IBJOpinion

PILLIE: GOP should put more energy into tech

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

PillieWe’re about to leave one unique facet of Indiana politics and enter another.

While once every four years we go through a year free of any political elections save the random caucus or ballot initiative, every 12 years we have an election with no presidential, gubernatorial or senatorial candidates on the ballot.

The last time this event rolled around, in 2002, it was the race for secretary of state that launched Todd Rokita’s political career and a step in the checkered path of Richard Mourdock’s political ambition.

In 2014, the focus again seems to be settling on a single race—ironically, to replace the term-limited Mourdock as state treasurer.

The main lines of this contest are already being drawn, well in advance of the May convention that will decide the Republican nominee for this contest. Marion Mayor Wayne Seybold, former candidate for nominations to Congress; Don Bates, who ran for U.S. Senate; and Office of the Treasurer employee Kelly Mitchell are all actively running for the position.

In a recent article in National Journal titled “Stopping the New Todd Akins,” Alex Roarty suggested that Republican officials are wringing their hands over the prospect of advancing candidates like the Missouri congressman who suggested women could prevent pregnancy from occurring as a result of rape.

Indiana’s own Mourdock created a similar situation in Indiana’s last election cycle, preventing him from prevailing in what had been a close race and receiving the blame from many quarters for underwhelming results for the statewide Republican ticket.

Republicans are divided. They want to run a national brand focused on issues they feel appeal across party lines: that President Obama has overstepped his authority; that the federal government has too much control over our lives; that government-sponsored or -administered programs are by their very nature challenged to deliver services in a manner Americans are used to receiving.

Republican Party officials worry that socially conservative candidates may slip up or otherwise jeopardize this opportunity to make significant gains at the national and state levels.

So should Indiana Republicans be worried? Do elections with no marquee campaign open up the possibility of “dangerous” candidates gaining a higher position than they’d normally attain?

Party leadership is far too worried from the top down about the quality of our candidates. There are far more pressing issues.

We have candidates over-performing in recent elections in no small measure due to the widespread dissatisfaction with President Obama’s signature health care program and how it has been implemented.

What Republicans haven’t had is an organization focused on delivering the resources candidates need to win elections. If they would focus resources on issues that can help all candidates—like technology, infrastructure and data aggregation—Republicans might win some of these close elections.

Candidate recruitment is by and large a local concern. County and state chairmen need to have the flexibility to focus their efforts on recruiting quality candidates, not fending off national reporters asking them to comment about quotes from party strategists and consultants who know what it takes to win.

There will be candidates who say stupid things that will cost them elections. No amount of planning and strategizing will prevent that from happening.•

__________

Pillie is managing editor of the conservative blog Hoosier Access and a former congressional aide in Washington, D.C., and Indiana. Send comments on this column to ibjedit@ibj.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT