If Matthew Tully says it's "An impressive start for Gov. Holcomb," then I'm paying attention.

Let's put it this way.

Matthew Tully was outspokenly critical of Mike Pence during Pence's time in the Statehouse, and the reason I know this is because I cherry-picked Tully's writings very often in order to make my own "screw Pence" points.

Consequently, I regard Tully as a credible witness, so in fairness, let's consider this assessment of Indiana's incoming Governor, Eric Holcomb.

Tully: An impressive start for Gov. Holcomb, by Matthew Tully (Indy Star)

It’s only been two weeks, but Gov. Eric Holcomb is off to a solid start as governor. The reason: His focus is on all the right things.

He’s not yet been in office for two weeks, but Gov. Eric Holcomb is off to the kind of start that gives you hope about the things to come.

With his speeches, staff appointments and legislative agenda, Holcomb is reminding Hoosiers of what it’s like to have a governor who keeps his focus on the kind of issues that truly matter. I know that sounds simple, and it’s hard to understand why a governor would do anything but that. Nonetheless, we’ve seen up close what happens when a governor fails to focus only on the core issues facing our state.

Holcomb has seen it, too, and it’s looking like he’s intent on avoiding the damage that comes when one’s ideology leads the way. Or when one forgets that a governor’s job above all else is to move his or her state toward more prosperity and opportunity. Or that governing is not just about indulging and exciting your base.

Of course Pence's speech was a failure. Because garbage in, garbage out.

But Ron Grooms thought it the bee's knees.

Coincidentally, Tully's fifth point echoes a remark I made to a friend just last week. Mitch Daniels may have been a fascist, but he was a technocratic fascist. At least Their Man Mitch provided consistent evidence of a pulse. Comparatively speaking, Pence is a wooden, unresponsive "culture wars" non-entity ... and one needn't be a leftist like me to notice. I've heard conservatives sadly concur with me, albeit in hushed tones.

As the Internet has been known to observe, Tully flat nails it.

Tully: 5 reasons Pence’s speech was a complete failure, by Matthew Tully (Indy Star)

Gov. Mike Pence gave his fourth State of the State Address Tuesday night. At a time when Indiana needs big ideas the governor delivered little more than talking points and election-year dodges.

It was, without question, one of the worst speeches I’ve ever heard a politician give. It was empty and phony, an out-of-touch act of political self-preservation, and filled with cheap applause lines and small-ball notions at a time when Indiana needs boldness and big ideas.

Gov. Mike Pence had months to prepare for his annual State of the State address. He went out of his way in recent weeks to build up expectations for it. But in the end, the speech he delivered was as devoid of ideas and guts as it was any semblance of leadership.

Pence failed Indiana on Tuesday night. Yes, once again, he failed the state so many of us love and want to see move forward. He failed for many reasons. Here are a few.

Pence, Grooms, other old bigoted white guys sadly united in both spite and cluelessness.

As so many have noted, this isn't Mike Pence's first dance as it exalts plainly purposeful discrimination, and as As the Indy Star's Matthew Tully succinctly observes, Pence is "out of his league as governor."

When you have to "clarify" a horribly damaging piece of legislation that you raced to sign, when you dodge a question on national TV about whether discrimination is legal in your state, when you deal your state a crushing economic blow, when you seem incapable of understanding the role you have played in creating this mess — well, that makes clear that you are not in the right job.

I'd place our state senator, the bizarrely oblivious Ron Grooms, in the same category. He isn't governor, so he gets a pass? He shouldn't. First tolls, now RFRA; is Grooms intent on sealing the border with the bulk of the metro Louisville market?

Back to Tully on Pence:

As a politician he is above all an ideologue, one whose actions and distractions have made clear that he doesn't truly understand what it takes to take on the state's massive challenges. He thrived while representing a gerrymandered congressional district, one where he could safely walk an ideological line and live largely in a partisan bubble. He has failed to understand that a governor's job is to represent a much more diverse state.

Old white guys living in bubbles. Spare me. Here is Frank Rich with more national ramifications of the Hoosier Stain.

Indiana, Arkansas, and the GOP’s Disastrous Anti-Gay Bigotry, by Frank Rich (New York)

... Other defenders of these laws, like The Wall Street Journal editorial page, are predictably pleading victimization: The real victims of bigotry, according to this argument, are Christians, who are being punished for unfashionable beliefs. The Bible has a long history of being cited in America to justify second-class citizenship for women and blacks, among others, in their struggles for equal rights over the past century. It didn’t fly then, and it won’t fly now. A GOP presidential field that supports transparent discrimination is not only on the wrong side of history but the wrong side of the present-day American electorate. There will be consequences far beyond the economic punishment that is already being inflicted on Indiana.

On HJR-3, Tully takes Rhoads to school, and she skips class.

A while back on Facebook, Brad Bell asked State Representative Rhonda Rhoads to comment on her motives for sponsoring HJR-3 (formerly HJR-6), and she did.

I believe that if the definition of marriage is changed from what is current law in the state of Indiana , than it should go before the citizens of Indiana to decide if they want a different definition, not allow one judge to make that determination. This discussion has been going on for some time. Let it rest in the hands of the voters... Not me, not one judge. Amending the constitution is not easy nor was it intended to be easy. Lots of discussion and time are required. I want you and all Hoosiers to participate in the discussion hence my help in authoring this bill. Thank you for participating!

Yesterday, IndyStar columnist Matthew Tully replied; not specifically to Rhoads, which would be tantamount to asking a weather forecaster to look out the window, but to Indiana's enduring strain of theocratic fascism, which has reared its stupid, latent, ugly head repeatedly during the HJR era. Tully's elegant and sensible retort is among the finest I have read, and unlike certain city councilpersons, I read more than one book every five years.

Rhoads, Ron Grooms, Steve Stemler (the latter a Dixiecrat) -- could they ... would they ... are they capable of understanding Tully's position?

Tully: Gay marriage debate’s biggest problem? It’s just plain wrong, by Matthew Tully (IndyStar)

... This amendment is so disturbingly wrong, so morally offensive, so out of step with where our nation is, that it’s hard to believe its advocates continue to persist. The idea that our political leaders are calling for a public referendum to make clear in the constitution that some of our neighbors are second-class citizens — well, it’s stomach-turning ...

... Although I hope that the state I love would reject the amendment, and the spirit behind it, I don’t know what will happen in what will likely be a low turnout mid-term election. Just like I don’t know what would have happened if Hoosiers had been asked not so long ago to vote on an amendment to ban interracial marriages, or to protect segregated schools or other forms of discrimination ...

Indiana constitutional same-sex marriage ban 1: Tully right and eloquent in the IndyStar.

Part One
Part Two
Part Three

In its entirety, here is Matthew Tully's essay from the IndyStar. Next, we'll check back with State Representative Ed Clere to see what condition his condition is in.

---

General Assembly should drop proposed ban on same-sex marriage

This is the time of year, these early days before the General Assembly gets down to work, when reports come out almost daily about some misguided idea advanced by some misguided lawmaker in a misguided attempt to legislate his or her vision of Indiana.

In this and past years, the ideas have often been laughable: Arm college students! Fine people for singing the National Anthem poorly! Go after the Girl Scouts!

The worst of these bills don't usually make it very far. They land in the legislative garbage can, killed off by common sense. But some misguided ideas survive like weeds, regardless of the damage they threaten to inflict on the state, and no matter how bad or counterproductive or mean-spirited of a message they send.

This brings me to the drama over perhaps the worst piece of public policy the legislature has considered this century: a proposed amendment to the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Put bluntly, this amendment would put into the sacred state constitution a public endorsement of discrimination.

Now, same-sex couples are already prohibited by law from getting married in Indiana. And as wrong as that law is, slipping the measure into the more concrete constitution would be worse, and it would be contrary to the fundamental spirit behind the existence of constitutions in this country: to protect and guarantee freedom.

As questions surrounding the amendment fill the Statehouse, Republican leaders find themselves in a tricky spot. Although the measure, which must be passed by lawmakers twice before heading to voters, passed easily in 2011, there is a new reality in place. Public opinion on gay marriage has shifted quickly, leading to serious questions about the political wisdom of putting this proposed amendment on the ballot during the 2014 midterm elections.

The measure might still pass in Indiana -- I suspect it would in 2014, if not a few years later -- but the fight could spark increased turnout from young voters and others who often sit out non-presidential elections. Meanwhile, business groups are largely opposed, fearful it would hurt efforts to market Indiana to the visitors and bright minds it needs to continue to attract. Most voters, meanwhile, rank as their top concern the economy, and not who is marrying whom.

With that in mind, Indiana House Democrats this week urged the Republican majority to call a truce on social issues. The message is welcome, but let's not forget that Democrats at the Statehouse gave the gay marriage prohibition plenty of votes in past years. It's a lot easier to take a principled stand after the poll numbers shift.

But the political reality of this debate really shouldn't matter, because in a more perfect Indiana this would not be about cynical things such as poll numbers or electoral calculations.

What would it be about?

For many Hoosiers, it would be about learning to accept that not everyone is like the person you see in the mirror, and that this is a diverse state whose diversity is worth celebrating. It would be about understanding that lectures about liberty and small-government shouldn't be limited to issues of guns and taxes. It would be about a belief that everyone deserves to pursue his own happiness, and that constitutions should offer hope and not discrimination. It would be about learning from the discriminatory mistakes of history.

And it would be about something else -- something my Mom liked to talk about when I was growing up: minding your own business.

There are plenty of silly proposals offered at the Statehouse every year. This isn't one of them. This is a dangerous idea that lawmakers should assign to the trash can of history.