The Courier Press has an article on a attack ad against Brad Ellsworth the National GOP put out for the benefit of John Hostettler.
The ad tries to lay responsibility at the feet of Sheriff Ellsworth for the triple murder/suicide committed by Travis John Moore on April 22, 2005 while he was on work release. I’m not sure what the GOP thinks Ellsworth should have done. Typically the sentence and terms of incarceration are not matters in which a Sheriff’s Department are particularly involved. The prosecutor’s office, in conjunction with the court and the Defendant, makes the decisions on plea agreements and the like. The GOP suggests that Ellsworth “endorsed” the deal, even after the murders, when in reality, they are apparently referring to a report wherein Ellsworth’s office determined that the judge was within his authority to order the work release, which is almost certainly accurate.
The first few paragraphs of the article:
National Republicans accused Vanderburgh County Sheriff Brad Ellsworth on Thursday of endorsing a judge’s decision not to incarcerate a work release participant who would go on to commit a triple-murder/suicide.
Ellsworth responded with a written statement saying Indiana 8th District Rep. John Hostettler’s “callous decision to politicize this tragedy shows he knows nothing about protecting this community and even less about what it means to be a leader.”
The GOPs “One-trick-pony”: Willie Horton.
Most of us were expecting Hosettler to raise this in September or October. In the past the guy has done nothing publicly until the last month of the campaign. Obviously signals the concern they have at this early point and the early signs of desperation.
Livining in the 8th district we have never voted for congressman Hostettler before but will this time because of his strong stand against illegal immigration I know many democrats that feel the same way.Someone representing Ellsworth called the other night and we never could get a coherent position out of them on this issue which leads me to believe they support the President and the Senate democrats and a few republicans on the amnesty which will not sell around my part of the state!
Well, good thing the Republicans came up with this shiny new campaign issue to get your vote.
Really, my only advice is not to be a one issue voter. If, after studying a bunch of the issues that are important to you, you conclude that continued Republican leadership will make this country better than will Democratic leadership, by all means, vote Republican.
Personally, I think the country has gone downhill in the past 5 years because of the policies pursued by Republicans while they’ve controlled the entire federal government. The deficit has ballooned; we’ve gotten mired in a disastrous war in Iraq; we’ve done nothing to reduce our energy dependence on unfriendly areas of the world; our environment is degrading; our civil liberties are being eroded; our healthcare system is ridiculous; the pensions of American workers are being gutted; and, up until now, immigration has not even been a blip on the radar.
Things were better in the 90s when the federal government was split between the parties. The Republicans have had their chance and they’ve done a bad job. At the least, let’s get some of those checks and balances going.
How sad that things work best when there is gridlock!
However, I do agree. By not giving a free ride to either side, it does make sure that *more* of the things that are good for everyone get passed. That, or at least everyone that votes gets their own slice of pork…
I’m more of a 5-issue voter, and I admit that I was excited when I saw the Republicans with control over two branches. Then, most dropped the issues that got them elected and went to what would soften their beds. I can only assume that the same thing would happen if the Democratic party had control of both.
I am afraid that we must have gridlock…
I am going to vote for more Democrats this year then I would like; because, we are better off with gridlock…
Mike Sylvester
Government is too powerful for me to be entirely comfortable with it working too efficiently. I think inefficiency is the price of accountability. So, gridlock –to some degree– is good.
I think this early shot at Ellsworth is very deliberate calculation.
The Republican campaigns of the last couple of election cycles have reminded of that party’s late 19th century charge that the Democrats were the party of “Rum, Romanism and rebellion”. I don’t suppose the Republicans really believe that most adults will buy into the Democrats being nothing more than the party of “Abortion, Immigration and terror”, but while Rum, Romanism and Rebellion was born of the GOP’s losing effort in the presidential race of 1884, it is still a model for an off year election. In non-presidential years you expect low voter turnout and you need to turn out your own base.
In Indiana, unlike much of the rest of the country, Bush is still an asset for Republicans notwithstanding his 43% approval rating in the most recent polls. See
http://www.surveyusa.com/
There it is reported that Bush still has a healthy 76% percent approval rating among Indiana Republicans (talk about being out to lunch!). Given that Daniels looks like total loss for the Indiana GOP everywhere outside of Indianapolis I would look for the GOP to try to turn Indiana races, especially Congressional races, into referenda on (their) national issues (i.e. abortion, immigration and the “war” on terror) and to pour money into a (negative) media blitz aimed at Democrats hoping the Democrats will respond in kind. This kind of campaign, starting early, should help depress overall turnout.
It is too bad, but some of the sound bites drifting out of the Indiana Demorcratic convention this year sounded to me as though the Democrats were taking the bait.
They have to take the bait. They’re emotional issues, and they win votes. If you don’t address them, then your other issues will be ignored.
What I meant in “taking the bait” is that they were turning negative early. What’s “too bad” is what going negative early says about the dynamics of two party politics. I don’t know that having a viable third party would improve things, but at least it would complicate the lives party managers. Then they wouldn’t be able to play the same zero sum game over and over and over that is slowly driving more and more citizens to the side lines when it comes to voting.
The problem is that politics in this country has turned into a high-stakes game of Monopoly for poly-sci types. The only thing of substance is the campaign. Once elected, they don’t know what to do because they weren’t interested in actually governing. At best they use their term to set up the next campaign.
It’s kind of like the UPS commercial from a couple years back where the two consultants are sitting in the client’s office pitching an idea. The client says “sounds great, let’s do it”. The two consultants look at each other, obviously very confused, turn to the client, and one says “We don’t actually DO what we propose”, and the other says “Yeah, we just PROPOSE it”. Next scene is the two walking down the street saying “Can you BELIEVE that guy?”