Eric Schansberg for Congress

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

2010-10-26T05:43:00.000-07:00

They endorsed Hill this time;

they rated me above Hill last time;

and not much (good) has changed since then.

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

2010-01-27T19:29:00.001-08:00

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.

if it was decided on votes per dollar...

2008-12-05T18:37:00.000-08:00

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.

crunching some numbers from 11/4

2008-11-07T09:44:00.000-08:00

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...

IDS election coverage

2008-11-05T09:55:00.001-08:00

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.”...

Schansberg provides post-election comments

2008-11-04T19:17:00.001-08:00

November 4, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Schansberg provides post-election comments

After the networks declared Baron Hill the winner of the 9^th 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.”

some Indiana debates on C-SPAN

2008-11-03T07:32:00.000-08:00

Click here for the link...

enjoy! eric

IDS overview of the 9th District race

2008-10-31T18:52:00.000-07:00

Everything is good in this article by the IDS' Peter Stevenson except his reference to Hill leaning left on Iraq. If his position is "leaning left", then we'll be in Iraq for a very long time.

Hill has done nothing substantive to get us out of Iraq. Period.

second hour of the debate on Indiana-9 this weekend

2008-10-31T13:32:00.000-07:00

Saturday at 8pm

AND

Sunday: the 1st hour will be re-run at 8pm-- with the 2nd hour at 9 pm

wow...the campaign is really catching fire!

2008-10-31T13:18:00.001-07:00

Click here to see the news account...

Schansberg announces Election Day plans

2008-10-31T11:06:00.001-07:00

October 31, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Schansberg announces Election Day plans

On Friday, Dr. Eric Schansberg, the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Congress in Indiana's 9^th District, announced his campaign stops and plans for November 4^th.

Freetown Community Center 6:00 – 6:15 AM

Brownstown Courthouse 6:30 – 7:00 AM

Seymour High School 7:15 – 7:45 AM

North Vernon The Lord's Chapel 8:00 – 8:30 AM

Scottsburg Middle School 9:00 – 9:30 AM

Jeffersonville vote at Wilson Elementary 10:00 AM

Work/Teach IUS 10:30 – 3:00 PM

Campaign throughout So. Indiana 3:00 – 6:00 PM

Starting at 6:00, Eric and his wife will host a party in their home for supporters. Members of the media are welcome to attend as well.

October 31, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Schansberg announces Election Day plans

On Friday, Dr. Eric Schansberg, the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Congress in Indiana's 9^th District, announced his campaign stops and plans for November 4^th.

Freetown Community Center 6:00 – 6:15 AM

Brownstown Courthouse 6:30 – 7:00 AM

Seymour High School 7:15 – 7:45 AM

North Vernon The Lord's Chapel 8:00 – 8:30 AM

Scottsburg Middle School 9:00 – 9:30 AM

Jeffersonville vote at Wilson Elementary 10:00 AM

Work/Teach IUS 10:30 – 3:00 PM

Campaign throughout So. Indiana 3:00 – 6:00 PM

Starting at 6:00, Eric and his wife will host a party in their home for supporters. Members of the media are welcome to attend as well.

For more information on the campaign, see: www.SchansbergForCongress.com.

To schedule an interview—whether on Election Night or prior to that—contact Eric at (812) 218-0443, or Melanie Hughes at (502) 432-1930, or send an email to SchansbergForCongress@gmail.com.

END

NPR covers our race

2008-10-30T19:17:00.001-07:00

I haven't heard this yet, so hopefully they say nice things about me! ;-)

Update: nothing about me. Surprising, since she liked me. But it would have been difficult to fit it into the ping-pong theme. Oh well...

Schansberg to celebrate 5th anniversary of VET’s demise

2008-10-30T08:54:00.001-07:00

Schansberg to celebrate 5^th anniversary of VET’s demise

On Saturday, Dr. Eric Schansberg will celebrate the fifth anniversary of the end of “vehicle emission testing” (VET) in Jefferson County, Kentucky in 2003. (Soon afterwards, Clark and Floyd counties in Indiana ended their VET as well.)

The event is a party from 2:00-6:00—with a 3:00 press conference featuring multiple speakers at the home of Donna and Dick Mancini (719 Talon Place, Owl Creek sub-division in Louisville).

Dr. Schansberg did research on the benefits and costs of VET in Jefferson County, published articles on the subject, and testified before the relevant sub-committee of the Kentucky State Senate.

In his research, Dr. Schansberg found that the money, time, and pollution costs of VET were tremendous when the regulation was imposed uniformly on all vehicles. Newer vehicles rarely failed the test—and so, the dollar and time costs of the program were far greater than the modest improvement to the environment.

Dr. Schansberg did not categorically oppose all forms of VET. But he found that the uniform implementation led to inequities and vast inefficiencies. And he noted that the “waiver” provision limited the program’s ability to improve the environment. (Auto owners with failed cars could simply a certain amount of money without improving their car’s performance.)

Dr. Schansberg also argued that annual, stationary testing is prone to abuse (people can rig their cars to get through the test) and necessarily misses out on problem cars (those who didn’t live in the Louisville metro area and were not tested). Instead, he recommended “mobile (emission) testing” which is far cheaper per vehicle and far more effective in catching high-pollution cars.

Press Release: Schansberg offers “voter guide” for 9th District race

2008-10-30T08:41:00.001-07:00

Schansberg offers “voter guide” for 9^th District race

On Thursday, Dr. Eric Schansberg offered voters an overview of the key issues in the 9th District’s congressional campaign: “Here are the five key issues where there are significant differences between the candidates.”

On Iraq, Schansberg said, “If you want someone who will continue the status quo in Iraq, you can choose from Hill or Sodrel. If you want someone who will work hard to bring the troops home in the next year, then you can choose Schansberg.”

On “fiscal conservatism”: “If you want someone who is ok for a Democrat, you can choose Hill. If you want someone who is ok for a Republican, you can choose Sodrel. If you want a fiscal conservative, the watchdog groups indicate that I’m your only choice.”

On abortion: “If you’re ‘pro-choice’, you have Hill. If you’re ‘pro-life’, you have me or Sodrel.”

On issues of “economic justice”: “If you want someone who will bring knowledge and zeal to this, you can choose a Christian economist. If you want someone who will largely ignore these issues, you can choose Sodrel. If you want someone who will focus on minor issues and dubious approaches, you have Hill.”

On illegal immigration: “If you want someone who is strong on illegal immigration, you can choose me or Hill. If you want someone who will only focus on border security, you can choose Sodrel.”

Schansberg and Sodrel reply to C-J non-endorsement

2008-10-30T06:48:00.001-07:00

Click here to see both.

Here's mine:

The C-J editorialists didn’t interview me. You can understand why. Talking to an economics professor must sound like nails on a chalkboard to them. (They didn’t even return our campaign’s emails. Classy!)

They didn’t mention me in their endorsement of Baron Hill. The best explanation? Legitimate concern that some of my positions would take votes away from their preferred candidate.

Hill is “progressive”? Please… Hill has “courage” on Iraq?! He continually supports our on-going efforts there and devotes NO energy or advertising to ending it. Hill didn’t condemn the DCCC’s nasty ads against Sodrel. In 2006, challenger Hill repeatedly demanded debates; in 2008, incumbent Hill wanted no debates.

Most voters say they want “change”. In the 9^th District, voters have a highly-credible 3^rd-party candidate—the only fiscal conservative in the race. Will they embrace change or choose the status quo?

Don’t waste your vote this time; vote Schansberg for Congress.

3rd party efforts

2008-10-28T09:00:00.000-07:00

A good article from David Weigel in Reason on Mike Munger in particular-- and more broadly, relatively successful Libertarian candidates this year.

I get a brief mention in the article and it's good to see an old buddy/colleague of mine running a strong race in NC!

front page of the C-J this morning

2008-10-26T19:33:00.001-07:00

From Lesley Stedman Weidenbener in the C-J...

For Hill, who has served in the seat for eight of the past 10 years, it's about pragmatism, about getting things done...Sodrel, though, is driven more by his conservative fiscal and social philosophy....

An interesting opening: Sodrel bragged about "getting things done for us", but Hill gets credit for "getting things done". Sodrel gets credit for relying on his "conservative fiscal philosophy", but his failure to adhere to that is one of the top reasons I entered the race in 2006.

This is Hill and Sodrel's fourth straight battle, with Hill winning twice and Sodrel once. Libertarian Eric Schansberg is joining the fray for the second time.

But even though the match-up has been considered one of the nation's most intense, this year's race hasn't had the feel of those in 2004 and 2006 when attack ads and commercials from outside interest groups dominated the conversation...."This is a much cleaner campaign than 2006 and I think that's frankly because Baron's got a large lead and a lot more money," Schansberg said.

Indeed, recent polls by Survey USA show that Hill has opened a double-digit lead on Sodrel, with Schansberg gaining a bit as well....

Schansberg is one of the state's most active Libertarians. He participates in candidate forums, advertises on television and tells voters that he is the real choice for change.

"We've voted ourselves into all kinds of problems with the two-party system the last 100 years, and I think it's time for a real change," he said.

Schansberg is also a conservative. He opposes abortion and all federal funding for Planned Parenthood. He wants to reduce the size of the federal government and constrain it to stricter constitutional bounds. And he supports eliminating the federal income and payroll taxes in favor a single sales tax.

But he also labeled himself the race's "strongest defender of the poor and those in the middle class."...

Sodrel is also a conservative....

This is a bit unfortunate since it gives the impression that I'm a more conservative version of Sodrel, feeding an erroneous stereotype. Our differences on Iraq (a sin of commission) and his failure to speak to issues impacting the working poor and middle class (sins of omission) separate the two of us.

I wish Iraq had made into her article since I outflank Hill on that issue as well. If people want a congressman who will work hard to bring home the troops, there's only one choice.

idolatry is often a painful thing to see and experience

2008-10-25T07:35:00.000-07:00

an email my wife received...
we would appreciate your prayers for us and for the emailer...
grace, eric
__________________

Tonia: I will say this to you privately because I don't want to say this sort of thing on the loop. Believe me, I know your husband's so called, self-stated qualifications - both economically and 'Christian'. Just because you say something, however, does not necessarily make it so. Teaching the theory of economics is a far different thing than actually starting a business, running a business, hiring and firing people, making that business successful, making a payroll, paying taxes, creating jobs for people so they can support their families and pay taxes, etc. All those things far better qualify someone to talk about and do something about the economy than someone who picks up a book and talks about the theory.

But, the bottom line is this: Eric, as far as I'm concerned is nothing better than any other tarnished politician - slinging mud, casting aspersions, telling lies and slandering and stretching the truth to suit his own gain - or perhaps the gain of someone else? For him to distort Mike Sodrel's unwavering, unabashed, unflinching commitment to the Sanctity of Life - all life - just for Eric's own political gain is at best unconscionable and at worst un Christ-like! And, believe me, I want to hear nothing about you adopting children as proof of your commitment to life. That has NOTHING to do with the abortion issue.

You know nothing about this man and his life long commitment to Southern Indiana - the thousands of families he has quietly, unassumingly helped to gain a fresh start in life, so they would not have to be dependent on the government - I could go on for hours - but I seriously doubt it would matter to Eric Or you in the least. Eric is just having too much 'fun' having 'civil discourse' to be concerned about the true state of our country. Polling data notwithstanding I stand by my comments - and I will answer to God for them - as will all of us.

Hill continues to lead Sodrel by double-digits

2008-10-24T19:34:00.000-07:00

Hill has a huge, 15-point lead over Sodrel going into the last 10 days of the campaign.

The bad news: Our campaign is not gaining as much traction as I would like.

The good news: People should feel completely free to vote their conscience (not having to worry at all about "wasting their vote"); this will allow them to sleep better at night-- and perhaps this will help the economy to recover! ;-)

The other good news: People who are ignorant &/or idolatrous about politics are less likely to blame me for Sodrel's impending loss. It amazes me to hear some people complain about (or even attack me for) my presence in the race-- on the theory (unsupported by data) that I'm hurting their preferred candidate (or at least, the lesser of the proverbial "two evils"). If they were just as concerned about making sure they had great candidates, perhaps we'd be in a better position today.

one more article on the debate

2008-10-23T11:58:00.001-07:00

From Daniel Suddeath in the Jeff/NA News-Tribune...

A nice overview, especially of the second hour of the debate, including details on our positions-- and a discussion of our press release on not getting a closing statement and having only one debate.

The first and only debate featuring 9th District candidates went off with a few fireworks Tuesday.

Most of the forum — which was held at the Arts Center on the campus of Vincennes University’s Jasper location — consisted of the three candidates defending and explaining their platforms on issues such as abortion, economic bailouts and tax strategy.

Republican Mike Sodrel and Libertarian Eric Schansberg aggressively portrayed differences between their ideas and those of incumbent Democrat Baron Hill, who mainly was on the defensive.

Sodrel accused Hill of flip-flopping on his opinion of the economic situation in Indiana and America while Schansberg contrasted himself as the only candidate willing to break away from typical Washington politics, at one point likening the choice between mainstream party choices as “shuffling chairs on the Titanic.”...

Sodrel attacked television advertisements paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, including what is known as the “Millionaire Mike” ad, calling them unfounded and off base.

Schansberg said the ads sponsored by Hill were not dirty but also condemned the DCCC spots, saying the candidates should publicly denounce such tactics.

The Libertarian said this campaign is cleaner than the 2006 run, citing a big lead by Hill and less funds available to Sodrel....

Schansberg’s qualm over lack of closing statement

The program ended without the candidates making closing statements after questions from the crowd exasperated the time limit set for the debate.

Sodrel was the only candidate who was asked a question from the panel during the first hour about Iraq, a topic Schansberg planned to tackle during his final remarks.

“We didn’t get a two-minute closing statement — as per the agreement. I was hoping to use that to speak to our ongoing efforts in Iraq,” Schansberg said.

He claims to be the only candidate who is serious about bringing troops home from Iraq, saying Hill talks about it but continues to vote for the “status quo in Iraq.”

Sodrel said he was pleased with progress in the war-torn country and would support bringing troops home “as soon as practical.”

Hill was not asked about the war during the debate and left prior to a post-debate press conference.

Aside from the lack of a closing statement, Schansberg said he enjoyed the format and wished there were more debates.

pictures from last night's debate

2008-10-22T10:46:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of James Brosher with the IDS...

here's a sample...

debate coverage

2008-10-22T10:37:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately, only the first hour is available at present-- and it's not yet on-line (although it was streamed live by VU).

But there was nice coverage of the debate in the C-J and the IDS...

Excerpts from Lesley Stedman Weidenbener's article in the C-J...

A debate about the so-called "fair tax" and the "flat tax" emerged as one of the largest differences among the three candidates running in a rematch in the 9th Congressional District....

The candidates also disagreed on congressional term limits, with Sodrel arguing they're a good idea and Hill saying they're unnecessary.

"We've got term limits now and they're called elections," Hill said.

Term limits shift power away from elected officials and to lobbyists and bureaucrats because lawmakers can't build up power and expertise, Hill said.

But despite the fact that he defeated Hill four years ago, Sodrel argued term limits are necessary, in part because incumbents are able to raise so much money they become nearly unbeatable.

He got a laugh from the crowd when he said there are three parties in Washington, D.C.: Republicans, Democrats and incumbents.

"America has a deep enough bench," Sodrel said. "We don't have to have the same people serving for two generations."

Schansberg said he could support term limits. But he said the debate about that issue misses the larger problem that Republicans and Democrats are too much alike and aren't taking the steps necessary to get spending in check and reduce the size of government.

"We need to go back to a place of fiscal sanity," Schansberg said. Term limits "don't really speak to that."

And from Lauren Clason in the IDS...

The audience at Tuesday night’s congressional debate was small, but the crowd was fierce.

Once the candidates for Indiana’s 9th Congressional District dealt with the pre-written questions from the participants on stage, they had to face inquiries from the local residents themselves.

Issues such as abortion, energy, the national language and the appropriate tax system had constituents’ patience stretched to the breaking point. One man lashed out at what he said is corruption among politicians and groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), and a Bloomington resident argued with Democratic incumbent Baron Hill on abortion.

But the main concern was the effects of the current tax system and its repercussions.

“I would support either a flat or a fair tax, either would be better than what we have now,” said Libertarian candidate Eric Schansberg, who is also an economics professor at IU-Southeast New Albany.

Republican candidate Mike Sodrel said he is also in favor of either tax, although he prefers a fair tax, which he said would help knock out foreign market competition....

Hill favored the current system, saying the fair tax and its goal for revenue neutrality would drive the deficit up.

When it came to the state of the economy and one audience member’s retirement fund, he believed things would soon get better.

“Some economists are saying we’re going into a depression, but I don’t think that we are,” Hill said. “If you can hang on, I think eventually it will all come back. These things are cyclical.”

Schansberg agreed things won’t get as bad as some might fear.

“Unless the government does a lot of the bone-headed things it did in the ’30s, we won’t go there again,” he said.

One thing all of the candidates agreed on was the bailout plan...Schansberg agreed, commending Hill for his vote against the plan.

“When the Republicans are leading the charge for that kind of spending, who’s left?” Schansberg said.

debate to be replayed on Indiana 9 this weekend

2008-10-22T10:36:00.000-07:00

From Indiana 9's website...

WATCH THE DEBATE BETWEEN ERIC SCHANSBERG, MIKE SODREL AND BARON HILL AT THESE TIMES:

Saturday, Oct 25th @ 8pm

Sunday, Oct 26th @ 4p & 8pm

Schansberg comments post-debate

2008-10-21T20:33:00.001-07:00

Schansberg comments post-debate

On Tuesday evening, Dr. Eric Schansberg engaged in a two-hour debate with Rep. Baron Hill and former Rep. Mike Sodrel at the Vincennes University campus in Jasper. The first hour was broadcast on radio and television across the district. The second hour is available by contacting Paul Knies with Ch. 27—WJTS in Jasper (pknies@dcbroadcasting.com).

Schansberg commented: “I thought it went well. I enjoyed the format, but wish we’d had more debates and the ability to have different formats. Unfortunately, Baron only allowed us one debate this time. Apparently, he’s far more interested in debating as a challenger than as an incumbent.”

Asked about what went well, Schansberg replied: “I thought I was able to communicate that I am the choice for ‘independent’ voters and the only vote for ‘true change’. People often say they’re independent and they want change. I guess we’ll see how much that’s true on November 4^th.”

Asked about any disappointments, Schansberg replied: “We didn’t get a two-minute closing statement—as per the agreement. I was hoping to use that to speak to our on-going efforts in Iraq—which didn’t come up for me during either hour of the debate. I wanted to underline that I am the only candidate who is serious about bringing our troops home soon. Hill talks about it, but continues to vote for the status quo in Iraq. And he has devoted no advertising to the topic.”

debate coverage

2008-10-20T15:29:00.000-07:00

Here's what we know so far:

The Jasper debate will be streamed video/audio on the vinu.edu website.

WNIN-TV9 in Evansville, WVUT-TV22 in Vincennes, Indiana-9 in Jeffersonville, and WJTS-TV27 in Jasper are carrying it live.

Among radio stations, WVUB (Jasper), WNIN (Evansville), and WNDA (Jeffersonville) will carry it live.

WTIU-TV in Bloomington is carrying it at 8pm (ET) delayed.
Indiana 9 will re-telecast at 10:00.

The following TV stations are carrying it on their "SD channel" live or in their newscasts: WAVE (Louisville) and WISH, WTHR, and WRTV (Indianapolis).

Indianapolis Star endorses Sodrel, praises Schansberg; Hill shows growth but “weakest of the three”

2008-10-20T09:50:00.000-07:00

Indianapolis Star endorses Sodrel, praises Schansberg; Hill shows growth but “weakest of the three”

On Monday, The Star’s editorial board endorsed Republican Mike Sodrel in the 9^th District race, citing “a business owner's experience and expertise”, “a depth of knowledge” from his previous stint in Congress, and “tempered partisan tendencies”.

The board commended Democratic incumbent Baron Hill for showing “encouraging growth in the past two years”, but thought that he “remains the weakest of the three candidates”.

The board also praised Libertarian Eric Schansberg as “well-qualified”, “a strong candidate”, “thoughtful”, “well versed”, and “a prime example of how far the Libertarian Party has advanced in Indiana”.

Schansberg said, “I’m thankful for the complimentary and encouraging words from the most important newspaper in Indiana. We’ve run a strong campaign and I’m glad that The Star sees me as a highly credible candidate.”

For more information on the campaign, see: www.SchansbergForCongress.com. To schedule an interview, contact Eric Schansberg at (812) 218-0443, Melanie Hughes at (502) 432-1930, or send an email to SchansbergForCongress@gmail.com.

END

Press Release: NRA endorses Hill but Schansberg receives higher rating

2008-10-15T06:53:00.000-07:00

NRA endorses Hill but Schansberg receives higher rating

For this election, the National Rifle Association (NRA) endorsed Baron Hill in the 9^th District congressional race.

Schansberg commented: “Their decision rule seems to be choosing incumbents who are decent on the 2^nd Amendment—rather than those who are best in that area. That said, it still seems odd that they would endorse someone who publicly endorsed Barack Obama.”

In 2006, the NRA and Gun Owners of America (GOA) endorsed Mike Sodrel. In 2006, GOA gave Baron Hill a grade of D- (D minus), Mike Sodrel a grade of A- (A minus), and Eric Schansberg a grade of A. In 2008, GOA awarded Schansberg and Sodrel an A—while giving Hill a B.

When asked about the endorsement and ratings of the two 2^nd Amendment groups, Schansberg said “We’re fortunate to have three good candidates on the 2^nd Amendment, but you’re not going to beat a Libertarian on gun rights. Hill is solid—and very good for a Democrat. Sodrel is excellent. But we’re glad for the GOA’s recognition of our strength on the 2^nd Amendment—equal to Sodrel this year and surpassing him two years ago.”

my appearance on Afternoon Edition yesterday

2008-10-15T05:13:00.000-07:00

Click here for the MP3...

Schansberg town hall in New Albany on Thursday

2008-10-12T21:52:00.001-07:00

October 13, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Schansberg town hall in New Albany on Thursday

Dr. Eric Schansberg, the Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Congress in Indiana's 9^th District, will hold a town-hall meeting in New Albany on Thursday, October 16^th at 2:30. (The meeting will be held in the Community Room of the Mark Elrod Tower at the end of Wolf Trace.)

At the town hall, Schansberg will deliver prepared remarks for 15-20 minutes—and then field questions from those in the audience.

In his prepared remarks, Dr. Schansberg will address:

· the attempted bail-outs of the economy over the past year

· gas prices and energy policy—policies that will work (domestic drilling and a stronger dollar) and policies that will not work (regulations on speculators, subsidies to energy companies, etc.)

· the dramatic but overlooked impact of fiscal conservatism

· our on-going efforts in Iraq

· the oppressive burden of payroll/FICA taxes on income and the need for Social Security reform

All interested parties are encouraged to attend. Audio and video recording are permitted.

Schansberg agrees to “lie detector” debate proposal

2008-10-08T07:12:00.000-07:00

October 8, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Schansberg agrees to “lie detector” debate proposal

On Wednesday, Dr. Eric Schansberg agreed to a debate proposal from 9th District Republican Party Chairman Larry Shickles. Shickles proposed that the three candidates would be allowed to ask each other a pre-determined number of questions—while connected to a polygraph lie detector.

In his letter, Shickles expressed a common sentiment—that the race for the 9th District seat during the last four campaigns has been unnecessarily negative and unproductive, because of negative campaigning by Rep. Baron Hill and former Rep. Mike Sodrel.

Schansberg commented: “I’d love to see more debates—whatever the format. But Baron is unlikely to cooperate. After repeatedly demanding debates (immediately after the primaries) in 2006, he is now quite reluctant to debate. It’s hypocritical, but understandable. He has a huge lead in the polls; he has a big money advantage; and his answers are often unimpressive. I can see why he’d want to severely limit his exposure to debates.”

END

Key Points on a "Rescue" Plan From A Healthy Bank's Perspective

2008-10-08T06:45:00.001-07:00

Key Points on a "Rescue" Plan From A Healthy Bank's Perspective

by John Allison (September 30, 2008; hat tip: Jefferson Review)

Here is a letter by John Allison, President & CEO of BB&T, that was sent to every member of Congress.

Dear Senator/Congressman/Representative:

BB&T is a $136 billion multi-state banking company. We have 1,500 branches throughout the mid-Atlantic and southeast states. While we have been impacted by the real estate markets, we continue to have healthy profitability and a strong capital position.

We think it is important that Congress hear from the well run financial institutions as most of the concerns have been focused on the problem companies. It is inappropriate that the debate is largely being shaped by the financial institutions who made very poor decisions.

Attached are the issues that we believe are relevant from the perspective of healthy banks. Your consideration of these issues is greatly appreciated.

[Signature]

Key Points on a "Rescue" Plan From A Healthy Bank’s Perspective

1. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are the primary cause of the mortgage crisis. These government supported enterprises distorted normal market risk mechanisms. While individual private financial institutions have made serious mistakes, the problems in the financial system have been caused by government policies including, affordable housing (now sub-prime), combined with the market disruptions caused by the Federal Reserve holding interest rates too low and then raising interest rates too high.

2. There is no panic on Main Street and in sound financial institutions. The problems are in high-risk financial institutions and on Wall Street.

3. While all financial intermediaries are being impacted by liquidity issues, this is primarily a bailout of poorly run financial institutions. It is extremely important that the bailout not damage well run companies.

4. Corrections are not all bad. The market correction process eliminates irrational competitors. There were a number of poorly managed institutions and poorly made financial decisions during the real estate boom. It is important that any rules post “rescue” punish the poorly run institutions and not punish the well run companies.

5. A significant and immediate tax credit for purchasing homes would be a far less expensive and more effective cure for the mortgage market and financial system than the proposed “rescue” plan.

6. This is a housing value crisis. It does not make economic sense to purchase credit card loans, automobile loans, etc. The government should directly purchase housing assets, not real estate bonds. This would include lots and houses under construction.

7. The guaranty of money funds by the U.S. Treasury creates enormous risk for the banking industry. Banks have been paying into the FDIC insurance fund since 1933. The fund has a limit of $100,000 per client. An arbitrary, “out of the blue” guarantee of money funds creates risk for the taxpayers and significantly distorts financial markets.

8. Protecting the banking system, which is fundamentally controlled by the Federal Reserve, is an established government function. It is completely unclear why the government needs to or should bailout insurance companies, investment banks, hedge funds and foreign companies.

9. It is extremely unclear how the government will price the problem real estate assets. Priced too low, the real estate markets will be worse off than if the bail out did not exist. Priced too high, the taxpayers will take huge losses. Without a market price, how can you rationally determine value?

10. The proposed bankruptcy “cram down” will severely negatively impact mortgage markets and will damage well run institutions. This will provide an incentive for homeowners who are able to pay their mortgages, but have a loss in their house, to take bankruptcy and force losses on banks. (Banks would not have received the gains had the houses appreciated.) This will substantially increase the risk in mortgage lending and make mortgage pricing much higher in the future.

11. Fair Value accounting should be changed immediately. It does not work when there are no market prices. If we had Fair Value accounting, as interpreted today, in the early 1990’s the United States financial system would have crashed. Accounting should not drive economic activity, it should reflect it.

12. The proposed new merger accounting rules should be deferred for at least five years. The new merger accounting rules are creating uncertainty for high quality companies who might potentially purchase weaker companies.

13. The primary beneficiaries of the proposed rescue are Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. The Treasury has a number of smart individuals, including Hank Paulson. However, Treasury is totally dominated by Wall Street investment bankers. They do not have knowledge of the commercial banking industry. Therefore, they can not be relied on to objectively assess all the implications of government policy on all financial intermediaries. The decision to protect the money funds is a clear example of a material lack of insight into the risk to the total financial system.

14. Arbitrary limits on executive compensation will be self defeating. With these limits, only the failing financial institutions will participate in the “rescue,” effectively making this plan a massive subsidy for incompetence. Also, how will companies attract the leadership talent to manage their business effectively with irrational compensation limits?

And in a report by Bloomberg on "Allison's Alternative":

Allison is retiring in December after 19 years leading BB&T, the 14th-biggest U.S. commercial bank, with assets of $136.5 billion. BB&T avoided subprime lending, option adjustable-rate mortgages and complex debt securities that have slammed Wachovia Corp., Washington Mutual Inc. and other lenders. Still, BB&T more than tripled the money it set aside for loan losses in the second quarter, mainly because of loans to builders and developers in Georgia, Florida and the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.

Rather than buying distressed assets, the U.S. government could offer a ``significant'' tax credit for home purchases, or even purchase vacant lots or houses under construction, Allison said. The market should be allowed to eliminate ``irrational competitors,'' he said. ``There were a number of poorly managed institutions and poorly made financial decisions during the real estate boom,'' Allison wrote. ``It is important that any rules post-`rescue' punish the poorly run institutions and not punish the well-run companies.''

He said the mortgage crisis was caused primarily by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The government-chartered companies, which own or guarantee more than 40 percent of the $12 trillion of U.S. home loans, ``distorted normal market-risk mechanisms,'' and were abetted by a Federal Reserve that made the wrong decisions on interest rates, Allison wrote.

Undecideds breaking to Hill and Schansberg—as Hill extends his lead over Sodrel

2008-10-08T05:53:00.000-07:00

October 7, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Undecideds breaking to Hill and Schansberg—as Hill extends his lead over Sodrel

According to the SurveyUSA poll released today, Rep. Baron Hill has extended his lead over Mike Sodrel from 11 to 15%. Dr. Eric Schansberg's share of the vote increased from 5% to 7%. (Hill gained 3%, Sodrel fell 1%.)

Schansberg said: "We're glad to continue building support. In the past month, we've run a lot of radio and TV commercials. And we've had many opportunities to meet voters, talk on the radio about the bailout, and give speeches to groups throughout the District."

On progress by Hill and his own campaign, Schansberg remarked: "It makes sense. Baron and I have been running more active campaigns, especially with paid media. Our commercials seem to have been effective in drawing people to our efforts."

On the impact of Hill's huge lead on his campaign, Schansberg commented: "With a margin of victory that is perceived and expected to be that great, it should be easier for people to vote on their principles instead of worrying about 'wasting their votes'. So, that's good news for us. Of course, I think people are wasting their votes by voting for the same old candidates. If they really want change—like we always hear about—then they have the opportunity this time for a credible and fresh choice in the 9^th District."

on WHAS tomorrow morning

2008-10-01T14:48:00.001-07:00

I'll be on the Francene Show to talk with her about the bailout plans-- from 10:30-11:00.

Tune in and enjoy!

the only anti-war candidate

2008-10-01T12:20:00.000-07:00

Occasionally, I run into supporters of Baron Hill. And some of them bristle at my claim to be the only "anti-war candidate" in the 9th District congressional race.

I understand their partisan desire to maintain that label for their candidate and the potential for confusion and subjectivity in such claims.

But let's look at the three options in the race:
-Sodrel wants the status quo advocated by Bush and McCain. I respect but disagree with that position.
-Hill votes for every non-binding resolution, but voted to start the war and votes to fund the war every time. He returned to Congress in January 2007 promising change-- and we haven't exactly seen that. And we haven't heard Hill make much noise about Iraq. In my mind, that position is hypocritical at worst, inconsistent at middling, and tepid at best.
-I want the troops to come home within the next 8-12 months.

After I make those generalizations, his defenders usually make some excuse for Hill-- why he can vote that way and still be "anti-war". I'm not impressed, so I tell them that if they're content with that, then "that's fine, but it's not good enough for me".

Here's another barometer: how much of Hill's advertising budget is devoted to ending our on-going efforts in Iraq? How many TV ads, radio ads, and printed literature? For me, it's about one-fourth. If he really cares about the issue, he'd devote energy and resources to the cause.

a really nice article by Dale Moss in the C-J

2008-10-01T12:01:00.000-07:00

Excerpts from from Dale's article which came from his lengthy interview with me a few Fridays ago...

Schansberg is back on the ballot, as are his better-known, better-financed opponents -- both have run before in this race. Schansberg wages a fight that is both serious and symbolic. He runs commercials, offers a Web site, conducts forums, shakes hands at fairs and debates every opportunity he can.

Still, Schansberg cannot reasonably expect to win. But he does expect to appeal to more of the voters who say they are fed up with politics as usual. Forty percent of voters nationally call themselves independents. Schansberg takes them at their word.

"People know what they're getting," Schansberg said of his candidacy and those he is challenging. "Do they really want one of those two? Or do they want something different?"

Schansberg was born in Louisville and is 43 years old. He was raised primarily in Virginia near Washington, D.C., where he notes he got an up-close-and-personal introduction to politics. He now resides in Jeffersonville. A Ph.D., Schansberg is a full professor of economics at IU Southeast and has some administrative duties there.

He is the father of four children, two of whom he and his wife Tonia adopted. The couple home-schools the children in order to spend more time with them.

"You've got to respect a guy who walks and does the things he says are right," said John Harbeson, Schansberg's campaign treasurer.

Schansberg describes himself as an evangelical Christian. For his Southeast Christian Church, a Louisville-based mega-congregation, Schansberg co-wrote a 21-month discipleship curriculum now also used in about 20 other churches. "Aside from my family, this is the coolest thing I do -- even cooler than politics," he said.

Schansberg received 4.5 percent of the vote in the 2006 election, his first try for the 9th District seat. Using what he learned in that race and building on his base, he asked himself if he could reach double-digits. Is doing better good enough? How outrageous is the prospect of victory?...

To a teacher, a campaign at least provides an inviting platform. "He's trying to make some noise, see who will listen," said Melanie Hughes, who manages Schansberg's candidacy....

Schansberg planned this second race all along. He budgets about $30,000, a pittance compared to what his foes spend. Schansberg speaks out against American involvement in Iraq and for increased domestic oil drilling. He opposes the $700 billion plan to bail out the financial sector. He calls himself the only fiscal conservative in the race and the strongest defender of the poor and the middle class.

The race for Congress struggles to attract its fair share of attention, what with a president and a governor also to elect. Schansberg wishes his campaign would be followed more closely by the media. Yet, as with his reception at large, Schansberg forges ahead without discernible worry....

Schansberg encourages Hill to stand firm against bail-out

2008-09-29T19:53:00.000-07:00

Schansberg encourages Hill to stand firm against bail-out

Dr. Eric Schansberg, an economics professor and the Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Congress in Indiana’s 9^th District, responded to the House defeat of the proposed $700 billion bail-out in the financial sector—and praised Rep. Baron Hill for voting against it.

Asked about Hill’s vote, Dr. Schansberg said, “It’s clear that Baron is not categorically opposed to another bail-out. And he’s not a fiscal conservative by any objective measure. So, I don’t know the reasons for his vote today. Maybe it’s the right vote for the wrong reasons. In any case, I’m thankful that he took a stand today for fiscal conservatism. Hopefully, he’ll continue to have a strong enough spine to hold that position.”

On fiscal conservatism in general and the bail-out in particular, Schansberg said: “At some point, we have to rely on markets again. And we can’t afford to borrow money to bail out industries and try to artificially boost the economy. All of our spending and debt threatens to devalue our dollar further and drive our economy into a ditch.”

On potential policy changes, Schansberg applauded Mike Sodrel’s proposal to suspend the capital gains tax and to revisit “mark-to-market” accounting rules: “From what I’ve read, ‘mark-to-market’ accounting rules are the most underrated cause of the current problems. Certainly, the sub-prime mortgage mess and government involvement in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are at the top of that list. But ‘mark-to-market’ combined with aspects of Sarbanes-Oxley seems to be a major contributor.”

debate...

2008-09-26T13:30:00.001-07:00

Will all of the people giving John McCain a hard time be giving Baron Hill a hard time for his recalcitrance in setting up debates for the 9th District?

Schansberg: “Are you kidding me?”

2008-09-25T19:36:00.000-07:00

September 25, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Schansberg: “Are you kidding me?”

Dr. Eric Schansberg, an economics professor and the Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Congress in Indiana’s 9^th District, responded to President Bush’s call for a $700 billion bail-out in the financial sector—and called on Rep. Baron Hill to resist the urge to vote in favor of it.

Asked about the bail-out, Dr. Schansberg said: “There are many reasons—large and small—to oppose the President’s proposal. To start with, it’s not constitutional. Beyond that, it’s not ethical. Why should the government take money from taxpayers to subsidize bad decisions by lenders and borrowers? Finally, it’s unlikely to be practical.”

Expanding on how the bail-out would work in practice, Schansberg said, “Why would we want to give money to those who have misused it? Why would one expect the federal government to do a good job with this? We should have never got involved with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. We shouldn’t have subsidized risky decisions. This is welfare for the rich and a bail-out for bankers.”

On the broader issue of bail-outs and fiscal conservatism, Schansberg said, “President Bush and his Congresses have been spending money like it grows on trees: $300 billion for a farm bill, $168 billion to try to bail-out the economy, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, etc. The list goes on and on. Unfortunately, the patience of lenders financing our expanding debt will not go on and on. The dollar has already taken a beating, resulting most notably in much higher gas prices. We must return to fiscal sanity or we risk driving our economy into a ditch. $700 billion? Are you kidding me?”

Referring to Rep. Hill, Schansberg said, “Baron’s claim to be a fiscal conservative is simply not supported by the evidence. But in this case, he has the opportunity to be a fiscal conservative on this one vote—by voting against any such proposal. I hope he will show leadership and courage on this issue.”

END

Libs and "wasted votes": Scott Tibbs and my reply...

2008-09-22T08:02:00.000-07:00

From Scott Tibbs and Hoosier Access...

First, let me say I like Eric Schansberg. If he were representing Indiana's Ninth District, he would represent us well in Congress. I agree with him on limited government, and he is pro-life. I have met him several times and he is a good person. However, I will not be voting for him in November. I will vote for Mike Sodrel.

Schansberg's run for Congress as a Libertarian is actually an impediment to implementing a libertarian legislative agenda. The votes that Schansberg drains from Sodrel will help Baron Hill in his efforts to return to Congress. That would be destructive to efforts to limit government and protect the unborn, two issues where Schansberg and Sodrel are, for the most part, in agreement. Schansberg's run for Congress is unwise and counterproductive.

Last Monday, I attended the IU College Republicans call-out meeting because Mike Sodrel would be speaking to the group. Once again, Sodrel showed that he "gets it" on individual liberty and limited government....

---------------------------------------------

I like Scott too, but here are four thoughts...

1.) I agree that Mike is good at talking about “fiscal conservatism”. But as Baron illustrates on other issues (pro-life, drilling for oil), talk is not enough. The data from NTU, CFB and CAGW are clear that Mike voted like a fiscal moderate. If he had voted like a fiscal conservative– and this was not such an important issue right now– I’d be spending more time with my wife and kids (and quite happy to do so).

2.) My opposition to Planned Parenthood funding is not only counter to Mike’s voting record, but may be the reason for the Pence Amendment in 2007. Why weren’t Republicans talking about this before I brought it up in 2006?

3.) You’re assuming that I’m taking votes mostly from Mike. In 2006, the polling data indicate I got much more from Hill. Presumably because Iraq is less important (and perhaps because fiscal conservatism and the economy are more important), the polling data this time are more mixed. So, it looks like I won’t be able to help Mike out this time.

4.) Mike doesn’t seem to be running an active campaign this time– and according to the polls I’ve seen, he’s down by double-digits. If it looks like a blow out in November, then a vote for me, even by a pragmatist, will not be “wasted”. In fact, a “protest” vote for me would be far more valuable than voting for a major-party candidate who loses by 10%. In any case, I hope voters will be more principled than pragmatic.

Chris Spangle has more to say on this...

I’d like to remind all members of the Republican party that Libertarians are a different party, not a sub-group within the GOP. There are two types of Libertarians: Republicans who realized that the Republicans are no longer Conservatives, and Democrats who realized that socialism is wrong.

It’s time for Republicans to drop the incorrect line that Libertarians are just Republican votes. I am a Libertarian. I vote Libertarian. It is my vote. It isn’t a Republican vote.

And that is precisely the reason why many are leaving the parties. The average voter’s voice carries no weight with the party structure. If you espouse an idea different from the party platform, your voice is silenced, and you are labeled a traitor or a whacko. No debate or discussion is allowed within the party structure.

Neocons (Big Government Republicans) rule the Republicans with an iron fist. I’ll direct you to this post to highlight the treatment of Ron Paul. He is a Taft/Goldwater Republican. The Bush Republicans have effectively labeled him “crazy.”

Honest, thoughtful citizens lose their voice. As a result, you lose my vote.

It is my vote.

front-page of the C-J

2008-09-21T18:48:00.000-07:00

From Lesley Stedman Weidenbener...

With the Nov. 4 election some six weeks away, two of the three candidates running in the 9th Congressional District have ads on television -- but Republican Mike Sodrel doesn't.

Democrat Baron Hill and Libertarian Eric Schansberg each have had commercials running for weeks touting their views on gas prices, benefits for military veterans and other issues.

Sodrel, though, has yet to run his first ad and said last week that money -- or a lack of it -- is partly to blame...

This year, Hill has run three ads -- all positive, issue-oriented pieces that look at energy, Internet safety and veterans' issues.

"It's been so great to see the response" to the tone of the ads, Moreau said. "It's been a bipartisan response."

Schansberg said he has noticed the difference.

"The race doesn't look nearly as close and the money advantage allows Hill to run a cleaner race," said Schansberg, an economist at Indiana University Southeast. "The advertising so far is pretty tame, and what I've seen looks pretty positive. I don't think Hill feels a need to go negative."

Hill also is feeling little need, apparently, for a debate. Despite invitations from media and other groups, the candidates have not been able to agree to any joint forums.

Sodrel says he's willing. So does Schansberg. But Hill's campaign -- which two years ago repeatedly called on Sodrel to debate about gas prices -- has said the Democrat won't take part unless Sodrel apologizes to district voters for problems in the office transition between the candidates two years ago....

Sodrel has dismissed the complaint as an excuse to avoid a debate. Schansberg has a similar take, calling Hill's request for an apology "ridiculous and hypocritical."

Schansberg, meanwhile, has been trying to build up his name identification, holding town hall meetings to talk with voters, speaking to groups throughout the region and attending fairs, parades and other events. He's also put nine different ads on the radio and two on cable television.

His goal is fairly modest -- to capture a double-digit percentage of votes on Election Day.

Sodrel, though, is still hoping to win and played down any concern that he's not yet on TV....

radio and TV ads underway

2008-09-15T14:05:00.001-07:00

We're into week 2 of our paid media campaign...

Of course, we'd love to have your help this Fall in purchasing more time on radio and cable TV. In July, we bought 500 radio ads on gas prices. For the Fall, we've already bought another 1000 radio ads and more than 2000 cable TV ads.

And we can do more if we have your support.

We have nine radio ads and two TV ads in hand (with one more of the latter on the way soon). You can hear our radio ads here and see one of our TV ads here.

What can your money buy? $100 can purchase...
-11 ads on Dave Ramsey's show in Seymour
-23 ads on the Neal Boortz show in Southern Indiana
-16 ads on Discovery or TLC in prime-time in Bloomington
-50 ads on MSNBC, Food, or VH1 in prime-time in Columbus
-33 ads on ESPN2 or CNN in prime-time in Jasper

Beyond financial help, if you're local: let us know if you want a yard sign, car magnets, t-shirt, bumper stickers, etc.

thanks for your time and consideration...eric
http://ericforcongress.com/

Hill increases lead over Sodrel in poll as Schansberg increasingly attracts independent voters

2008-09-11T19:40:00.000-07:00

September 11, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Hill increases lead over Sodrel in poll as Schansberg increasingly attracts independent voters

In the most recent Survey USA poll (commissioned by WHAS-TV in Louisville and WCPO-TV in Cincinnati), Democrat Baron Hill leads Republican Mike Sodrel by 50-39%. Dr. Eric Schansberg, the Libertarian candidate, polled at 5% (with another 5% undecided). Hill’s lead grew by 4% and according to Survey USA, Schansberg edged up by 1%.

Schansberg said, “We’re excited about improving in the polls—and in particular, about attracting so many independents [19%]. Nationwide, independents are 40% of the voting population. If we can get our message to that entire group, this race could get very interesting.”

Schansberg added, “We’ve been working hard—walking the business districts, appearing at all the county fairs, holding town halls, and so on. So, we’re hoping those seeds will bear more and more fruit as the campaign progresses. With our paid media campaign getting underway—1000 more radio ads and more than 2000 TV ads—we’re excited about getting our message out to people who are ready for real change.”

END

re-cap in B'ton papers about town hall

2008-09-10T09:51:00.001-07:00

nice article in the IU student paper (here's the Herald Times story)...

Eric Schansberg, Libertarian candidate for Indiana’s 9th Congressional District seat, held a town hall meeting Tuesday night to address potential voters.

About 15 members of the community attended the meeting at 6 p.m. at the Monroe County Public Library, including members of IU Students for Liberty.

The talk centered around tax policies, the national debt and health care. Attendees appreciated how Schansberg, who is an economics professor at IU Southeast at New Albany, was able to make the ideas easy to understand.

“The great thing about Schansberg’s spiel is it’s very tempered,” said Andrew Sharp, senior and IU Students for Liberty member. “He makes the Libertarian argument message seem very sensical.”

Schansberg said his economics knowledge greatly affects his understanding of government.

“If you’re an economist and you study public policy at the micro-level you see example after example where the government steps in and even with the best intentions causes all sorts of problems,” he said.

At the meeting Schansberg talked about Libertarian principles such as limited government, lowering taxes and spending, weakening the national government and strengthening state and local powers.

Schansberg is running for the second time in the hotly contested 9th District, which has switched between Republican Mike Sodrel and Rep. Baron Hill, D-9th District, for the past three elections. Still, Schansberg sees himself as “real change” to typical politicians.
“I’m not just some third-party fringe candidate,” he said. “I’m an economist. I’m credible; I know what I’m talking about. And your choice is either to send what we’ve already seen or you can send someone who is going to make an issue of these things.”
While he wants to win, Schansberg is not unrealistic about what he will accomplish.
“As much as I would like to win, make a splash, get double digits,” Schansberg said, “the other part of this is the platform.”

Schansberg said he is trying to change the national dialogue about politics and get more alternative opinions besides the two major parties.

“People really want change,” he said. “They want third parties; they want independence. The question is can a third party get enough above the radar?”

Brown County resident Barbara Gardner said people want more than two options.
“It’s important to have third, fourth and fifth choices. We need as many voices as we can get,” she said, adding, “It’s crucial. If we don’t have it, we don’t really have democracy anymore.”

Hill/Sodrel spat cont'd: is this a good enough reason to sack all public debates?

2008-09-08T13:42:00.001-07:00

Another article on the Hill/Sodrel spat and its implications for debates this Fall-- this one from Dan Davis in the Seymour Tribune...

A disagreement over how a former congressman handled constituent files when leaving office two years ago has 9th District debates on hold...

Katie Moreau of Hill's campaign staff said the incumbent wants a clear explanation from Sodrel on how constituent requests were handled following his loss in the 2006 election.

Ryan Reger of Sodrel's campaign said that complaint has no merit....

Reger said he would like to see more debates.

Schansberg agreed.

"It should be a no-brainer to have the debates we had in 2006," he said. "As the incumbent, Baron Hill has the most control in arranging the debates. Given Baron's repeated demands for debates throughout 2006, I would expect him to be aggressive in setting up debates this time as well. Unfortunately, so far, that has not been the case."

Moreau said Hill wants to debate but first wants an explanation from Sodrel about complaints that his office failed to forward constituent case files when leaving office following his 2006 election loss.

"It caused a lot of work for the people from the 9th District who were asking for help," Moreau said.

She said Sodrel's "first response was an outright lie - that we didn't transfer paperwork in 2004 (when Sodrel defeated Hill). We had letters sent to people asking their permission to send their cases on to the next legislator. The people we heard back from, we handed over the casework file."

Reger was dismissive of Moreau's question.

"They tried to bring that up earlier," he said. "That question's been asked and answered. They're just changing the subject with something they think happened two years ago."

Questioned Wednesday about how constituent cases were handled, Reger referred to a Congressional Research Service Report outlining procedures and said they were followed.

"I spoke with the people who worked in Mike's congressional office at the end of 2006, and they told me that they received information from an office within the U.S. House that explained the proper closing procedure and that they followed it," he said.

He said a letter was sent from Sodrel's office to constituents with open files telling them of the status of their case and what they needed to do to continue them.

But Mike Self of Seymour said Friday he never received such a letter....

When Hill took office in January 2007, Self contacted the congressman's staff to ask about his disability request.

"They didn't have anything, so I had to fill out the paperwork again, but I heard real soon from Social Security after filing it with Hill's office," Self said....

Questioned about Self's case, Reger said Friday letters sent to constituents were by first-class mail....

Schansberg expressed dismay with the seemingly endless debate every election cycle over whether candidates will debate and the discussions about their formats.

"If I'm elected, I promise that I will always provide at least three debates for the voters of the 9th District," he said. "And I won't make things difficult for those who work so hard to arrange the debates."...

Hill, Sodrel, the office transfer of December 2006, and the congressional debates of 2008

2008-09-08T12:16:00.000-07:00

In response to an email I sent to some reporters in the 9th District (at the bottom of this post), here's what I received from Candy Neal of the Dubois County Herald...
______________________

Back in late December 2006, I wrote a story about Sodrel's office closing and that included the Hill staff's complaint. Here's a copy of the story:

JASPER — Staff for Congressman-elect Baron Hill said Rep. Mike Sodrel, R-9th, has closed his district offices prematurely.

The area coordinator of Sodrel's Jasper office said federal officials made him turn in equipment weeks ago, and the phone system was disconnected Friday, rendering the office useless.

"About three and a half weeks ago, the General Services Administration called and said they wanted our computers back, and I had to turn in my Blackberry," coordinator Don Hayes said this morning. "It was pretty hard to talk to anyone else on the staff after that."

Sodrel's term will end Jan. 4, when Hill is sworn in.

Hill's chief of staff said Sodrel's staff did not transfer to them ongoing casework on residents' concerns.

"Unfortunately for the people of the 9th District, all pending casework and issues were not transitioned to our staff, so we cannot work on the problems," said Ryan Guthrie, Hill's chief of staff.

"Congressman Hill asks that anyone who has an open issue please resubmit it on Jan. 4 and we'll immediately get to work on it."

Federal officials said personal records and information on ongoing casework had to be returned to the residents involved, which took several weeks to complete, Hayes said.

"Every personal document had to be returned to the person. And the person had to be advised that they have to refile their concern with the new (Hill) staff on Jan. 4," he said. "That took us some time to do that."

Hayes gave the information on unfinished projects being handled by the Jasper office to Larry Ordner, U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar's southwest Indiana regional director.

Other records that weren't of a personal nature, including correspondence and meeting documents, were destroyed, Hayes said.

Sodrel's Jasper office opened in 2005 to serve five 9th District counties: Dubois, Spencer, Crawford, Orange and Perry. Its lease will expire at the end of December.

Hayes said the landlord is willing to lease the space to Hill for an office. The location of Hill's district offices has not yet been determined, a spokeswoman for Hill said.

Earlier this month, Sodrel had to vacate his Washington office. He had to work out of another congressman's office until the congressional session ended, Hayes said.

For the remainder of Sodrel's term, people having questions and issues on the federal level can contact Hayes at his home number, 482-2847.

Hayes will resume his role of chairman of the Dubois County Republican Party in January. The party made that decision last week.

Contact Candy Neal at cneal@dcherald.com.

_____________________________________

On Sep 7, 2008, at 3:44 PM, eric schansberg wrote:

From a press release a month ago and then in more recent events, it looks like Hill wants to use his claim that Sodrel badly botched the exchange between his November 2006 loss and Baron's seating in January 2007-- to avoid or limit debates between the three of us this Fall.

When I talk to Hill's people, the argument sounds reasonable. Their minor complaint is that offices and office furniture were moved early, making it unnecessarily difficult for Hill's people to set things up. The larger concern is that the Sodrel people did not make constituent case files available. One of Hill's primary staff said it was traditional to send those files to the next rep so that they could contact the relevant parties and see if they wanted the new rep to continue the intercession on their behalf.

When I talk to Sodrel's people, they claim that the GSA mandates the dates-- so that it was out of their hands. And they claim that one is not allowed to forward those files because it violates privacy provisions within the law. That sounds reasonable too.

I don't know what to think. Do you know anything about this? The only question I had that stumped the Hill people: if this was such a big deal, why didn't we hear much about it from the media? No (good) answer.

If this is a legitimate complaint, then I can say why Hill would want to bring attention to it. But if it's not legitimate, then it's sad that Hill would use this as a canard to try to limit/prevent debates. In any case, I hope you'll bring the appropriate facts to light.

Thanks for your time and consideration...eric

nice article in the Dubois County Herald

2008-09-08T12:06:00.000-07:00

Libertarian offers third option for 9th

By CANDY NEAL

Herald Staff Writer

Eric Schansberg meets many people with varying opinions on his candidacy for the District 9 U.S. congressional seat.

"I meet a range of people, from those who are apathetic to those who are really excited to have an alternative," the Libertarian candidate said. "There are a lot of people who are not happy with the Democrats or Republicans right now."

"People are frustrated a lot by politics, especially since things have gotten tougher."

Schansberg hopes that frustration will play in his favor. The 43-year-old Jeffersonville resident and economics professor at Indiana University-Southeast, in New Albany, is making his second run for the House of Representatives.

"It's my profession to do public policy," he said. "I bring more expertise to the table."

Schansberg will campaign at the Dale Fall Festival parade Saturday. He's also indicated his willingness to participate in a debate at the Jasper Arts Center in October, something he also did at the center in 2006. In the meantime, he plans to continue canvassing the 9th District to meet voters and let them know what he is about.

"When they meet me, they're like, 'Oh, an economist. Maybe a little economics expertise would help.'"

Others aren't as optimistic. "I meet some people who say they really respect (me) but they are worried about me taking votes from one of the other candidates," Schansberg said. "People have told me, 'You have no chance, but I respect you for your effort.'"

Both of Schansberg's opponents have served as 9th District congressman — Republican Mike Sodrel for one two-year term and Democrat incumbent Baron Hill for four terms. While that could make Schansberg's challenge more difficult, "it's also easier because they must run on their record," Schansberg said. "Both parties have controlled Congress and there's a frustration that things aren't getting done. They don't move on important issues, or they didn't move on them when they were in control."

Schansberg's wife, Tonia, supports his run, but she and their children — Zachary, 9, Brennan, 8, Joseph, 5, and Daniel, 3 — aren't on the front lines with him. He doesn't want his family to become a campaign focus.

"My family has played a significant role in minor areas. They have helped out," he said. "But I want to talk about the issues."

But his family life does reflect his beliefs. For instance, two of his children are adopted. "I am pro-life. But too many times, pro-lifers are just anti-abortion," he said. "We need to promote adoption, not just be anti-abortion."

Schansberg took off from teaching this summer to work on his campaign materials, such as advertisements, to help him better maintain quality family time during the campaign. "I'm home most every night," he said. "I wouldn't do this (run for Congress) if it kept me away from my family."

Schansberg has challenged Hill to a debate on gas prices, and he'd like to talk about decreasing the payroll tax. "Eighty percent of wage earners lose more to (Federal Insurance Contributions Act taxes) and payroll taxes than to income taxes," Schansberg noted. "Republicans talk about cutting income taxes. Of those taxes collected, the wealthy pay 99 percent of those. Democrats are satisfied with criticizing Republicans for cutting those taxes."

Schansberg knows he has an uphill battle ahead of him. But he feels the effort is worthwhile. And if elected, he would work with the other representatives despite their party affiliation.

"It would be an opportunity to make some noise on the issues no one will discuss," he said. "I know one person can't do it all alone, but we must send someone there. Do you send someone who won't say anything? Or do we want someone who will actually speak up?"

On the Net: www.schansbergforcongress.com

Contact Candy Neal at cneal@dcherald.com.

Schansberg town hall in Scottsburg next Monday

2008-09-07T12:53:00.000-07:00

September 8, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Schansberg town hall in Scottsburg next Monday

Dr. Eric Schansberg, the Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Congress in Indiana’s 9^th District, will hold a town-hall-style meeting in Scottsburg on Monday, September 15th, from 6:00-8:00 PM—at The Coffee House (36 E. McClain St.).

At the town hall, Schansberg will deliver prepared remarks for 15-20 minutes—and then field questions from those in the audience.

In his prepared remarks, Dr. Schansberg will address:

· gas prices and energy policy—policies that will work (domestic drilling and a stronger dollar) and policies that will not work (regulations on speculators, subsidies to energy companies, etc.)

· the dramatic but overlooked impact of fiscal conservatism

· our on-going efforts in Iraq

· the oppressive burden of payroll/FICA taxes on income and the need for Social Security reform

All interested parties are encouraged to attend. Audio and video recording are permitted.

END

Schansberg town hall in Bloomington on Tuesday

2008-09-07T12:52:00.002-07:00

September 5, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Schansberg town hall in Bloomington on Tuesday

Dr. Eric Schansberg, the Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Congress in Indiana’s 9^th District, will hold a town-hall meeting in Bloomington on Tuesday, September 9th, from 6:00-7:30 PM. (The meeting will be held in Room #1C of the Monroe County Library, located at 303 E. Kirkwood Ave. in downtown Bloomington.)

Earlier in the day, Dr. Schansberg will be at the 2008 IU Student Involvement Fair from 11:00-2:00 with IU Students for Liberty. After that, he will be a guest on “The Afternoon Edition” with Darryl Neher on WGCL (1370-AM) from 4:00-5:00.

At the town hall, Schansberg will deliver prepared remarks for 15-20 minutes—and then field questions from those in the audience.

In his prepared remarks, Dr. Schansberg will address:

· gas prices and energy policy—policies that will work (domestic drilling and a stronger dollar) and policies that will not work (regulations on speculators, subsidies to energy companies, etc.)

· the dramatic but overlooked impact of fiscal conservatism

· our on-going efforts in Iraq

· the oppressive burden of payroll/FICA taxes on income and the need for Social Security reform

All interested parties are encouraged to attend. Audio and video recording are permitted.

END

Schansberg looks forward to Jasper debate and calls on Hill for at least two more

2008-09-07T12:52:00.001-07:00

September 3, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Schansberg looks forward to Jasper debate and calls on Hill for at least two more

On Wednesday, Dr. Eric Schansberg, the Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Congress in Indiana’s 9^th District, welcomed the formal invitation to participate in the October 21^st debate at Vincennes University in Jasper. (It is not yet clear whether Mike Sodrel and especially Baron Hill will agree to participate.) Schansberg also took the occasion to encourage at least as many debates as there were in 2006.

Dr. Schansberg said, “It should be a no-brainer to have the debates we had in 2006—in Bloomington, New Albany, and Jasper. As the incumbent, Baron Hill has the most control in arranging the debates. Given Baron’s repeated demands for debates throughout 2006, I would expect him to be aggressive in setting up debates this time as well. Unfortunately, so far, that has not been the case.”

Schansberg said, “Even though it was completely hypocritical, I understand why Baron wouldn’t debate me on gas prices earlier this summer. I’d be surprised to see that kind of hypocrisy again in the Fall—by refusing to participate in at least three debates. But with major-party politicians, you never know….I can also imagine why he wouldn’t want to debate me.”

Further, Schansberg committed, “If I’m elected, I promise that I will always provide at least three debates for the voters of the 9^th District. And I won’t make things difficult for those who work so hard to arrange the debates.”

END

the devalued dollar and the price of oil and gas

2008-08-30T09:32:00.000-07:00

Thanks to President Bush and his Republican and Democratic Congresses!

We need to strengthen the dollar through reduced spending and debt. There's only one congressional candidate in the 9th District who is credible on this issue...

Seymour town hall

2008-08-21T21:46:00.001-07:00

I enjoyed my visit to Seymour this evening.

In addition to my two staffers, we had six lay-people from the community and reporters from the Seymour Tribune and Jackson County Banner. The group was half of the size of Baron's effort there two weeks ago.

I delivered comments for about 20 minutes before fielding questions on a variety of topics.

We look forward to doing a few more of these-- in Bloomington, Madison, Scottsburg, and Clark/Floyd County.

my interview with Francene!

2008-08-18T17:20:00.000-07:00

Part 1, 2 and 3 of my appearance on the Francene Show on WHAS-840 AM...

enjoy!

Schansberg calls on Hill to apologize and anticipates at least three debates

2008-07-31T20:52:00.001-07:00

This week, Mike Sodrel proposed a town-hall meeting in each of the 9^th District’s 20 counties—as well as an independent commission to regulate advertising in the campaign. Rep. Baron Hill replied by refusing the commission and trying to diminish expectations about debates.

According to a story in the News-Tribune, Hill said that he had “good reason to be skeptical of entering into campaign pledges” with Sodrel: “As history evidenced, you did not honor your word and broke our campaign pledge the last time around.” Hill said further that he wants Sodrel to apologize before he’ll agree to talk about campaign issues with him.

In response, Dr. Eric Schansberg said: “Baron needs to look in the mirror. Both of them were responsible for the nasty campaigns they ran in 2006. Baron needs to apologize as well—not only to Mike, but to everyone in the 9^th District—for subjecting us to so much mud-slinging and name-calling like ‘Millionaire Mike’. I commend Mike for extending the olive branch. Maybe if they both take responsibility and apologize, we can go forward and have an honorable campaign this time.”

On the debates, Dr. Schansberg said, “Even though it was completely hypocritical, I understand why Baron wouldn’t debate gas prices earlier this summer. But since Baron demanded a lot of debates in 2006 and since he’s so good at it, I’m sure he’ll have enough character and confidence to offer at least the same three debates we had then—in Bloomington, New Albany, and Jasper. I look forward to many opportunities to debate and discuss the issues that are important to the voters of the 9^th District.”

Sodrel and I gain on Hill in latest SurveyUSA poll

2008-07-31T19:50:00.000-07:00

In the most recent WHAS11/SurveyUSA poll,

I picked up one point-- from 4 to 5%. (They report me at 4% but it should be 5% given the raw numbers.)

Sodrel picked up two points-- from 40 to 42%-- and Hill dropped 2%, from 51 to 49%.

Election Advantage talks about our campaign in a favorable light:

Also keep an eye on Libertarian Eric Schansberg, who won 4% in 2006 and gets 5% in this poll, although he draws his support evenly from both parties.

Of course, I had hoped to pick up more support than that. We worked hard in June and July-- walking 38 business districts, running a spate of 500+ radio ads, and wrapping up the county fairs. At this point, we're hoping that the multiple exposures will amount to something a lot bigger in the Fall-- planting seeds that will hopefully bear fruit as voters turn more attention to our race.

an absolutely ridiculous Democratic press release

2008-07-30T13:18:00.001-07:00

A ridiculous press release from the Indiana Democratic Party-- Dan Parker, Chair-- on Mike Sodrel's advocacy of the "fair tax"...

Usually, politicians will talk about costs OR benefits-- and usually it's the benefits of what they propose, ignoring the relatively subtle costs. (See, for example, the recent flurry of big spending to come out from the Democratic Congress and the Republican President: bailouts, farm bill, macro stimulus package, the Democrat proposal on "Advancing America's Priorities", and so on.)

But here we have the Democrats at the state level talking about the cost of a Sodrel proposal while completely ignoring its benefits!

Despite the rising cost of food and gas, Republican Mike Sodrel wants to raise taxes on food and gas by an additional 23 percent.

"The last thing Hoosier families need during these tough economic times is an out-of-touch millionaire like Mike Sodrel who wants to raise your taxes on food and gas by a whopping 23 percent," said Dan Parker, Indiana Democratic Party Chair....

Background:

* Mike Sodrel supports HR 25, which would impose a 23% tax on all goods and services purchased in the United States, including food. [HR25, 3/01/05]

* Sodrel's 23% gas tax would be levied in addition to the current federal gas tax, which HR 25 does not repeal

What's missing? Only a little thing like getting rid of all income and payroll taxes!

Then, they play the "Millionaire Mike" card. Classy! How about spending less time playing the class-warfare card and more time doing honest policy analysis?

* The Indianapolis Star reported that Sodrel was "one of the wealthiest members of the [Indiana] delegation," with an estimated personal worth between $6.5 million and $27.6 million.

For more information: Thomas Cook, 317.231.7125

Paid for and authorized by the Indiana Democratic Party, Daniel J. Parker, Chair.

This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

Schansberg congratulates President Bush and Democratic Congress on world-record budget deficit

2008-07-30T10:01:00.000-07:00

Just in time for the Olympics, the White House has predicted a $482 billion deficit for 2009—which if successful, would allow the President and the Democratic Congress to set a new world record. A $482 billion deficit would smash the current record of $413 billion in 2004. ($482 billion works out to $1,600 per person or $6,400 for the family of four.)

The 2009 deficit will extend the current national debt to more than $10 trillion. (That's $33,000 per person.) On top of that, unfunded liabilities—most notably, for Social Security and Medicare—add tens of trillions of dollars in debt.

Dr. Eric Schansberg, a professor of Economics and the Libertarian candidate for the 9^th Congressional District in Indiana, noted that current debt necessarily leads to higher future taxes. And Schansberg pointed to massive increases in spending as the cause: "Tax revenues, as a percentage of GDP, are well within historical ranges. But spending has increased dramatically. With hundreds of billions of dollars for a housing bail-out, a banking bail-out, the 'macro stimulus package', the farm bill, our on-going efforts in Iraq, and so on—after awhile it adds up to real money."

Schansberg pointed to the subtle costs of the profligate spending: "The dollar has depreciated about 40% since 2002. This leads to a host of problems—most notably, higher costs of imported oil and thus, gas prices. If the dollar was as strong as it was in 2002, we'd be paying less than $3 per gallon—and there'd be very little discussion about gas prices right now."

In terms of his campaign, Schansberg observed that he is the only fiscal conservative in the race: "If you look at the data from NTU, CAGW and Club for Growth, it is obvious that Sodrel is a fiscal moderate and Hill's claim to be a fiscal conservative is laughable. If we're going to restore fiscal sanity in the federal government, we need to send principled, fiscal conservatives to Washington DC."

maybe he'll do one of these for Baron Hill?

2008-07-26T12:08:00.001-07:00

From Marc Murphy in the C-J...

This is reasonable accurate for Republicans-- at least those who have worked to devalue our dollar through massive spending and debt (sins of commission) and failing to take action to open up more drilling when they controlled Congress (sins of omission).

Of course, it's even more accurate for Democrats who have both of the above problems-- and in addition, are still getting in the way of increasing the domestic supply of oil.

a Delaware Libertarian keeping an eye on the national picture

2008-07-25T12:37:00.000-07:00

Steve Newton is getting a kick out of my campaign and the press coverage of it...

article in the Jackson Co. Banner

2008-07-25T11:30:00.000-07:00

A nice article by Steven Crawford in the Jackson County Banner...

Crawford interviewed me while I was campaigning at the Jackson Co. Fair on Tuesday night.

As a rule, politicians want potential voters to trust them. Sometimes it is all too obvious they are simply pandering to the people in an attempt to build that trust without saying anything substantive. In rare cases, however, a candidate can inspire that feeling by simply knowing what he is talking about and saying it in straight terms.

One of those rarities is Libertarian Dr. Eric Schansberg, who is running for Indiana’s Ninth District Congressional seat. Dr. Schansberg was at the Jackson County Fair on Tuesday evening and spoke candidly on issues ranging from oil to Iraq to Social Security to his campaign in general.

Dr. Schansberg will be facing Democrat Baron Hill and Republican Mike Sodrel in the November general election for the second time. His first attempt was in 2006 when he garnered 9,893 votes, or four percent. Hill won that race with 110,454 votes.

“We’re hoping to build on last time,” said Dr. Schansberg, who has been an economics professor at IU Southeast for the last 16 years. “We’re working harder. We’ve learned things, like how to run radio ads and other little nitty, gritty things.”

With gas prices at the top of most voters’ list of concerns, Dr. Schansberg’s economics background should play to his advantage. How far that advantage will go towards counterbalancing the inherent disadvantage of being a third party candidate is anyone’s guess, however.

Dr. Schansberg hopes to win the election outright, as would any candidate, but he has another goal short of winning. “My next best goal is get into double digits,” he said. He added that he could just as easily see an increase in the number of votes, but a lower percentage.

“Since it’s a Presidential election, there will be more voters,” he said. But that may not be all bad for the third party candidate, he said. “Obama is perceived as a different kind of politician. I may have some appeal to people like that.”

He should draw voters from both of the major parites, based on his positions. Economically, his views (and those of the Libertarian Party in general) should appeal to traditional Republicans. His liberal appeal stems from his position on the war in Iraq [and his policy positions that impact the working poor and middle class].

“I want the troops home sooner [than Hill and Sodrel],” he said. “Sodrel’s position is mostly the status quo. Hill has crafted a position near Sodrel’s.

“We shouldn’t have an intrusive foreign policy. Building democracies in the Middle East is not practical.”

Dr. Schansberg’s plan to lower gas prices is, in his words, a “no-brainer”, at least for the first step.

He proposes to start drilling off the Gulf Coast, which is common land and will eventually be drilled by somebody, he said. He also wants to start drilling in ANWR in Alaska, as long as it’s in “an environmentally sensitive manner.”

“The second issue is a little more sophisticated,” he said. “Forty percent of the cost of a gallon of gas is due to the devalued dollar.” If not for the weak dollar, gas would be around $2.90 a gallon and “probably not in the top ten [voter concerns],” he explained.

The cause of the devaluation is complicated, he said, but starts with increased government spending and debt. The sub-prime mortgage crisis and other government buy-outs further weaken the dollar. “What investor would want to hold a dollar right now?” asked the candidate....

He also spoke about his role as the supposed spoiler in 2006, when some people blamed him for Sodrel’s loss.

“Even if all of my votes had went to Sodrel, he still would have lost,” he said.

“Politicians like predictability. A third party candidate adds one variable to worry about. They [Hill and Sodrel] probably would rather me not run,” he explained.

And while Libertarians are thought to generally take conservative votes, the war issue makes Dr. Schansberg think a lot of Libertarian votes will come from liberals.

While explaining why he was running, Dr. Schansberg made an interesting comment: “Instead of scapegoating me, I would rather the parties run better candidates. I would rather be at home with my family than out doing this.”

For more information on the Schansberg campaign, visit www.schansbergforcongress.com.

from the press conference on gas prices

2008-07-25T11:17:00.000-07:00

Here's the video from Indiana-9...

and here is Daniel Suddeath's article in the Jeff/NA News-Tribune...

Excerpts from the article:

When Eric Schansberg decided to run for Indiana’s 9th District U.S. Congress seat, he had “no idea” gas prices would be such a hot topic....

The Libertarian candidate said as gas prices increased substantially in recent months, so did the interest level of Indiana residents.

“The price of gas has had a profound impact on the working poor,” he said. “Instead of political posturing and economic ignorance, we need public policies that will increase the supply of oil and strengthen the dollar as soon as possible.”

Schansberg has attempted to engage his competitors — Republican Mike Sodrel and incumbent Democrat Baron Hill — to a debate on gas prices, citing Hill’s insistence on a debate with Sodrel over fuel in 2006.

The debate hasn’t been agreed upon, but the three candidates are all focusing on gasoline.

Hill has introduced legislation recently in the House of Representatives that is aimed at neutralizing oil speculators.

“Many economists have estimated that excessive speculation is adding between $20 to $50 to the price of a barrel of oil,” Hill stated in a news release.

“We need to close loopholes and help reestablish oversight of the commodities markets to ensure that gas prices truly reflect the laws of supply and demand.”

Sodrel has taken his fight to a state at the center of the argument over where to turn for the future of energy.

He is due back in Southern Indiana today after a tour of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, in Alaska along with other congressional candidates.

“In the short term, we must become independent of foreign sources of traditional energy. In the long term, we need to become independent of traditional energy altogether,” Sodrel stated in a news release.

Sodrel will hold a press conference today at the Louisville International Airport to discuss his trip to ANWR.

He said he was going to Alaska to look for new sources of traditional energy to keep the nation afloat until a long-term strategy can be implemented.

That could mean domestic drilling, something Sodrel and Schansberg support in ANWR and along the Gulf Coast.

“Someone will drill off the Gulf Coast — it might as well be us,” Schansberg said.

Hill said that “contrary to recent sound bites, this Democratic Congress is supportive of drilling.”

Hill was pleased with this week’s announcement by the Bureau of Land Management to hold a major lease sale in the National Petroleum Reserve, or NPR-A, in Alaska this fall.

“The timing of the BLM’s decision could not be any better as (Thursday), the House is scheduled to consider the DRILL Act,” Hill said. “This bill calls on the BLM to speed the development of oil and gas resources in the NPR-A.”

Estimates are that the NPR-A could hold roughly 8.4 billion barrels of recoverable crude, according to Hill. He added the Alaska natural gas pipeline could create up to 100,000 jobs.

The bill was considered by the House but not has yet to receive a vote.

If passed, the measure would speed development of the NPR-A, reinstate a ban on the foreign export of Alaskan oil and require oil producers to drill on leases they already have, or relinquish them so that another company can produce oil there.

“We need to increase domestic oil production not only for short-term relief, but as part of a long-term strategy to decrease our dependence on foreign oil,” Hill said.

Schansberg, an economist at Indiana University Southeast, suggests the main driving force for high gas prices may have little to do with drilling or speculation.

“The pursuit of spending and debt has weakened the dollar by about 40 percent over the past six years,” he said. “So, 40 percent of this problem has been caused by a devalued dollar.”

Schansberg — who refers to himself as the only fiscal conservative in the race — said getting a control on spending could have a great impact on gas prices.

Schansberg said that like Hill, he believes in reducing the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, though he thinks it will only result in a modest impact on market supply and price.

Schansberg believes an investigation into the high prices of Louisville gas being launched by Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear will not yield the results residents are hoping for.

“The answer is almost certainly (Environmental Protection Agency) regulations, which dictate the sale and use of certain types of gasoline,” Schansberg said, adding the type of gas sold in Louisville is different from most other states.

“This results in otherwise surprising price differentials between counties and greater price fluctuations in these regulated markets.”

Sodrel is also not sold that investigation will lead to a solution.

“You can’t develop energy with lawsuits. We can’t create energy by raising taxes. Investigation and regulation haven’t lowered our cost at the gas pump,” he said.

As the candidates vow to keep gas prices down, they are trying to get their campaign cash up.

me and Hill on the minimum wage

2008-07-25T11:11:00.000-07:00

From Daniel Suddeath in the Jeff/NA News-Tribune...

For more on the minimum wage, check out our website...

For better or worse, the minimum wage rate will increase from $5.85 to $6.55 an hour in Indiana beginning Thursday.

Proponents of the wage jump say it will help working families, while those opposed believe it will put a greater strain on employers, possibly leading to cutbacks in the work force.

Congress approved the first minimum wage increase in a decade in 2007, as part of the Fair Minimum Wage Act, which boosts the minimum pay for workers from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over two years across the nation.

“I am proud to be part of a Congress that has raised the minimum wage to benefit our hard-working families in Southern Indiana and throughout the nation,” stated Indiana’s 9th District Congressman Baron Hill in a news release.

“This increase will help nearly 13 million Americans and 354,000 Hoosiers.”...

Morton Marcus, an independent economist formerly with the Indiana University School of Business, said it’s too early to tell what the impact of raising the minimum wage will be.

“It’s the kind of thing that people like to speculate about,” he said. “Overall, the effects are going to be very minor....A lot of this stuff is just talk by people who have for years wanted to get rid of the minimum wage and the other side who say we ought to raise it,” he said.

Eric Schansberg, the Libertarian candidate for Indiana’s 9th District Congressional seat, said the increase could actually hurt the people it’s intended to help.

“From a worker’s perspective, if you keep your job then it’s a nice thing,” said Schansberg, who is an economics professor at Indiana University Southeast.

“But if businesses are forced to release workers, those who lost their jobs are worse off.”

While workers might make more, their employers could be forced to cut back, according to Schansberg.

“It’s never helpful to businesses to drive up their costs,” he said.

Schansberg believes the impact will be minimal for most, except for workers who are raising families on minimum-wage pay.

Lowering taxes will do more to help the working class than a minimum wage increase, he said....

SO YOU KNOW

• In 2007, 1.73 million workers made the federal minimum wage or less, of which 1.5 million made less than the federal minimum. The reason is because companies can pay workers as little as $2.13 an hour if their wage plus tips equals the minimum.

— The Associated Press

Indiana Libertarians in DC

2008-07-20T18:44:00.000-07:00

Mark Rutherford (Indiana Libertarian guru) and John V. LaBeaume (editor of ElectionDissection.com and former LP staffer) organized a trip to DC-- with me, Steve Keltner (running for Indiana State Senate, District 30) and Rex Bell (running for Indiana State House, District 54) as the featured guest.

Steve is running an aggressive campaign and Rex is running his second strong campaign for the same seat, after winning 14% in 2006 in a three-way race. (This time it's just him and the incumbent who earned 46% the last time.)

Although their races are more relevant to building a grass-roots organization, we're making a strong run for a federal office-- and of course, this is more sexy to people in Washington.

We were there for two purposes: to fund-raise/hob-nob; and to spread the good word about what Libertarians are doing in Indiana. Apparently, it's not all that common for state parties to work hard and smart. It doesn't seem like a big deal to us, but it's not done often enough. And if Libertarians will be successful in winning elections (beyond the important work of policy wonks), it will have to be done this way-- through hard work and a long-term grass roots effort.

We had a whirlwind day on Thursday and a good time. (I hope to have the pictures on the website soon.)

First, we met Dick Heller of Heller v. District of Columbia fame-- the recent Supreme Court case on gun control in D.C. That morning, he had tried (unsuccessfully) to register his handgun under the new DC gun legislation. As is often the case, the court system tries to correct something and the legislature chooses something within a sliver of the original legislation.

Then, we went to LP headquarters, ironically (and purposefully) located in the Watergate complex. There, they filmed an interview with the three of us.

Then, we had lunch with Reason's David Weigel.

Then, we met with Fred Smith, president of CEI, the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Smith was eloquent and passionate about communicating libertarian ideas.

Then, we met with Tim Lynch who does research on the criminal justice at Cato Institute.

After dinner and some down time, we had a fund-raiser/mixer with (mostly) young Libertarians at a bar. Bill Redpath, chair of the LP, was there as well. It was a real pleasure to talk with up-and-coming Libertarians who are finding their way in life and politics.

Dems mess with Reps to hide hypocrisy and doggy-paddling policies

2008-07-14T19:15:00.001-07:00

The Indiana Democratic party is firing back at Sodrel and two other Republicans who are going to ANWR to try to underline their policy preferences.

There is much to commend in the press release.

But Dan Parker, the chair of the party who is quoted in the release, says: "I find it bizarre that these three would choose to travel 3,500 miles to discuss energy policy with Big Oil rather than have an open discussion with voters in Indiana."

I'm with you Dan. But I also find it bizarre that Baron Hill would *repeatedly* demand a debate on gas prices in May 2006 and then refuse to have the same open discussion about the same topic in the summer of 2008 with voters in Indiana.

For some reason, the Dems are content to offer noise and froth instead of policies that will actually make a significant difference-- when the well-being of the working poor and the middle class is being hammered by higher gas and food prices. So much for helping "the common man" and the "little guy". If only the Dems would live up to that reputation!

Schansberg press conference about gas prices and energy policy on Wednesday in Jeffersonville

2008-07-14T19:14:00.001-07:00

Eric Schansberg will hold a press conference at Warder Park in Jeffersonville on Wednesday, July 16^th at 9:30 AM—to address a variety of issues about gas prices, “energy independence”, and federal policy. (Warder Park is at the corner of Court Avenue and Spring Street in downtown Jeffersonville.)

Dr. Schansberg is an economics professor at Indiana University Southeast and the Libertarian candidate for Congress in the 9^th District.

In his prepared remarks, Dr. Schansberg will address:

· the importance of expanding domestic drilling of the Gulf Coast and in ANWR

· the dramatic but overlooked impact of the weaker dollar on the price of gas

· the (limited) usefulness of reducing the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

· proposed policies that cannot significantly decrease the price of gas: windfall profits taxes and additional regulation on “speculators” and “price gougers”

· why subsidizing oil companies and alternative energy is a bad idea

· the likely reason for much higher prices (recently) in Jefferson County and Southern Indiana

Dr. Schansberg will also be pleased to field questions from members of the press about gas prices, energy policy—or anything else related to the campaign.

His remarks will be passed out at the press conference and provided by email on request.

press release: Hill is blowing smoke on gas prices

2008-07-09T02:59:00.000-07:00

July 8, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Schansberg: Hill is blowing smoke on gas prices

During recent TV interviews on Louisville's WAVE-3 and Indy's WTHR-13, Baron Hill asserted that speculators in the futures market are causing gas prices to be as much as 50% higher. Hill cited unnamed economists in making this claim.

Eric Schansberg, an economics professor and the Libertarian candidate for Congress in the 9^th District, found this incredulous. "I can't imagine an economist making that claim. If it's true, he and Baron should take advantage of their superior knowledge of the market, change their investments, and make a ton of money."

Schansberg continued: "This is doubly frustrating since Baron refuses to debate me on gas prices—after repeatedly demanding a debate on this single topic in May 2006. The funny thing is that he dismissed 'those fancy economists' during our 2006 debate in Jasper [on the minimum wage]."

Schansberg added: "I think he's confused about $2.75 per gallon gasoline. That's about the price we'd have for gas if the dollar had not been devalued since 2002. President Bush and his Congresses (including Baron Hill and Mike Sodrel) bear considerable responsibility for that, given their avid pursuit of government spending and debt.

Beyond the increasing pain at the pump over the last few years, gas prices have been even higher in Louisville and Southern Indiana recently. Schansberg said, "This is probably the result of supply and demand for the particular gasoline required by the EPA. People often imagine that there is a single market for gasoline. But EPA regulations fragment the market into what economists call 'boutique fuels'. This results in otherwise surprising price differentials between counties and greater price fluctuations in these regulated markets."

July 4th parade in Bloomington

2008-07-05T09:03:00.000-07:00

We participated in the July 4th parade in Bloomington and had a great time!

(I was told that Baron and Mike chose Pekin instead. While I toured the staging stations before the parade, I talked briefly with one of Baron's aides and his wife Betty-- the second time we've met (she seems quite nice). I didn't see any Sodrel reps.)

It rained quite a bit-- especially just beforehand. But not so much that we couldn't meet a lot of people. Even with the inclement weather, the crowd was quite good.

We had Brett's electric truck as our vehicle-- an electric/battery-powered truck that he built. Awesome! The truck was decorated with signs, banners and car magnets from our campaign as well as more general Libertarian messages. I had four people handing out literature as I walked around shaking hands and meeting people.

Thanks to the many people we had helping us with the event. Greg headed up the effort to organize. Greg, Andrew, Aaron, Matt and his little boy Carson handed out materials. Brett provided the vehicle. Margaret was there too-- but stayed out of the rain!

It was a pleasure to meet Andrew and Aaron. They will head up our efforts at IU this Fall.

Andrew also filmed and edited a video of the event and an interview with me (post-parade; check out that hair!).

will these two vote for Mike or me?

2008-07-03T05:02:00.001-07:00

While I share the disdain of these letter writers-- from Brownstown and Charlestown (hat tip: Hoosier Pundit)-- for Baron's policies on gas prices and energy...

Will Linda and Tony settle for half-way with Mike or go with the best candidate on this issue?

Mike is very good on the usefulness of more domestic drilling, but...

Mike supported higher gas prices through his votes for more govt spending and debt-- weakening the dollar and driving up the price of oil/gas. (The weakened dollar is responsible for about one-third of the increase in gas prices since 2002.)

Mike wants to take their money and give it to oil and now, alternative energy companies-- even more spending and probably another govt sink-hole for your tax dollars. (Why does Mike trust govt more than the market on this?)

gas prices and the working poor

2008-07-02T09:11:00.000-07:00

I'm blessed to have a great job with a comfortable income.
And so, higher gas prices are only a minor annoyance to me.
I notice and am amazed at the amount of money it now requires to fill my tank.
But that said, I just fill my tank and go on with my day.
Bottom line: It doesn't change my behavior and it doesn't change my budget (appreciably).

Not so for the working poor...

In Salem yesterday, at our gas event, it became obvious that most customers went to the gas station with the intention of putting $10 or $25 in the tank-- not to just "fill 'er up".

For people at the margin, those extra dollars for gasoline are especially painful. This is the primary reason we must change our energy policy and address this unnecessarily painful issue.

Newt on gas prices

2008-07-02T09:07:00.000-07:00

Here's video of Newt on gas prices...

#1 is fine, but modest.
#2 is a no-brainer.
#3 is fine as long as one depends on markets, not government subsidies. (Republicans, not [fiscal] conservatives-- including my opponent-- are tempted by the latter.)

#4 is the second-most important but overlooked in general and by Gingrich. Quit weakening the dollar, most notably through the pursuit of govt spending and debt!

why didn't the Democrats...

2008-06-30T14:25:00.001-07:00

get rid of subsidies to oil companies?

They like to complain about them-- quite reasonably-- but unfortunately, they have not taken action in eliminating them.

the two 2006 debates

2008-06-30T14:19:00.001-07:00

In case you haven't seen them and are interested, here are the links for the Bloomington and Jasper debates from the 2006 campaign.

In the Bloomington debate, notice Baron's passionate desire in his opening remarks to talk a whole lot more about gas prices! What happened to that passion? LOL!

I did ok in my first debate (in Bloomington) but better when I had one under my belt (in Jasper).

enjoy!

Schansberg pumps gas in Salem, criticizes Hill and Sodrel on energy policy positions

2008-06-30T14:12:00.001-07:00

On Tuesday July 1^st, Dr. Eric Schansberg, the Libertarian candidate for Indiana’s 9^th District, will be the guest on WSLM’s live show “Coffee Talk” (Salem; Channel 17; 8:00-8:30 AM). Afterwards, he will pump gas and talk with voters at S&S Petroleum in Salem (1306 W. Mulberry St.) from 8:45-9:45 AM.

Schansberg also took the occasion to criticize Baron Hill and Mike Sodrel for their remarks last week on gas prices and energy policy.

About Hill, Schansberg remarked: “Baron seems to think that regulating markets is the answer. He pushed for tighter fuel efficiency standards, but higher gas prices will encourage people to demand more fuel-efficient cars quite naturally. And he wants to regulate the futures market and reduce the number of investors. At best, that’s pandering and it may make things worse by limiting competition in the futures market.”

Continuing, Schansberg said, “I agree with Baron about reducing the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). But strangely, he seems to think that a modest reduction in the SPR will have a dramatic impact on price, while increasing oil production by far more will do nothing to the futures market.”

About Sodrel, Schansberg commented: “I agree with Mike that drilling off the Gulf Coast and in ANWR is a no-brainer. But he wants to take money from taxpayers to give to oil companies and to companies developing alternative energies. In this time of massive government debt—which weakens the dollar and has dramatically driven up the price of oil—more spending is not the answer.”

Continuing, Schansberg said, “Mike talks about the power of market incentives, but then he argues for government subsidies. There’s so much money on the table right now—all the incentive needed for entrepreneurs to innovate. Why should the government take money from taxpayers and try to pick winners?”

did you know this about political ads?

2008-06-30T13:44:00.001-07:00

They must be pre-paid!

Of course, that wouldn't be necessary in my case, but I certainly understand why that's the industry norm.

When I'm paying for my ads, I typically say "I can understand why you don't trust politicians. That's one of the reasons I'm running!"

why didn't the Republicans...

2008-06-27T14:02:00.001-07:00

Thought for the day:

Why didn't the Republicans take care of the ban on drilling for oil when they controlled Congress all those years?

See also: Why didn't the Republicans get rid of federal funding for Planned Parenthood when they had the opportunity-- year after year?

suburban vs. rural/small town voters

2008-06-27T07:37:00.000-07:00

Generalizing from what I've observed from my 1.5 campaigns in the 9th District...

Going into my congressional run in 2006, I suspected that I would have an easier time connecting with suburban, more-educated voters. But my three lowest vote percentages were in the most "suburban" counties, including Clark and Floyd where I've lived for 8 years and worked/taught for 16 years! (Ironically, my highest percentage came in Jackson County-- home to Baron Hill!)

Trying to explain this surprising result...

My first theory was paid media-- that we had bought a lot of radio time in rural/small town areas, but had not been willing to pay a lot of money for little coverage in the suburbs. For example, to advertise in Clark and Floyd, we had to buy Louisville media-- a lot of money for little (relevant) coverage for our campaign.

I still think that story carries significant weight. But now, after walking the business districts, I have another theory.

First, let me back up a step and talk about a key observation in political economy: "rational ignorance and apathy" in the general public. In a word, because people have little to offer within a political market (a vote and maybe a modest campaign contribution), the costs of becoming (more) informed and taking action are simply too high to justify much investment. Thus, it is "rational" for voters to lack knowledge and desire to become involved at anything more than a very shallow level. The result is that people typically vote on the basis of one issue (a "special interest"), political party, name recognition, anti-incumbency, etc.

Again, this is a (gross?) generalization, but here's theory #2:

Rural/small town voters tend to vote the person and suburban voters tend to vote for a particular issue or with a particular party. In my case, I'm having an easier time with voters in Huntingburg and Brownstown because many of them don't respect my two opponents all that much &/or they have a sense that things just aren't right in DC and they want (true) change. Combine that with a credible third alternative, I'm in pretty good shape if I can get the word out to those people!

Another observation and perhaps a corollary: Rural voters make more principled choices (just choosing the best candidate) while suburban voters are more pragmatic (strategic). For example, I have rarely heard the "lesser of two evils" argument in rural/small town settings but I hear it a lot in the suburbs. Putting it another way: suburban voters take their votes too seriously and are willing to lose sleep in choosing an inferior candidate. I need suburban voters to be more principled and less pragmatic!

we're at 4.3% in the latest poll...

2008-06-26T08:02:00.001-07:00

Last week, Survey USA released a poll showing Hill with a 51-40 lead on Sodrel. I had 4% with 5% undecided.

We wanted the results of the poll to build on our 2006 election results (4.5%). And when I was dreaming a bit, I was hoping for double-digits, which would have created a tremendous buzz!

The most likely explanation: If done well by Survey USA, they would pick up the fact that there are many more likely voters in a presidential election year, including a high proportion of those who would be less informed about my campaign.

An interesting result: It appears that we continue to get votes, in about equal measure, from those who would otherwise vote for Sodrel or Hill. (Not that this will probably not persuade those who will seek to scapegoat me if their preferred candidate [or "the lesser of two evils"] is defeated and the margin of victory is less than my vote total.)

Biggest result for me: 14% of independents

Biggest questions: Can Sodrel recover from this early deficit? Can my campaign get enough above the radar to make me-- not only the best candidate-- but a viable third choice in the race?

adult movie actor vs. thieves, liars, hypocrites...

2008-06-26T07:42:00.000-07:00

With news of Sonny Landham's bid as a Libertarian for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky, given an aspect of his professional career from 30 years ago, we have statements of embarrassment in the blogosphere and wise-acre comments from a political science professor.

On the one hand, I can understand the former and I'm amused by the latter.

But shouldn't we be more embarrassed and snide in our response to politicians who are currently liars, hypocrites, thieves and so on? One says he supports the Macro stimulus package and is now opposed. One demands a debate on gas prices one year and refuses two years later. One votes to take your money to give to Planned Parenthood and then tries to make it an issue against his opponent without apologizing for his own vote. Almost all of them are quite pleased to take our money to give to all sorts of corporations. And so on.

Let's get embarrassed and fired up about larger, contemporary issues...

Press Release: Business Districts, County Fairs, First Radio Ad

2008-06-26T07:24:00.000-07:00

Schansberg completes tour of business districts, looks forward to county fairs and campaign's first radio ad

On Tuesday, Eric Schansberg, the Libertarian candidate in Indiana's 9th District for the U.S. House, completed his tour of the 9th's business districts. Schansberg walked through 38 cities and towns, meeting small business owners and their employees.

Schansberg said, "Most of the time, it was just a brief introduction. But I really enjoyed talking at greater length with many people—talking with them about economics and public policy and hearing their desire to have someone new in Washington."

On Thursday, Schansberg will campaign with his wife Tonia at the Dearborn County fair—the first of 20 county fairs in the 9th District over the next six weeks.

And next week, Schansberg will debut his radio ad of the campaign—on gas prices. The 60-second ad will run more than 500 times on 10 different stations across the district over the next five weeks. The ad can also be heard at EricForCongress.com.

Schansberg said, "The price of gas is the burning issue of this campaign so far. Baron has been unwilling to debate me—despite his repeated demand for a debate on gas prices in May 2006. I'm sorry to see Baron's hypocrisy but understand why he'd be embarrassed. We should start drilling for oil off the Gulf Coast and in ANWR—and we should stop devaluing the dollar through massive government spending and debt. We hope to turn up the heat on Baron through these ads."

satire: "I'm voting Republican"

2008-06-12T19:31:00.001-07:00

Funny stuff-- a video satire on why one would (not) vote Republican...

Of course, it'd be easy to add quite a few for why one would (not) vote Democrat...

-I'm voting Democrat because I want someone who will verbally oppose our on-going efforts in Iraq, but repeatedly vote to fund that effort.

-I'm voting Democrat because I want someone who claims to be representing the working poor and middle class, but says nothing about the payroll taxes that oppress them far more than income taxes.

-I'm voting Democrat because they proudly spend a lot of our money and ring up a lot of government debt (as opposed to Republicans who pretend not to).

-I'm voting Democrat because I admire the impending privatization of the government's provision of Senate dining services (due to low quality and high costs) and am sure they'll extend the same logic to end the government's monopoly power over elementary and secondary education.

-I'm voting Democrat because they so vociferously defend Social Security's negative rate-of-return for African-Americans.

-I'm voting Democrat because they love corporate subsidies and earmarks.

-I'm voting Democrat because they trust 14-year-olds to get controversial medical procedures without a parent's knowledge, but don't trust the same parents to make competent decisions about their own retirements, their children's schools, the medicines they can take, and so on.

Monday AM on WHAS

2008-06-06T11:51:00.000-07:00

I was interviewed by Tony Cruise this morning-- to be aired on his show next Monday!
His early-morning, drive-time show runs from 6-9 AM on WHAS (840-AM).
I think it will run for two segments or 15 minutes.

A great opportunity!

Hill finds time to talk about gas prices-- instead of acting to fix them or debating them

2008-06-02T18:54:00.000-07:00

When Baron made his excuses for not wanting to debate me on gas prices, his spokeswoman said he "is worried about acting on the problems, not debating them".

There are many problems with this claim:

-Hill repeatedly demanded debates from then-Rep. Mike Sodrel in May 2006, insisting that debates were quite important-- and presumably more important than Mike "acting on the problems". It seems (odd and convenient) that action is now preferred to debate.

-Hill made time on Saturday to talk about gas prices-- with people in a grocery store. He showed up at the Jay-C Food Store in Sellersburg to talk about gas prices for an hour. While I appreciate Baron's desire to be in touch with his constituency, the District would have been far better served by an hour of talking with me publicly about the issues.

-Hill will not take any significant and useful actions on this issue.

From Mary Jane Maytum in the Jeff/NA News-Tribune, we read that Baron is considering "re-regulating the commodities markets as a short-term solution". Huh? I guess that's why he doesn't want to debate. You can say that sort of thing to someone in a grocery store-- in what could have been a private discussion. But try saying something like that on camera in a debate with an economist nearby!

Then again, that may the best card Baron has to play on this issue (aside from reducing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve--a good but modest idea). The Dems like to restrict supply a lot, so that's a big problem. Baron, like most of our reps in Congress, votes for big spending and debt, so he likes to weaken the dollar and drive up the price of imported oil.

Baron is in a catch-22 on this issue: he ought to debate, but it'd be quite painful for him to do so...

walking the streets...

2008-05-30T12:52:00.000-07:00

I've been walking the business districts in the towns and cities in the 9th District.

It's been a good experience with a variety of responses-- from apathy to excitement, from people giving me time to treating me politely but wanting to get back to work.

From yesterday, two stories worth repeating...
-I was going from 131 to Eastern Blvd. when I passed that mini-mart/gas station on Kopp Lane. I wasn't going to stop for a single business establishment, but I noticed that Lady Liberty was on his sign along with the gas prices. So, I backed up and went in. Pointing out that I had LL on my business card, he asked if I had a yard sign. How's that for an easy sell?! Anyway, if you're in the area, say hi to him!
-I visited the Kirby vacuum store on 131 and I asked him if he had heard of Sodrel and Hill. He said he had never heard of them. I asked him if he lived in Louisville. He said, no-- So. IN. I don't know whether to be appalled at his ignorance, to admire his blissful unaware-ness, or to thank God that we live in a country where we don't have to pay that much attention to politics.
-I met three young ladies smoking outside the Sprint store on 131 and one of them asked me the best questions on policy all day long. She also pointed to the business card and said "is this you?" And I said, "The statue?" That got a good laugh out of them. I'll have to use that line more often!

I'm honored...

2008-05-30T09:33:00.000-07:00

From the LPIN...

Schansberg Wins National Recognition in Denver

DENVER, CO - Dr. Eric Schansberg, LPIN activist and candidate for the 9th District U.S. Congressional seat, was awarded the prestigious Thomas Paine Award at the Libertarian National Convention last weekend. The recognition is awarded to the person viewed as the nation's top libertarian communicator. Schansberg, an economics professor, is an author, guest columnist for Indiana Policy Review and oft-quoted presence in both Louisville regional press as well as national media. Past recipients of the award include popular libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne and motivational speaker Michael Cloud.

That's a heady crowd to join-- and this is a great honor!

From Mark Rutherford's blog-- on the LPIN press release...

Libertarian Schansberg Wins National Recognition

INDIANAPOLIS, IN - The Libertarian Party proudly announces Libertarian activist and candidate for Indiana's 9th District U.S. Congressional seat, Dr. Eric Schansberg, is the recipient of this year's Thomas Paine Award as the nation's leading communicator of libertarian ideals. This award is given every two years at the biennial national conventions. It is given to individuals whose achievements place them among the best activists in the history of the LP.

"I'm honored to receive the award and humbled to join the company of such fine previous winners," comments Schansberg. "I want to thank those who have multiplied my efforts (mostly behind the scenes), especially those on my 2006 and 2008 congressional campaign teams, those in leadership in the LPIN, and Craig Ladwig at Indiana Policy Review."

Schansberg, of Jeffersonville, has run for public office and is running again again this year for Congress. He is the author of three books on limited government, regularly writes articles for the Indiana Policy Review Journal, and publishes an influential blog called the "SchansBlog."

"In our time, we have a tremendous opportunity to communicate a message of Freedom -- with people who are increasingly disenchanted with the Republicans and Democrats. May we apply ourselves more diligently and creatively to that end," recommended the economist from southern Indiana.

Thanks to Mark for nominating me-- and to all those who have helped me in my efforts, most notably my campaign team (Melanie, John and Martina), the LPIN'ers (to name a few, Mark, Dan, and Todd), and Craig Ladwig with IPR.

Hopefully, we'll become even more effective at communicating Libertarian principles-- in my congressional campaign and beyond.

Hill's two Memorial Day problems

2008-05-30T07:48:00.000-07:00

From the AP's Emily Veach, complaints about Baron Hill politicizing a Memorial Day event.

U.S. Rep. Baron Hill’s comments to a Memorial Day ceremony in southern Indiana’s Dubois County have upset members of a veterans group who feel they were too political.

Hill, a Democrat, told the Dubois County Veterans Council’s Memorial Day ceremony that President Bush planned to veto a GI Bill approved by Congress. He encouraged the crowd to ask the president to let the bill become law.

“I don’t want to make this political, but the president has said that he is going to veto this bill. For the life of me I don’t understand why,” Hill said in his speech. “And I hope that you’ll take the time, in honor of our veterans, to write to the president of the United States and ask him to change his mind.”

As the famous saying goes, "I don't want to do X, but..." usually means "I want to do X".

Ken Schuetter, secretary of the veteran’s council, said he was infuriated by Hill’s comments at the program in the city about 40 miles northeast of Evansville.

“It was not a political event. He made it political,” Schuetter said....

Schuetter said Hill’s staff asked for him to speak at the ceremony and that the group was considering a ban on politicians speaking at its events.

I can sympathize (at least in part) with Hill crossing a (perceived) line. When speaking in non-political settings, as a politician, it's not completely clear what's allowable, reasonable, or optimal in terms of political content.

That said, I would have been quite reluctant to speak on anything specific in a "memorial" setting. And it looks especially bad, since Hill invited himself to speak at the event.

Finally, I'm confused that Baron has enough time to politicize Memorial Day events, but not enough time to debate gas prices-- something he thought was so vital in May 2006 (when gas prices were $2.60/gallon).

Hill's hypocrisy on gas prices

2008-05-26T20:07:00.001-07:00

From Daniel Suddeath's lead story in Saturday's (Jeff-NA) News-Tribune...

Schansberg challenges Hill to debate on gas prices

Gasoline prices nearing $4 a gallon in Southern Indiana are a big issue for Eric Schansberg, the Libertarian candidate for the 9th District seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Schansberg would like Democratic Party Rep. Baron Hill to address the prices is his bid for reelection, and he feels there is no better way to do it than in a debate.

“Voters deserve an explanation from Congressman Hill,” Schansberg said. “Baron thought this was an important issue in 2006. Surely he will want to address it now.”

Schansberg referred to the 2006 campaign when Hill challenged then incumbent Mike Sodrel, the Republican candidate for the 9th District seat, to a similar debate.

Schansberg said that like Sodrel in 2006, Hill apparently isn’t interested.

To add appropriate flavor to this, one should remember that Hill repeatedly demanded a debate from Sodrel in May 2006.

“He still has not returned our calls,” Schansberg said.

In a release from Katie Moreau, campaign spokeswoman for Hill, she stated the congressman is worried about acting on the problems, not debating them.

“There will be plenty of time for open and honest debates in the months to come. Right now, Baron is focused on legislative priorities, such as lowering the people of Southern Indiana’s property taxes and the price they are paying at the pump for gasoline,” Moreau said.

Talking with us through the press instead of returning our calls? Classy, huh? And again, in May 2006, Hill thought that debating was more important than acting. Why the change?

Schansberg does not expect the debate to take place, saying the gesture was more to show that Hill was being hypocritical on the issue.

“Two years ago he demanded a debate from Sodrel on this issue and now that the shoe’s on the other foot, he’s not going to want any part of this,” he said.

Why won't Hill debate me on this?
a.) his party supports a range of policies that reduce supply and thus, increase prices
b.) he supports profligate spending and debt, weakening the dollar, and driving up the price of imports including oil and gas
c.) he's a hypocrite
d.) it's the smart thing to do politically-- as an incumbent who has little to offer on this issue
e.) why would a politician want to debate an economist on an economics issue?
f.) all of the above

The correct answer: F. (Ironically, this is Hill's grade on fiscal conservatism from the NTU, CAGW, and Club for Growth.)

Sodrel’s campaign has been contacted about the debate and Schansberg said there has been some dialogue between the two camps, which was confirmed by a spokesman for Sodrel’s campaign.

Sodrel said he’s not sure how much good a forum just on gas prices would be.

“When Congressman Hill challenged me, I said a single-issue debate is not very useful and I still feel that way,” Sodrel said. “Would I participate? Sure. But I just think we ought to have a serious debate (on several issues).”

I appreciate Sodrel's consistency, although he missed an opportunity to expose Hill's hypocrisy.

In a release, Schansberg stated gas prices have increased 68 percent since Hill returned to Congress in November 2006.

“As an economist, I know that gas prices are determined by the market, and we all know that Democrats support a range of policies that restrict the supply of oil and gas, and thus keep prices higher,” Schansberg said.

On May 14, a bill co-sponsored by Hill to temporarily suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the remainder of 2008 passed in the House. The Senate also passed the bill, and President George Bush announced Monday he would sign it into legislation, temporarily suspending filling the reserve for the next six months.

“People are really hurting,” Hill stated in a release. “Although this is certainly not the long-term answer to lowering gasoline prices, we should help people in the short term if we can. I believe we ought to be offering relief to folks.”

Reducing the SPR is fine, but it's exceptionally modest compared to other policies.

Sodrel said the key is to develop other sources of energy, but added that even if developed, Americans would not be able to rely on the additional sources for at least a generation.

In the meantime, Sodrel suggests capitalizing on existing U.S. oil sources.

“We’re also going to have to develop our natural gas and our crude oil sources in environmentally conscious ways,” he said.

Amen, brother...Preach it!

Press Release: Schansberg challenges Hill to debate on gas prices

2008-05-15T11:57:00.000-07:00

After challenging Rep. Baron Hill to a debate on gas prices, Eric Schansberg has yet to hear back from Hill’s campaign. Dr. Schansberg is following the tradition set by Hill in May 2006 when Hill challenged former Rep. Mike Sodrel to a debate on gas prices.

Hill demanded a debate with Sodrel in 2006 after average gas prices increased from $1.99 in November 2004 (when Sodrel entered office) to $2.87 in May 2006—a 44% increase. Since Hill returned to Congress in November 2006, gas prices have risen from $2.23 to $3.74—a 68% increase.

“Voters deserve an explanation from Congressman Hill,” Schansberg said. “Baron thought this was an important issue in 2006. Surely, he will want to address it now.”

Schansberg added: “As an economist, I know that gas prices are determined by the market. And we all know that Democrats support a range of policies that restrict the supply of oil and gas—and thus, keep prices higher. Baron also supports increased government spending and debt, which continue to weaken the dollar and drive up the price of imported oil.”

“That’s why we need a change in Washington – a change of direction to help Southern Indiana families,” Schansberg said. “I understand the hardships working families face, and in Congress, I'll support measures that will increase the supply of oil and lower gas prices—instead of sending taxpayer dollars to special interest groups like oil companies and corporations that produce alternative energy."

Baron Hill's "fiscal conservatism" (revisited)

2008-05-15T08:25:00.000-07:00

Baron's special brand of "fiscal conservatism" was on display again yesterday as he voted for a $290 billion farm bill-- with significant increases in hand-outs to farmers, even with rapidly increasing food prices and farm income.

Taking your money and giving it to the wealthy?
Voting for increased spending and calling oneself a fiscal conservative?

This won't help Baron's failing grades with National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, and Club for Growth. (As a fiscal moderate, would Mike Sodrel have joined the 100 GOP House members who voted for it or the 100 or so who voted against it?)

Baron is not as profligate as many of his Democratic friends, but every time I hear him try to claim the fiscal conservative label, it's worth a good belly laugh.

new Club for Growth stats on fiscal conservatism (or more likely, not)

2008-05-09T21:10:00.001-07:00

Club for Growth has just released its measures of fiscal conservatism for 2007. (They have numbers for 2005 and 2006 as well.)

For a look at all Indiana House members over those three years, click here.

Among Hoosier reps...

-Not surprisingly, Mike Pence dominates-- with 99% and an average ranking of 3rd (out of 435).
-Dan Burton is next with 78% and an average ranking of 67th. Steve Buyer is close behind with 74% and 79th. Mark Souder trails a bit with 60% and an average of 123rd place

-Of past reps, Chocola was impressive with 93%-- good for 12th place. Hostettler had 76% and 58th place. And of local interest, former 9th District representative Mike Sodrel had 60% and an average of 113rd place.

-And then there's the Democrats. Among the "blue dogs", Ellsworth at 18% and 206th edged out 9th District Representative Baron Hill at 15% and 216th.

-For the those further down the socialism spectrum, we wrap up with Julia Carson at 5% and 364th; Visclosky at 3% and 392nd; and Donnelly at 1% and 394th.

Of course, along with NTU and CAGW data, we have a third piece of evidence that neither Sodrel nor Hill are fiscal conservatives.

I'm glad to provide voters with a Mike Pence-like, fiscally conservative option-- if this is an important issue for them!

Hill moves to the general election

2008-05-07T07:27:00.000-07:00

Congratulations to Baron for his victory-- and to Gretchen Clearwater and John Bottorff for a race well-run...

Since the race is of particular interest to me, I've spent some time looking at the numbers and have a few things to note:

-John Bottorff did really well in Clark County (25%), presumably because he shares a last name with a former long-time state rep. John also did well in the western part of the district, while Gretchen did really well in Monroe County (more than 30%).

-Even though Baron thumped his opponents as individuals, he did relatively poorly against them as a group.

Baron only got 68% of the vote this year-- compared to...
-79% with two opponents in 2006
-88% with one opponent in 2004
-unopposed in 2002
-86% with two opponents in 2000
-70% against two opponents in his first effort to replace Lee Hamilton in 1998

Because of the presidential primary, voter participation was way up. As a result, Baron doubled his average vote total over his five other primaries (98K vs. 47K). But his opponents got as many votes as he has received historically (47K)-- and far more votes than all of his previous primary opponents combined, quintupling that average (47K vs. 9K).

Should this be added cause for concern for Hill going into November? It's difficult to say. On the one hand, he still won comfortably. On the other hand, he lost 11% and the apparently widespread anger about his endorsement of Obama may last until November.

National Day of Prayer

2008-05-01T10:25:00.002-07:00

On this day, our "national day of prayer"-- and every day-- I ask you for your prayerful support.

Pray that I would win if it is within God's will. More important, pray that my campaign would be an effective platform for the matters of economic and social justice I'll emphasize:

-ending our on-going efforts in Iraq
-no taxpayer funds for corporations
-reforming Social Security
-no taxpayer funds for Planned Parenthood
-reducing or eliminating payroll taxes on income
-and so on...

May 1: five years of nation building

2008-05-01T10:25:00.001-07:00

Today marks the fifth anniversary of our attempt to rebuild Iraq-- or to help Iraq rebuild itself.

We won "the war" in six weeks, but our efforts to rebuild a nation have been, not surprisingly, much more challenging.

May God protect our troops; may our leaders work to bring them home within the next year; and may Iraq be successful in establishing a stable government for a free and prosperous people.

Hill endorses Obama: why and why now?

2008-05-01T08:54:00.000-07:00

Baron has endorsed Obama for President. HoosierPundit has a nice summary of the articles available as well as some analysis.

Given that Hill chose to endorse Obama, I think I understand Hill's timing: probably to look like he was carefully considering both options, perhaps to exert some influence, and certainly to avoid choosing Obama as a super-delegate after the district goes for Clinton in a big way.

But why did Hill think that it was smart to pick Obama? Relatively speaking, and despite some baggage in embracing Obama, Hill must think that he has Clinton voters in his pocket and needs to reach out to Obamites-- instead of thinking he has the O's in hand and needs to appeal to C's. Given that, Obama's connection to "change" and his Iraq position (ironic given Hill's support for the status quo) would seem to be the draw for Hill.

Of course, if voters want someone who will work to bring our involvement in Iraq to an end-- or if they want someone who represents true change rather than spare change-- they'll choose me.

campaigning in Lawrenceburg

2008-04-29T20:04:00.001-07:00

I was in Lawrenceburg on Monday (late morning and early afternoon) to campaign. I walked around the downtown area, going into businesses and meeting dozens of people. I also met the editor of the local paper-- something I had overlooked somehow in 2006.

My favorite conversation was with Dick Martin, who runs Trading Post on High Street. He was disenchanted with all levels of government-- local, state and federal. Of course, I could mostly be a sounding board for his complaints about local and state policy. But he was interested in government spending and debt, and gas prices, at the federal level.

I look forward to more of the same this summer!

Choices for Women

2008-04-25T08:06:00.000-07:00

Tonia and I were honored to attend a fund-raiser last night for Choices for Women. They are a pro-life group that educates women about their pregnancy choices (including ultra-sound services) and share the Gospel with them as well. They're located in New Albany (and have a new branch in Madison).

The event was at Providence Retirement Home's event center (graciously provided for free). The primary speaker was my friend and pastor-to-be, Rusty Russell. And it looked like they raised a big chunk of money for a great cause.

I think it was Rose Condra, the executive director, who said: "waiting for the world to change is not an option". I share her vision and enthusiasm for politics in general and abortion in particular.

Bravo!

campaigning with Obama

2008-04-24T08:25:00.000-07:00

I shook hands with hundreds of Obama supporters yesterday when the Senator came to speak at IUS-- as they lined up to get into the activities center. (I did the same thing when Senator Durbin came to New Albany to speak on behalf of Senator Obama.) It was a great opportunity to talk with them about our on-going efforts in Iraq-- an issue on which he and I largely agree.

My two oldest boys were there as well-- wearing their t-shirts, handing out pencils, and saying hi to the crowd.

Fortunately for my campaign-- but unfortunately for the voters in the 9th District-- I will be the only "anti-war" candidate in November (barring an amazing upset in the Democratic primary on May 6).

Hill thinks competition is good for democracy and economies

2008-04-18T12:27:00.000-07:00

This little blurb caught my eye from a recent story in the Bloomington Herald Times...

In the context of Baron welcoming Sen. Obama to the ninth district, his press secretary Katie Moreau said (quoting the article writer) that Baron thinks competition is good for democracy.

I'm glad to see that Baron welcomes a good stiff political challenge from me and Mike. I'm not sure he really enjoys it, but it's a nice line. And of course, he's correct-- political competition is a good thing. The thing is that none of us really likes competition for the things that we sell. So, it would be quite natural for him to say that competition is good, but not to like the competition that he faces.

Competition is also a good thing for economies. So, it's troubling to see Baron espouse subsidies for corporations, the monopoly power of the government schools, and so on.

Why "change" isn't always so hot...

2008-04-18T12:13:00.001-07:00

This line of argument is largely specious (hat tip: Chuck Muth). But Rep. Hill used it in 2006 on gasoline prices (in an attempt to ascribe blame to Rep. Sodrel), so he should have to lay in the bed he's made...

Remember the election in 2006?

A little over one year ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:

1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

"America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!"

As I said during the last campaign, Baron campaigned on "change" as a slogan-- and he was change....spare change.

If people want true change, there is only one option for 9th District voters in November!

Sen. Durbin in New Albany: good news, bad news for Rep. Hill

2008-04-18T11:56:00.001-07:00

A great op for me to meet some avid citizens and passionate voters. (There was one baby to kiss but I didn't get there.) I'm not a big fan of Obama, but he's the closest to my position on the war. So, it was a good op to tell a bunch of people that they'll have one "anti-war" option in November.

As for the event itself, an Obama volunteer named Megan started things off, Baron made a few comments, and introduced the main speaker: Sen. Dick Durbin (IL)-- 2nd in the Senate and an Obama supporter.

Durbin was very smooth/impressive as a speaker, with some charming stories and amusing jokes. He noted that he had been one of about two dozen Senators who had opposed the War in Iraq-- after much tossing/turning and weighing of the claims and evidences. And he made a nice point about our continuing efforts there: that it seems like a bad idea to get bogged down in one Middle Eastern country with most of our available military resources as we try to deal with terrorism and a variety of threats worldwide.

The interaction of Durbin's comments with Hill's positions was more complicated. Durbin properly painted Bush and his Congress as not fiscally conservative. By contrast, he claimed that the Democrats (including Baron Hill) are supposedly restoring "sanity" to the budget process. Nice try, but that's just a different kind of insanity! It is good to see them all trying to sell the same kool-aid to the voters.

On Iraq, Durbin was kind enough not to mention Hill by name. But Durbin's (self-described) principled opposition to the War necessarily made Hill look bad by comparison-- in his decision to support the War initially while looking at the same evidences. Durbin pointed to the courage of those who voted against the War. Again, Hill necessarily looked cowardly in comparison. Then, Durbin lauded Sen. Obama and his wisdom-- and so Hill looks even worse, lacking the same wisdom that a political novice like Obama had. (Durbin made a great, general point that experience is over-rated in that it often means a more compelling case for leading us into all sorts of error.)

to vote with the House Leadership or not: that is the question

2008-04-10T04:50:00.000-07:00

A nice article from David Mann with the Jeff/NA News-Tribune...

The context of the article: Mann focuses on Baron Hill's voting record and how it lines up with House leadership. The results:

[Hill] voted with his party’s leaders about 89 percent of the time.

Commonly, it was budget matters with which he took issue. Hill also voted in favor of a bill which authorized U.S. monitoring foreign electronic communications routed through the country...He also voted against a patient reform bill that changes the methods for obtaining and challenging patient claims.

The only position he took against the party that could be considered more liberal was a vote against a ban on human cloning. Asked about it, Hill said he didn’t remember the vote and that he was against human cloning.

Beyond that, Mann wrestles with the extent to which consistent voting is a good or bad thing. And then, Mann turns to the question of its political impact:

Howey said such numbers are commonly tracked because they're a good indication of party loyalty. However, he added, “I’ll be amazed if it's an issue that helps or hurts Baron Hill in the primary,” he said....

Finally, some excerpts from Mann's interview with me:

Libertarian Eric Schansberg is also vying for the 9th District seat. Schansberg, an economics professor at IUS, ran last year and took about 5 percent of the vote.

Party struggles are not as much of an issue for him because there are no Libertarians in the House.

“For us it’s much more philosophical, than practical,” he said. There are debates about issues within the party — a small percentage of Libertarians support the war in Iraq, for example.

There are two big issues that stand out for him during the current term — continued funding of the war without a withdraw plan and the economic stimulus package. Both are issues that he would have expected to turn out differently considering that it’s a Democrat-controlled Congress....

Ironically, by this measure, my voting record would probably be seen as moderate-- because I would tend to disagree with both sides quite a bit!

Press Release: Hill flunks again

2008-04-09T08:19:00.001-07:00

The National Taxpayers Union has just released their annual report on Congressional spending. (The report is available at: http://www.ntu.org/main/components/ratescongress/index2.php3.)

Rep. Baron Hill received his fifth F for his seven years in Congress. (The other two years, he received a D.) His score of 14% puts him in the NTU’s category, “Big Spender”.

Mike Pence again topped the Indiana delegation with an A. Dan Burton earned an A this year as well, while Steve Buyer earned a B+ and Mark Souder earned a B-.

In his two years in Congress, Mike Sodrel earned a B and then a C+.

(See: http://www.ntu.org/main/components/ratescongress/details_all_years.php3?house_id=912.)

As a Libertarian, Eric Schansberg expects to easily earn an A from the NTU.

About Hill, Schansberg said: “This is just one more indication that Baron Hill is a poser on the topic of fiscal conservatism. I understand why he wants the title, but his record simply doesn’t match the label. He might as well try to tell us that he’s pro-life and wants to bring the troops home quickly.”

About the campaign, Schansberg said: “It’s clear that I’m the only fiscal conservative in the race. If the size of the federal government and its budget debt are important to voters, then I’m glad to give them a voting option in November.”

Eric Schansberg for Congress

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

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

if it was decided on votes per dollar...

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.

IDS election coverage

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.

some Indiana debates on C-SPAN

IDS overview of the 9th District race

second hour of the debate on Indiana-9 this weekend

wow...the campaign is really catching fire!

Schansberg announces Election Day plans

For more information on the campaign, see: www.SchansbergForCongress.com.

To schedule an interview—whether on Election Night or prior to that—contact Eric at (812) 218-0443, or Melanie Hughes at (502) 432-1930, or send an email to SchansbergForCongress@gmail.com.

NPR covers our race

Schansberg to celebrate 5th anniversary of VET’s demise

Dr. Schansberg did research on the benefits and costs of VET in Jefferson County, published articles on the subject, and testified before the relevant sub-committee of the Kentucky State Senate.

Press Release: Schansberg offers “voter guide” for 9th District race

Schansberg and Sodrel reply to C-J non-endorsement

3rd party efforts

front page of the C-J this morning

idolatry is often a painful thing to see and experience

Hill continues to lead Sodrel by double-digits

one more article on the debate

pictures from last night's debate

debate coverage

debate to be replayed on Indiana 9 this weekend

Schansberg comments post-debate

debate coverage

Indianapolis Star endorses Sodrel, praises Schansberg; Hill shows growth but “weakest of the three”

Press Release: NRA endorses Hill but Schansberg receives higher rating

my appearance on Afternoon Edition yesterday

Schansberg town hall in New Albany on Thursday

Schansberg agrees to “lie detector” debate proposal

Key Points on a "Rescue" Plan From A Healthy Bank's Perspective

Key Points on a "Rescue" Plan From A Healthy Bank's Perspective

Undecideds breaking to Hill and Schansberg—as Hill extends his lead over Sodrel

on WHAS tomorrow morning

the only anti-war candidate

a really nice article by Dale Moss in the C-J

Schansberg encourages Hill to stand firm against bail-out

debate...

Schansberg: “Are you kidding me?”

Libs and "wasted votes": Scott Tibbs and my reply...

front-page of the C-J

radio and TV ads underway

Hill increases lead over Sodrel in poll as Schansberg increasingly attracts independent voters

re-cap in B'ton papers about town hall

Hill/Sodrel spat cont'd: is this a good enough reason to sack all public debates?

Hill, Sodrel, the office transfer of December 2006, and the congressional debates of 2008

nice article in the Dubois County Herald

Schansberg town hall in Scottsburg next Monday

Schansberg town hall in Bloomington on Tuesday

Schansberg looks forward to Jasper debate and calls on Hill for at least two more

the devalued dollar and the price of oil and gas

Seymour town hall

my interview with Francene!

Schansberg calls on Hill to apologize and anticipates at least three debates

Sodrel and I gain on Hill in latest SurveyUSA poll

an absolutely ridiculous Democratic press release

Schansberg congratulates President Bush and Democratic Congress on world-record budget deficit

maybe he'll do one of these for Baron Hill?

a Delaware Libertarian keeping an eye on the national picture

article in the Jackson Co. Banner

from the press conference on gas prices

me and Hill on the minimum wage

Indiana Libertarians in DC

Dems mess with Reps to hide hypocrisy and doggy-paddling policies

Schansberg press conference about gas prices and energy policy on Wednesday in Jeffersonville

press release: Hill is blowing smoke on gas prices

July 4th parade in Bloomington

will these two vote for Mike or me?

gas prices and the working poor

Newt on gas prices

why didn't the Democrats...

the two 2006 debates

Schansberg pumps gas in Salem, criticizes Hill and Sodrel on energy policy positions

did you know this about political ads?

After the networks declared Baron Hill the winner of the 9^th 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.