David Ford, a candidate in the May 6 Democratic Party for 5th Congressional District, in which Rep. Susan Brooks (Republican) is the incumbent, has refused to answer specific questions about his political beliefs and philosophy.
   I use David Ford’s full name so as not to confuse anyone with JD Ford, a progressive Democratic Party candidate in the 29th State Senate District. That district overlaps the 5th Congressional District in an area that comprises roughly eighteen percent (18%) of the votes in the 5th. One might disagree with JD Ford’s stand on issues, but he is forthright about his stand on the issues.
   David Ford has dodged questions.
   I am not the only person to ask if David Ford adheres to principles of the “tea party.” On the Face Book page for “David Ford for Congress,” three other people posted questions or comments. On April 25, Don Cliff Wiseman wrote that he initially had supported Ford but, after having read the Anderson newspaper about David Ford, realized David Ford was “more Brooks than Democrat,” and advises David Ford he will vote for Rep. Brooks should David Ford win the primary.  Mr. Wiseman identifies himself as Legislative Assistant for the local chapter of AARP. I infer that chapter is in Anderson.
   Greg Purvis is a Democratic Party candidate for Fishers City Council. On April 29 he wrote: “Why won’t you answer questions about policy and your Tea Party beliefs?  I have asked you directly twice, and you dodge everything.”
   I could find no responses from David Ford to these posts. A person who identifies himself as a member of a chapter of AARP would seem to be a potential constituent whose questions should be answered. Greg Purvis is a fellow Democrat who could assist in gathering votes. 
   On April 7, Jean Paul Olmsted, who states as one of his qualifications as holding an MA in political science from the University of Colorado, gives David Ford general advice about running an uphill battle against Republicans. David Ford did not thank Mr. Olmsted for his advice. If David Ford had done so, he would have implicitly acknowledged he embraces “animal lovers and foodies.” This is in contrast to the NRA and evangelical Christians, which and whom Mr. Olmsted casts in a negative light, but for which and whom the “tea party” generally shows support.
   With a few exceptions—one of which was Paul Ogden’s blog that missed the point of what I have written—responses from people other than David Ford to my blogs about David Ford’s at-best duplicitous candidacy have been, in the words of one person, “overwhelming.” I have been thanked for bringing to light someone who seeks the nomination of the Democratic Party when he embraces views that he refuses to acknowledge.
   Others have waged such campaigns. A Lyndon LaRouche supported gained nomination for state-wide office in Illinois in the 1980s. More recently, Bobby Hidalgo was nominated to run against Dan Burton here in Indiana. The Comedy Channel had a field day with the latter.
   David Ford apparently cannot refute the points I have raised. If he says he does not agree with the “tea party,” he will alienate his real voter base and simultaneously lie.
   More importantly, if David Ford says, “I agree with the ‘tea party,’” he will see a backlash. A lot of people are disgusted with the antics of the “tea party.”
   The point I consistently have made is David Ford has not answered questions about his position on issues or his political philosophy. Voters have a right to know such information so they can cast an informed vote.
   Since David Ford’s vague platform points and his public appearances before “tea party” groups indicate he embraces the “tea party,” I believe his decision to remain silent in regard to the questions Greg Purvis, most concisely, and I have raised reasonably leads to an inference David Ford embraces the “tea party.” One has the right to remain silent, under Federal and Indiana state law, but in the context of custodial interrogation by law enforcement officers. A political candidate who remains silent in the face of such accusations as those made against David Ford certainly may remain silent—but at the risk of validating those accusations.
   There are two other candidates in the Democratic Party for 5th Congressional District. After Saturday’s debate, I shook their hands and told them it would be an honor for me to say either of them is my Congressperson.  Allen Ray Davidson and Shawn Denney are straightforward about their positions.
   David Stockdale seeks the Republican nomination in the primary against incumbent Susan Brooks. I have said before: I might disagree with Mr. Stockdale on most issues, but at least he states his positions. David Ford, instead, has chosen to weasel out of direct answers.
   I apologize. I should not have written the word “weasel” in regard to David Ford. First, weasels are nifty little creatures that are playful and intelligent. Second, “weasel” was used several times, as I recall, in the televisions series “M*A*S*H” to describe Frank Burns. I think the fictional Dr. Frank Burns was more straightforward than David Ford.
   This is an off-year election. Voter turnout is important. If you live in the 5th Congressional District—vote!     
   Saturday we shall cover the Indianapolis 500 Festival Mini-Marathon. I shall limp in from the course. Guests include Greg Bowes, who will be interviewed by Matt Stone. Kimann Schultz will provide us with her take on “Fashion News and Muse.” Brandon will report on sports. And Mayor mallard will continue to advance corruption on the unsuspecting residents of Marionville, Indiana.. Join us from 11 am to 1 pm.