Pet Peeve: Cyclists, Joggers, and Canines

It's been pretty quiet since the primary election was held (and even THAT was pretty quiet), so I'd thought I'd take time to rant and rave about a pet peeve of mine.

I try to get out and ride my bike a few times a week, and lately I've fallen back into love with the Monon Trail. It's a short distance from where I start my bike ride downtown, and the distance between Broad Ripple and downtown is almost the perfect distance for me to stop and rest for a bit. And on top of that, the southern portion of the Monon is really not used all that often, so I get to set my own pace until I get into the Broad Ripple area.

But once I get into the Broad Ripple area, I see groups of other Trail users as well. And one group that sticks out is the joggers and bikers who are with their dogs.

This irritates me because, I believe, it isn't responsible pet ownership.

Don't get me wrong, our canine friends need exercise. They love going for walks and playing fetch and chasing squirrels and all that jazz. But their bodies aren't built like ours. Most dogs can't go for several miles at the same pace of a person on a bicycle or a jogger. They'll wear out quickly.

With cycling, I think it's also a bit dangerous for the owner of the dog as well. The dog won't be able to make room for other people who might want to pass the dog and the owner. This could be a recipe for disaster, or at least irritation from fellow users of the Monon. And heaven forbid if the dog sees a squirrel or rabbit or cat, and the owner loses control.

So fellow canine owners, exercise some responsibility when you're out with your dogs. You've got to set the pace of the walk, but it has to be a pace that the dog can handle, and it really should be a walk unless you're only jogging a short distance.

What say you all?

Election Predictions???

So what are your thoughts on the elections being held today?

From media reports I heard earlier in the morning, the townships holding school related referendums are having a higher turnout. I know I got a few e-mails from local Tea Party groups promoting action specifically because of these referendums. One of the e-mails pointed out that people can go and vote only for the public question without having to also vote in a partisan primary.

In the race between Ron Gibson, Melina Kennedy, and Sam Carson for the spot to compete with Mayor Greg Ballard in the fall for Mayor of Indianapolis, I think Kennedy is going to win with 65% of the vote. Ron Gibson and Sam Carson will split the rest of it evenly. I might give Gibson a few more points just because his campaign seems a bit more credible than Carson's. Carson has clearly never run for public office before, and it shows every time I hear him speak.

Kennedy: 65%
Gibson: 20%
Carson: 15%

There are very few contested primaries in the council districts, so I believe the slate for both the county Dems and the GOP will easily win. The same can be said of the At-Large GOP candidates as well. Even though the new GOP At-Large candidates lack any type of name recognition, the non-slated challenger is considered a joke in Indianapolis politics. Sure, her name recognition might be high, but it's high for the wrong reasons.

The Democrats' At-Large slated candidates benefit from a very strong slate. However, I think Leroy Robinson is a bit of a weak link. I don't think his bio matches up against the other slated candidates Zach Adamson, John Barth, and incumbent Joanne Sanders, or even that of the unslated Pat Andrews. I've also heard complaints from local Democrats that support for Robinson isn't as solid as it is for the others. Adamson and Barth have been campaigning since 2010 and have earned the trust of local Democrats, whereas support for Robinson seems to mainly come from being a slated candidate rather than any actual earned trust. If Sherron Franklin or Andrews make it through the primary, it'll likely be because Robinson does not.

My final prediction is that Adamson, Andrews, Barth, and Sanders make it through the primary on the D side. Then the county Democrats will have to sit down and decide what to do with an unslated candidate making it through the primary. Will they brush her off, much like the county GOP did to Barbara Malone back in 2007? Or will they support her like uh...well, I can't think of an unslated candidate in recent memory actually receiving party support in the general election.

What are your thoughts? Your predictions?

Go Vote??? Meh.

Tomorrow, the municipal primaries for the county Dems and county GOP will be held. Normally, on election day, I encourage people to go vote. But this isn't quite an election. It's party business.

On top of it being party business, a good chunk of the nominees are pretty much already determined. Most of the City-County Council districts won't face a primary challenger, and a handful might not even face a challenger in the general election outside of a third party or write-in candidate.

So what will you see tomorrow, if you go to the polls? You can take a sneak peak at a ballot by going to Indiana Voters and type in some information to locate your ballot.

A couple of townships are also having referendums as well. Those are printed on a separate ballot, so if you live in a section of town that is having a referendum, you'll need to ask specifically for that ballot, regardless of if you do or don't partake in a partisan primary election.

Best of luck to all the candidates tomorrow. Then the real fun begins.

Indianapolis Bar to Abdul: Put Up or Shut Up!

Local pundit, talk radio show host, and licensed Illinois attorney Abdul Hakim-Shabazz has been on the attack, printing every possible rumor he can dig up on county and state Democrats. In his latest post on this topic, he focuses on conflict between the head of the state party and the county party. But he also throws in a bit about Judge Lou Rosenburg, who is the judge hearing one of several cases relating to Secretary of State Charlie White. Shabazz alleges that Rosenberg has been meeting with various Democratic party officials asking what he should do in the White case, which could be serious judicial misconduct.

Earlier today, the Indianapolis Bar Association released this statement responding to Shabazz's claim, basically refuting Shabazz. The best defense against libel and slander is evidence. The question is, does the talk radio host have it and does he have the cajones to present it to the proper authorities?

County Dems Should Send Coleman a Fruit Basket!

If the Marion County Democrats haven't thanked a certain At-Large City-County Councilman, they should!

Edward Coleman (LP-At Large) has chosen to run for re-election within the district he resides, district 24, rather than run a campaign throughout the entire county. Like most of Marion County's southside, the area is a reliable place for Republicans to get votes. This usually means Democrats don't even bother fielding candidates in council races, just as the Marion County GOP doesn't field candidates in Democrat leaning areas of Pike and Center townships..

District 24 is currently represented by Jack Sandlin, who was appointed to the City-County Council in 2010 to fill a vacancy.

But why is this good for the Democrats? They don't even have a candidate in the field, and likely won't run one.

True, but until now, whoever won the primary in that district would win the general election as well. That is no longer the case. The county GOP will have to spend time, effort, and money in what would normally be a safe district. This will detract from time, money, and effort that could be used to campaign in the handful of competitive districts, the At-Large races, and the mayoral race.

And to the detractors that say that there aren't nearly enough Libertarians to vote for Coleman in that district, I counter that if there's any group that could screw this up, it's the bunch that is currently in charge of the county GOP. If the powers-that-be don't think a candidate is worth supporting, that candidate, no matter how good or qualified, could fall. Carlos May and Michael Jezierski were both slated by the county GOP in their respective 2010 and 2007 primaries, but lost to unslated candidates. In 2007, most of the At-Large GOP candidates were told to fend for themselves, with only Kent Smith getting any significant backing from the party. Smith even appeared in a number of commercials Greg Ballard aired in 2007, though the YouTube account featuring those commercials has since been closed.

So Ed Treacy and Adam Kirsch, have you thanked Mr. Coleman yet? I've heard fruit makes a good basket. Or Easter candy is really cheap.

Guest Post: Medicaid Waivers

As per usual during the ending days of the General Assembly, a bunch of amendments are thrown into the budget (HR 1001) to see what sticks. One of these proposed amendments, Section 139, will change how Medicaid waivers work so that parental income will be a factor when children apply for one.

The following was sent to several members of the state legislature by my mother, Nancy Stone. She works for About Special Kids, a not-for-profit that assists families navigate the mazes that our state and federal government often make families with special needs children go through before they get any type of assistance.

My father, Gordon Gilmer, a long time Indianapolis city-county councilman and I testified many years ago to bring Medicaid Waivers to our state so that children with disabilities would have the support they need to live at home with their families. He witnessed first-hand how devastating serious medical or developmental disability can be to a family, as my son was born with a condition that requires he sleep with a life-supporting ventilator. Lost wages, bankruptcy, parental under or unemployment, inability to pursue other employment (because of insurance), staggering medical debt and divorce are just some of the scenarios middle class, hard-working families face when their child---through no fault of their own, is born with a serious medical or developmental disability. Medicaid Waivers are reserved for the “sickest of the sick”---one must be nursing or group home eligible to qualify for a waiver! I was fortunate that my son never required a Medicaid waiver---but my family learned of those in our state who absolutely NEED these services to survive. Yes, times are tough, but there are other ways to economize without sacrificing Hoosier families. I could support some changes in Medicaid waivers, but the elimination of the parental income disregard is a deal-breaker.

Medicaid Waivers provide a parental income disregard so that hard working, middle class families don’t have to live in poverty to get the medical care and services the child needs to reach their potential. Private insurance does NOT cover, or fully cover, many items and services. HB 1001 would eliminate the parental disregard of income for children under age 19—please strike this wording from the bill and support our tax-paying fellow Hoosier families!

I feel this portion of the bill is short-sighted, and could actually cost the state MORE money in the long run, as some families will be forced to institutionalize their children. My father--a Lincoln Republican, would be disappointed.

Sam Carson Can't Be Serious?!?!?!?!!?

Apparently, there's a candidate forum at the Pike Township Government Center. Several candidates from both sides of the isle are present, including Samuel Carson Jr. Carson is the son of the late Julia Carson, and the uncle of Congressman André Carson.

I've listened to Sam Carson a few times when I hear him on the radio. And if you aren't listening to hard, he talks a good game.

However, Carson is trying to make his name as an outsider, but he seems to be an outsider that desperately wants to be an insider.

At the Pike Township forum, he name dropped former Marion County Sheriff Frank Anderson saying he'd like to put him in charge of the Department of Public Safety. He went on to say he'd want Robert Turner as his Chief of Staff. Turner was the Director of Public Safety for several years, and was appointed to the Airport Board Authority as well.

He then says former Mayor Bart Peterson is a "Democrat on paper".

Bashing Peterson (which, for the record, I'm a fan of) but then appointing two public officials who worked closely with Peterson? It sounds like this guy is trying to have it both ways.

At least my county Dem friends won't have to listen to this nonsense after the primary.