October 2012 – Sheila Kennedy

The Best Choice

Yesterday, I received an email plea from a friend’s daughter. She asked that it be widely distributed, and it is worth sharing.

I am writing to you because I am very interested in who is elected as the next Governor for the State of Indiana, and with the election just one week away, I hope I have not waited too long to speak up.

I have been disappointed on a few occasions over the last several months to hear other Democrats talk less than enthusiastically about John Gregg – not because they don’t like him, not because they don’t think he would be a great leader, not because they think he would move Indiana in the wrong direction – but because he’s not liberal enough.

We all know where we live, right? Of course he’s not liberal – we are in Indiana!!

Debating the qualities of our candidate is not helpful at this stage in the process! That ship has sailed. He IS the Democratic nominee for Governor and we need to do ALL WE CAN to make sure he gets elected.

Is he perfect? I think he IS for Indiana. We live in a very conservative state and he is a conservative DEMOCRAT. But more than that, he is an intelligent, articulate leader with experience working WITH Republicans and Democrats to get things accomplished – like balancing budgets, investing in public education, etc. He understands that governing is not about US versus THEM. It’s about all of us WORKING TOGETHER to make Indiana a better place.

The alternative, I believe, is frightening.

Please do not allow democrats to undermine John Gregg as the Democratic nominee for Governor by talking about how you wish he was different. The stakes are too high. He is what he is and he is ELECTABLE in Indiana.He’s gaining momentum and has a solid chance to win if we rally behind him and help to make sure Democrats get out and support him. His campaign will work on convincing the Independents, Undecideds and moderate Republicans that he is the right choice for Indiana – and it’s working!

Please go forth and elect John Gregg!

Amy’s plea touched a nerve with me. John Gregg is, indeed, more conservative than I am. But I have already voted for him, and I did so with enthusiasm. I have three reasons for that enthusiasm: John Gregg, Vi Simpson and Mike Pence.

John Gregg is not an ideologue. He understands the state, understands the legislative process, and is focused on the things that are really important, like jobs and economic development. Does he have some positions on social issues with which I disagree? Yes. Is he likely to take steps to advance those positions? No. Those policies are clearly not his priorities; furthermore, the Democratic base simply will not support measures to ban same-sex marriage or to outlaw abortion. Let’s be blunt: Gregg will not take positions that are at odds with those held by the majority of his own party. ( I always try to vote for people who owe allegiance to the least dangerous constituencies.)

If you have any doubts about where Gregg’s priorities will lie, just consider Vi Simpson. Gregg chose Vi to be the candidate for Lieutenant Governor. She is one of the smartest, most principled people serving in the Senate. A true culture warrior would not have chosen Vi as a running mate–and the fact that Gregg did select her was a clear message that we can trust him to avoid the divisive social issues that motivate and consume today’s Republican candidates.

And then there’s the best reason of all to vote for John Gregg.

Mike Pence.

Comments

Ballard Catches Mourdock-itis

The generally-held impression of Mayor Greg Ballard has been that he’s a nice guy who’s just in over his head–way over in many respects. Lately, however, he’s been doing things to change that impression–he’s evidently learning fast how not to be a nice guy. Some of this newly-found petulance and partisanship has emerged since Ryan Vaughn–he of the parking meter fiasco–became Chief of Staff, but the buck–as Harry Truman used to say–stops at the Mayor’s own desk.

When the Democrats won control of the Council, new Council President Maggie Lewis was quick to reach out and invite co-operation. When Councilor Brian Mahern held up the Mayor’s TIF proposal, Democrats Vop Osili and Joe Simpson worked to end the impasse. Given the parties’ inevitable differences in priorities, these early signs of conciliation pointed to emergence of an occasionally tense but generally workable accommodation.

Then came the budget. As the Indianapolis Star reported

Facing a deadline to approve or veto the nearly $1.1 billion city/county budget for 2013, Ballard signed it. But his changes, without further negotiations and a quick agreement with the council, would withhold nearly $32 million in income-tax money from Marion County offices and agencies.

That money helps pay to run the courts, keep the jails open, run elections, prosecute or defend criminals, process crime scenes, investigate deaths and provide other public services such as surveying land and collecting property taxes.

The common denominator of the cuts: they affected only the agencies held by Democrats. The Mayor’s own operation, the city offices that he controls, weren’t cut.

The Mayor justified his use of the line-item veto to cripple Democratic offices with language about fiscal responsibility. But genuine fiscal responsibility would involve shared sacrifices across public agencies. (Sort of reminds me of a husband who tells his wife “we can’t afford that new coat you need because my cable TV bill has to be paid.”) He also voiced disagreement with a proposed assessment of the CIB. If he had a genuine problem with that assessment, however, he could have negotiated an equitable resolution with the Council.

Instead, Ballard presented the Council with a fait accompli. He waited until the last minute to deliver a budget that will cripple a number of critical services–for no reason other than those services are being delivered by the opposing party. In Ballard’s cynical budget, public safety takes a back seat to partisanship. It’s his way or the highway.

Shades of Richard Mourdock.

Comments

No Snark Today

Today, the only appropriate sentiment is concern for those in the path of Sandy–and a fervent hope that the increasing number and severity of these atypical weather “events” jolts us out of our complacency and denial about global climate change.

Comments

Questions and Answers

Since Halloween is fast approaching, it seems appropriate to write about something scary. And for scary, little can compare to the Indiana Family Institute’s candidate questionnaire.

It was bad enough looking at the Right to Life questions and Pence and Mourdock’s answers. Both would outlaw abortion with an exception ONLY for the life of the mother. Both support “personhood” legislation that would outlaw most birth control methods.

I thought Right to Life’s questions were scary, but the Indiana Family Institute–which has long supported Pence and which supports him for Governor–has a questionnaire that lays bare a truly terrifying agenda.

Let’s look at their positions on education–if you could still call it “education” after adopting those positions. They want educational choice–defined as “vouchers to send children to any public, private, religious or home school.” (Just ignore that pesky constitution!) They want parents who choose to home school to do so without any new regulations. They want to “redefine” bullying, in order to protect “students who express opposition to the promotion of homosexuality.” (Wouldn’t want to hurt the feelings of those little gay-tormenters they’re raising!) And they want “Academic liberty” for teachers who want to “discuss the problems and weaknesses of evolutionary theory.” (i.e., they want their version of religion taught in science classes.)

Anti-gay bigotry, unsurprisingly, permeates the questionnaire. There are references to the “homosexual agenda.” They want candidates to agree to “standardize” business regulations by overturning local ordinances that protect GLBT people against discrimination in education, employment and housing. They want to pass a Constitutional Amendment limiting marriage to heterosexuals. And of course, they want to protect those little schoolyard bullies.

There are also the more general “morality” issues they want to dictate. They want to prohibit casinos, discontinue state support of the Kinsey Institute (evidently, studying sex is just as immoral as engaging in it) and require dancers in strip clubs to remain 6 feet away from customers at all times.

There’s more, but you get the idea. And next week, there’s a very high probability that we will elect a governor who endorses all of these retrograde positions, and has supported them throughout his entire career in public life. Mike Pence–a governor for the 15th Century!

Now that’s scary!

Comments

Reflecting Badly

When I was growing up in Anderson, Indiana, fewer than 30 Jewish families lived there, and there was a fair amount of anti-Semitism. The attitudes displayed by my schoolmates ranged from benign bemusement (“So you don’t go to church on Sundays?”) to suspicious curiosity (“Do Jews live in houses like real people?”) to outright bigotry (“My mom says you’re a dirty Jew.”) (For the record, each of these is a real statement made to me while I was growing up.)

Now, when you are a member of a marginalized group, and you know people will evaluate that group based in part upon your behavior, you tend to be sensitive to the consequences of your public actions and careful not to act in ways that might confirm stereotypes. I can still remember cringing at restaurants if a group of people who “looked Jewish” were being loud, or excessively demanding of the wait staff. I didn’t want their boorish behavior to reflect badly on other Jews. Many of my gay friends have reported similar reactions to inappropriate GLBT behaviors.

Obviously, a lot of Christians don’t have those kinds of concerns. Probably because Christians are in the majority in this country, Christian “bad actors” don’t seem to consider that appalling behavior in the name of Christianity necessarily reflects upon their co-religionists. And more well-behaved Christians usually give their fellow believers a pass–they rarely speak out to distance themselves from nastiness masquerading as Christian piety . Evidently, they don’t worry about being lumped into the same category with their more outrageous brethren. But really–shouldn’t they disclaim at least some of the folks who claim to speak for their faith?

For example, there’s a religious right activist named Gary Cass, who is a former Republican Party official in San Diego. He currently heads up a group called the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, and spends most of his time attacking the usual suspects–President Obama, Muslims,gays, and (interestingly) Mormons. I recently came across a clip of him delivering a long rant in which he accused Americans of having a “broken moral compass.” The evidence of our moral decline? We have been electing politicians who support things like reproductive choice and marriage equality.

Cass says the nation’s colleges and universities are “perverted factories of unfaithfulness,” especially Harvard which is now “animated by the spirit of Antichrist.”

My favorite, though, was this: “you can’t be a Christian if you don’t own a gun.” Cass evidently believes that gun ownership and Christianity are inextricably entwined.

Perhaps my Christian friends don’t consider Cass and his ilk worth cringing over, or disavowing. (As a Jew, I want to make it clear that– if Jesus really requires that his followers be armed–he was reflecting badly on the rest of us Jews.) But criticism from members of other religions or none simply aren’t going to stop the “Christians” (note quotation marks) who are turning policy debates into religious wars.

Some good Christians need to tell the Florida pastor who burned the Korans that he is not speaking for them. Good Christians need to speak up when Mike Pence wraps himself in the mantle of faith in order to justify denying poor women access to medical services, or when Richard Mourdock defends his “God intended that pregnancy” remarks by claiming critics are “attacking his faith.”

We need more Christians willing to join the Nuns on the Bus.

Comments