Special Interest?

I am sure you have all heard about and are sick of hearing about the New York Times story alleging a sexual relationship between Senator John McCain and a Washington lobbyist. Of Course, this story has been discredited as a shotty piece of journalism allowed by a left-wing editor and meant to derail the McCain campaign. However, I take issue with the negative connotation attached to the word "lobbyist".

Now, I am not denying that when you get lobbyists together with legislators there is an increased risk of scandal. This is not to mention that for other legislative employees lobbyists can be quite annoying. I experience this first hand trying to push my way through the mob of lobbyists in the hallway at the Indiana Statehouse every day. But lobbyists are not evil people. Sure, I have only experienced them in action at the state level, but I know two Washington lobbyists, even call one of them ( a former lobbyist for the health insurance industry) my mentor.

The truth is that the legislative process would not work without lobbyists or "special interest groups". Legislators know a little bit about a lot of issues, but they typically do not know a whole lot about one single issue. This is where the lobbyists come in. It is a lobbyist's job to be extremely educated on certain issues (generally pertaining to the group they are lobbying for). These lobbyists then share their knowledge with legislators who then are either moved to introduce legislation or decide for themselves how to vote on a certain piece of legislation. Believe it or not, by lobbying for a special interest group, lobbyists are lobbying for you!

Key point: Without lobbyists we would have weak and possibly damaging legislation. So, let's not be too hard on our friends the lobbyists!

Jon Elrod's Conservatism

Today in the Indianapolis Star there was an article which talked about some republicans having a problem with what they called Jon Elrod's own brand of conservatism. This is simply not true. The Indy Star just WANTS Republicans to be concerned about Jon Elrod's loyalty to party issues. The Star based their assumption on the fact that Representative Elrod has refused to vote in favor of an amendment to the Indiana Constitution that would define marriage as between one man and one woman. This shouldn't even be an issue in the U.S. Congressional race considering most Republicans agree that the issue of gay marriage should be left up to the state governments. Besides, Indiana already has a laws banning gay marriage, this is just a formality. It is a formality I support of course, but it is no reason to disregard Jon Elrod calling him a questionable conservative. Jon Elrod holds all of the traditional beliefs a conservative should. He is for small government, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility and, among many other things, he is pro-life! Besides his politics, he is a man of great character and integrity. I have the privilege of seeing him almost everyday. I know that he has the experience to get the job done for those in Indiana's 7th district in Washington.

7th District

If elected, Andre Carson would be Indiana's first Muslim representative and only the 2nd Muslim Congressman in U.S. history. It is not THAT Andre is Muslim it is that he attends an Islamic center that has its roots in black separatism. Trust me, I am not attacking Muslims in general here, though I do think we need to be cautious in the post-9/11 world. In fact, I take more of an issue with Carson's inexperience than I do with his faith or EVEN his politics. I would like to note however, that Andre Carson has ties with Louis Farrakhan who is radical, often referred to as one of America's number one anti-Semites and a man who is famously know for referring to Caucasians as "white devils". Just something to think about.