Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:12 AM
Two weeks ago, the voters of California voted for am amendment to their state's Constitution to prohibit state government from recognizing same-sex couples as "married", after a ruling by California's Supreme Court ruled the previous ban unconstitutional and cleared the way for a large number of homosexual couples to get married in California. A similar amendment passed in Florida, and 70% of black voters supported the amendments in both states.
For years, homosexual activists have argued that discrimination on the basis of sexual behavior is the same as discrimination on the basis of skin pigmentation. They have argued that the "civil rights" struggle for homosexuals is the same as the civil rights struggle for blacks decades ago, and that banning on same-sex marriage is the same as banning interracial marriage. By a large margin, black voters in two states rejected those comparisons. Jonah Goldberg points out that 64% of Latino voters in Florida also supported the ban.
And they were right to reject that comparison. Sexual behavior is simply not the same as skin pigmentation, which is an innate and immutable physical characteristic. Even if one could demonstrate that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, that does not automatically classify homosexual behavior as morally correct or neutral. What if we discovered that some men were genetically predisposed to have sex with multiple women? Would we then argue that adultery is morally neutral or acceptable? What if we discovered that some people are genetically predisposed to steal? Would we argue that stealing is morally neutral or acceptable?
Some supporters of same-sex marriage are trying to argue that "sexual identity is not behavior." That is silly. The whole issue of homosexual marriage is about behavior, unless people making that argument expect us to believe that all of those "married" homosexual couples are going to be celibate. Marriage assumes sexual intimacy, and I do not believe the government should be placing a stamp of approval on immoral and unnatural behavior.
We hear a lot about homosexuals being denied "equal rights" because government will not recognize same-sex marriage. Really? Are homosexuals being denied the right to free speech, freedom of religion, or the right to peaceably assemble? Are homosexuals being denied the right to keep and bear arms? Are homosexuals being denied the right to trial by jury, or the right to be free from unreasonable searches of their property? No, the only "right" that homosexuals are being denied is the "right" to have their marriages recognized by government. Homosexuals can still get married if they find a "church" that is in rebellion against the God it claims to worship, but the government will not recognize that marriage.
Is a ban on homosexual marriage a violation of the 14th Amendment's mandate of equal protection? No. Refusing to recognize homosexual marriage is only "illegal" under a new "interpretation" of the Constitution which was never intended when the document was written. It is pure judicial activism.
I see no reason homosexuals should be denied many of the legal rights that married couples have, including inheritance, hospital visitation, wrongful death and power of attorney. There is no reason many of these rights cannot be put in place through freedom of contract. I oppose measures by government to criminalize homosexual behavior with sodomy laws, because I do not believe it is the business of government to legislate what two consenting adults decide to do in private. I believe homosexuals should have the same protection that everyone else enjoys through the Bill of Rights.
I do not, however, believe that government should place a stamp of approval on a sinful lifestyle by classifying same-sex relationships as identical to a marriage between one man and one woman. Homosexuality is destructive both to individuals and society as a whole, in addition to being condemned by Scripture. In addition, having government recognize same-sex unions as a "marriage" presents a host of serious civil liberties problems, as churches that follow Scripture's doctrine on sexual morality will inevitably be forced by the state to violate their principles. When that happens, I hope that Christians will follow the example set in Acts 5:29 and say "we ought to obey God rather than men."
Monday, November 17, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 8:22 AM
There has been much said about supporting President-elect Barack Obama as the new administration takes office, in the spirit of bipartisanship. A caller to the WGCL Afternoon Edition a couple days after the election suggested that was the "patriotic" thing to do and invoked September 11 as a reason we should all be united. To this I say "hogwash".
People who have fundamental philosophical disagreements with Obama on public policy should not be expected to be silent when Obama proposes policies that we think are ineffective or destructive. I do not expect Democrats in Indiana to support Mitch Daniels in the spirit of "bipartisanship", even after he was re-elected with 57.8% of the vote on November 4. I expect both Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, to continue advocating for the direction of public policy that they believe is best for the country, and to continue to explain why policies they disagree with are misguided.
However, in the spirit of bipartisanship, here are two areas where I am hopeful for an Obama administration.
#1. U.S. foreign policy
Five years after the invasion of Iraq, I came to the conclusion that this war was a mistake. While I am not a pacifist, I believe military force should be the last resort after all other options have been exhausted. Obama made a campaign promise to end the war. I hope that can be done, and done in a way that allows Iraq to be prosperous and secure after American troops leave. While Obama has talked tough about Iran, I hope his administration will be a bit less aggressive on foreign policy than the Bush Administration has been.
#2. Civil liberties
One of the problems I had with the Bush Administration right away was that the administration did not place a high enough priority on civil liberties. I opposed the Patriot Act from the beginning, and have expressed concern about the Bush Administration's other programs. Hopefully, some of this will be addressed with Democrats in control. I also hope that concerns for civil rights in the War on Terror will also be applied to the War on Drugs, and crime fighting in general. I need only mention the name "Mike Nifong" to point out the potential for abuse of power that has been facilitated by politicians fearful of being labeled as "soft on crime".
I will disagree with most of President-elect Obama's policies and I expect to harshly criticize him on many occasions over the next four years. However, on the rare occasions where I believe he is right, I will not hesitate to publicly support his policies.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:09 AM
November 4 may have represented a paradigm shift in county elections in Monroe County. The student vote increased dramatically over 2004, as students excited about Barack Obama flocked to the polls. This was devastating for Monroe County Republicans, who did not win a single contested race.
There is talk among some local Republicans about making students vote in their hometowns instead of in Monroe County. This is a foolhardy strategery. First, efforts to prevent students from voting are unlikely to pass legislatively, and it would be difficult for these residency requirements to survive scrutiny by the courts. Finally, telling students "we do not want you to vote here" would only increase Republican losses in the student vote, hampering efforts to break the Democratic Party's stranglehold on county government.
What is the answer then? Hard work and good campaigning. Republicans are going to have to court the student vote more aggressively than ever before. Some Republican candidates did purchase advertisements in the Indiana Daily Student, but they are going to have to do more. When I ran for Bloomington Township Board in 2006, I spoke to the IU College Republicans and explained why township government matters to students. Republicans running for County Commissioner and County Council will need to do more of that.
Local campaigns also need student involvement. College Republicans are going to naturally gravitate to higher-profile races like Governor, President and Congress. If Monroe County Republicans want conservative students involved, they need to take proactive steps to make that happen. It would benefit both the CR's and the county party to have a closer relationship in local campaigns, would allow students to get some political experience in local politics and would allow students an opportunity to learn how local government works.
If I was running for county-wide office in 2010 or 2012, I would attend every meeting of the IU College Republicans and show up at tailgating for IU football home games to talk to students. I would be reaching out to the College Republicans to get students involved in my campaign. I would hold meetings in the dorms and Greek houses friendly to Republicans. I would go door-to-door in student neighborhoods.
Most importantly, Republicans need to realize that the 2010 campaign began two years ago, and the 2012 campaign began when the polls closed last Tuesday. This is something that Democrats understand very well, giving them the advantage of a head start. If we are serious about advocating for good government and getting qualified conservative Republicans elected in local government, we cannot sit back and do nothing in 2009 and then try to play catch up in 2010. Republicans need to lay the groundwork now for 2010 and 2012.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:08 AM
Bloomington Herald-Times, November 13, 2008
To the editor:
One of the issues county elected officials should address when new officials take office in January is county government meeting times. Monthly County Council meetings start at 4:30, making it difficult for an average working person to attend the meetings. The County Commissioners regular meeting schedule is even worse. The Commissioners meet at 9:00 a.m. every other Friday, which is a serious barrier to the ability of average working people to attend the meetings. Contrast this to Bloomington City Council meetings, which start at 7:30 p.m.
County Council meetings should be pushed at least 90 minutes later, to 6:00 p.m. County budget hearings should follow the City of Bloomington's model and take place in the evenings, not during the middle of the work day for an entire week. There is no reason that the County Commissioners cannot meet on Thursday evenings instead of Friday mornings, making it possible for more people to attend.
This is not a partisan issue. This is about open government and public service. County government meeting times have excluded ordinary people from participating for many years, when the Council and Commissioners were controlled by both Democrats and Republicans. It is time for that to change.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:05 AM
In my response to the Herald-Times "instant message" question last week about what would be remembered most about the 2008 elections, I said "it will be remembered as a lesson to the Republican Party that we cannot win as the party that grows government just a little bit more slowly than the Democrats." It is true that government spending grew more quickly under President Bush than it did under President Clinton. It is important to point out, though, that Clinton was restrained by a Republican Congress for 6 of his 8 years as President, and the Democrats bitterly attacked the Republican Congress in 1995 and 1996 for slowing the rate of growth of many federal programs.
In order to clear up any confusion, I was not making a statement about who actually grew the government more. I have been hearing for years now when I criticize Republicans for growing government that "the Democrats would be worse." Bush may grow the government, but Al Gore (2000) or John Kerry (2004) will be worse. John McCain may grow the government, but Barack Obama will be worse, and so on.
Time after time after time, criticisms of big-government policies promoted by Republicans is answered with "the Democrats would be worse". That is the argument I was responding to in my "instant message" response. As a point of political strategy, Republicans cannot win over the long run if they govern as the party of big government. Claiming the Democrats would be grow government more only goes so far. Running on a limited government platform, Republicans captured the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994 after it had been controlled by Democrats for 40 years.
I only get 50 words in an "instant message" response. That's all. I do not have nearly enough space to explore any issue deeply enough to address every single aspect of an issue and every bit of data. I have room for a quick statement, and nothing more. There are 279 words in the first three paragraphs of this blog post, far more than I am allowed in an "instant message" response and more even than a letter to the editor, which is a 200 word maximum. While I believe the "instant message" section is a valuable forum in the newspaper, it does not carry the same weight as the letters to the editor section and one cannot expect the same standards of argumentation, because space limitations are too strict for that.
As to the issue itself: For eight years now, soon to be ex-President Bush made the Republican Party the party of big government. President Bush gave us a brand new federal entitlement program in the Medicare prescription drug benefit, a significant expansion of the federal government's role in local K-12 education through the "No Child Left Behind" law, and a "campaign finance reform" law that regulates the content of political speech. President Bush made no effort to control the growth of federal spending and pushed through anti-terrorism measures such as the "Patriot Act" and expanded wiretapping powers that have concerned conservatives who distrust the federal government.
In January, Barack Obama will take office as President and will likely advance several policies that will expand government. If for no other reason than partisanship, Republicans will oppose those initiatives and advocate for smaller, more limited government. The problem Republicans in Congress will face when opposing these policies, at least initially, is a credibility gap caused by the big government policies of the last eight years. Only though consistent advocacy of limited government can the Republican Party be seen as the party of limited government again. If the Republicans recapture Congress in 2010 (and I believe they will) they must govern as the party of limited government.
Republicans have the opportunity over the next four years to be the principled opposition to the higher taxes, increased spending and expanded regulation that will be proposed and passed by the Democrats. Republicans needed to lose this year, because GOP leaders in Washington had become focused on maintaining political power and forgot about the limited government principles that got them elected in the first place. Republicans lost the Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. If Republicans want to be successful as a party again, they need to rediscover their conservative/libertarian principles. The question now is whether Republicans will learn the lessons of 2006 and 2008.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:19 AM
In a response to my post yesterday on Hoosier Access, Nathan Brindle wrote that "arguments about abortion and marriage don't belong in the political realm." Leaving aside the issue of marriage and how it should be defined, how government deals with abortion is one of the most important measures of justice for society. The most basic role of government is to protect the weak from being persecuted and victimized by the strong.
What we see in this nation is mass murder on an unprecedented scale. Every year, 1.2 million unborn children are killed in our "medical" facilities. To date, about 50 million unborn children have been killed, a figure that is many times larger than even the Nazi Holocaust. Abortion is the most important moral and political issue of our time because of the sheer numbers of human beings that have been killed by abortion since 1973.
How can we possibly argue our nation is great when this senseless and unprecedented slaughter happens right under the noses of an apathetic population? How can we say "God bless America" when we are murdering children created in His image by the tens of millions? Is the United States of America not worse than Nazi Germany, based on numbers alone? A true patriot would want his nation to repent and turn away from this terribly wicked abomination.
Brindle argues that arguments over abortion distract from "real political issues like the rule of law and foreign relations". For the 50 million lives snuffed out by America's abortion industry and the broken spirits left behind after those deaths, there is no issue more "real" than protecting innocent and defenseless human life in the womb.
I honestly cannot understand how anyone who claims to be "pro-life" could argue that abortion should not be a political issue. If it were legal to kill newborns, would we not work to change the law to protect those lives? If it were legal to kill blacks, would we not feel obligated to fight against this injustice and genocide? We simply cannot abandon millions of unborn children to be exterminated by this country's abortion industry.
Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, "But we knew nothing about this," does not He who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not He who guards your life know it? Will He not repay each person according to what he has done? -- Proverbs 24:11-12
Monday, November 10, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:18 AM
Leftists in the Democratic Party and "moderates" in the Republican Party are pointing to Sarah Palin as the reason John McCain lost, and both groups are arguing that the Republican Party needs to jettison or marginalize social conservatives if the GOP hopes to be successful in future elections. The argument lacks factual basis and ignores recent political history, including the election results of last week. Republicans will do great damage to their chances of victory in 2010 and 2012 by pushing social conservatives aside in favor of a more "big tent" party.
When Palin was announced as McCain's choice for Vice President, she immediately closed the "enthusiasm gap" between the Republican and Democratic activist bases. Palin's life story, especially regarding Trig Palin, resonated with social conservatives and provided a significant contrast with Barack Obama's aggressive advocacy of abortion "rights". Had it not been for Palin, McCain's margin of loss would probably have been larger than it was. Had McCain picked abortion "rights" advocate Joe Lieberman as his Vice Presidential nominee, it would have been a disaster.
Are social conservatives hurting the Republican Party? How quickly we forget 2004, when "values voters" pulled President Bush out of the fire and were a major reason why he was re-elected. How quickly we forget 2006, when Democrats recruited a number of anti-abortion candidates to run for Congress, including Brad Ellsworth and Joe Donnelly in Indiana. Ellsworth and Donnelly unseated Republican incumbents John Hostettler and Chris Chocola two years ago, and both won re-election by comfortable margins this year. If social conservatives are harming the Republican Party, why were Democrats openly recruiting anti-abortion candidates to run for Congress?
In addition, the same minority voters who overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama also voted in large numbers for ballot measures prohibiting homosexual marriage. 70% of black voters in California supported Proposition 8, and the significant black turnout for Obama probably sealed the passage of the amendment to California's constitution. In addition, Jonah Goldberg points out that when Florida's ballot initiative prohibiting homosexual marriage passed, "the cushion came from blacks, who voted 71 percent in favor, and Latinos, who voted 64 percent in favor."
Barack Obama will be the 44th president of the United States for two reasons: he won and John McCain lost. Obama presented a positive agenda for "change" and gave voters a reason to vote for him, not just a reason to vote against McCain. All McCain had was the argument that an Obama administration will be bad for the country, with little (if any) positive reasons to vote for the GOP nominee. In fact, Palin presented the only real reason to vote for McCain, because of her socially conservative influence in a possible McCain administration and the fact that a McCain victory would place her as the front runner for 2012. It was not enough for me, though. I still voted for Bob Barr.
So why did McCain lose Indiana? First, Obama outworked him. McCain's organization on the ground did not compare to what Obama had. I had Obama volunteers knock on my door three times this year, including once before the primary when I was a candidate on the Republican primary ballot for precinct committeeman and delegate to the GOP state convention. After George W. Bush won Indiana by a comfortable margin in 2004 and with Mitch Daniels dominating his Democratic rival with 57.8% of the vote last week, there is no reason a Republican candidate should have lost Indiana. Put bluntly, McCain lost Indiana because he deserved to lose Indiana.
Now is not the time for Republicans to get wimpy about abortion and sexual morality. Tuesday's election results show that blacks and Latinos already agree with Republicans on preserving traditional marriage, and that represents an opportunity for Republicans to finally make inroads with minority voters. Furthermore, social conservatives represent a huge part of the Republican Party's activist base. That a few country club Republicans disliked Sarah Palin should not cause Republicans to panic and commit political suicide.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 8:24 AM
Tuesday night was very bad for Monroe County Republicans, as we lost even more ground. We went from a 2-1 Democratic majority on the Board of Commissioners to a 3-0 Democratic monopoly, lost the Treasurer's Office and were unable to regain the Auditor's Office. Not a single Republican won a contested race in Monroe, and I am guessing the Democrats are kicking themselves for not challenging Judge Kenneth Todd.
What a turnaround this was from 2002, when the Republicans won 3 of 4 district seats on the County Council for a 5-2 majority and unseated an incumbent Democratic County Commissioner for a 2-1 majority. Even Bloomington Mayor John Fernandez lost his home county to Todd Rokita in the Secretary of State contest. Two years before that, we won 2 of 3 at-large seats on the County Council (and very nearly swept all three) and unseated an incumbent Democratic Surveyor.
I am not sure we could have done anything differently in 2008. Our candidate for Treasurer had 14 years of experience in the office and 8 years as Auditor. Our candidate for Auditor had 25 years of experience as a deputy Auditor and the Democrats have turned the Auditor's Office into a disaster. Even in a race where voters choose up to three candidates, Joyce Poling was unable to get enough Democrats to vote for her to finish better than fourth. Republicans just got swept away in the Barack Obama tide.
Our role the next two, three and four years is to be the loyal and persistent opposition. When the City of Bloomington does things like threaten an apartment community with a $95,000 fine for a couple of balloons, Republicans need to be loudly criticizing the silly yet heavy-handed overregulation. When the Democrats propose restrictive new land-use regulations in the county (and they will) we need to loudly object. We need to be educating the voters and advocating for better public policy non-stop.
We need to realize that the 2012 campaigns began when the polls closed on Tuesday night and campaign for the next four years. We need to be planning and preparing for the 2010 county elections, the 2011 city elections and the 2012 Presidential election right now and we need to not let up until the races are over. With the Democrats holding the power of incumbency, we cannot expect to campaign for 4 or 5 months out of one year and win. Advocating for good government is a battle that has no cease-fire.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 6:49 AM
Tuesday night was not a good night for Republicans, with Barack Obama winning 52% of the popular vote and winning the Electoral College in a landslide. This was not a surprise to me, after the Republicans nominated a moderate who has frequently clashed with the Republican base. And while some might want to argue that Sarah Palin hurt John McCain with moderate voters, the elections results in California serve as evidence to the contrary.
Obama obliterated McCain in California, 6,219,123 to 3,777,314. But Californians voted to ban homosexual marriage, 5,376,424 to 4,870,010, according to CNN's election website. That means a significant number of Obama supporters also voted to prevent government from recognizing homosexual marriage. Keep in mind that Barack Obama was opposed to the California ballot initiative. A ban on homosexual marriage also passed in Florida, 4,717,753 to 2,883,847. While a moderate Republican lost convincingly nationwide, socially conservative ballot initiatives did well.
The results in California are encouraging to those of us who have been working against efforts to radically redefine marriage to something other than the union of one man and one woman. Even in a very liberal state known for sending Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer to represent them in Washington, voters were not willing to see government recognize homosexual marriage. It is also significant that the vote invalidated any "marriages" that took place after the California Supreme Court ruled that a previous state law approved by the voters was unconstitutional. With the ban on homosexual marriage now part of California's constitution, that is no longer an option.
Many people are attributing the vote to "hate". As a Christian, I do not hate homosexuals, and I doubt that the 5 million people who voted to ban homosexual marriage in California "hate" homosexuals. However, I submit to the authority of Scripture when it states that homosexuality is an abomination to God. While many only want to share where God says "yes", it is not loving to only share part of the Truth. God's "no" is as important as His "yes", and it is an act of faith and love to proclaim Christian doctrine as presented in Scripture.
It is not an act of love to have government place a stamp of approval on a destructive sin and rebellion against what God has ordained for His creation. It is an act of hatred to endorse that sin. And this vote does not take any rights away. Right now, homosexuals in California can get married, should they find a church where the elders and pastors are in rebellion against God's word and are willing to perform a "marriage" ceremony. What they do not have is governmental recognition of their relationship through a state-certified marriage contract.
Following is an email I sent to Peggy Welch.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Homosexual marriage ban in California mandates action by Hoosier legislators
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:50:26 -0500
From: Scott Tibbs <tibbs1973@yahoo.com>
To: H60@IN.gov
Representative Welch,
I am sure you saw that the amendment to California's constitution to ban homosexual marriage was approved by California voters, despite the fact that President-elect Barack Obama completely obliterated moderate Republican John McCain in the state.
I want to thank you for your efforts to pass an amendment to Indiana's constitution to prohibit government from recognizing homosexual marriage. You have consistently supported efforts to bring a constitutional amendment to Hoosier voters, standing up to your own party and enduring some pretty harsh criticism from your own party in the process. I applaud your commitment to traditional marriage and your willingness to reach across party lines to protect marriage.
However, House Speaker Pat Bauer has broken his promise to allow a vote by the full House on the amendment. The fact that a liberal state that voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic nominee for President voted to preserve traditional marriage should serve as a mandate to the Indiana House of Representatives. Unfortunately, Bauer's broken promise has caused the "clock" to be reset, and the earliest Hoosiers can see a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage is 2012.
Speaker Bauer should immediately allow a vote of the full House when the legislative session opens in January. I encourage you to join me and other advocates of traditional marriage to demand that Bauer keep his promise and allow this vote. Hoosier voters will pass a constitutional ban on homosexual marriage if it is put before us, and we want that opportunity so that the Indiana Supreme Court cannot invalidate state law the way the California Supreme Court did earlier this year.
Thank you again for all of your efforts to protect marriage.
Scott Tibbs
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 5:57 AM
Mitch Daniels dominates Jill Long Thompson with 57.8% of the vote
I wasn't planning on posting election commentary until tomorrow but I woke up early and cannot sleep. I woke up to the result I expected in the race for President: Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States. For the first time since 1964, a Democrat won the state of Indiana. The Associated Press reports that with 99% of precincts reporting Obama has 1,352,356 votes, John McCain has 1,329,370 votes and Bob Barr has 28,980. McCain's margin of loss was 22,986 in results that are not quite final.
While not every vote that went to Barr would have otherwise gone Republican, most of them probably would have. Since it is entirely possible that Barr's candidacy handed Indiana to Obama, Republicans should sit up and take notice. The GOP has for too long been identified as the party of big government, with the 1994 Republican Revolution a distant memory. If we are going to win nationally again, that has to change immediately. I was one of the people who voted for Barr over McCain, because I was tired of voting for the Republican because the Democrat is so much worse. I voted for Bob Dole in 1996, and George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.
It looks like Monroe County was a total loss. Despite 25 years of experience in the Auditor's Office working for Auditors of both political parties, the Democrats making a complete disaster of the Auditor's Office and a campaign that saw the Democrats take a tremendous beating in the Herald-Times, Vivien Bridges lost 25763 (48%) to 28346 (52%). Cathy Smith, the former Chief Deputy and current Financial Director in the Auditor's Office, defeated Barbara Clark 29875 (55%) to 24771 (45%). Mark Stoops and Iris Kiesling each won with 62% of the vote, giving us a 3-0 Democratic majority and the Democrats swept the at-large County Council seats again, leaving Marty Hawk as the only Republican on the County Council dominated by 6 Democrats. Even Christine Talley Haseman, who was endorsed by two Democrat judges, lost her race for Judge.
It is too bad to see Mike Sodrel lose, especially by the margin he did. He is a good man. He was exactly the kind of conservative that House Republicans are going to need in the next two years as Obama pushes through his socialist agenda. I doubt Sodrel will run again in 2010, so it will be interesting to see who steps up to challenge Baron Hill next. And while Ninth District Republicans may be tired and discouraged after tonight's loss, the 2010 campaign should be in full swing right now.
Speaking of 2010, Obama's victory presents Republicans with the same opportunity we had in 1994. If Obama tries to implement the same big-government agenda Clinton did in the first two years of his Presidency, Republicans could win back the House in two years and make gains in the U.S. Senate if they do not win it outright. Indiana Republicans should target Evan Bayh and meticulously follow every vote he casts. The same should be true for Baron Hill and Brad Ellsworth. Hopefully, Republicans will learn that we simply cannot win when we increase the size of government just a little bit slower than the Democrats.
I am not discouraged by Obama's electoral landslide and seven million vote margin for a 52% to 47% majority of the popular vote. First, I did not support John McCain and I did not vote for him. He is one of the weakest candidates the GOP has had in decades, but despite having everything break against him (the tanking economy, an unpopular incumbent Republican President and a Republican base with which he has clashed many times before) the fact that the popular vote was not a complete blowout has to be seen as a victory.
Indiana's statewide races at least present a bright spot for Republicans. Mitch Daniels dominated Jill Long Thompson with 57.8% of the vote while Greg Zoeller defeated his opponent 1,301,967 to 1,259,740. Tony Bennett's victory continues a string of Republican victories for Superintendent of Education. On a night where county races are a total loss, Barack Obama will be the next President and the Democrats have significant majorities in both the House and Senate, the landslide victory for "My Man Mitch" is extremely encouraging.
I was telling people privately a year ago that I thought Daniels would cruise, but very few agreed with me. I just was not impressed with what the Democrats were offering from a campaign perspective. And while some of the policies Daniels has implemented have generated a great deal of criticism, his aggressive agenda for change resonated with Indiana voters and they voted to have him serve four more years as Indiana's governor. Congratulations, Mitch Daniels, on a hard-earned and well-deserved victory for a second term.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 6:31 AM
In my letter to the editor last week, I addressed the silly claim by the Indiana Daily Student that Mitch Daniels is not "running on a platform of serious change or upheaval." The last four years have been all about change. But there is another aspect to that editorial that deserves further examination.
While I believe Sarah Palin was an excellent choice by Senator McCain and strengthened the Republican ticket, there have been legitimate questions raised about her experience. The same concerns about experience cannot be legitimately raised regarding Becky Skillman, a former president of the Association of Indiana Counties and a state senator for 12 years. In fact, not only does Skillman's experience in state government dwarf that of Jill Long Thomspon, she had more experience that Mitch Daniels did in 2004.
What if Daniels had chosen Lawrence County state representative Brent Steele to be his running mate instead of Skillman, a Lawrence County state senator? Would the IDS have compared Steele to Palin? I doubt it. That is why I referred to the attack on Skillman as "borderline misogynistic".
In addition, the claim that "Skillman has no formal college education" was simply false. All the IDS editorial board had to do was visit the bio page on BeckySkillman.com and see that she "completed two years toward a degree in Business Administration at Indiana Wesleyan University." Skillman has also taken classes at Indiana University, which I know because she was in a philosophy class I took my senior year. The lack of basic fact-checking is an embarrassment to one of the nation's top college newspapers.
Finally, the (false) remark about Skillman's formal college education goes beyond the desire to have informed and educated leaders. It was elitism and snobbery. It is a bad habit of some intellectuals to look down their noses at those without letters following their name or those without a degree. You can look at how some in Bloomington view Bedford and Martinsville for an example of that. Should our leaders be well-educated? Yes. Does all education come from a college classroom? No. The snobbish swipe at a woman who has spent decades in public service and the last 16 years in statewide public policy solidified my support for Skillman more than anything her campaign could have done.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 6:36 AM
As expected, Greg Travis (husband of failed County Commissioner candidate Sophia Travis) is still angry that I exposed the fact that he has been posting death threats directed at Republicans on a local message board. He's even taken to repeating the fabrication that I "admitted" my posts on the matter were not true because I said "I would rather use it to embarrass your wife the next time she runs for office." Travis claims that since I haven't turned his posts in to the county prosecutor, I lack credibility.
See Part I and Part II of this series.
First, it would be silly to go to the Prosecutor with internet postings. Do I think Greg Travis (husband of failed County Commissioner candidate Sophia Travis) actually poses a danger, and may actually carry out his threats? No. The threats are bluff and bluster, but they are threats. Whether I report those threats to any law enforcement agency will not and cannot change what Greg Travis (husband of failed County Commissioner candidate Sophia Travis) wrote. Two especially egregious examples include:
- We will make sure that the Republican tyrants own their failure, and that the tree of liberty is refreshed with their blood. -- Greg Travis, Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:06 pm.
- Mimicus means we'll find you. Look for the entry titled "Day of Reckoning" and mark it. -- Greg Travis, Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:38 pm
When a very high profile political activist says outrageously stupid things, including threats of violence, that activist can expect those statements to come back to haunt him politically. And if that activist is the spouse of an elected official, you can expect those outrageously stupid things to hurt his spouse, as well. Furthermore, there are no "accusations", just facts. Greg Travis (husband of failed County Commissioner candidate Sophia Travis) posted death threats directed at Republicans and I called him on it. He can screech and squeal all he want, but he cannot change history. Greg Travis (husband of failed County Commissioner candidate Sophia Travis) cannot hide from the truth, nor can he spin his way out of it.
These posts should give pause to the Democratic Party and make them reconsider the role that Greg Travis plays in the party. After all, one candidate for Judge, Valeri Haughton, has Greg Travis (husband of failed County Commissioner candidate Sophia Travis) on her campaign committee, listed on the front page of her campaign website. While I voted for her opponent, I recognize that Haughton is a well-respected, reasonable candidate who is qualified to be judge. If elected, she will serve well. However, I do have to question her judgment in putting Greg Travis (husband of failed County Commissioner candidate Sophia Travis) on her campaign committee. His loopy statements were well known long before he ever wrote "We will make sure that the Republican tyrants own their failure, and that the tree of liberty is refreshed with their blood."
Of course, Greg Travis (husband of failed County Commissioner candidate Sophia Travis) has a history of openly fantasizing about killing political opponents. Those posts are below. For screenshots, see see the post page.
Is this what the Monroe County Democratic Party represents?
Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:57 pmAny takers for a list on who else should be summarily executed to make the world a better place?
I can start:
Kim Jong-il
Hu Jintao
Fidel Castro
Sean Hannity
Rush Limbaugh
Soe Win |
After a post commenting on an editorial identifying "unity as Obama's prime political value", Greg Travis (husband of failed County Commissioner candidate Sophia Travis) wrote:
Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:56 am| What if we don't want unity? What if we want to identify those responsible for the horrifc mess we're in, and shoot them? |
Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:24 am mimicus wrote:| What if we don't want unity? What if we want to identify those responsible for the horrific mess we're in, and shoot them? |
Who does the identifying? |
Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:28 amI've done a pretty good job, so far. My list starts with Hannity, and ends with the Churl.
So far... |
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 8:17 AM
No election reaction until Thursday
Tuesday's race is going to go late into the night, and that schedule is going to prevent me from posting commentary until Thursday. I will have a full recap then.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:28 AM
A lot of conservatives are disenchanted with the Republican Party, which is not surprising. After all, we have a Republican candidate for President who is often at odds with the conservative base of his party and an incumbent Republican President who has been anything but conservative when it comes to domestic policy. At the national level, Republicans gave us a brand new federal entitlement program, a significant expansion of the federal government's role into primary and secondary education, government regulation of the content of political speech and significant new government law enforcement powers.
But despite all of this, Republicans should still get out and vote next Tuesday.
Whatever one thinks of John McCain, there are many good reasons for conservatives to get to the polls on election day. Indiana has Mitch Daniels, who has given us significant property tax reform, funded infrastructure improvements and moves us closer to finally building Interstate 69 with his "Major Moves" program and lease of the toll road, and generally worked to streamline government and make it more efficient. Daniels will likely cruise to a well-deserved blowout victory over Jill Long Thompson next week.
In the Ninth District, we have Mike Sodrel. With Republicans in Congress increasingly forgetting that they gained power in 1994 because of a limited government agenda, Sodrel is exactly the kind of principled conservative that we need to bring the GOP back to its roots. In addition, Sodrel strongly opposes abortion. Just voting for Sodrel is more than enough reason to get to the polls on Tuesday.
Then there are the local races. These are the races where the outcome matters most in your daily life, and is also where your vote matters most. Republicans need to get out and vote for fiscally conservative, experienced candidate for local government. For County Council, we have Jeff Huston and Don Francis to provide fiscally responsible leadership on the county budget.
For County Commissioner, Jeff Schemmer will promote policies that will encourage economic growth. Schemmer's opponent, Mark Stoops, is a "Green Democrat" who will encourage more restrictive planning and zoning regulations that make it more difficult for small business to operate. If you support city government's outrageous decision to threaten an apartment community with a $95,000 fine for a couple balloons, Stoops will bring that kind of silliness to the county.
It is true that Republicans do not have a lot to be excited about at the top of the ticket. But that is no reason to deny your vote to principled, experienced public servants such as Mike Sodrel, Mitch Daniels, Jeff Schemmer, Jeff Huston and Don Francis. As Puff Daddy would say, Vote or Die.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:16 AM
Published in the Indiana Daily Student, October 30, 2008
To the Editor:
In your editorial of October 29, you write "neither Jill Long Thompson nor (Mitch) Daniels is running on a platform of serious change or upheaval."
Where has the IDS Editorial Board been for the last four years? Governor Daniels has pushed through a number of major public policy initiatives, including the "Major Moves" plan to upgrade infrastructure throughout the state, Daylight Savings Time, leasing the Toll Road (which provided a huge sum of money for infrastructure improvements), privatizing aid to the poor, major property tax reform, and a balanced budget. Students should pay attention to property taxes because property taxes are a cost of doing business for landlords and are therefore reflected in your rent.
In addition, we're closer to the Evansville-to-Indianapolis leg of Interstate 69 becoming a reality than ever before. Two years ago, Daniels proposed another "big idea" - the Indiana Commerce Connector, a partial loop around Indianapolis that would take some of the burden off 465 and benefit smaller communities such as Martinsville and Anderson. Whether you like the reforms Daniels has implemented or not, the entire Daniels administration has been about nothing but "serious change and upheaval".
Your attack on Becky Skillman was borderline misogynistic. She is one of the sharpest, most experienced people I know. I first met Skillman 11 years ago when we were taking the same philosophy class at IU. Her experience in state government (she is a former president of the Association of Indiana Counties and was a state senator for 12 years) dwarfs that of Long Thompson. Daniels knew Skillman's knowledge of and experience in the State Senate would be important to implementing his legislative agenda. It seems that the only reason to compare Skillman to Sarah Palin is her sex. Shame on you.
