Tuesday, June 17, 2014

the breakage of various wars-- and the C-J's support for that breakage

Today, the C-J editorialists ask: "Do we still own breakage of Iraq?"

a.) Yes, we do-- as a country.

b.) Yes, you do-- if you were a proponent of our country's strategy.

c.) Yes, the C-J does-- since they were advocates.

d.) Yes, the C-J owns a lot of breakage for their brutally-flawed economic and social policies.

"Most galling is that a number of the pointers are the ones who didn’t bother to ask harder questions back [then] when the X administration got a blank check to start [this policy]. Much of the tragic mess in X bears a whiff of inevitability around it...Here’s what happened the last time we decided to take on X and its complexities, without quite understanding or appreciating what we were getting into. We underestimated everything...That’s just the money. And that’s not even counting what X did to the U.S. economy...We’ve done something [like this] before, and we need to ask ourselves if it was worth it...and whether it would be worth it again. We’ve seen this movie before. Knowing what we do, are we willing to bankroll a sequel?"

Too bad that the C-J didn't do what it could on Iraq.

Too bad that the C-J supports so many domestic wars-- against poverty, drugs, children, and so on-- without asking the same questions.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

I would have been endorsed by the Indy Star this time?!

They endorsed Hill this time;

they rated me above Hill last time;

and not much (good) has changed since then.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Sodrel "now fully on board" to de-fund Planned Parenthood

From Mike Sodrel's January 20th press release:

I am running to retake the Indiana Ninth Congressional District seat currently held by Baron Hill. Hill has not been a pro-life voice in Congress. He has only voted the pro-life position 41% of the time. When I represented the Ninth District, I voted with National Right to Life 100% of the time (11 for 11). If elected, I will gladly support de-funding of Planned Parenthood and I will support a Human Life Amendment.

It's good to know that Mike now avidly supports de-funding Planned Parenthood.

In this, he joins me, Travis Hankins, and probably Todd Young. (If Todd's campaign wants to clarify his position on this, I'll be glad to update as appropriate.) This is a good move politically as well-- since it will help Sodrel compete with Hankins and Young for pro-life voters.

It's too bad that Mike downplayed the issue and made excuses about it in our 2006 and 2008 campaigns. Even worse, the GOP didn't take care of this when they controlled the Congress and the Presidency under Bush. But it's certainly better late than never!

In both campaigns, I took a lot of guff from people who didn't want me to make this an issue. Something to do with pragmatism, if I recall....

But I'm glad to know that I might have helped to get the GOP interested in this issue. It was Indiana's own Mike Pence-- in the next district over-- who brought up the issue just after the 2006 campaign.

Friday, December 05, 2008

if it was decided on votes per dollar...

According to a piece on the C-J website, Hill and Sodrel combined for Indiana’s most expensive congressional race this fall with a combined $4.7 million.

Of that, the Democrats spent $3.6 million ($2.2 from Hill; $1.4 from the DCCC). Sodrel spent $1.1 million with no help from the national party this time.

In 2006, they spent more than $8.2 million. Hill spent $1.8 million while Sodrel spent $2.7 million. The DCCC only spent about $700K while the RNCC spent more than $3 million.

Last time, I spent $25,000; this time, it was $30,000.

Friday, November 07, 2008

crunching some numbers from 11/4

We ended up with exactly 12,000 votes-- after getting 9,920 in 2006. Unfortunately, with 93,000 more voters this time (from 221K to 314K), that translated into a lower percentage: 3.8% this year vs. 4.5% in 2006.

Going into the campaign season, we thought this was a strong possibility: more voters, but a lower percentage-- given the higher voter turnout during presidential elections (especially this year). Beyond that, and to generalize, these voters are characterized by the relative excitement they have for the presidential election and the relative ignorance they have about the down-ticket offices.

As for specific counties, I'm a bit surprised that we received fewer votes in six of the 20 counties. (I thought they'd vote for me again in 2008 if they voted for me in 2006, but perhaps memories are short?) We increased our vote percentage in four counties (Dearborn, Floyd, Ripley and especially
Switzerland). Jackson and Brown were still our two best counties. Washington moved up to 3rd. Switzerland, with a significant radio campaign, moved from 18th to 4th. Perry and Spencer became our bottom two. (We got very little media coverage there and didn't purchase much media.)

Many people have asked whether I'm disappointed. Yes and no. I'm not disappointed with the way in which we ran the experiment. We did everything we could given the resources we had. We worked very hard and as far as I know, we worked smart. But of course, we were disappointed in the results. We wanted to win. If not win, then we wanted to hit double-digits and make a far bigger splash. But it is what it is.

Perhaps I turned off a lot of people with one of our TV ads. Perhaps people were somehow more prone to the (lame) "wasted vote" idea. Less media coverage of the race. Only one debate. Far less negativity from the other two. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. We'll never know. But I think the biggest thing, by far, is the limited extent to which people pay attention to politics. As I've often said, we're fortunate to live in a country where we don't need to pay much attention to politics-- and people take advantage of that. The problem, of course, is that we allow all sorts of shenanigans to go on.

What does the future hold for the 9th District, for the Libertarian Party, and for freedom? Stay tuned...

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

IDS election coverage

Nice coverage in a good overview article from Zina Kumok in the Indiana Daily Student...

A fight between two long-time rivals ended in a landslide Tuesday....

Sodrel conceded the race at about 9 p.m. Tuesday.

“I’m grateful to my family, friends and great volunteers that have supported me in this race,” Sodrel said in a statement. “I have known victory, and I have known defeat. I am at peace with the outcome.”

Hill said in a press release that he was grateful to be chosen again.

“It is with deep and heartfelt gratitude that I thank the people of southern Indiana for allowing me to continue serving in Congress,” Hill said in the statement.

Schansberg, an economics professor at IU-Southeast New Albany, said he thought campaigning in a presidential year made the race more difficult for him. While voters seem worried about the economy, Schansberg said a lack of overwhelming support made him doubt their true concern.

“People say they want change, but they have an economics professor in a time when that kind of expertise would seem to be pretty welcome,” Schansberg said. “It’s odd people don’t vote for that more often.”

Hill’s vote against Congress’ $300 billion bailout, Schansberg said, was a key factor in his victory. Despite getting his issues out there, Schansberg said he expected a higher percentage of support.

“It’s a platform to talk about things that don’t get talked about if I wasn’t in there,” Schansberg said. “I’m not disappointed in the sense we did everything we could do. I am disappointed in the numbers.”...

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Schansberg provides post-election comments

November 4, 2008


Schansberg provides post-election comments

After the networks declared Baron Hill the winner of the 9th Congressional District in Indiana, Dr. Eric Schansberg congratulated Rep. Hill on his victory—and thanked Mike Sodrel for running a clean campaign and his willingness to debate.

From the results available at 10:00 (with 77% of precincts reporting), Schansberg had earned 4% of the vote, finishing third to Hill who won with 56% and Sodrel who received 40%. This was the second race for Schansberg. This was the fourth race between Sodrel and Hill—and the third victory for Hill.

Dr. Schansberg commented: “We increased our number of votes by quite a bit. It’s always difficult for a third-party candidate. But it’s especially difficult in presidential election years, when people are excited about the presidential race but often don’t know much about the down-ticket races.”

Dr. Schansberg continued: “The campaign was a platform to talk about things the other candidates could not or would not. And the campaign was an experiment as well. What would happen if a highly-credible candidate worked hard? People say they want change; we wanted to give them that opportunity. We did everything we could do—with the resources we had. Unfortunately, we were still not able to get enough above the radar to make a huge difference in the race. We learned a lot and look forward to using this effort to help build the Libertarian party and to promote freedom—as well as a much smaller and much better federal government.”