Saturday, May 02, 2009
Rumors In Senate District 30 Race
Fellow blogger Abdul Hakim-Shabazz has an item on his blog this morning saying that "the word on the street is that Schneider may step aside and throw his support behind Rucklehouse." The correct spelling of John's name is Ruckelshaus. A source close to Schneider contacted me after speaking to Schneider to report that the rumor is totally false and obviously planted to boost Vaughn's candidacy. Schneider's campaign is in full swing the source reports. Speaking of rumors, Vaughn's supporters have circulated e-mails sent by another contender, Chris Douglas, from last year's election in which Douglas indicated less than enthusiastic support for the McCain-Palin ticket and questioning his party loyalty. This could be an interesting 30-day marathon to win this seat.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
It's "Ruckelshaus".
looks like the issues will be taking a back seat - too bad.
That's one of the reasons I don't like caucus elections to fill legislative vacancies. The issues and the qualifications of the candidate take a back seat to "who knows who best."
I think I'll contribute to the Schneider campaign.
We need to get an anti-Vaughn campaign going in the neighborhood in effort to make neighbors aware of Vaughn's activities that are not in our best interest.
Is there an actual election in this situation or is it decided by party insiders?
The precinct committeepersons in the senate district will caucus and select Lubbers' replacement.
What's the chance it won't be Vaughn?
HFFT, I don't think you're average working PC is going to look at Ryan Vaugh as someone who should be in the State Senate. Those people are not the problem. The problem is that there are always tons of vacancies in the organization that Tom John can fill with cronies whose only job will be to go to the caucus and vote the way John wants them to vote. Sometimes you can overcome that, sometimes you can't.
My guess is tha Ryan Vaughn probably won't win, but that's only a guess.
Paul - you also don't mention this past PC election cycle caught a lot of long time elected PC's off guard. The PC election was moved to Presidential election years elected PC's forgot to file because they thought they were good until 2010.
Many of the formerly elected PCs are now appointed and you know who is free to remove any and all of them prior to this caucus.
Sir, you are absolutely correct! I've had that happen to me a few times.
Mike, I heard the same complaint from some elected precinct committeepersons. I'm not sure what the motivation was for moving the time of their election, but I was not a committeeperson and knew it was taking place, knew I had to file by a certain deadline and knew I had to file in the correct precinct--the one in which I live. Tom John didn't even file to run in the right precinct. He lost the committeeperson's race in which he filed to run. And then simply appointed himself as a committeeperson so he could continue to be county chairman. It's the most appalling thing I've ever seen in county political party elections. The Marion Co. GOP turns around and re-elects the guy without opposition because everyone knew he could win on the strength of the people he appointed as committeepersons without the support of elected precinct committeepersons. Tom John's leadership team is trying to drive out all of the elected GOP committeepersoons who he can't control from the party. His hinchman, David Brooks, has already suggested to me that I should resign as a committeeperson because of my disagreements with the party. They are intentionally setting out to destroy the party. Our state Republican leaders had better figure out quickly what they're doing to wreck the local party or they will see one blowout election after another in this county in both the county/city elections and statewide races.
Why did the repubs elect PCs in 2008 when the term did not end until 2010....the Dems are honoring the 2010 term.....what am I missing. I might add AI ..your precinct was the only one in your ward to file a committeeperson candidate.
Many neighbors are upset with Ryan Vaughn as the woman who was mauled by a pit bull and eventually had her leg amputated ..lives in his district....he has been invisible on the agressive dog law before the city council and has been no help to Councilor Speedy who is trying to protect our children and families from vicious dog attacks.
I despise caucuses, as you know from early 2008 when the Dems held one. One of my favorite memories from that event was the very old PC who probably didn't know who she was much less what she was doing at the caucus. Her daughter did all the talking--and voting--for her.
These are the people who choose our leaders, folks!
Art,
Doesn't that dog ordinance simply select the dangerous dog du jour, Pit Bulls (which technically aren't even a breed) for banning. When I was growing up the dangerous dogs were German Shepherds and then Dobermans? If the dangerous dog proposal is the one I'm thinking of, I don't think it should be supported.
I don't think legally the county chairman can remove an elected PC. We've always taken that position.
If it's going on now with Tom John, I'd love to know about it.
Something has to be done about this problem with pit bulls, Paul We have a problem neighbor who recently acquired a pit bull. The dog is obviously being trained to fight. For some reason, in the black community, buying pit bulls and holding brutal dog fights at which patrons bet on the winner is an acceptable form of entertainment. This dog acquired by the neighbor is still a pup. Yet, the owner, a very large man, must use his strength to restrain the dog from trying to attack anyone who comes in sight. I've never seen such a young dog behave so violently. Clearly, this dog owner is training it to fight and putting everyone with whom he comes in contact in danger of a brutal attack by this dog. I prefer locking up the dog owners who do this as opposed to banning the dogs. Pit bulls can be normal pets if properly taken care of, but the people who want them seem determined to create killers.
The agressive dog ordinacnce proposed by Speedy is not breed specific....it refers to all dangerous dogs...it is just that most people think of pit bulls as they are agressive and are the dogs of choice of criminals and drug dealers as they keep the police away. Pit Bulls make tremendous fighting dogs and there are those who love to watch and bet on which dog kills which dog.........I know tv is boring but......I am not ready to start watching dogs rip each other apart.
AI,
I was under the impression that Speedy's bill was breed specific. The problem is that many types of dogs can be trained to be vicious. So if it's not breed specific maybe it has merit.
I don't think legally the county chairman can remove an elected PC. We've always taken that position.
If it's going on now with Tom John, I'd love to know about it.No. Party rules state that an elected PC may only be removed through a procedure that basically amounts to an impeachment. The Central Committee is who would "try" the PC. There's specific actions that would be grounds for impeachment such as openly supporting a non-Republican or voting in a Democrat primary (a la Operation Chaos).
If any elected PC's were stupid enough to participate in Operation Chaos that is grounds for impeachment and removal.
Sir, thanks.
I would think even those rules could be subject to legal challenge. They've stripped out of the Indiana Code a lot of the rules that used to govern party organization and procedure, and let the parties simply do it by party rules. But precinct committeeman, I believe, is still a legally recognized elected position in the Indiana Code. I would highly doubt that the political parties, without statutory authorizatiion, could set up a removal process for a statutory elected position, like PC. I know they've done that...I'm just not sure it's legal for them to do so.
But like many things in law, you never know until the rule gets challenged. That could be decades.
When I worked for the legislature in Illinois, the Republican Party still elected its state committeeman in the primary election. Several of the committeemen were very independent and the Republican governor at the time, Jim Thompson, didn't like it that he couldn't order them around. He started trying to get the legislature to do away with elected committeemen. The dissident Republicans had to appeal to House Speaker Mike Madigan, a Democrat, to stop the change in the law. They succeeded for several years but eventually got the law changed. Take a look at the state GOP party in Illinois today. It is virtually dead. Despite the bad state of affairs within the Democratic Party, they have been unsuccessful at electing a single Republican to statewide office. What used to be strong Republican areas are now represented by Democrats in Congress and the state legislature. There is now a renewed effort there to return the party to elected committeemen but the state party is putting all of its efforts to stop it. The Democrats conrol everything and can pretty much do what they want. They're threatening to pass it just to piss off the Republican leadership.
Paul - you are correct. Councillor Speedy's proposed ordinance targets pit bulls as a uniquely dangerous breed. It also stiffens regulations for all individual dogs deemed dangerous by certain proceedures. It also would ban tying a dog to an immovable object, like a tree; it mandates dog runs or fenced-in areas.
The proposed ordinance (#178, 2009) will be introduced at the May 4th Council meeting and will be referred to the Rules committee. It is posted online:
http://www.indy.gov/eGov/Council/Proposals/Documents/PROP09-178.pdf
Breed-specific legislation is ridiculous. Instead of going after a breed of dogs, they need to pursue the people who train these animals to be weapons.
Many shelter dogs have pit bull blood. In fact, I own a pit bull mix. Breed specific legislation going after the dogs does nothing to fix the problem.
Just to be fair - the extent of the 'breed specific' action is sterilization, unless the dog has akc papers, and licensing and notice on the property of the presence of the dog. I heard nothing about mixes - just purebreds -- but that is a great question to clarify the issue. Otherwise, the dangerous dog ordinance is strengthened in a manner that is not breed-specific, but should help those of us who live next to aggressive dogs.
Perhaps AI could make this its own thread, given all the interest. As I said, the proposal is online now. And the April 18 meeting of McANA had a pro and con discussion at about 2 hours into the meeting. That is archived on the City Cable website. The first two hours were just some CIB bailout issue that nobody cares about ;)
Jabber,
A pro and con discussion on a matter before a decision is made? That is not the way Indianapolis politics works!
I know I appreciate Mike Speedy's initiative in coming to the community for input BEFORE introducing the proposal. He deserves credit for that.
Paul...the proposed Speed ordinance is now called the AT Risk Dog Ordinance [ARDO} and includes any agressive dog...It is not breed specific. I am not sure but it may have been originally but it is not now.
Post a Comment