Thomas Cook, an adolescent undergraduate at Indiana University, has for some time now run an immature - but cute - website titled "Blue Indiana," which essentially regurgitates diatribes found on much better liberal websites like DailyKos or the Indiana Democrat party's blog. Lately Thomas has taken a keen interest in this website, but he has refused to link directly to Ellsworth Watch, presumably out of fear that his readers might find something to agree with on these pages. Thomas still apparently harbors fears of such linkage, but the DailyKos was willing to publish his rantings on one of its sub-pages so long as Thomas linked to us.

In his post the young undergrad repeats a long-held suspicion of his that we are somehow tied to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). While we certainly respect much of what the NRCC does and stands for, we do not, sadly, receive any financial support from them in any way, shape or form. We are simply a hodge-podge group of 8th district independents, Republicans, and Democrats interested in keeping Congressman Ellsworth accountable.

Then Thomas attempts to dissect a number of "claims" which he attributes to this website. Unfortunately for him, the "claims" were actually made by the NRCC on their "REAL Brad Ellsworth" website, not by us, and we feel no sense of urgency or obligation to defend the claims of others. In fact, not a single claim that Thomas addresses can be found on this website.

Indeed, we find it highly interesting that Thomas chose to select only the claims made by the NRCC which were not repeated here. He ignored, for instance, Ellsworth's vote in favor of a $6.5 billion tax hike which broke a pre-election pledge. He ignored Ellsworth's vote in favor of an appropriation's bill that included $29 billion in earmarked pork. And he ignored Ellsworth's blatant flip-flop on voting for a deadline on troop withdraw from Iraq.

When the young doe-eyed Thomas decides to address the real issues - and actually address what we said, not others - we might decide to take him seriously. Until then, we suggest Thomas focus more on his introductory political science classes. Finals are just around the corner.

In a surprising turn of events, Rep. Ellsworth has voted against the House version of the proposed national budget. The AP reports:

House Democrats pushed their budget blueprint to passage Thursday, promising a big surplus in five years by allowing tax cuts passed in President Bush's first term to expire.

The plan would award spending increases next year to the Pentagon and domestic programs but defers difficult decisions about unsustainable growth in federal benefit programs such as Medicare.

The 216-210 vote sets up negotiations with the Senate, which last week passed a budget blueprint with spending increases similar to the House plan. The Senate plan would not generate surpluses since it assumes lawmakers will renew the most popular of the tax cuts due to expire at the end of 2010.

Reps. Julia Carson, D-Ind., and Peter Visclosky, D-Ind., were the only Indiana congressional delegation members who voted to pass the bill.
Twelve Democrats, mostly from GOP-leaning states such as Indiana, opposed the budget plan.

The 216-210 roll call is available here. Kudos to Rep. Ellsworth for his first respectable vote of the session. Nevertheless, Ellsworth must still answer for his vote in favor of $6.5 billion in new taxes on American energy producers (a vote which broke a pre-election campaign promise) and $29 billion in earmarked pork spending.

In September of 2004, when John Kerry was seeking the office of President, he suggested that that George Bush would reinstitute a draft if reelected. Yet it was Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) of Kerry's own party that has been the draft's most ardent and outspoken advocate. Now comes Ellsworth's colleague Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, throwing his weight behind a draft as well.

Rep. Murtha donated $4,000 to Brad Ellsworth's campaign in 2006.

Since Rep. Brad Ellsworth's (D-IN) vote in favor of a $124 billion supplemental spending bill that included $29 billion in earmarked pork and $6.5 billion in new taxes (all done while breaking a pre-election pledge), the following news sources have covered these liberal stances, broken promises, and criticisms by the NRCC:

• The Howey Political Report
• The New York Times
• The Arizona Republic
• The Hill newspaper

The significant ramification's of Ellsworth's votes are enough to garner the attention of national and state-wide media outlets. Shockingly, though, the 8th district's main newspaper - the Evansville Courier & Press - has ignored each of these controversial moves. To the right is a clock detailing the elapsed time since Ellsworth's vote that it has taken the Courier & Press to cover the story. How long must the 8th district wait for their media outlets to cover the issues fairly?

The National Republican Comgressional Committee (NRCC) unleashed a torrent of attacks on newly minted representative Brad Ellsworth today. On a website titled "The REAL Brad Ellsworth," the NRCC notes a long list of broken campaign promises and radically liberal positions. Here are some highlights:

• On the campaign trail, Candidate Ellsworth signed the Americans for Tax Reform Taxpayer Protection Pledge, promising to oppose any and all efforts to increase taxes. Yet, "within the first 15 days of Democrat-control of Congress, he sided with his liberal leadership, voting for a $6.5 billion tax hike - the first tax increase in 13 years."
  
• In a stunning payback to Big Labor for delivering hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions and a Democrat victory on election day, Brad Ellsworth voted to strip away a worker's democratic right to a private union ballot.
  
• By voting for the Democrats' $124 billion supplemental spending bill, Ellsworth voted for legislation "stuffed full of pork," according to the Citizens Against Government Waste, which put the level of pork for 2006 at $29 billion.
  
• Ellsworth has voted with the liberal San Francisco Speaker Nancy Pelosi 95% of the time.

To date, Evansville's primary news publication, the Courier & Press, has not published a single article on the $29 billion in earmarked pork spending, the $6.5 billion tax increase, or Ellsworth breaking his pledge to oppose such tax hikes.

The Washington Times reports:

The federal agency that tracked pork-barrel spending during the 12 years of the Republican congressional majority has discontinued the practice since Democrats took power, riling lawmakers suspicious of the timing and concerned about the pace of fat being added to bills.

Previously Ellsworth said, "Members ought to be willing to put their names beside the earmarks they request, said Ellsworth. The public needs to see where their money is going and trust that it is being spent wisely." Since taking office, has he changed his tune?

Just barely into his tenure as a representative, Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) is coming under fire for a drastically more liberal voting record than was promised before the election. Republican spokesman Ken Spain notes the sad reality:

After masking themselves as agents of fiscal responsibility, many Democrats had their cover blown after last week's pork-stuffed supplemental proved to protect more peanuts and tropical fish than troops in the field and veterans at home. Now they mistakenly think they can get away with voting for the largest tax increase in American history. This is an assault on the pocketbooks of middle-class Americans that will not be allowed to go unnoticed in their districts back home.

Indeed it is. As we reported earlier, Ellsworth supported a budget package that includes over $20 billion in pork-spending projects, including things such as $25 million for California spinach farmers and $74 million for peanut storage, all money that could have gone to taxpayers or to the troops who so desperately need additional funding.

The new budget will also raise the taxes of more than 5 million individuals and families who previously owed no taxes. Prior to the election, a much different Ellsworth signed a pledge with Americans for Tax Reform promising not to vote to raise taxes. Voters of the 8th district now know the value of an Ellsworth pledge.

With today's article titled "Unions Ride Dem Wave" in The Hill newspaper, one has to imagine that big labor is finally getting rewarded for it's assistance during the 2006 mid-term election.

While union officials are in DC this week to "interview" prospective Presidential candidates, it is clearly indicated that labor takes credit for the Democrats success during the mid-term elections.

No kidding!

Maybe that is why H.R. 800, mis-labeled the "Employee Free Choice Act" was quickly passed by the U.S. House last month and is already making it's way through Senate Committee this week. Just for fun....check out the co-authors of H.R. 800...and then compare the labor contributions made in the last election cycle. Interesting.

Even so, small business groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are working to stop H.R. 800 in the Senate. This legislation would change the way union elections are conducted at worksites by eliminating a workers' ability to decide whether or not to join a union through a private ballot election.

Furthermore, the bill would bypass the private ballot election and instead allow a simple "card check" to represent the true intent of the employees....creating the problem of opening the process up to intimidation, threats and badgering.

Union leaders maintain that card check procedures are the most effective way to ascertain the wishes of a majority of employees. However, the federal courts disagree. The courts have repeatedly stated that secret ballot elections are the preferred method of determining whether a union has the support of a majority of employees.

I guess everyone benefited from the Democratic takeover in 06, except our employees...

The Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines "priority" as "the right to precede others in order, rank, privilege, etc." Typically, then, we think of a "priority" as one preceding all others. In cliche politician style, Ellsworth claims numerous issues are a "priority." And why not? When everything's a priority, everyone feels like their pet issue is getting special attention.

• "My number one priority is ensuring the federal government lives up to its promises by providing the equipment, weapons, and training these soldiers need to complete their missions safely." - Ellsworth on March 27, 2007
  
• "After the laughter had subsided, Ellsworth got serious. Dressed in an open-neck white button-down shirt and khaki pants, he said listening to constituents is his top priority." - C&P on February 21, 2007
  
• "With his signature, Ellsworth pledged to make health system reform a priority..." - C&P on January 22, 2007

All of these priorities have our heads spinning.

A Republican Caucus has put the recent Ellsworth-endorsed House budget into perspective:

The Democrat budget reported Wednesday proposes the largest tax increase in U.S. history – $392.5 billion over 5 years – mainly to finance immense new spending through 2012.

Moreover, "Ten of the budget's 12 'reserve funds' call for more than $115 billion in higher spending if offset with commensurate savings or - as is far more likely - higher taxes." To date, neither Mr. Ellsworth nor the Courier & Press have mentioned this massive tax increase, or the nearly $20 billion in pork spending. When will Mr. Ellsworth address this, and when will the media deem "the largest tax hike in history" a newsworthy story?

In yet another brazen display of willful spin, Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) has penned an op-ed piece in the Courier & Press attempting to explain his vote "supporting our troops and getting tougher on terrorism" (we have no word yet on whether Ellsworth also supports baby puppies and apple pie). Before the election Ellsworth said, "I'm against a drop-dead date of when to get out. I think that only would bolster the terrorists and those who are killing our soldiers and saying they ran us out and they won." Now, for reasons his column does not make clear, Mr. Ellsworth believes the exact opposite.

Of course, the biggest item in the resolution which Ellsworth voted for was a deadline and timetable for withdraw of troops from Iraq. Ellsworth, embarrassed and partially confused by the complex issues involved, avoided that detail entirely. Not one mention of the deadline or timetable can be found in his rambling, meandering column, just as any mention was conspicuously absent from his office's press release. The piece also failed to make any mention of $20 billion in pork spending for items such as a $25 million handout for California spinach farmers. When will Mr. Ellsworth come clean with the 8th district and address the real issues involved?

When Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) voted to set a timeline for troop withdraw in Iraq (discussed below), he did more than just show wish-washy inconsistency. Ellsworth also demonstrated a knack for spending billions on pork projects for districts other than his own. Among the whopping $20 billion in appropriations that have nothing to do with the war, the Ellsworth-endorsed appropriations bill earmarks the following:

• $25 million for California spinach farmers.
• $5 million for payments to "aquaculture operations and other persons in the U.S. engaged in the business of breeding, rearing, or transporting live fish."
• $80 million in tenant-based rental assistance for public and Indian housing under HUD.
• $120 million to the shrimp industry.
• $20 million for the cleanup and restoration of farmland damaged by freezing temperatures. (Just days earlier Congress held hearing on global warming.)
• $283 million to dairy farmers when milk prices fall below a certain rate.
• $74 million for peanut storage.
• $4 million for the Office of Women's Health at the Food and Drug Administration.
• $400 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
• $969 million for the Department of HHS to continue to prepare and respond to an avian flu pandemic.

There is no doubt that some - though certainly not all - of these pork projects are noble. Yet we have to wonder, if Ellsworth's wobbly vote was so critical to Democrats passing the "drop-dead date" Iraq bill, why wasn't funding for Interstate-69 included?

Throughout his campaign for Congress, Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) vowed not to set a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Shortly before the election on August 30, 2006, the Courier & Press reported, as it had numerous times before, "Ellsworth said he opposes setting a deadline for troop withdrawals from Iraq." Yet even under the thin veneer of confidence, Ellsworth never seemed quite sure of where he stood, what he believed, or even the issues involved. Two days ago the New York Times quoted a wobbly Ellsworth:

“There are a lot of things in there I’d like to vote for, but I’ve been against a drop-dead date,” Mr. Ellsworth said, adding that he had yet to make a final decision. “I know the danger of what people say is flip-flopping. People can change their mind based on new information — I’m not saying I have — but I’ve consistently been against setting a date.”

Sadly, when Ellsworth says he consistent, that actually means he's not. In a 218-212 vote which Ellsworth greatly influenced, the House of Representatives voted to set a deadline upon which troops must return home. Perhaps the only thing more disturbing than Ellsworth's blatant flip-flop was a rosy press release stating in bold caps that "Ellsworth Votes to Support Troops". Conspicuously absent from the press release was any mention of a deadline. Does Ellsworth not know where he stands? Or does he know but simply wishes to present one position to constituents before the election and a different one in Washington afterward? Either way, the result is a bad one for the constituents of the 8th district. We deserve better.

Update: Here's the Courier & Press article on the vote. In it reporter Tom Langhorne goes to great lengths to describe Ellsworth's gut-wrenching decision making process. (Ellsworth's predecessor had no trouble voting against the war - from the beginning.) It makes no mention of $20 billion in pork spending.

For the past several decades, citizens of Indiana's 8th congressional district have worked tirelessly to build the Interstate 69 extension from Evansville to Indianapolis. The last few Members of Congress from the 8th district made it a top priority and tried to secure federal funds for the estimated $2 billion project. Realizing the pot of federal highway money is diminishing, the state of Indiana took a dramatic step forward in 2006 by passing the Major Moves for Indiana transportation plan, which allocated $700 million for I-69.

As the state is searching for the remaining funds to pay for the project, Governor Daniels proposed building the Indiana Commerce Connector and using revenue from a private-public partnership for I-69.

Yet during the past 2 field hearings for this new proposal, a staffer from the State Democratic Party (who even identified himself as such) has circulated a petition against the only solution on the table (pdf) to pay for the rest of the I-69 project.

The interesting thing about it is that this staffer is being paid by the Democratic National Committee and is tasked with "grassroots outreach."

Question is....Does Congressman Ellsworth know about this political operative working against I-69 funding? If so, this is a blatant disregard for the wishes of his electorate!

According to a recent press release from the Indiana State Democratic Party, the Democratic National Committee has hired a political operative to "be responsible for grassroots outreach and organizing...."

Former Field Director for the 2006 Brad Ellsworth campaign, Chad Horrell, has joined the John Edwards for President Campaign as an "Iowa Regional Field Director." Prior to working for Ellsworth, Horrell worked in a tiny neighborhood district for Governor Tim Kaine's campaign in Virginia in 2005. Horrell also worked on the massively unsuccessful Jon Jennings campaign against former Rep. John Hostettler in 2004.

Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., joined Indiana's four other democratic house members to vote in favor of the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" which would overhaul 70 years of labor law and strip away employees' rights to federally supervised, secret ballots in union elections.

[The] proposed legislation is known as the "Employee Free Choice Act," which would require that all employers recognize a union when a majority of a company's employees sign union authorization cards in the presence of union organizers. This proposed legislation would eliminate secret ballot elections that had, since Congress created The National Labor Relations Board, ensured workers the ability to express their preferences in secret and without any coercion.

The final roll call in the House is here; the bill passed the House 241-185.

Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., last week introduced his first piece of legislation. "The Child Tax Relief Act" will double the child tax credit to $2,000 in the first year of a child's life, or in the first year after a child is adopted.

Gibson County Prosecutor Rob Krieg announced that he will not be a candidate for Indiana's 8th Congressional District seat in the 2008 election.