IBJNews

Anti-incumbent wave unlikely to swamp ‘lucky’ Burton

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

U.S. Rep. Dan Burton lives a charmed life.

So says state Democratic Chairman Dan Parker of the 14-term Republican from the 5th Congressional District.

“Congressman Burton is obviously a very lucky person,” Parker said. “He lucked out in 2008, because so many people participated in the Democratic presidential primary and Dr. [John] McGoff came up just short.”

McGoff, who challenged Burton for the Republican nomination that year, had hoped to entice Democrats to take Republican primary ballots and vote for him in one of the most heavily Republican districts in the country. Until, that is, Indiana’s vote in the Democratic presidential primary mattered for the first time in decades, prompting Democrats to take their own party’s ballot to choose between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

“And in 2010,” Parker said, “by having all these folks run, he was lucky again to have them split that vote up.”

Parker was talking about the most recent Republican primary, when six challengers—perhaps inspired by McGoff’s near-miss—split the anti-Burton vote. Burton garnered only 30 percent of the votes, but he still won.

Said Parker: “I think he should probably go to Vegas.”

Not quite yet. First there is Election Day, when Burton is expected to win his 15th term despite what some say is an anti-incumbent sentiment sweeping the nation. As luck would have it, Burton faces three challengers whose views vary little from his own, including a weak Democratic challenger who was disowned by the Democratic Party after defeating the endorsed candidate in the primary.

Two other candidates—a Libertarian and an independent—also have entered the fray, ensuring that the anti-Burton vote again will be divided, likely giving the incumbent the win and leaving a portion of central Indiana with a congressman who commands a deep loyalty from some constituents but embarrasses others.

Burton, 72, is running such a low-key campaign that his blog has not been updated since May, he attends few events, and his campaign’s phone is answered by a machine that does not say what number has been reached. The campaign did not respond to requests for an interview.

District 5 covers all or part of 11 counties, starting south of Shelbyville, looping through the southern, eastern and northern suburbs of Indianapolis and shooting north almost to Fort Wayne.

Though some analysts say this will be a Republican year, Parker said Burton may have been ripe for picking off by a strong challenger. But the Democrats’ chance for that withered in the primary when their endorsed candidate, oncologist Nasser Hanna, was defeated by Tim Crawford, a former Republican and a self-styled tea partier.

Hanna acknowledged that he held back some of his ample financing in preparation for the fall campaign and thus was not as well known among voters as he needed to be.

“The one disappointment that I have,” he said, “is that I thought that the voters in District 5 deserve to have a choice, somebody who would at least provide a perspective that would be different from the sort of anti-government rhetoric that comes from Mr. Burton and, to a greater extent, the Libertarian Party. ... Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat or an independent, the public deserves to hear the point of view of different people to decide who would be a better representative of them. If they’re only hearing one viewpoint, I think it doesn’t serve us very well.”

Burton’s challengers in Tuesday’s election say they offer an alternative.

Crawford, 29, reserves more criticism for the party under whose mantle he is running, but said, “I just think, with all the people saying ‘Vote the bums out’ and ‘The tree of liberty needs to be refreshed,’” that Burton is vulnerable.

“Sure he’s got experience, but you can’t teach an old dog new tricks,” Crawford said. Burton’s positions are “somewhat similar to mine” but “the thing is, can you trust him to follow that?”

Crawford, who works part time as a construction job estimator, favors a return to the gold standard and supports the so-called Fair Tax on consumption, which is championed by some congressional Republicans to replace existing federal taxes. He credits his interest in government on his involvement in the church, saying, “God’s law has given me a lot of insight into why our law is the way it is.”

Libertarian Chard Reid, 28, said that he “represent[s] Hoosier values the most accurately and the principles of small government a lot more than congressman Burton and obviously more than Tim Crawford. … Congressman Burton has a real history of being considered a conservative voter, but the truth is he’s been in office for 28 years and he has voted for every budget deficit the Republicans have had, and that’s almost all of them. That’s not a conservative voting record.”

Reid, a Plainfield High School economics teacher and a Republican until two years ago, features on his website Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity: “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

That applies both to Burton and the larger picture, he said. “Every election cycle it seems like Americans feel like they have two choices. And they always believe that things are going to get better, and they never get better.”

He calls for a 36-percent cut in spending over four years as the only way to eliminate the federal deficit. “Republicans are very hypocritical in the sense that they say they want balanced budgets and they say that they want to keep the Bush tax cuts, that they don’t want taxes to go up. However, they still want government services, and you can’t have all three. And the truth of the matter is, if you want a balanced budget and you want to keep taxes low. … The only way to get that is through austerity.”

Reid and the independent candidate, Jesse Trueblood, both say they would caucus with Republicans if elected. Trueblood, 54, a seventh-grade social studies teacher in Carmel, said he is a conservative who has voted both Republican and Democratic in the past. He hopes his call for America’s energy independence will resonate with members of both parties Tuesday. As a lifelong teacher, he also hopes to focus on education if elected.

Trueblood has raised less than $1,000; Reid, $16,000; and Crawford, nothing (he said he tells prospective donors to give to charity). Burton recently reported raising $1.1 million through Oct. 13; he has spent $1.2 million—most in the primary—and has about $210,000 on hand.

Despite the disparity in fundraising and thus the ability to get their messages out, each of the challengers thinks his pebble could strike Goliath squarely on the forehead.

“I understand how difficult it is for people to leave the party, to take that leap of faith and go for an independent or even for the Libertarian,” Trueblood said. “It’s kind of uncharted territory. And you hear the argument all the time, ‘Oh, it’s a wasted vote if you vote for the other guy.’ Vote your conscience.

“That’s what I’ve encouraged people to do. If you truly think it will make a difference by sending me as a messenger to the parties that we do have options, then even if I don’t win you’ve sent a message and ultimately that’s what one vote does.”

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Dennis has a good point.
    Runoffs are good for everyone. Anytime you have an election with more than two candidates, you need a runoff election to narrow the contest to the two strongest candidates.

    So, Dennis, I would ask, why limit runoffs to primaries alone? I think our general elections should also have a runoff to weed out the third party spoilers (who may or may not get funding from one of the two big parties in order to divide and conquer the strongest opponent).
  • Runoff Elections
    A better election could be had on 11/2/10 if Indiana had a runoff election built into the primary election. Then we would likely have Luke Messer as the GOP candidate. Burton got 30% of the voter and Messer got 28%. How can we get change the primary to have a built in runoff election?
  • Why would anyone vote for Burton-Opps!
    I am thinking of Coats!
  • Glad when it's over.
    Trueblood is just trying to help Burton get elected. He knows he isn't going to get statewide support to get himself elected so he's going after his twenty minutes of fame as a spoiler; evidenced by his lack of fundraising.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. liek the rest of America

  2. These quaint,obsessed musings by the stalkers are certainly entertaining, but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, all the yelping below has to do with Zak Brown.

  3. It's evident that Moffett was pushing the right buttons and corporate America is now trying to squash him. He just wanted to withdraw the free pilot services provided to the company by the pilots to try and put some pressure on a company that has not been interested in negotiating a contract in over 5 years. The company does not provide a contract because not having one has saved them a bundle of money. Shame on any Republic pilots not standing behind their union leader just because things are getting tough, can you not see such strategic moves by the company as putting the last union president in a corporate position and into THEIR pocket. Do you really believe the last union president is so appalled at the attempts by Moffett, do you not remember his oppositions to the company? We stood behind him. It has been proven over and over again for thousands of years without fail, a man cannot serve two masters. Anyone that believes people vote contrary to their paycheck and livelihood deserve to be taken advantage of, the recent statements by the former union president are laughable as he denounces the current union president from his new corporate position. Have you ever seen a drafted sports player score points for his previous team, it cannot be done, he is not on the pilots side anymore, he gets his money a different way now than you and I do, and he should not be allowed to remain on the seniority list. A drafted player brings strength, credibility, tactical knowledge, and a strategic advantage to his NEW team, he would not be drafted or paid were it otherwise. We are all forced to choose only one side to play for and support, not doing so has many references in life such as insider trading and shaving points, all illegal for good reason. This basic fact is why corporate moguls, scientist, and engineers all sign non-discloser agreements and non-compete clauses, as protection in case they are lured into switching sides as our former union president has done. No NFL coach ever drafted a player so that both teams could benefit and better understand each other, they are recruited to win the game against that former team, period. Likewise the company does not recruit the former union president by accident or mutual understanding, its strategy. Don't confuse playing the game with good sportsman-like conduct in support of common business and prosperity goals, with the requirement to only play for one side. Good men we all love and favor fall subject to this manipulation, often without their knowledge, and it is not a betrayal of their friendship to oppose them when they switch sides. If we did not love and trust them, they would not have been chosen and lured to the other side in the first place. The deception by the drafted player is not made at a conscious level, it's just human nature and it's all about money and power which corrupts our ability to be objective and loyal to two masters. This is why our court system created the defense attorney, and why our military created counter intelligence. Its strategy and its propaganda, and it works, and that's why the "powers to be" manipulate the chess pieces by sometimes changing their colors. Some players know they are being manipulated when their color is changed, but it brings them more money and power so they do not care. The rest have good intentions but do not even realize they are being manipulated. This tactic is also known by another name, Divide and Conquer. In battle sending an imperfect message with an imperfect team is obviously not ideal, but it's still being sent by YOUR team, your union leader, a leader that has common goals and common rewards with you, they are the best, because we have elected them to do a job for us. If you are not backing Moffett but believing the spin by those that have recently switched sides, you are taking food out of your own mouth. Showing unity and backing an imperfect situation still results in taking just as much ground, it's about unity and bargaining power. It's not necessary to wait around for that perfect attack because it will never come, the company will spin and attempt to destroy anyone that gets in their way. Ultimately it's not about any specific attack anyway, ASAP or whatever it makes no difference, it is and always has been only about power. If this company cared about safety it would not build pairings with 8 hour overnights, come on, are you that naive? Besides, do you really think Hoffa cares, no, he got a call from corporate America and was squeezed into denouncing Moffett. If he didn't they would spin the safety card against him and the Teamsters National with implication for truckers, future contracts, insurance rates etc...saying something like the Teamsters use safety as a bargaining chip, blah blah blah... Do you really think any pilot is going to do something unsafe for the contract, absolutely not, the only ones threatening safety here is the company with reduced rest, fatigue, and poverty. Do you not find it odd that Hoffa and the Teamsters are opposing a Teamster president publicly? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and work with one of their own? Why did they not sit down and help him strategize, correct any mistakes, and charge ahead? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and leverage a contract for all those pilots that have been paying Teamster dues, isn't that why we have all been paying Teamster dues in the first place? I sure haven't been paying dues so that the Teamsters National could come along and write this kind of an article undercutting our union leader and our unity. Whose side is the Teamsters National really on, it's obviously not the Republic pilots side.

  4. No matter what Moffatt does the company is going to spin it like he is the terrorist and brainwash people like you into believing it, wake up, back your players that are trying to change things for you and your livelihood. Where has Hoffa been for the last 6 years, except collecting our dues. Seriously, do you really think an FO going for upgrade, signed off by a checkairman ready for the upgrade, who then fails, is not even capable of returning as a First Officer.

  5. whoa!

ADVERTISEMENT