I wonder if the acrimony of recent sessions is causing a higher than normal amount of turnover. Actually, I haven’t looked at previous years to see how it compares to previous cycles, but, in any event, WTHR has an article entitled Many Indiana House Democrats calling it quits.

Twelve of the House Democrats and seven of the House Republicans are not running for re-election, so, I guess that’s 19% turnover without any incumbents getting beat. Two Senate Republicans are also not running for re-election.

According to GovTrack, Rep. Mike Pence just celebrated his 11th year in Congress, in which time he has sponsored 63 bills and been successful in getting exactly none of them passed; and only gotten three of them out of committee. This is an incredible record of futility. One might conclude that big talk and controversial, unworkable legislation hold much more interest for Rep. Pence than the actual drudgery of governance. That’s not really a big deal when you are lumped in with 434 other people (534 others if you count the Senate), some of whom do have an interest in crafting legislation that keeps the country going.

But, when you’re seeking to be the chief executive of the state, that’s a problem. I don’t know anything about Jim Wallace, and the first thing that jumps out at me is that he seems to have served a stint with Mitt Romney’s Bain and Company. That said, it looks like he’s actually done some stuff; which might be a good quality in someone who wants to be governor of Indiana.

What did Rep. Pence do before Congress? Looks like he had some sort of talk show and worked with the conservative think tank, “The Indiana Policy Review.” Did he have a normal job somewhere in the 80s; between 81 and 83 which I think is the gap between college and law school – between 86 and 90 which I think is the gap between law school and being a professional conservative with the Indiana Policy Review.

I know Rep. Pence is good at saying the kinds of things conservatives like to hear, but I hope the state Republicans give some thought to nominating someone who can function in a somewhat normal capacity outside of the conservative media complex.

While I think every day should be Patriot’s Day, Rep. Baird’s HB 1061 would set the day as April 19 to honor patriots and conduct suitable exercises having reference to the contributions and sacrifices made by patriots of Indiana and the nation.

Patriot’s Day is apparently recognized currently by Massachusetts, Maine, and Wisconsin and commemorates the anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord (April 19, 1775). The Boston Marathon is run on Patriot’s Day every year.

Not to minimize the not unimportant differences between Romney and Obama, but it’s hard to ignore Taibbi’s complaint about their similarities when it comes to treatment of the financier class:

Most likely, it’ll be Mitt Romney versus Barack Obama, meaning the voters’ choices in the midst of a massive global economic crisis brought on in large part by corruption in the financial services industry will be a private equity parasite who has been a lifelong champion of the Gordon Gekko Greed-is-Good ethos (Romney), versus a paper progressive who in 2008 took, by himself, more money from Wall Street than any two previous presidential candidates, and in the four years since has showered Wall Street with bailouts while failing to push even one successful corruption prosecution (Obama).

Taibbi suggests that, should Ron Paul make a significant showing going forward, the money will come together pretty quickly to submarine his campaign and disappear him in much the same way as was done to Howard Dean back in 2004.

Sen Delph’s SB 146 would remove straight party voting as an option on the ballot. I’m cynical enough to imagine the expectation is that this would hurt Democrats more than Republicans, otherwise Sen. Delph wouldn’t be inclined to introduce it. That said, I’m generally supportive of the notion because of the fact that political parties aren’t specifically contemplated by the state or federal Constitutions. In fact, I’d modestly propose the legislation go one step further and eliminate indicators of political party affiliation from the ballot entirely. I wonder how far that would go toward reducing the tribalism of voters.

Sen Zakas has introduced SB 108 which attempts to address the possibility of “faithless electors” – stating that if an elector doesn’t vote for the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate of the political party that chose them, then their vote doesn’t count and constitutes their resignation; at which point, the remaining electors, by majority vote, would select a new elector.

This highlights that we’ve pretty well abandoned the Founding Fathers’ view of electors – sort of wise men the states would select to congregate and select the most suitable person to be President. Instead we just have this weird electoral calculus that confers somewhat more voting power to individuals who happen to be living in more rural states. California has about 615,000 people per electoral vote; whereas Wyoming has about 165,000 people per electoral vote.

Tipsy linked to an opinion column by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post entitled Ron Paul’s quest to undo the party of Lincoln which Tipsy describes as a libel.

What I’ve noticed in Ron Paul lately is less about him and more about those observing him. He’s like a Rorschach test; people projecting upon him what they want to see and minimizing those things they don’t. I suppose candidates are generally like that, but for whatever reason, I’ve noticed it more with Paul. Supporters see the principled advocate of small government and individual liberty. Detractors see a crank with simplistic notions of the economy, no apparent concern for rights of individuals abused by more powerful institutions in the absence of government regulation, and a history of publishing newsletters with racist items – even if he’s to be believed that he didn’t write the offensive material himself.

More so than other candidates, it seems like he generates stronger emotions – both positive and negative – that prompt a more dramatic confirmation bias than the candidates with more nuanced (or weaselly, if you prefer) positions.

Brian Howey has a good column on the Mourdock v. Lugar Republican Senate primary race. He noted a number of ways in which Mourdock is stumbling in his race. My favorite, however, is that the pro-Mourdock “Club for Growth” led by former Representative Chris Chocola went on the attack against Lugar for his supposed lack of fortitude budget balancing matters.

As Marshall MacLuhan said, “The medium is the message.” In this case, Mourdock has chosen in Chris Chocola perhaps the worst possible medium for a balanced budget message.

With the Mourdock campaign flagging on all these fronts, he is hoping for national intervention. Former Hoosier Congressman Chris Chocola entered the picture when his Club for Growth began an 800 gross ratings point TV ad campaign assailing Lugar for being in Congress while U.S. debt exploded.

The ironic facts are that Chocola served in Congress from 2003 through 2007 when the U.S. deficit veered into the trillions and debt rose to epic proportions.

As a candidate, Chocola backed the unpaid for Bush tax cuts, supported the unpaid for Bush-era Iraq and Afghan wars. As a member of Congress, Chocola backed the unpaid for Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, the most massive entitlement expansion since LBJ’s Great Society. In 2004, he voted to increase the debt limit.

Whoops.