A Hockey Puck in the Desert

With the NHL in day 75 of its' lockout situation and the temperatures dropping, I've really begun missing watching hockey on TV. So, it was a very pleasant surprise to be channel surfing this evening and to happen upon a St. Louis feed to Fox Sports.

There, in fuzzy splendor was a re-run of an original CBC broadcast of Game Five of the 1986 Norris Division semi-finals between the Blues and Minnesota North Stars!

Egad, the players I hadn't seen play in ages- former NHL Cleveland Baron Dennis Maruk; young Dino Cicerelli and Brian Bellows; promising prospects that never emerged, like Brian Lawton and Doug Wickenhiser; future NHL head coaches Craig Hartsberg and Curt Giles; yeoman players that ended their careers in the minors such as Greg Paslawski and Scott Bjugstad; the coming-out party of Doug Gilmour, with a five assist game.

Thanks, FSN! I felt like a man in the desert who found an artesian well. I miss the NHL. I hope all involved come to their senses soon enough to salvage a season.

Wednesday Happy Hour Reminder

Hamilton County Libertarians will gather informally for happy hour tomorrow night to kick back and discuss sports, work, and oh, maybe a little politics.

Meet us at Barley Island right in the center of Noblesville, from 6 to 9pm... or maybe longer. It all depends on you. Everyone is welcome to join us- Republicans, Democrats, Marxists, independents, you name it.

A note on Barley Island. I come from Cleveland, home of the mighty Great Lakes Brewery, which is easily one of the five best in the world. That's no stretch. They have the medals to prove it. So, when I say that Barley Island's brews are pretty wonderful, you have something to base my compliment on. If for nothing else, stop in and have a pint.

Stand and Deliver!

On the surface, the analysis of this recently concluded election cycle is easy to cast. The Republican Party ran the table with victories high and low. From the Presidency to the houses of Congress, from the Governor's mansion to the Statehouse, Republicans enjoyed a November like few before.

New majorities have been borne of these victories, and with them come rare opportunities. Conservatives can look ahead to January, when a great deal of business can be accomplished through new legislation and policies. It is a safe bet that the opportunity will be taken advantage of.

This is not breaking news. Pundits have spent much of the last month making the case for pity on the sad sack liberal, who has only anguish and trepidation for the near future. Liberals will helplessly look on as conservatives chart the course of this state and of the country. While certain that bad policy will be the rule of the day for now, liberals can only dream about 2006 and 2008, and hope Democratic leadership crafts a winning plan.

This is the kind of pain that delights most conservatives. For now, the whole range of conservatives are smiling.

But, behind some of the grins, there is a group within the broad spectrum of conservatives that is gritting its clenched teeth behind a half-hearted smile. While excited for the possibilities Republican majorities bring, this group shares a great deal of the anxiety liberals have in anticipation of the first wave of new policy that will soon greet us. This group is the fiscal conservatives.

It was not a series of referendums on capping budgetary growth that swept George W. Bush to re-election. It was a series of referendums on gay marriage. It was not a promise of lower spending that Mitch Daniels gave Hoosiers in addressing the $800 million budget deficit he will inherit. It was... What was it? There must have been more to it than Joe Kernan's negativity. Was it really sufficient that Daniels wasn't a Democrat?

For most fiscal conservatives there is a precarious balance between three pressures. Fiscal conservatives trust Democrats to do one thing- to increase the size of government, so they can't vote Democrat. Most fiscal conservatives couldn't bring themselves to vote for Libertarian candidates for fear that Democrats might win. They want to vote Libertarian, but they just can't do it yet, especially because the possibility of a Republican majority was imminent. Their trust in the GOP is waning, but fiscal conservatives were willing to give them one more shot.

This thinking is rooted in the past. It used to be that Republicans grew government, but at a much slower pace than Democrats. This was still troubling for fiscal conservatives who wanted their government to shrink, but these days, as the Bush Administration has shown, Republicans actually grow government faster than Democrats. It used to be that Republicans said, 'Only we can cut the size of government. Just give us the tools!' Now?

Well, now they actually have the tools. Fiscal conservatives want to see the chain saws blazing and front end loaders scooping out pork, but are afraid they will only see the penknife and the tweezers, if they see any cutting at all.

This leaves fiscal conservatives with a daunting prospect. If there isn't any cutting, but only more public sector growth, where should fiscal conservatives turn in 2006?

There isn't even the slightest chance that disaffected fiscal conservatives will turn to the Democrats. If their wishes are ignored, fiscal conservatives may finally part ways with the GOP and turn to the Libertarians.

The Republican Party's largest base constituency is on the line. Since Ronal Reagan left office, fiscal conservatives have put up with a lot of disappointment in the quest for one last great opportunity for the GOP to prove its' worth to them. Is a 10% reduction in spending across the board too much to ask? Is it genuinely impossible to find the courage to find a few redundant offices and departments and to eliminate them with the power of majority on your side?

If Republicans won't do the job of reducing spending this year, with their majorities at home and in Washington, fiscal conservatives will know that it is time to look for a new political home. They will have no choice but to conclude that if spending won't be cut this year, it never will so long as Republicans are in charge.

I Rather Think I Might

I haven't watched CBS' Evening News for years because of Dan Rather. He's just always rubbed me the wrong way, with his biases pretty apparent, and not much to my liking. It isn't just Rather, though. I don't care much for Peter Jennings or Brokaw, either. I haven't watched 6 O'Clock news broadcasts for years, because these three men have anchored the broadcasts for years.

So, the welcome news is that Rather will soon be history, and the news will be presented by someone new. I'll be glad to check out his replacement to see if there is any appreciable change, along with Brokaw's replacement.

Oh! Canada?

Being a fairly rational person, I believe that the most pressing problems before a government should be addressed first. I know, that means heavy lifting now, but it means smooth sailing later.

I'm going to guess that a recent Royal Decree- yes, her Majesty in England is still the ultimate authority in Canada, with the assistance of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario- has not addressed Ontario's most pressing issue when She banned dwarf tossing.

Yes, dwarf tossing.

As Sheri Sharlow Conover points out to me, there is a gret flaw in this Decree. While it specifically bans dwarf tossing, I still appear to be free to toss midgets when next I am in Toronto, Sudbury, or Brantford, without the slightest threat of prison of a $5,000CDN fine.

On The Air Friday!

I've been itching to be behind the mic for quite some time now, so it's with great pleasure that I will sit in on Abdul in the Mornings on WXNT 1430-am this Friday, from 6:00-9:00am.

It's a one-day Libertarian takeover, with LP Political Director Brad Klopfenstein at the helm, Al Barger and myself as the supporting cast. Abdul is taking a day off.

It's all subject to changes based on the news that breaks between now and Friday morning, but the show should look a little like this:

6:00-7:00 Indiana elections recount-o-rama. Problems in Franklin & LaPorte Counties, and in Congressional District 9
7:00-8:00 Will the GOP be fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, both or neither in the upcoming legislative session?
8:00-9:00 Special phone-in guests. Big secret. Can't tell you. Have to listen to find out.

Be sure to listen and to call in on 317-228-1430!

Experiment Failed

I thought for sure that if I only dropped a few key words into the blog, I would get mega hits. So, about 20 minutes after Scott Peterson received his verdict, I posted an item dropping his name and others.

It didn't work. I was advised that I would have had some success if I used words like "Britney Spears naked", or "Paris Hilton naked", or, name any popular, young female entertainer and the word "naked".

In fact, I might start to get the hits now that I've done so! On the other hand, the blog could get screened as prono...

This is Only a Test

I've had a few conversations with bloggers over the nature of hits on the blog sites. It's always disappointing to see that some toss-off comment about some innocuous pop culture tidbit gets more traffic tot he site than anything else, especially in light of the fact that the blog is primarily about libertarian politics.

I would have expected that of all the key words that might have led people to this site, "libertarian" should rank way up there. It doesn't. Way up at the top is "Victoria Snelgrove". She wasn't a candidate for office. She was the unfortunate college student killed by police in an attempt at crowd control after the Boston Red Sox eliminated the New York Yankees from the playoffs about a month ago.

I'm not one to get too hung up on this issue. Sure, it's dismaying that more people were interested in some tidbit about an innocent bystander than, say, insider insights on a candidate for governor, but that's our culture. Most bloggers who've been around long enough have as their number one draw the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident. They may have said as little as, 'gosh, I don't know what all the fuss is about Janet Jackson's exposure on the Super Bowl'. The right words on a google search, and enough links to other websites, and voila! Your blog is at the top of the google search results!

Very well. Let me say the following with nothing more than an eye towards google traffic:

I don't give a rip about the Laci Peterson case. I don't care that Scott Peterson was found guilty yesterday. Don't get me wrong- if a man is guilty of killing his pregnant wife, I have a tiny feeling of satisfaction that the criminal justice system works. It's just that I find it incredibly dismaying that as many people were hanging on to the outcome of this trial as to the outcome of the Presidential election. I loathe the fact that so many people remained glued to the sets sufficient that CNN, Fox News, and CNBC have shown wire-to-wire coverage and analysis of these high-profile idiot cases, from OJ Simpson on to this wretched case.

Let's see what kind of traffic flows.

Feet To The Fire

The most significant bit of analysis comes out of counting noses. The GOP won going away.

New Governor: Republican Mitch Daniels
State House majority: GOP
State Senate majority: GOP

For years, Hoosiers have heard the following from Republicans regarding taxes and spending:

"Give us the tools, we'll do the job".

OK, you got the tools. Let's see what you can do, GOP.

My money is on the job not getting done. My bet is that nothing will be cut. Programs and bureaus will not go away. The Republican Party simply is not serious about being fiscal conservatives. Those Hoosiers who are will be sorely disappointed that their votes failed to bring the lower taxes they wanted.

There is only one true home for fiscal conservatives in Indiana: the Libertarian Party.

This will be proven over and over again in the next four years. Mark my words.

You Get What You Pay For

There is much analysis that has been running through my mind in the wake of the recent elections. I could blog the major party stuff, but why bother? It's all been done to death elsewhere. I'm happier to present analysis that won't be available elsewhere.

To wit, hadn't anyone in the Badnarik For President team ever seen the Austin Powers movies? One of the classic moments in the film is when Dr. Evil hatches his first crime plan after 30 years in the freezer. He looks for a ransom of, say it with me while raising your pinky finger to your lips, "one millllllllion dollars".

Team Badnarik made a big deal about their 'massive' fundraising hitting the 'magical' figure of, say it with me while raising your pinky finger to your lips, "one millllllllion dollars".

Throw me a frickin' bone! Had Team Badnarik been frozen for 30 years? The major party candidates for Attorney General in Indiana raised more than our presidential candidate. Crimony!

Team Badnarik did give us some excellent stats, though. They showed how much each candidate 'paid' per vote. From the Badnarik website:

Bush/Cheney $4.40 per vote
Kerry/Edwards $3.86 per vote
Nader $3.19 per vote
Badnarik $2.88 per vote

What you see is that the costs per vote are very similar. What you must deduce is that you get what you pay for.

If Badnarik raised $10 million dollars, I have no doubt that he would have received far more votes than the paltry sum recorded. It might not have been a direct correlation of 10 times more money = 10 times more votes. But heck, 10 times more money = 5 times more votes = a new record for votes for a Libertarian presidential candidate.

In 2008, it CANNOT be enough to nominate a candidate who simply wins the debate at the convention. It MUST be a serious focus that the nominee is committed to 21th Century fundraising, rather than 1960s level fundraising.

Questions for the Bush & Kerry Supporters

The presidential election is obviously going to be close. The polls have consistently shown Bush ahead in the popular vote, but as we've arrived at this day, that lead has been slipping. In the past day or so, polls have been showing Kerry ahead in the projected Electoral vote.

We could be facing a most interesting scenario should Bush win the popular vote, and Kerry win the Electroal vote and the Presidency.

After four years of Democrats wailing about how unfair it is that a man can become President via the Electoral College while losing the popular vote, can we expect:

1. Democrats would now say that the process works and is fair?
2. Republicans would keep their mouths shut after four years of telling Democrats that it was fair in 2000?

I'm afraid that the closer this thing is, the worse the country will be for it. I can't imagine either Bush or Kerry coming away with a whole lot of confidence from the people, let alone a mandate. No matter who wins, it appears that there will be lawsuits and bickering a-plenty. No matter who wins, the other side will say 'selected, not elected'. I see the printing of 'Re-defeat Kerry' stickers happening tonight, hitting websites tomorrow morning.

There was something honorable in Richard Nixon's withdrawl from the process in 1960 after John F. Kennedy defeated him by a razor-thin margin. Nixon backed away immediately, conceding to Kennedy on the grounds that a challenge would have been bad for the country.

I already know that it is too much to ask of either the Bush or Kerry camps to have as much honor as that. Yet another reason to do the King Solomon thing, and vote Libertarian!

The Wasted Vote Syndrome

Too often, I have been told by people that they really do agree with most of what the average Libertarian candidate says, but they just can't bring themselves to vote Libertarian because that candidate has no chance of winning, making it a wasted vote.

If every person who has ever told me that actually voted Libertarian, there would be some radically different outcomes, and you wouldn't see it as a wasted vote. You would wish you had done it sooner.

If you do largely agree with the LP, but are picking Bush or Kerry, Daniels or Kernan, or any Democrat or Republican instead of voting Libertarian because who you are picking is not his opponent, you will be sorely disappointed if your fall-back choice does win. Small-government voters who vote Bush instead of Badnarik will get bigger government anyway. Anti-war voters who vote Kerry will get war anyway. Etc.

Worse, you will have sent the message to the parties that they don't have to change a thing. They have your support, and the proof is your vote. In fact, the only way to tell them that they need to change is to vote Libertarian. In fact, the only vote that is truly wasted is one cast for a candidate you can only begrudgingly support.

Indiana's gubernatorial race is exciting for the object lesson that will come of it. Democratic incumbent Joe Kernan has stated his unwavering support for the construction of a new section of I-69, through new terrain, including wetlands. There are many voters who hold the environment as their number one issue, and they normally vote Democrat. These voters are deeply disappointed by Kernan's position. Some will waste their vote, and support Kernan anyway. Those who are disgusted enough by Kernan will vote for Libertarian candidate Kenn Gividen, the only candidate to oppose the new highway. The message will be sent to Kernan and the Democrats that environmental voters must not be ignored. When Kernan loses by 1-2%, and he sees that he lost 3% to Gividen, he and his party will get it. No longer will Democratic candidates for Indiana governor ignore the environment.

One thing to remember is that no matter if you are a Democrat, a Republican, or a Libertarian, you probably do not agree 100% with your candidates. Libertarians generally agree on principle, but that's no wonder, as there is a libertarian philosophy behind the Libertarian Party. Still, I will scratch vote rather than go straight ticket Libertarian. The argument for scratch voting is more compelling for liberals and conservatives, because the choices are less clear due to the great variety throughout the major parties. For instance, Democratic Senator Evan Bayh from Indiana is easily more conservative than Ohio's Republican Governor Bob Taft. Indiana Democrats can vote for Kerry and Bayh, but why would they? Heck- Bayh advertises how much he voted with the President! Actually, it's pretty easy to waste your vote going straight ticket Democrat or Republican.

Win or lose, voting isn't about picking a winner, although you hope your views are in the majority. Voting is about exercising your conscience.

To all of the people who voted for Al Gore in 2000? Was your vote wasted? You know that your candidate didn't win, so, would your vote have been better placed if it had been cast for Bush? Didn't think so. No, your conscience was with Gore. You made the right choice, even if it did end in defeat.

Vote your conscience. Let the results fall as they may.

What Happens When Libertarians Win High Office

Myth: If a Libertarian is elected, government will devolve into anarchy and chaos.

Let's start large. Let's get way out there in the hypothetical and say LP presidential candidate Michael Badnarik pulls the greatest upset in the history of the Republic, and wins a majority in the Electoral College. What happens next? Libertarians are opposed to most government spending. Won't it immediately stop?

No. While the President has the ability to veto any spending bill that crosses his desk, President Badnarik would face the very strong possibility that the Congress would override his veto. The words President Badnarik chooses to explain his veto would be crucial. If he says, "I will veto any bill that does not eliminate 90% of all spending," he can be assured that his veto would be overriden. The Democrats and Republicans at long last would sing "Kumbaya" on Capitol Hill with a new sense of common ground. However, if Badnarik took a much more reasonable approach, saying, " I will veto any bill that does not reduce spending by 5%," he would probably win the day. The Congress must be negoiated with, no matter which party the President is from. This is one of the checks and balances.

The same logic applies to any states gubernatorial races. If Kenn Gividen should win in Indiana, he would have very little ability to turn the place upside down. A Libertarian President or Governor would have little choice but to work in coalition with the other parties on an issue-by-issue basis, or he would suffer being run roughshod over by the various houses of the legislatures.

Let's go to the Congress. Let's say Libertarian Senatorial candidate Al Barger pulls the upset of the century, snagging38% of the vote, with Evan Bayh (D) taking 37% and Marvin Scott (R) getting 25%. Unless there are other upsets-of-the-century in other states, and assuming that all other seats stay the same (less Bayh's loss), there would then be 1 Libertarian, 1 Independent (Jeffords), 47 Democrats, and 51 Republicans. List of US Senators. You could expect virtually no change in policy outcomes. Any time the GOP wanted to vote strictly along party lines, it could still arrive at a simple majority, so long as their Senators played along. Barger could make life interesting by introducing bills, or by speaking on the floor. Simply introducing a bill does not assure that it would ever be voted on. If there aren't enough co-sponsors, or isn't enough general support, it might never come out of committee- assuming it got that far at all.

At the House of Representatives, one Libertarian is even more diffused, as there are 435 US Reps.

By now, rather than potential chaos at the hands of a Libertarian, you probably see futility. That's one of the beautiful things about the nature of American government. No one person can run much of anything through alone.

A President needs the broad backing of the legislature and the American people, and it doesn't matter what party that President comes from. A maverick President cannot be. The President must build coalition and win support. President Clinton learned this lesson early in his first term. He tried to make an issue of gay Americans serving in the military, but he quickly found out that he did not have broad support. No matter the depth of his convictions, he could not have ram-rodded policy into place. His own party heard from the citizens back home and let Clinton know that he was barking up the wrong tree. President Bush is seen as a go-it-alone President, but the fact is, he had enough support in the Congress and with the American people to take the country to war. If the legislators from either party- Republican or Democrat- had heard sufficient opposition to the war, they would have reacted accordingly: Democrats emboldened, Republicans weak at the knees. That it hasn't happened even yet explains why Bush marches on, and Kerry describes his 'anti-war' approach as adding more troops, spending more money, and bring more nations on board.

So, why bother voting for someone who can't run an agenda through? Because there is more to the game than running an agenda in immediately.

The President has the bully pulpit. When he speaks, people listen worldwide. Ronald Reagan taught any President how to defeat the Congress: Take your plan to the people first. If they support it broadly, the Congress is in a tough spot to be against it. Astute Presidents select slam-dunk issues in their first 100 days so as to build trust with the Congress and the American people. President Badnarik would have to be more politically astute than any President to have proceeded him because you have to bet that both parties would relish the opportunity to take him down. It might involve building coalition with a majority party in one of the houses. It might be acting on extremely safe initiatives- if any could be called that.

A Badnarik victory would send a huge message to Democrats and Republicans. It could mean that there was an issue Badnarik enunciated more clearly than the others; or he was on the side of an important issue both of the other candidates were on the other side of (the war again comes to mind); or the major parties alienated their bases sufficiently that enough went to Badnarik in protest. In any case, the strategists for the parties would have to analyze why things went as they did. They would learn to re-claim the issues they muffed, or the bases they alienated. They would have to, or lose them forever.

Of course, there is the craziest reason to vote Libertarian of all: you believe in the libertarian philosophy, and would exercise your conscience.

Libertarians can win high office, especially if that happens.

Evil Empire II

Now that the Boston Red Sox are on the verge of their first World Series victory since 1918, I thought the time was right to point out that the Red Sox are merely the Evil Empire little brother of the New York Yankees. Sacrilege? Keep reading.

The Yankees are rained down with scorn and derision for what? Their great success? Yes, but in large part because Yankee Boss George Steinbrenner has paid top dollar for top talent. The accusation is that the Yankees buy Penants and Series wins.

If this was the basis for rooting for the Red Sox, or more accurately, against the Yankees, take a moment to look at the Red Sox line-up. None of their top players were drafted by Boston, or have come up through the Red Sox farm system. Schilling, Martinez, Ramirez- all came via high dollar free agency signings, which is exactly how the Yankees build. Only lower-profile players Jason Veritek and Trot Nixon are Red Sox lifers.

If you are a true fan of the underdog, heaven help you. You are stuck with the Kansas City Royals and Milwaukee Brewers. These teams will wait far longer than the Red Sox have had to for their World Series victory, due to the way of baseball economics.

I am not a true fan of the underdog. I have no pity for Bostonians or Red Sox fans. I actually like star-studded teams like the Yankees and Red Sox. I've been an Indians fan for years, and I've tasted some pretty horrible baseball in my life. The late 90s were a welcome relief to, well, all of the previous years of my life, suffering through the likes of Rich Yett, Jerry Dybzynski, and Larvell Blanks. The Sox may not have won it all, but at least they have fielded some great players- Williams, Yaz, Fisk, Rice, Martinez- and generally competitive teams throughout their history. They have scarcely done penance as compared to fans in some cities like Arlington, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Montreal. Sorry, Montreal! You go from Purgatory to Limbo!

Boston is hardly a suffering sports city. The Patriots have won two of the last three Super Bowls, and 20 games in a row. The Celtics dynasty ranks with the top sports dynasties anywhere, anytime. Prior to the Bruins recent woes, they had made the NHL playoffs 27 seasons in a row. Cleveland has to be first in line on a misery scale.

Of course, the Yankees had a 3-0 lead on the Red Sox just last week...

Sports? One Week Before The Election?

You bet. Sports is escapism, after all, and when in the thick of the election season, sometimes an escape is exactly what you need.

The policital and libertarian blogging will resume shortly.

Idiocy in Sports Revelry

I'm not quite sure where or when the notion came to pass that victory by your team meant license to become temprary anarchists. It's high time the victory intoxicated mob nonsense came to an end.

The response to the improbable series comeback by the Boston Red Sox over the New York Yankees was actually relatively tame as modern mob celebrations go. That's sad commentary, because in addition to the setting of small fires and general rowdiness, there was a fatality. Per ESPN:

Victoria Snelgrove, a 21-year-old journalism major at Emerson College, was among 16 people hurt in the revelry. The injured also included a police officer.

Most of the injuries were minor, but Snelgrove suffered a severe head wound as police tried to subdue the crowd, authorities said.

This next quote ranks up there with the Bushisms.

Mayor Tom Menino told WBZ-AM that Snelgrove, of East Bridgewater, was struck by a "non-lethal weapon," but he did not elaborate. The Boston Globe reported that Snelgrove was hit by a "bean-bag" bullet. After Snelgrove was found lying outside Fenway Park bleeding from the head, the Globe reported she was taken to Brigham and Women's Hospital, which said she died at 12:50 p.m

Mr. Mayor, if someone dies at the hands of a weapon, it is most certainly not a non-lethal weapon.

The idiocy was not limited to Boston. Since some of the Sox players are Dominican, people on the island took it as an excuse to fire their guns into the sky.

The Red Sox's victory prompted raucous celebrations across the Dominican, home to Pedro Martinez and ALCS MVP David Ortiz. Shooting in the air is customary during sports celebrations in the Caribbean country.

A sleeping 13-year-old boy was shot in the leg when a bullet tore through the zinc roof of his home in the Dominican capital of Santo Domingo, police spokesman Gen. Simon Diaz said.

One other person was injured in Santo Domingo, as were two in the central city of Santiago and two in the southeastern coastal city of La Romana, Diaz said.

I'll never forgt my own experiences living in a Cleveland slum neighborhood. In 1997, the Indians defeated the New York Yankees in the AL Championship, earning the team's first trip to the World Series since 1954. Folks from around the 'hood celebrated similarly, firing their weapons in the air, some of them fully automatic. I stayed in the basement for several hours. It was one of many experiences that led me to furiously save my money so that I could escape that place.

The More Respectable, Older Parties

Libertarians are often blown off as a trifle or a distraction, accused of being not serious candidates.

The Democrats and Republicans. These are the gold standard. This is what you should aspire to!

One of the serious Democrats got into serious trouble recently in Wayne County. It seems that Wayne County Council candidate Alex Calkins was arrested after stealing some items from the local WalMart.

Truly a Democrat, he admitted to trying to steal some bagels, but that the alcohol and cleaning supplies were the work of an accomplice. Richmond Pal-Item report.

Truly not serious, Calkins is quoted as saying, "I still hope to get this position".

I hope the voters have more sense than that in Wayne County.

Gividen at the Debate

After all of the wrangling about trying to be included in the second Indiana Gubernatorial debate, the event has now come and gone, and Libertarian Kenn Gividen acquitted himself well. First impressions time.

Two main differences come immediately to mind:

• Kenn is the only candidate running a clean campaign
• Kenn is the only candidate willing to say that he stands for cutting the size and cost of government

It was incredible that, given how badly negative campaigning is perceived by the public, Daniels (R) and Kernan (D) launched into negativity in their opening statements. They never relented. Gividen was left standing as the one running squarely on the strength of his ideas, and the one who flung no mud. During the debate, he quipped, "Now you can see why they put me between these two guys".

Daniels surprised me with his willingness to leave the possibility of raising taxes on the table when faced with the problem of repairing the budget deficit. Kernan did not surprise me by dancing around the question of how to pay for things.

Kenn's closing statements were terrific. He used the analogy of two cars on the wrong side of the road representing the Democrats and Republicans. One is going slower than the other, but both are going the wrong way. He made the case that for anyone wanting real changes, a vote for Ds or Rs is the real wasted vote, and that the only way to send the message is to vote for him and to vote Libertarian.

Couldn't agree more.

I Love it When a Plan Backfires

The idea was to shut out Kenn Gividen and the Libertarians. The result was to give us more positive, sympathetic press than we could have bought with a million dollars. Observe:

First news report headline: "It's Kernan vs. Daniels in round 2". LP response: "Outraged Libertarians say they are considering a lawsuit. "This is horrible," said Brad Klopfenstein, executive director of the Indiana Libertarian Party. "We're not going to take this lying down." Indy Star report.

Later that day, the Star filed a report on the reversal. "Libertarians protested the exclusion of their candidate, with Gividen saying he believed voters were being cheated out of hearing from all those on the Nov. 2 ballot. "The voters need to hear our message," he said Tuesday. "As of last night we thought we were kicked out of the debate." Tuesday morning, though, he said he turned on the radio "and all they were talking about was me."

Both the Ds & Rs tried to take credit for wanting Gividen included, and blamed the other side. "I just want to make it very clear to the Libertarian Party: I've always thought it was fine for Kenn Gividen to be in the next debate," Daniels said. Tew then blamed Daniels. "Those guys tried to keep him out of the first debate. They're doing the backstroke better than Michael Phelps," he said. "We wanted him in from the beginning." Star article, Parties Now Say Three's Company.

Editorial headline from the Richmond Pal-Item: Inviting all candidates is right choice. Body: "The campaigns for Democratic Gov. Joe Kernan and Republican Mitch Daniels were correct to reverse an earlier decision that would have excluded Libertarian Kenn Gividen. Although it took demonstrations in Indianapolis by Libertarian Party members to bring about the change, it was the right thing to do. They should not have tried to exclude Gividen in the first place. Any party that is able to successfully show it has the needed support to get on the statewide ballot deserves full consideration for its candidates."

Editorial text from the Muncie Star Press: "Indiana's gubernatorial camps have again admitted the Libertarians to their exclusive club, thus avoiding further embarrassment over their "back-of-the-bus" treatment of the party's governor candidate, Kenn Gividen. Gividen had appeared at the first governor's debate, along with Democrat Joe Kernan and Republican Mitch Daniels. His inclusion didn't seem to harm the debate, and might have improved it in isolated spots. But the major-party forces wanted to ban Gividen from the second (and final) debate, Sunday in New Albany, preferring to keep all attention directed at themselves. Outraged Libertarians complained, sent angry letters to newspapers and said they were considering a lawsuit. "The voters have been cheated," Gividen charged. "The Republicans and Democrats are playing the same old game." Even Indiana University Southeast at New Albany, host of the debate, wavered over the fairness issue, at one point indicating it might deny use of the building unless Gividen was included. Public facilities, by their nature, dislike exclusionary tactics. The same concern caused the public broadcasting station involved in debate negotiations (WFYI, Channel 20 at Indianapolis) to side with the Libertarians."

Lafayette Journal and Courier headline: Keep room for three in governor's debate. Text: "The setup, as Daniels and Kernan envisioned it, might have been pragmatic. But it was lame, too.
Libertarians worked diligently in the past two decades to organize and guarantee their place on the state ballot. They have been equally diligent to field competent candidates who can articulate their views without so much of the flaky aftertaste attributed to Libertarians of the past. Gividen is proof of that, holding his own and offering some logical solutions to state problems that Hoosiers should hear -- even if they're inclined to think a Libertarian vote would be a wasted one. Gividen deserves a place at the debate on Sunday. Kernan and Daniels should have known that all along."

Thanks, D's & R's! Couldn't have done it without you!

Shamed Into Doing the Right Thing

The Republicans and Democrats conspired to exclude Libertarian candidate Kenn Gividen from the second televised gubernatorial debate after including him in the first. The idea, no doubt, was to crowd out interesting, fresh ideas to Indiana's problems.

This strategy backfired on them. The Libertarian publicity machine was underestimated. The message was simple: dignify the deomcratic process and included Gividen, for the benefit of the people of Indiana and for the LP. Press releases went out, letters went to the editors of newspapers across the state, and talk radio stations were flooded with calls. Calls went to the hosting university and TV stations, along with the HQs of the Daniels and Kernan campaigns. Had the debate included Gividen from the beginning, he would have appeared and that would have been that. Instead, the exclusion of Kenn Gividen was the story of the day. The LP was the sympathetic character, and the Democrats and Republicans the evil conspirators. The LP got a huge publicity bump that they couldn't have purchased.

LP Executive Director Brad Klopfenstein quickly called for a press conference for Noon today, to be held on the Monument downtown. It was well attended, adding to the sympathetic publicity.

Quickly, the two other camps have caved to the pressure. Gividen will be included after all. First Indy Star story.

Observe the nonsense Kernan and Daniels wring hands over- risers to make the two men appear as tall as Gividen. Pathetic.