Thursday, July 26, 2007

Indiana Nightclub Association endorses five Libertarian City Council candidates

INCA was so understandable upset with the city council that the following LPAC candidates were endorsed:
Byron Peters, 1st District
Jon Bartels, 2nd District
Robert Fuller, 5th District
Doug Horner, At Large
William Larsen, At Large

Notably, Michael Vaugn wanted to endorse my opponent, Glen Hines. But because he abstained from the vote on the smoking ordinance and because I was sitting right there, the INCAns decided not to endorse any candidate for the 6th District. It seems appropriate that since Hines was neither for nor against the ban, INCA was neither for nor against Hines.

32 comments:

Kevin said...

Actually, the councilman's name is Glynn Hines.

Tyronne Law said...

Mr. Hines street name is "Glen" down here on the Southside.

Jeff Pruitt said...

Glynn did propose an amendment to exempt bars. Tom Hayhurst also supported Didier's amendment that would've grandfathered existing businesses in under what was then the current law.

Anonymous said...

In the ultimate bit of irony, Mr. Vaughn has just greatly assisted his biggest adversary, John Crawford, with his re-election efforts.

I think its great that there are third party candidates, however, lets face it, the vegas odds of a libertarian at large candidate with no name recognition winning THIS year would have to be the same as me winning American Idol 7.

So, by slating the libertarian candidates it will take votes directly away from others who may be more likely to unseat John C.

Another smooth move my Mr. Vauhgn.

Sam T.

Jennifer Jeffrey, Chair LPAC said...

I disagree with you Sam.. I still do.

Mr. Larsen is a well known name, as is Mr. Horner. Mr. Larsen has been a candidate before and Mr. Horner is a figure in the community and the host of a long running TV show called Libertarian Perspective.

This year the Libertarians will make history and a definitive positive effect on the election process.

This was a decision by the Libertarains to run, not any other association. We have been here and will be here long before and after paid lobbyists.

Anonymous said...

I've got to agree with Sam. While I'm really happy and excited for the Libertarian party, and I think they should be proud of fielding such a full slate of good candidates, Mr. Vaughn is a poor strategist if his desire is to impact the smoking ordinance.

I'm a novice at these things, but it seems to me the three biggest targets would/should be Crawford, Pape and Talarico, in that order. Accomplish a change in all of those, and you may have sent a message in addition to removing three big ordinance proponents.

Sam has helped by taking a break for family.

The easiest way to get Crawford out is to go with the two that already beat him: Brown and Bender. My third would be Shoaff- I think he is strong with a lot of crossover support from Republicans.

I'd put a lot of effort behind Buskirk, who has an uphill battle against Pape. But Buskirk has name recognition (much through his wife) and there are a lot of smokers and small bars/taverns in the district. I suspect the district also has a fair amount of Harrison Square fatigue. I wouldn't predict an upset, but much more likely than Vaughn's approach.

And, I would have stayed out of the mayoral race since both candidates have shown a willingness to amend to exempt bars and the 21+ crowd.

Vaughn works for the adult entertainment trade group. He claimed that Henry is in the corner of the strip clubs (which I doubt is remotely close to anything Tom would have said). Frankly, I think the guy is using the bars to target Kelty, who suggested reconsidering the number, location, etc of strip clubs, and doesn't care much about any issue other than protecting strip clubs.

Whatever Vaughn's agenda, he's doing a poor job for the bars and taverns that just want an exemption from the smoking ordinance.

M Garvin

Anonymous said...

By the way Sam, I think you've got a good look for a nightclub "crooner." Give American Idol a shot.

Garvin

Angry White Boy said...

I agree Mark, Sam could do covers of Lucio Battisti :)

Anonymous said...

"Mr. Horner is a figure in the community and the host of a long running TV show called Libertarian Perspective."

HAHAHA. How many people watch that show? Maybe 20?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that no Libertarian candidate will receive more than 7% of the vote.

adam said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Mark and AWB, I am a little old for american idol and I have no voice. However, I do have the grey hair of Taylor Hicks and the waste line of Ruben Studdard so I may be in the mix.

Jennifer, I applaud your hard work and you do have a good group of candidates, but Bill Larsen would have likely come in 6th in the GOP primary let alone win the General as a 3rd party candidate. Although, his single platform DUMP SOCIAL SECURITY initiative should play very well with the 80% of voters that are 65 and over.

I would guess that Bill Larsen's name recognition is less than 3% and Horner's would be less than 1%. I bet Bender and Crawford have name recognition of 80% plus. That is hard to overcome in a at-large election which, more than any other race, is about name recognition.

I hope the tavern owners are not paying Vaughn for his services because Karl Rove he is not.

Sam T.

Robert Enders said...

I'm not worried about name recognition. With the way property taxes are going up, it will be possible to win by being "the other guy."

Anon 11:39am: Why don't you go on a limb and use your real name?

Anonymous said...

PS MARK GARVIN,

I Was surprised my your order of targets on the smoking ban (Crawford, Pape, Talarico). Nobody has fought any longer for smoking restrictions than Schmidt who I believe proposed a ban before Crawford was even on council. And, John Shoaff is a much more outspoken advocate than me and ditto for Dr. Hayhurst.

Are you sure you are not letting your anti-harrison square feelings cloud your judgment?

Sam

Anonymous said...

Mr. Enders,

They have a phrase to describe somebody who dismisses the importance of name recognition in a city council district race...... the phrase is "Third Place"

Robert Enders said...

Sam
Crawford is a target because if he does poorly in the at-Large race, it could be contrued as an anti-smoking ban mandate among Republican and conservative voters. While other councilmen have pushed a smoking ban in the past, Crawford now appears to be the figurehead of the anti-smoking movement in this town. Both papers kept printing his picture in the paper whenever there was a story related to the ordinance. It is now his name and face that people identify with the ban.

Anonymous said...

Bob,

You picked up on the wrong point. I pbviously understand why Crawford is #1, I was just teasing Mark about how I had become #3?

Sam

Anonymous said...

Mr. Enders,

You received 342 votes in 2006.

Roach would get more votes than that.

Anonymous said...

Damn it Sam, I think you are right. Don't know if it is my Harrison Square bias or my desire to look smart that got in the way.

I liked putting you on the list because you've taken yourself off for the future, but you don't desrve the #3 spot. It's probably Schmidt, and Karen Goldner is working hard for his seat. Still tough to call an upset there, though. Hayhurst was open to exemptions.

Sorry to have dumped you into the "axis of nannyism." You didn't deserve it.

BTW, if the ACME BAR goes under (not saying they will, but I know they are hurting), this issue will pick up a little momentum. The ACME is a bit of an institution, sort of like Reigel's, for whom an exemption was made.

Again, my apologies, but I stand by the crooner comment. You've got Vegas written all over you.

mark

Robert Enders said...

Anonymous 12:42
Crawford came in third in the primary.

Anonymous 1:06
I got 4%. I was running in a year when people were more anti-GOP than they were pro-anything else, in a yellow dog Democrat district with low turnout to boot. But 2006 was a year in which LPAC was still growing and still learning. My campaign could have been considered a test campaign.
Roach can't even get nominated, let alone receive votes in a general election.

Anonymous said...

I have to score the Enders/Anonymous bout in favor of Enders, under the well-establihed "first to invoke 'Roach' loses" rule.

m garvin

Kevin said...

Mark-

"First to invoke 'Roach' rule"....

funny....damn funny!

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised that you received only 4% of the vote. I thought "give me liberty or give me cancer" was such a catchy slogan, it would have bumped you up to at least 5%.

Kody Tinnel said...

Why are so many of the people that have nothing but anti-thrid party comments posting as anonymous?

Yes, it will be an uphill battle for Libertarians in the upcoming election. But that shouldn't stop anyone who feels strongly about any issue.

And if name recognition is what really matters in elections then this country is in worse shape than I thought.

Robert Enders said...

Anon 2:28,
I didn't come up with that slogan until after the '06 election. Maybe it will help this year though. We'll run it past our focus group. Jen, what did you think of it?

Tim Zank said...

Robert, have you begun to regret your decision to allow anonymous comments yet?

Jeff Pruitt said...

Let's get back to the gist of Sam's post - Mikeal Vaughn is a disaster.

If I were a candidate or bar owner I would get as far away from that guy as possible. It's certianly no advantage to have him and the INCA endorse you - in fact it will likely hurt you in the long run.

Anyone that thinks otherwise should just listen to the guy speak for 5 min...

Jennifer Jeffrey, Chair LPAC said...

Sigh.. heavy sigh...

Parson said...

They had that Vaughn guy on 92.3 the Fort a few nights ago talking about the smoking ban, he wasn't very impressive.

Doug H. Sec, Lib Pty AC said...

To All,

There is a lot of talk about odds.

I truly hope that those who are betting against us are the same folks that bet against Kelty v/s Peters.

That does give me some degree of comfort.

Respectfully,

Doug Horner

Robert Enders said...

Tim,
The advantages of allowing the comments outweigh the disadvatages. Sometimes one person has a valid point. Sam T. is fun to talk to. And I think that the trolls get bored after a while and head over to the porn sites.

I like sparring with this particular Anonymous. It's like arm westling with a kindergartener.

Tim Zank said...

Robert, good analogy.

"It's like arm westling with a kindergartener." LOL

ROACH said...

So now I have become the local version of Harry Potters Nemesis, Lord Voldemort?
"you know who?"
He who's name shall not be spoken?
giga-giggles!
and I am a 1 name icon- "Roach".
hmmm. prince, madonna, paris, nixon,
ok. i'm amused.
But the matter at hand.
I mentioned in another post, that no money= no credibility. unless the "Libbys" can raise some serious cash- 250,000 or more from the INCAS- who are seriously conected to some major LIRA's, Capiche? then they will be the party of perennial gadflys.
I tried the no money, just votes, and look where it got me. realistically speaking.
try these endorsements on for size.

http://x-wire.blogspot.com/2007/07/fort-wayne-city-elections-endorsements.html

The libertairna Party will have the best chance, as do most conventional wisdom, in finding a sacrificial lamb, to run in unopposed races- the city 4th district- pitting a fiscal conservative/social liberal Libby Vs. a local tax-and spend, and take away your rights GOP'er.

All the candidates have good points, and bad points, and I guess the blogs will be the only places where we the willing will get to discuss them, and highlight, and display their platforms, and ruminate over the races.
unlike our local vapid tabloid rag- the JG. giggle!
I'm waiting for the so-called "mainstream media to pick up on this. They are still stuck in the mentality- that whomever can buy a full-page ad in the sunday edition before the nov election is the winner.
thank you.
you may call me "Karl Roach", the local "Architect"