Only a handful of days remain until the conclusion of a seemingly endless political campaign that surely must have started in 2002 … and, in fact, did.
That’s when Mike Sodrel challenged Baron Hill for the first time, and lost, setting the stage for a successful rematch, then another loss, and now a fourth effort. In the end, there have been enough sequels to embarrass even Rocky Balboa.
Considering the Libertarian candidate Eric Schansberg's second 9th district bid, my personal 9th district electoral strategy remains as it was in 2006, when I gleefully paraphrased Abraham Lincoln:
"If I could vote for Hill to beat Sodrel I would do it and if I could vote for Schansberg to beat Sodrel I would do it and if I could leave all of them alone and skip the election to beat Sodrel I would do that. The thing is to beat Sodrel.”
Two recent NAC articles considered a few of the angles:
Indiana's 9th district contest: A million miles on a set of retreads? Are you kidding?
Schansberg: " ... Nose-holders in both parties now have an option which would allow them to sleep better at night."
Granted, we may already have beaten this one to death, but comments are welcomed just in case.
ELECTION Q&A: U.S. Congress 9th District (New Albany Tribune)
Baron Hill for Congress (D - incumbent)
Mike Sodrel for Congress (R)
Eric Schansberg for Congress (L)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
If you don't think I'm the best candidate-- or don't ascribe much value to sending a message with a "protest" vote-- then the point is moot.
But if you think I am the best candidate on foreign policy and economic justice issues (even if we don't agree all the time or much at all)
&/or
if you value the chance to "send a message",
then you have that opportunity this time.
Since Hill is pounding Sodrel by double-digits in the polls, you can waste your vote by adding to Hill's margin of victory-- or you can use it to take a poke at the status quo.
Progressively yours,
eric
I support Baron Hill, but could see myself supporting a more progressive candidate if one came along...
I think the more important question to be asked is "Roger, where's the Community Dark?" I went to Sportstime for lunch with a buddy yesterday, took my trusty growler along as I was taking the rest of the day off to watch Bayern Munich play on television. The lady says "We don't have Community Dark"...Had to settle for 15-B. Kind of took away from the pleasure of my day watching some soccer and drinking beer.
I'm just saying...
We had difficulty getting a grain shipment a while back, and we're still trying to catch up in the brewery.
Ordinarily we'd be flush, but those 21 kegs at Fringe Fest knocked out all the spares, which means the ComDk goes more quickly, etc, etc.
Not sure on the ETA. Should be within a day or two.
Hello, turbulence:
Looks like it's time for another brief reminder of our disclosure policy. Thanks to all readers for your support of personal responsibility in the blogosphere.
----
Newcomers, please take note.
NA Confidential believes in a higher bar than is customary in the blogosphere, and follows a disclosure policy with respect to reader comments.
First, you must be registered with blogger.com according to the procedures specified. This is required not as a means of directing traffic to blogger.com, but to reduce the lamentable instances of flaming and personal attacks on the part of the anonymous.
Second, although pen names are perfectly acceptable, the senior editor (yours truly) must be informed of your identity, and according to your preference, it will be kept confidential.
To reiterate, I insist upon this solely to lessen the frequency of malicious anonymity, which unfortunately plagues certain other blogs hereabouts.
You may e-mail me at the address given within my profile and explain who you are. Failure to comply means that your comments probably will be deleted -- although the final decision remains mine.
Thanks for reading, and please consider becoming a part of the community here, one that is respectful of the prerequisites of civilized discourse, and that seeks to engage visitors in dialogue.
Roger (senior editor)
----
Seeing as I'm in ill humor with regard to anonymity just prior to the election, I'm going to let this one post stand, bt will delete future examples. Thanks.
Unless this "turbulence" is the actual author of this piece, it's also plagiarism...
http://www.todaymarketnews.com/14609/
oops...
www.todaymarketnews.com/14609
The author of that piece is Paul B. Farrell.
BTW, thanks for the update Roger. I was truly kidding about it making my day not quite as good. Bayern managed a 2-1 win and 15-B is a great brew!
Plagiarized and an unknown blogger. I know a blog is not a democracy but I vote to delete anyway.
I had a senaking suspicion but no time to check it. Plagiarism trumps my tolerance.
Down it goes.
If "turbulence" follows procedure and reposts with attribution, and according to the anti-anonymity clause, then it will be allowed.
Thanks, sleuths.
Please fasten your seatbelts, there is going to be a little turbulence....Whew, glad that is over.
I too believe a vote is a terrible thing to waste a vote. That is why I am encouraging Eric to throw all his support behind Mike Sodrel. These two candidates line up close on many issues. If Mr. Schansberg were not running, would he vote for Hill? I think not. Sir, since you have a slim chance of winning, why not urge your supporters to vote for Sodrel? The 8 to 10 percent you may receive could make the difference between a bipartisan Congress and a super majority.
Perhaps Mr. Schansberg's principled opposition to Mr. Sodrel's war/fiscal record has something to do it, although I'd never pretend to speak for the candidate.
I have to be perfectly honest here, in this contest I am at a total loss.
I do not want to use my vote to simply vote AGAINST someone, I want to vote FOR someone.
Sodrels policies cuts me to the quick, and during his term we had the largest cuts in funding we had ever experienced and almost had to close our doors.
Hill helped to correct that a little bit by lobbying for us up on the hill some. But then turned around and used it as a political feather in his cap and took full credit for the months of hard work of the senior management staff researching, and completing federal grants that had taken 5 months to complete.
Unfortunately I have not familiarized myself with Mr. Schansberg's policies, a situation I plan to correct this weekend.
I just shake my head everytime I see a Republican ask for people to vote to keep the Democrats from having a super majority. Maybe if the Republicans had done a better job of running the country when they had control, they wouldn't have to be worried about it. How about the Republicans start taking some of the responsibility for what's happened over the last 8 years and quit trying to scare the voters with the super majority argument? Your guys had their chance and it's become obvious that the American public is fed up with these neo-con ideas, otherwise it wouldn't be looking like such a landslide for the Dems next week.
This is a provocative take on local candidates and party affiliation.
Daniel, that's why I have already voted for Hill: I want as large a Democratic majority as possible. I don't want a "bipartisan" (=divided) government, I want a government that can advance a progressive agenda. In particular, we will never solve our health care problem if Republicans still have any power.
I appreciate Hill's vote against the Wall St Bail-out. I'm still waiting to see how that's going to work out, so far, nothing changes...
Wait a second. He voted against the first version and then as usual voted for the second. Hoosiers have let him off the hook here.
For the record, Hill voted against the bailout bill (HR 3997, HR 1424)both times.
Agreed. Hill voted no both times.
Not that I necessarily agree with the vote...
Hill voted YES on the sugar coated Senate version, number 1525 and on both roll calls 679 and 680. For the record.
According to the Washington Post:
Question: On Agreeing to the Resolution
Bill: H RES 1525
Vote description: Providing for Consideration of the Senate Amendments to H.R. 1424, Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.
Vote type: Yea-and-Nay (Help)
A standard vote that requires a simple majority for approval or passage of the legislation.
Result: Passed, 223-205, with 5 not voting.
Date/time: October 3, 2008, 10:34 a.m.
Republican majority opinion: No (Help)
The position of more than 50 percent of voting Republicans. "None" means an equal split between "Yes" and "No."
Democrat majority opinion: Yes (Help)
The position of more than 50 percent of voting Democrats. "None" means an equal split between "Yes" and "No."
Baron Hill Yea
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/2/votes/680/
From the Cincinnati.com:
"The unprecedented bill passed the House on a 263-171 vote, and was quickly signed into law by President Bush.
There were 58 more votes for the measure than the earlier version that failed on Monday. Schmidt was one of three Ohio lawmakers to change her vote. The others were Republican Rep. Pat Tiberi and Democrat Rep. Betty Sutton.
House Republican Leader John Boehner of West Chester warned: "The passage of this flawed but necessary bill is not cause for celebration."
On Monday, Boehner was the only regional lawmaker to support it. Republican Reps. Steve Chabot of Westwood, Mike Turner of Centerville, Geoff Davis of Hebron, and Mike Pence of Columbus, Ind., and Democrat Rep. Baron Hill of Seymour, Ind., all voted against the bill on Friday for a second time."
Daniel, I think that you are looking at something else. I will admit, the Post site is a little confusing.
Also according to Washingtonwatch.com, Hill voted "nay" the second time. That's the time it passed and President Bush signed it.
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/blog/2008/10/07/switch-or-not-how-did-your-representative-vote/
Well then I give Baron credit...ouch that hurt a little. Isn't there a verified government web site that shows these votes?
Daniel,
You would think. And there probably is but we just have not found it yet. I'm probably not smart enough to use it, anyhow!!
Oh, and the hurting goes away in a short time. Stick with us and we will rescue you from the dark side yet.(most definitely written with good will and in good fun)
iamhoosier:
Come on pal, you're too hard on yourself.
I'll parrot Stuart Smalley's admonition, "You're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it people like you."
A bunch of small things in reply:
Daniel, I can't throw "my support" to Sodrel, since about half of my voters would otherwise support Hill.
NewAlbanian is correct. The reason I'm doing this is principled opposition to Sodrel and Hill on Iraq, fiscal conservatism, their failure to speak (effectively) to important issues affecting the working poor and middle class, and so on.
I concur with Bayern's assessment of the GOP mess. Although an Obama administration will be somewhere between ineffectual (and disappointing to his followers) and damaging, I will certainly not shed any tears when Bush, McCain and their ilk are on the back-bench.
William, one shouldn't use Hill's name or the Democratic Party (as an entity) in tandem with the term "progressive". As for our health care problem, why on earth would one want to try a single, amazingly risky, federal experiment on health care (they do so well with such things, n'est-ce pas?)-- when we could try 50 different state approaches instead?
G. Coyle, I have publicly commended Baron for his two votes against the bail-out. Whatever his motives, I think that's what cinched his re-election.
Hill is a liar, he vowed he would wait until the may primary before endorsing anyone for president but what did he do, endorsed Obama before the primary, bottom line, cant trust him.
At least with Sodrel his word is good even though I dont agree with his positions. Hill is a machine paid for politician
As for our health care problem, why on earth would one want to try a single, amazingly risky, federal experiment on health care
You know, Eric, that relates to an interesting question that often bugs me:
Why is it that when a private company pools its resources to increase buying power and take advantage of economies of scale, it's considered by many to be the epitome of capitalism but, when a group of citizens choose to do it under the umbrella of government, it's so often maligned by the very same people as socialism?
Health insurance and and pharmaceuticals come immediately to mind.
Anyone have any thoughts?
Bluegill, a good question.
The one argument in favor of federalized health care is the potential to take advantage of additional economies of scale. But in this context, given that states are themselves so large, we would expect those to be exceedingly modest-- aside from, perhaps, what might be available to smaller states or with specialized procedures. Even there, North Dakota might decide to go in with SD, MT and MN to take advantage of any significant economies of scale.
Larger is not necessarily better in either the private or public sectors. This is called diseconomies of scale. In the private sector, such decisions are punished (higher costs, lower profits). In the public sector, punishment or even taking notice is unlikely. In the context of govt health care, the modest gains would need to be weighed against the costs of a govt monopoly and the risks of a single experiment.
I would also say that private sector activity of this sort is merely one example among many of capitalism-- and is often criticized under anti-trust concerns or general distrust of larger, private entities. If people distrusted large (far larger) govt as much as they distrusted large companies, things would be much different.
Eric, I have a question for you. I was recently browsing through the library and came upon a book about how government policies on welfare had failed the very people it's meant to help. Were you the author of that book? It's on my list of reading and I just put it together that you are the author. I work at the Floyd County DFR in public assistance (which by all accounts is failing miserably) so I'm interested in the subject.
Not sure.
I have a book from 1996 called Poor Policy: How Govt Harms the Poor. Aside from table-setting topics (like "the poverty rate" and discrimination) and a final section on international poverty, the book divides into two primary sections.
The largest value-added of the book is the first of those two: trying to lay out the ways in which the govt harms the poor indirectly-- while helping interest groups-- and why. For example, in helping farmers, we drive up the price of food-- which disproportionately impacts the poor.
The section on welfare is about the mixed bag of govt trying to help the poor directly. The book came out in 1996, so it anticipates (closely) the welfare reforms enacted by Clinton and the GOP Congress that year.
That's the book. Once I get through my current stack of reading...(sigh)...I will pick it up. Thanks for the reply!
Eric, why not just go with the Canadian single-payer model?
Because the model is not likely to be applicable. In fact, the Canadian model-- whatever its merits and demerits-- is applied to a much smaller and more homogeneous population, and thus, fits the idea of a state-level approach much better.
In any case, why not 50 states? Do you have that much confidence in the politicians in our federal government (in tandem with interest groups, bureaucracy, etc.) to take a single shot at this vital and complex problem?
Why haven't more states taken this issue up?
If memory serves, the Canadian system was developed and implemented province-by-province, and is still managed at the provincial level. Now the US is less homogeneous than Canada—but this is exactly why the system should be installed nationally. It's hard to imagine Mississippi being able to create a system as good as Massachusetts, simply because that state is much poorer. And we don't need too much experimentation or tinkering; the Canadian model is already available.
In any case, why not 50 states? Do you have that much confidence in the politicians in our federal government (in tandem with interest groups, bureaucracy, etc.) to take a single shot at this vital and complex problem?
I understand the point being made about the value of several different approaches and tend to side with more localized authority in a lot of cases.
However, I think the answer to the questions posed would at least partially depend on who wields power in the particular venues.
If current poll numbers hold, for instance, I'd much prefer that Barack Obama provide the executive voice rather than Mitch Daniels.
The legislatures would also play an obvious role. In the (Indiana) state scenario, I'd be at the mercy of folks who tend to be much more conservative than I am. In the federal one, there would be viewpoints typically closer to my own at the negotiating table in larger numbers.
Given my desire to have better health care access and my lack of desire to move to other parts of the country, I have to consider that.
If the Canadian system is provincial, then why isn't it a model for a state-based system?!
Canada has a lower population than California. Ontario would be our 6th largest state. Quebec-- 13th; BC-- 25th; Alberta-- 30th; Manitoba, Sask., NS and NB average less than one million people each.
Heterogeneity is an obvious reason for state/local solutions. Income heterogeneity may lead one to want national subsidies of states-- but still provides no rationale for implementing the program at the national level.
I understand Bluegill's point. Then, the trade-off is between the risk of a single federal program and the piecemeal approach one would find with a state-based approach. Then again, if some states are successful, how would anyone be able to deny that option?
Then again, if some states are successful, how would anyone be able to deny that option?
The same way we've always denied options when other states do things better than us, I suppose.
If I thought I had a plausible explanation as to how that happens, you wouldn't be the only one of the two of us to have published some books.
Post a Comment