First, a tip of NAC’s hat to David Mann (News-Tribune), whose piece covering this same ground appeared in the Saturday, October 21 edition of the Tribune:
In a campaign in which U.S. Rep. Mike Sodrel, R-Ind., has spent more than $1.1 million fending off threats from the political left, a previously unforeseen hazard has been growing on the political right.
Mann beat us to it, and more thoroughly, but since the article already had been written …
It is obvious that the 9th District Congressional race is going to be a tight one. Only 1,500 votes separated loser Baron Hill (D) from winner Mike Sodrel (R) in 2004, and recent polls show the rematch too close to call.
Money is pouring into the district from afar, negative television ads make the daily case for moving to a civilized nation where such electoral shilling is banned, and the overall prognosis for coherent democracy is gloomy.
NAC previously has expressed its dismay with Hill’s centrist tendencies, our concurrent disgust with Sodrel’s Republican “values,” and our deep, dark depression and excessive misery over the complete lack of genuine choice inherent to the two-party system. There is no need to revisit these themes. They make us quite disillusioned already.
However, with the election only two weeks away, there is an urgent need to examine the election prospectus from a tactical standpoint. In short, it’s time for the unaffiliated to decide for whom to vote so as to induce the least guilt and self-loathing.
Bear in mind, the author has yet to formulate an answer to these questions. Readers, please assist by contributing your comments.
Is it possible for Libertarian challenger Eric Schansberg to muster enough support to influence the outcome?
If so, which major party candidate stands to be hurt the most by votes cast for Schansberg?
Will these votes be coming from likely Hill voters, or likely Sodrel voters?
Speaking personally, it’s the logic of the Great Emancipator, paraphrased and updated for modern times, during which the Republicans have come to embrace the “logic” of the Old South and a Seymour-based Democrat seems determined to offend us as deeply as his Republican opponent by means of a headlong rush to the right side of the divide:
“If I could vote for Hill to beat Sodrel I would do it and if I could vote for Schansberg to beat Sodrel I would do it and if I could leave all of them alone and skip the election to beat Sodrel I would do that. The thing is to beat Sodrel.”
Can a vote for Schansberg help beat Sodrel?
Or, are we best to grit our teeth, swig vigorously from the bottle of bonded previously secreted to circumvent the election-day ban on alcohol, and scratch the oval for Hill?
From the Sunday edition of the Courier-Journal (apparently not archived on line) comes this closing citation, courtesy of James R. Carroll’s “Notes from Washington” column. It is taken from Esquire magazine’s current list of political endorsements:
Indiana District 9
Mike Sodrel (R)
Baron Hill (D)
Mike Sodrel is spending more time talking about his problems with the Democrats than about his own achievements. That’s an argument for his opponent in itself, but suggesting that a vote for Hill—a conservative Democrat and former congressman—is a vote for “San Francisco” betrays his (Sodrel’s) stupidity and utter lack of distinction.
Esquire endorses: Hill.
In fact, the assocation of “San Francisco” with “Baron Hill” is the best reason yet to vote for Hill, isn’t it?