conventional front-runner for the Republican senate nomination, enjoying big financial support from the same Washington D.C. culture he's been trying to distance himself from for the last few months.
But try as he might, Coats has segued from one of the worst candidate roll-outs in recent memory to a seemingly endless series of not-so-positive stories. Yesterday was no exception:
Plagued by questions about his financial dealings over the last twelve years, Coats' campaign should have realized that secrecy begets secrecy, and nothing derails an effort to change a largely negative campaign narrative quite like an old-fashioned lack of transparency piece.
To make matters worse, the official response for weeks from the Coats campaign -- and the candidate himself -- as to the simple question of how much money Coats made while working as a lobbyist has been as consistent as it has been bizarre: "I don't know."
I'm sorry, but if you're trying to connect with Hoosiers after spending more than a decade on the East Coast, perhaps saying that you've made so much money you can't keep track of it all isn't the best message to bring to the table.
Via The Hill, we get the latest in the ongoing effort of the Dan Coats campaign to prove he's totally not an out-of-touch Washington insider. Thus far, the effort has mainly consisted of fundraisers with dozens of out-of-touch Washington insiders.
Coats was slated Monday night to hold a fundraiser in Washington featuring a whopping 14 former senators -- most who have other business in Washington.
The guest list for Coats's Monday reception at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse was slated to include former Sens. Spencer Abraham (Mich.), Trent Lott (Miss.), John Ashcroft (Mo.), Connie Mack (Fla.), Norm Coleman (Miss.), Mel Martinez (Fla.), Bob Dole (Kan.), Don Nickles (Okla.), Pete Domenici (N.M.), Rick Santorum (Pa.), Slade Gorton (Wash.), Gordon Smith (Ore.), Tim Hutchinson (Ark.) and John Warner (Va.).
That's two former Senate majority leaders, three former cabinet officials and several other recently departed former senators.
There was literally over a century of Washington D.C. experience in that room. And that was just Senator Dole!
Seriously, though, this isn't the kind of press Coats needs right now. Or ever. But it seems that although you can take the lobbyist out of the D.C., you can't take the D.C. out of the lobbyist.
Let's be clear here: State Sen. Marlin Stutzman really is a sympathetic figure in this Republican senate nomination cluster. The guy is a right-wing loon, to be sure, but he seems like a nice enough guy, and he was in this race before being in this race was cool.
And then the North Carolinian Dan Coats got a phone call at his Virginia home from a Texan in Washington D.C., and the rest is history.
All that aside, the last few days have brought to light more than a few stories focusing on Stutzman's tea party problem -- namely, the disconnect between his anti-socialism-government-takeover talking points and the fact that Stutzman's oft-cited farming roots have involved plenty of socialist-government-takeovers. The Washington Post's Right Now blog fills in the blanks:
According to USDA records downloaded by the Environmental Working Group, Indiana State Sen. Marlin Stutzman, who is running for the state's open U.S. Senate seat, received a total of $156,907.54 in subsidies from 1997 to 2006. During the last year for which we have records, he got $13,630 in subsidies.
Stutzman, who co-owns a farm and fully owns a farm trucking company, was elected to Indiana's legislature in 2002 and has built some national support among conservatives looking for another rising star. On his campaign site, Stutzman trumpets the support of RedState's Erick Erickson and some kind words from Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).
But the subsidies issue has dogged Stutzman as he courts the support of Tea Party activists.
This is far from the only issue dogging the five-person field of Republican hopefuls -- no, hypocrisy and irony appear to be their calling cards at this point -- but it does highlight the problem with a hyper-conservative movement that is as disorganized and discombobulated in messaging as it is on the ground.
Today is the day, folks. As I announced earlier this week, Blue Indiana will be hosting Congressman Brad Ellsworth TONIGHT between 7:30 and 8:30pm ET.
Here's how things will work:
This thread will stay open all day, and will be bumped as other stories get posted.
How can you participate? Easy. Just leave a question in this thread.
Can't be here tonight to interact? No problem! Just leave your question right now, and it will be around this evening when Congressman Ellsworth drops by.
Not registered with the site? Just click here and you'll be ready to ask your question in seconds.
I'll be monitoring the thread all day, and as with all things I trust that community standards will weed out questions that have no real value. Other than that, I encourage you to forward this post to friends and family and invite them to submit a question. This is a great chance to talk with Brad in a unique setting, and I think we should all take advantage of the opportunity.
Update -- 7:25pm: Just five minutes until things kick off, and there appear to be plenty of questions to choose from. Thanks again to all of you who have dropped by and left your thoughts today.
Update x2 -- I want to thank everyone for participating in tonight's event, with a special thanks to Congressman Brad Ellsworth for taking some time out of his hectic campaign schedule to sit down with us for an hour. I'm hopeful that this won't be the last time that we're able to have a conversation like this, and I would imagine that everyone who helped make tonight a success will have an opportunity to ask questions in person over the next few months. Thanks again!
I'm pleased to announce that Blue Indiana will be hosting Congressman Brad Ellsworth this Thursday between 7:30 and 8:30pm.
For those who have been living under some sort of large rock for the last few months, Brad Ellsworth has established himself as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination as we try and hold on to the seat soon to be vacated by the retiring Senator Evan Bayh.
And he'll be here on Thursday to answer your questions.
I'll have more details over the next few days, but be sure to schedule some time Thursday to drop by and be part of the conversation.
You can find out more about Brad's campaign at www.ellsworthforindiana2010.com. He'll be touring the state most of the week, so keep your eyes peeled for an opportunity meet and talk with the good sheriff in person!
This quote jumped out at me in the first few grafs of an Eric Bradner story that ran yesterday in the Courier & Press:
As members of Congress transition into campaign season during their current two-week recess, Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., is ready to sell voters on his support of the health care reform legislation.
"It's a huge piece of legislation," said Ellsworth, an Evansville native who is looking to succeed Sen. Evan Bayh, who is not seeking re-election. "Part of our job is to go out and explain the bill and what it's going to do immediately."
Last week brought real health care reform the likes of which hasn't been seen in generations. But with this much-needed and massive overhaul of our nation's broken insurance system came a lot of confusion, and the continuation of a Republican misinformation campaign that has been more successful than not over the last year.
Unfortunately, the immediate aftermath of the bill's passage and signing has seen more than a few national and semi-national figures step into the light -- very few of whom are carrying the banner of centrist Democrats facing an uphill electoral path this year.
I probably don't need to bring up such political opportunism in this state, though. Mitch Daniels has made a career out of sniping on fiscal issues while sweeping his own problems under the Governor Mansion's rug.
(A maneuver no doubt convenient for him, as he only sees the place occasionally as he's driven in from Hamilton County each morning.)
Another Bradner piece out yesterday underlined the danger of not having an effective front-line defense to the attacks being lobbed from the sidelines.
If Daniels is going to serve as a proxy for the national GOP, then Democratic U.S. Rep. Brad Ellsworth's campaign to replace retiring Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh will face a tougher roadblock than could be tossed up by any of the five Republican primary candidates.
If Daniels can convince Hoosiers that health care reform has come with untenable consequences, all that the eventual GOP Senate candidate will have to do is tie Ellsworth to that legislation.
Hoosier Democrats, really all Democrats, need to speak with one voice in the coming weeks.
Not only does our congressional team need to step up to the plate -- and I mean our entire team -- but we need our national leaders to spend the summer criss-crossing America with a message that is quite simple: You don't have to like the health care reform bill that was passed, but you at least owe it to yourself to understand what it actually does.
For most Americans, at the end of the day, nothing will change. Their taxes won't go up, their employer coverage will remain as it always has been, and they'll be offered consumer protections that they probably won't notice until they need them. Once this becomes clear, this year's election will no doubt be about who is doing the most to move the country forward.
And I don't think I need to tell you who will come out on top of that debate.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I present this week's edition of "Yeah, what Sylvia said!"
Some truly believe the government-takeover/socialism/unconstitutionality argument. It's highly unlikely any of them voted for those three Democrats in the past. Thus, Ellsworth, Donnelly and Hill won't lose many former supporters over their health insurance votes.
For many, many voters, the hoopla over this bill will be forgotten. What will be on their minds and shaping their votes is what it always is in shaky economic times: their pocketbooks and their jobs.
It would be foolish to think that this year will be easy for our Democratic incumbents -- at the same time, though, I don't expect 2010 to be particularly gentle with any incumbents on the ballot in November.
The reason Republicans couldn't kill health care reform is that they didn't have any alternatives. In the end, Americans will take an imperfect idea over a non-existent one.
Unless the national Republican party manages to break out of their now-stale "NO" talking points -- and considering how much they are being forced to kowtow to the Tea Partiers, it seems unlikely they will -- it may not be the landslide year that hyper-conservatives have been predicting since President Barack Obama was sworn in.
From a release issued by the Indiana Democratic Party just moments ago:
"This is a million dollar vote of confidence in Brad Ellsworth and Indiana Democrats," Bayh said. "Though I am leaving the Senate at the end of my term, I am determined to help Brad Ellsworth and the 2010 Democratic ticket with the financial resources they need to run a successful campaign."
"On behalf of Indiana Democrats, I thank Senator Bayh for his generosity and his commitment to the Indiana Democratic ticket in the 2010 election," said Indiana Democratic Party Chair Dan Parker. "This unprecedented contribution will be put to good use in electing Brad Ellsworth to the United States Senate and in helping Democrats from the top of the ticket on down."
Here's to hoping this is the beginning -- not the end -- of Senator Bayh's financial assistance to Hoosier Democrats.
By now you've probably heard the latest ugly incident to arise out of Republican attempts to debate like adults. If not, here's the skinny:
Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) acknowledged late Sunday night that a Republican yelled "baby killer" as Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) urged his fellow Democrats to vote down a Republican amendment on abortion services in the health-care legislation.
The remark drew immediate shouts of derision from the Democratic side of the aisle, as Stupak is considered the leading anti-abortion Democrat and held out his support for the legislation until President Obama issued an executive order restating the ban on federal funding of abortion.
While Republicans have yet to give up who on their side of the aisle couldn't keep it together, it's worth noting who is willing to stand with this kind of behavior.
Take, for instance, 2nd Congressional District candidate Jackie Walorski, who traveled to D.C. yesterday to speak to the Michiana 9/12 group, a Glenn Beck-inspired organization that publicly encourages such enlightened discussion as this:
BART STUPAK'S PRICE FOR KILLING THE BABIES WAS CHEAP INDEED...
Considering that Walorski has still failed to condemn the NRCC for using robo-calls in her district, I doubt we'll see her come out of the shadow of such hate groups long enough to stand up for what is right.
Below is the first image you'll be greeted with if you visit GoMarlin.com, the online presence of Republican senate candidate Marlin Stutzman. The idea, as it were:
A fun way to get the word out and raise money for the Hoosiers for Stutzman U.S. Senate campaign! Sign-up to host a Marlin's March Madness party in your home or in a local gathering place. Invite friends, neighbors and acquaintances to a Marlin's March Madness party, who are interested in helping Marlin win the Republican Primary on May 4th and defeat the Democrat nominee in the fall.
A cute concept, to be sure. There's just one big problem: the term "March Madness" enjoys pretty healthy trademark protection by the NCAA. And as at least one Virginia candidate learned last year, our friends over at the collegiate athletic headquarters aren't exactly charitable with their intellectual property.
[Bob] McDonnell, a Republican, this week on his Web site unveiled a contest called "McDonnell March Madness" patterned after the NCAA basketball tournament.
Problem is that the words "March Madness" are under trademark protection by the NCAA. On Wednesday, Gail Dent, NCAA associate director of public and media relations, said in response to a Bristol Herald Courier inquiry that the organization can allow other groups to use the term through a licensing agreement - i.e. in exchange for big bucks. McDonnell's campaign, however, did not ask.
Furthermore, because the NCAA is a nonprofit organization for tax purposes, it could not grant permission to a politician to use the words in a political campaign.
Sounds like Marlin will be facing many of the same questions. Paging Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, I have a Wednesday story on line one!
Thought of the day: At this point, should calling Dan Coats a "carpetbagger" refer not to his Virginia North Carolina residency, but rather all of the baggage he's bringing with him to this Senate race?
All logos and trademarks in this site
are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, and
all other site content may be used for any purpose
without explicit permission
unless otherwise specified.
Today is the day, folks. As I announced earlier this week, Blue Indiana will be hosting Congressman Brad Ellsworth TONIGHT between 7:30 and 8:30pm ET.
