IS IT TRUE: August 29, 2011

1. Does anyone remember the Democrats for Russell Lloyd (Senior) in 1971? Maybe a little history lesson is in order. The lesson might include side stories on Ray Becker and Richard Swonder as well.

2. “IS IT TRUE that crossing party lines is a healthy exercise in the electoral process?” (CCO)

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   I think it will carry Dick Lugar to victory. The Dems love him.

3. IS IT TRUE that the Mole Nation (meaning more than 5 moles) is telling us that some devout “Mainstream Democrats” are planning a fund raising event for the Republican candidate for Mayor of Evansville?
   ===========
   If this is true, the CCO found a monster story. The ONLY reason Weinzapfel’s City law firm would fund raise for Lloyd Winnecke is if they believe they will be Mr. Winnecke’s City law firm. Wow.

   https://city-countyobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/photo-51.jpg

   • I’ll take that bet and give you odds, JB.

     • What is the bet and the odds?

4. There is no resemblance between most Local Elected Democrats and the National Democrat leadership. It is sad that our locals continue to support the national party and must kowtow to the national party when elected to higher office.

   • What in the world are you talking about, aren’t they are both radical progressive, to the core?

     Obama has just as much cause to control the medical establishment with Obamacare, as Weinzapfel has cause to build homes with taxpayer money?

     Obama has just as much cause to finance “green jobs” with taxpayer money, as Weinzapfel has cause to… Bank on Evansville?

     Obama has just as much cause to bail out GM or AIG, as Weinzapfel had cause to oust Mr. Yung from Aztar?

   • “No” resemblance?

     Spenders…

     Bond debt issuers…

     Regulators…

     (Just because our LOCAL REPUBLICAN PARTY, looks just like the national Democrat party, too… Doesn’t mean our Democrats are ANY different!)

     • “(Just because our LOCAL REPUBLICAN PARTY, looks just like the national Democrat party, too… Doesn’t mean our Democrats are ANY different!)”

       It would appear on the surface that one of our local democrats (running for mayor) is different, but it still remains to be seen if he’s elected how his governing will set him apart from his party.

       JMHO

       • Well put.

         But, most “governing” in the near future… will be controlled/lead by the apparatchiks already in place. (FDP, ERC, CVB, DMD, GAGE, Bank on Evansville…)

         My guess is a mayor Davis, would be consumed… by sneagle.

         I think discussions of party related comparisons sinks Davis. The individual politics are virtually the same, progressive chasing progressive. But the vote for a party is the contrast… you have one party that has metastasized the sneagle vs. the other, condoning the sneagle.

         • “But, most “governing” in the near future… will be controlled/lead by the apparatchiks already in place. (FDP, ERC, CVB, DMD, GAGE, Bank on Evansville…)”

           True….but as pointed out by the board list posted the other day the mayor control 190+ seats on various boards, not to mention dog catchers, EPA personal, and a few others that work at the “pleasure” of the sitting mayor, any mayor can on day one start to reshape the landscape of these boards.

           JMHO

         • That’s, if, he has the stomach to flip them all on day one…

           Does Davis and the Kennedy wing of the party have the network to do it all on their own?

           How will he screen nominees to tell if they are sneagle loyalists or rebels?

           Do we know enough about this rebel spirit to tell if they will really be any better?

         • Oh I agree, if it were I, I’d have a plan laid out and contacts made as soon as the election in November was set in stone, then start in January replacing seats one by one, in 6 months to a year the boards could be repopulated, but that might not even be necessary with a new mayor who isn’t repressive to ideas. Not saying Davis is or isn’t that way I have no clue but only that it is doable to reshape the boards along with a portion of the city government, just take baby steps.

           JMHO

     • ETax: I assume IG is referring to elected local office holders who are Democrats, and saying they have no political philosophical resemblance to national Democrats, which I assume he thinks are all liberals or left of center, Bluedogs not withstanding.

       Fact is, the Indiana Constitution and statutes spell out exactly what the responsibilities and duties are assigned to local elected office holders. The elected office holders swear an oath to abide by those directives, regardless of party affiliation.

       The Indiana Constitution, and most of the statutory obligations and responsibilities assigned to local office holders were written by conservative legislators and passed by a conservative legislature. So get a clue as to why local Democrat office holders seem more conservative than the national norm for Democrats. And more over, I cannot fathom why you would object.

       • Soon2b, show me the “conservative legislators” that voted “obligations and/or responsibilities” that allow for FDP to spend 200K per home that will be worth 100K?

         Show me the repercussions for the property tax credit theft…

         Show me how Weinzapfel sneaked in the Arena debt before…

         Show me the “conservative legislators” that allow for McCurdy parking lot giveaways?

         Show me the “conservative legislators” that protected Mr. Troost’s daughter?

         Could I use the same logic that you used to argue that since the US Constitution was written to protect our liberty… therefore, Obama is actively protecting all of our liberties with each action?

         Isn’t there is an industry dedicated to spreading the wealth around, European style, at every opportunity… and isn’t that industry largely inspired, funded and staffed by the Democrat party, local and national?

         • You are laughably off base with your comparisons.

           The conversation I’m having is directly in response to IG’s comment that “there is no resemblance between most Local Elected Democrats and the National Democrat leadership.” And my response to that is that most elected local Democrats are opperating their offices according to the duties and responsibilities assigned by state constitution and state statute, as conservatively interpretted in accordance with conservative legistlation. And I’ll stick to that story.

           But you come back with crazy crap about Front Door Pride, which is a federal program administered by appointed officials, not elected local office holders. Besides, we now have Neighborhood Pride which replaces FDP, and like FDP also is federally funded, operates under guidelines not set down by state legislation, and administered by appointed department heads, not elected local office holders.

           And your argument that the Constitution’s sole purpose, as you apparently assign it, was to protect the rights of the People, when in fact the Constitution clearly defines both the rights of the People and the authority of the Government. The Constitution is a two-way street.

           Then you walk totally off the end of the Tea Party plank with your “industry of wealth redistribution” blather. What in hell has that got to do with elected local officials and their resemblence to national Democrat principles?

           I’ll give you that national Democrats, particularly Obama and the Senators, are totally in love with Wall Street, same as national Republicans are joined at the navel with Big Oil. But the redistribution of wealth has been from the working class to the top 1% of the richest Americans, thanks to both the national Democrats and their national Republican privateer twins. And that has next to no connection to elected local officeholders of either party other than ballot position during national elections.

         • Laughably off base?

           You might have a point, technically, in leadership… I’m pointing the conversation to look at results, as opposed to intentions, and I see none.

           Just like, technically, your FDP point indicates collusion between local state and fed. (Doesn’t really change the point that it’s not conservative, or responsible, at all.)

           I believe your conservative interpretation point, is a fantasy.

           That crazy crap is stuff has happened! Thanks, to our local elected Democrat juggernaut! Any twisted defense of it is laughable on it’s face.

           Durham, CVB booze fests, property tax credit theft in the dark of the night… Yea, it’s easy to say it’s all crazy. It’s also crazy to say it’s conservative (or a conservative interpretation) in any way!

           My only point about the obviously absurd example about the US constitution is that your conservative interpretation comment is fallacious. Get off that progressive plank & we might agree…

         • You’re speaking mainly of one Democrat city adminstration comprised of appointed department heads and board members carrying out the directives of the mayor, and not the majority of elected local Democrat office holders who administer their offices in a conservative manner independently of the mayor. And IG’s statement is true in this respect: Most local elected Democrat office holders are indistiguishable from their local elected Republican office holders with regard to national political philosophies.

           You just happen to enjoy ranting endlessly about Weinsapfel and his administration, which is like beating a dead horse. Get up off your knees and carry your whip over to the next stinking carcass.

         • Not really. It’s a critique of the philosophy, the actions and results, not the man.

           I’ve mentioned Durham, the old CVB members, too… Want to discuss Weaver & political firings?

           You need to read his comment again, he complains that they all have to “kowtow”?

           You aren’t arguing that they don’t “kowtow”, simply that there is no difference between parties.

           You started the line of distraction.

           I think what really might have turned you off was my comment, “My guess is a mayor Davis, would be consumed… by sneagle.

           I think discussions of party related comparisons sinks Davis. The individual politics are virtually the same, progressive chasing progressive. But the vote for a party is the contrast… you have one party that has metastasized the sneagle vs. the other, condoning the sneagle.”?

           Just my opinion.

       • “The elected office holders swear an oath to abide by those directives, regardless of party affiliation. ”

         While I have no dog in this discussion…..I have to point out that TODAY (in our world) swearing to a oath be it the office of the president of our country, or a law enforcement officer (and everything in-between) mean very little to the oath takers, I do believe it’s looked upon as part of a ceremony not really a oath of allegiance or a promise to uphold, just a formality to get the job.

         Again JMHO

         • blanger

           Your take on this is both true and scary.

           I sat thru numerous meetings of the Area Plan Commission, and the “petitioner” asking for a rezoning is asked if swear that “the testimony they are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God”. Yet case after case in Indiana has held that this oath is 99.9% NOTHING to work with locally in zoning.

           Neighbors are are told half-truths, mislead, and in some cases were just plain lied to during APC and BZA meetings. However, the only method an “injured” party would have (and in this I mean like the example of the neighbors who were told they were getting “luxury apartments” on Schutte Road, but instead we saw the erection of “student housing”) is the section of the law that states that the final approving body (City Council or County Commission) can remove the zoning change for misdeeds and misrepresentation, BUT ONLY if this is presented within 120 days of the original vote.

           Most neighbors never know they got screwed until well after that magic 120 days from the time that a land owner and his shyster stand up and tell us “the testimony they are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God”. After those 120 days it means ALL BETS ARE OFF!!!!! You have zoning allowing you to put up a 100 foot pool next to one of those ultra-bright Thortons with zero restrictions on lighting control. But you were PROMISED they would NOT put in a “gas station”. Well, the developer tells you, things changed, so I had to change my business model. I’m so sorry, but this is just what I have to do to survive. You do not have it in writing, you relied on the age-old “raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth, etc etc etc) as covering you. I mean, what horrific tale would have an attorney swearing that oath and allowing his client to swear that oath if they later up and change EVERYTHING they originally asked for

           • Great points. I guess it really comes down to what “luxury” means in Evansville. In the third world student housing American style is a luxury. Maybe Evansville does not have a standard for luxury thus one can call it anything they want. Please see today’s IS IT TRUE where we take on the headline regarding the use of the word “good” to describe failing performance.

5. A Liberal Democrat will tell you why your argument is wrong.
   A Conservative Republican will tell you why your argument is liberal.

Comments are closed.