Email address
Powered by: MessageBot

No Opinions? No Problem | Main | Ridiculous item of the day

February 03, 2006

Indiana's 'bloody 8th'

On Tuesday I penned a minor post about the Hostettler/Ellsworth race and the dynamics involved. But an anonymous commenter noted that Ellsworth's daughter, age 19, publicly flaunts her underage drinking in pictures online (all of which have since been removed). I passed the post on to the C&P, noting the comments which followed. But contrary to what the article implies I did not search for the photos or seek them out. The links to the photos were left as an anonymous comment following that column. The very public pictures were left as a very public comment from someone else.

In the final analysis I think far too much has been made of the issue. I suspect - and hope - that this news becomes a footnote. Public illegal actions of a Sheriff's family might arguably raise concerns about law enforcement's blind justice, but in a congressional campaign they matter much less than the issues and ideas. Those are the factors that should ultimately determine votes.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at February 3, 2006 12:00 AM

Comments

Of course, I see that you didn't report Maggie Daniels' underage drinking to the Indianapolis Star.

Now, while your argument about law enforcement officers and judges all makes sense, as the Governor is the most powerful person in the state and the arbiter of what laws are passed into existence, that makes him an officer of the law in a sense that's difficult to deny, I believe. I mean, how is it right for it to be legal for Maggie Daniels to drink at 19 (or 20)?

If you're going to stick up for what you believe to be right, I think you've got another phone call to make. Or - dare I say it - were you just using this to cover up for the fact that you want to get a zing in on the Democrats (who've been embarassing Republicans for years with the Bush twins' antics) without ticking off former and future bosses?

Posted by: Nick Blesch at February 2, 2006 09:19 PM | permalink

Ouch.

greg, in "I only squealed because it was the right thing to do" mode

Posted by: Gregory Travis at February 2, 2006 09:43 PM | permalink

Ouch, indeed. I consider Josh a friend (so in retrospect, I hope you aren't offended or really mad at me, Josh, for saying what I did the way I did) - but I stand by the content of my comment, even if it was rather snarkier that I really meant it to be.

Posted by: Nick Blesch at February 2, 2006 10:09 PM | permalink

Oh I understand Nick, no worries. But you write, "Of course, I see that you didn't report Maggie Daniels' underage drinking to the Indianapolis Star." Frankly, unless you can see my sent mail folder, this comment is baseless.

Posted by: Joshua Claybourn at February 2, 2006 10:13 PM | permalink

Guilty as charged; I don't have any Amazing X-10 SpyCams peering over your shoulder.

But did you?

Posted by: Nick Blesch at February 2, 2006 10:54 PM | permalink

Oh, come on. I'm a libertarian, and even I think that the sheriff/governor's daughter publicly flaunting the law is something that ought to be addressed.

I'm not saying that it makes the sheriff/governor a bad person, and I'm certainly not saying that anyone deserves to be elected (or not) based on the actions of their progeny, but regardless of that, it's not very professional to have those pictures up where the public can see them.

Lots of companies these days scan Facebook/MySpace/Xanga/etc and google the heck out of prospective employees to see what they can learn, and it might be easier for them to learn not to post pics of illegal things now (when it doesn't really matter) than later (when they don't get hired because the company doesn't want a "Beer Chick").

Posted by: Nick Blesch at February 3, 2006 02:59 AM | permalink

Joshua, you offer an opinion about where to draw the line on such outing, and you support it with your rationale. Seems quite valid to me.

My question is, if someone else disagreed and thought the line you draw is improperly placed and should be moved in one direction (more family revelations) or the other (fewer revelations), how would you react to that? What if this someone else were a newspaper reporter? Or an editor? Or a publisher?

If I have a beef, it is with the certainty with which you draw the line. I know it makes you superior and me merely a typically conflicted and muddled progressive to say that I do not think this line is as easily drawn as you make it seem.

Would you excoriate a publisher who sat on this story?

Could your share some of that unyielding certainty, please? If you are unwilling to do so, I do think that Nick's final question is relevant and one you should answer.

Posted by: Nash at February 3, 2006 11:04 AM | permalink

Want to waste 15 minutes of your life reading how nasty the Courier & Press readership is? Go over to the C&P website and read the comment board on the Ellsworth article. some real vile stuff over there. Makes david's non sequitur above seem like love poetry.

Posted by: Adam Packer at February 3, 2006 02:09 PM | permalink

Sometimes the only thing a concerned citizen can do is pick on teenage girls.

Posted by: Doug at February 3, 2006 08:02 PM | permalink

Sleaze...

Posted by: Anonymous at February 3, 2006 11:41 PM | permalink

So Josh just a couple of questions to start, at what age did you learn to play sink the Bismark?
Your not the only one who can use the facebook to make good people look bad. We know you have political ambitions, but is this what you want to be remembered for?...

Posted by: Anon at February 4, 2006 01:53 AM | permalink

She flouted the law, and got caught while her sheriff father was trying to look all tough and electable. The liberal press had to cover this, as they covered Barb and Jenna Bush the "best" they could. Did you know the last violation was because the restaurant owner, an Austin Democrat, ratted on them? Tough luck, the sheriff forgot the main lesson: Democrats are not above the law.

Posted by: S at February 4, 2006 02:14 AM | permalink

You mean his daughter drank? When she was 19? The horror! I bet she has also been caught driving 35 in a 30! Obviously this proves that Brad Ellsworth is unfit for office. I mean, his daughter drank before she was 21! That puts her in the same camp as--let's estimate here--94% of all adults between 18 and 21! How dare she?

Posted by: Jeff Fecke at February 4, 2006 03:22 PM | permalink

Next you're going to tell me that Ellsworth's daughter ran a stop sign & killed her ex-boyfriend, or was arrested for drunk driving in Maine, or called out her father for a 'mano a (fe)mano', or signed up to become a pilot in the National Guard & then accumulated a 'rather spotty' record in fulfilling that duty, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

All this while her father tries to 'look all tough & electable'.

Maybe if he switches parties, all this will become a non-issue.

Posted by: sidewinder at February 4, 2006 05:33 PM | permalink

Sidewinder vented:
"Next you're going to tell me that Ellsworth's daughter ran a stop sign & killed her ex-boyfriend, or was arrested for drunk driving in Maine, or called out her father for a 'mano a (fe)mano', or signed up to become a pilot in the National Guard & then accumulated a 'rather spotty' record in fulfilling that duty, etc, etc, ad nauseum."

What partisan special pleading. All of this past stuff has been covered by the media, and even used as personal attacks and arguments against re-electing Bush. Ellsworth was merely kept to the same standard as Republicans. What's the big deal? Josh did the right thing, and so did the C&P. Then again, as we have seen yet again (this time, with the sexual harassment charges made aginst members of the Bloomington Kruzan administration), Democrats insist they are above the law or scrutiny, and any newspaper that says otherwise is EVIL and REPUBLICAN.

Posted by: S at February 4, 2006 11:25 PM | permalink

This using family members as fodder is only legit if there's some evidence that the candidate has stepped in improperly.

Generally speaking, I'd say if it's not news when the kid next door does it, it's not news when a politician's kid does it, absent parental involvement.

Posted by: UNcle Fester at February 5, 2006 10:30 AM | permalink

You know, maybe this is just evidence that the drinking age is laughably high.

The real point of regulating the ingestion of any substance is that it is supposed to prevent abuse. If this is the point of the drinking age, what evidence is there that it achieves this end?

I know there is a strong lobby out there who is against alcohol ingestion of all forms. Is it possible that the high drinking age actually contributes to more drinking behaviour than it removes? Would any legislature even care if it did?

Posted by: Dave S. at February 5, 2006 05:08 PM | permalink

Boy do they have your number on the blogs now. Boo hoo, I just had to do it! If you have pic of her father giving her beer, that is news worthy. I don't know anyone under 21 who hasn't done something "illegal" from alcohol to drugs or other reckless behavior. Isn't it funny she could join the military and be sent to Iraq but it's illegal for her to drink a beer? On the other hand, you, sir, are a Cad.

By the way, did you post about Noelle Bush being caught with crack cocaine at her drug rehab after her arrest for prescription fraud, or Jeb!'s youngest getting arrested for public intoxication and assault on a law enforcement officer, (or any of the other sexcapades of the Bush kids)? I'll bet not.

Posted by: Terry at February 5, 2006 05:21 PM | permalink

I don't know anyone under 21 who hasn't done something "illegal" from alcohol to drugs or other reckless behavior.

Sure, practially everyone has had a beer or two (or two hundred) before they turned 21... But not everyone is - forgive me - dumb enough to publicly post pictures of themselves engaging in the act.

Posted by: Nick Blesch at February 5, 2006 05:42 PM | permalink

"By the way, did you post about Noelle Bush being caught with crack cocaine at her drug rehab after her arrest for prescription fraud, or Jeb!'s youngest getting arrested for public intoxication and assault on a law enforcement officer, (or any of the other sexcapades of the Bush kids)?"

No, but you and other commies did. Over and over.

Looks like Karma came calling.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 5, 2006 11:30 PM | permalink

"This using family members as fodder is only legit if there's some evidence that the candidate has stepped in improperly."

Ummmm, no, in case you haven't been FOLLOWING Bloomington news, underage drinking is a big problem at Indiana University. AND I think ANYONE who posts pictures of themselves engaged in breaking the law is inviting the media, don't you?

Posted by: Yo Fool at February 5, 2006 11:39 PM | permalink

Really. I read plenty about it in mainstream newspapers. I know some people like to complain that newspapers don't cover all issues, but that's a bogus complaint. The real issue is that they don't cover issues and scandals in the way you want -- heavily skewed towards one view or another. So give me a break and cut the crap.

Posted by: RiShawn Biddle at February 6, 2006 11:10 AM | permalink

I see the left-wing trolls are having a fit. With apologies to Han Solo, Josh must've hit pretty close to the mark to get them all riled up like this.

Here's how I see it. If Ellsworth has arrested anyone for underage drinking during his tenure as sheriff (and I'd say there's a very high likelihood of that, with IU in his jurisdiction), he's guilty of hypocrisy if he overlooks his daughter's illegal actions. Period.

Should this matter during the congressional campaign? Maybe, but a lot less than if Ellsworth were running for sheriff again.

All this whining from the left about Republicans' family members' misdeeds is rather juvenile. Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, Governor and President Bush aren't directly responsible for enforcing the law, so the analogies are strained at best.

Posted by: Eric Seymour at February 6, 2006 11:14 AM | permalink

As usual, there are two sets of rules...one set for wingnuts who make excuses when they get caught or confronted and love to smear anyone left of the middle. The second set of rules are the ones set by the wingnuts strictly for the left of middle.

You are a number of years behind the times. There hasn't been a "liberal" media in a decade. That's just a pathetic excuse by neocons to pooh-poohed their behavior when they get caught. If there really was a "liberal" media, Bush wouldn't be the Resident in the Whore House. The media was unbelievably kind to him...the draft dodger who jumped a two-year waiting list with daddy's help (or those who wanted to curry favor with daddy), tested in the bottom 25th percentile, played with jets, then decided he didn't want to take a physical when he found out he'd have to give a urine test. If that wasn't bad enough, he just disappeared for quite a while, then lied about a job offer he had in Boston so he could get his early out. Oh, there was no job offer in Boston and he never went there. He simply wanted to get out early so he could go curry some favor of his own. Bush = cocaine and a DUI, while Cheney had 3 DUI's. And you flakes made a big stink about Clinton experimenting with marijuana? Being the same age as Clinton, I can tell you everyone experimented with it...it wasn't then and isn't now a big deal.

You wingnuts need to spend more time policing yourselves since this government is corrupt. You folks thought nothing of smearing Kerry, yet did I miss you ranting about the ring-wing press?

I could go on and on, but why bother. You will still have an excuse for anything and everything. Your mantra should be, "Do as I say, not as I do."

Posted by: DiamondBack at February 6, 2006 07:50 PM | permalink

If I had a dollar everytime someone mentioned the Bush twins, or Mitch Daniels' daughter I'd be so rich right now. People on here like to milk points for all they're worth.

Also, someone on here mentioned acquiring pictures or video of Josh, my brother, engaging in illegal activity. They even mentioned paying for the video. To me that is just sickening. Who in their right mind would think that is the correct choice of action to rectify the situation? I think not, my friends.


Posted by: Cole at February 6, 2006 08:27 PM | permalink

I think ANYONE who posts pictures of themselves engaged in breaking the law is inviting the media, don't you?

Posted by: Anonymous at February 6, 2006 08:54 PM | permalink

Post a comment




Remember Me?





(you may use HTML tags for style)

 
---- ADVERTISEMENTS ----
Windows Server Hosting
ASP Database Scripts
Linux Program
Online Billing
Discount Sales

Blogads
Congressional Deskbook 2005-2007
Thecomprehensive guide to Congress.

"Valuable insight. Required reading."
Bill LaForge, Winstead

"Indispensable teaching tool."
Sarah Binder, George Washington Univ.

"An essential resource."
Thomas Mann, Brookings


From TheCapitol.Net


Powered by
Movable Type 3.11

Site Meter