The lines of our Congressional District have seemed to change every couple of years, even though our house has not moved since we bought it in 1995. Some of those years Dan Burton represented “our” District in Congress. Some years Andy Jacobs, jr., then Julia Carson, then Andre Carson was our U.S. Representative.
   No matter how much I disliked Dan Burton, I was unable to criticize him for the clarity of his positions on issues or his general political philosophy. The “political philosophy” largely was self-aggrandizement. His positions on issues tracked the far-right. He was a burr under the saddle of the Republican establishment, but won the seat every time. I could cuss his name because I knew how he would vote on matters.
   A term came into political campaign vogue a few years ago—“transparency.” Media folks like to change ways in which we describe aspects of our political system. In this context, “transparent” means “open, frank, or candid.” The American College Dictionary, 1962 ed., p. 1288. “Transparency” means “the property or quality of being transparent.”  Id. Another word for “transparency” is “honesty.”
   I disagree far more often than I agree with positions the incumbent, Republican Susan Brooks, has taken. She opposes the Affordable Care Act—“Obamacare”—while I think it is a necessary step toward single-payer. However, she voted to end the shutdown of the Federal government and also opposed U.S. military intervention in Syria. I disagree on even more of the positions taken by one of her opponents in the Republican primary, David Stockdale.
   I can say why I oppose the positions these candidates have taken because the candidates have been “open, frank, or candid” about those positions. The voters are entitled to know what candidates’ positions are.
   If a candidate ran for office saying, “I want whatever handouts I can obtain—legally—from special interest groups and all the perks of Federal employment,” I would cringe at the notion of such a person taking office, at the same time as I applauded her or him for being “open, frank, or candid.” After all, if our politicians are going to be corrupt, it would be refreshing to have one of them be open and honest about it.
   David Ford, a candidate in the May 6 Democratic Party for 5th Congressional District, has refused to answer specific questions about his political beliefs and philosophy.
   Again, 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. As I wrote yesterday, one might disagree with JD Ford’s stand on issues, but he is forthright about his stand on the issues.
   Because David Ford has dodged questions about his beliefs, defaults to “that’s a question for the States, not the Federal government,” and has refused to say he embraces the principles of the “tea party” that shut down the Federal government at a cost of $24 billion, I have inferred he, indeed embraces those principles, such as they are.
   Every election is important. The November, 2014, election is very important. We should know candidates’ views on specific issues as well as their political philosophy. There is no litmus test for running as a candidate for the Democratic Party for Congress. There is a greater difference in identifiable issues between the Democratic Party and the Republican today. The Democratic Party lost the “Solid South,” pushed forward the Civil Rights Act, and watched as Richard Nixon and the GOP pursued the “Southern strategy” of trying to attract disaffected Southern voters who had voted, in 1968, for George Wallace.
   Here are questions for David Ford. These questions seek answers that indicate the candidate’s views on Federal authority and on issues many people believe properly are within the purview of the United States Congress. They seek answers that would tend to provide us glimpse of the candidate’s political identity. I pose the questions to obtain  “yes/no” answers, but if the candidate wishes, the candidate may expand on the answer:
    1) Is authority of the Environmental Protection Agency constitutionally conferred on that agency?
    2) Is the Federal government the appropriate entity to regulate water and air pollution?
    3) Should the Federal government regulate the banking industry?
    4) Do you embrace principles of the “tea party”—and, if there is a specific “tea party” organization the principles of which are more consistent with your views or would more clearly define those views, please say what that organization is?
    5) Is the Federal government empowered to provide tax “breaks” or incentives to people whose incomes are in the top one percentile?
    6) Should the Federal government provide tax “breaks” or incentives to people whose incomes are in the top one percentile?
    7) Would you vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act?
    8) Do individual States have “rights”?  If so, where do you find a basis, in the United States Constitution, for such a claim?
    9) Should Social Security be transformed into a privatized system of some type?
    10) Should there be an ideological difference between the two major political parties?
    11) If your answer to question 10 was “yes,” is the ideological foundation of the Democratic Party one that people would describe as more progressive than that of the Republican Party?
    12)  If you are elected to Congress, and you believe so strongly that we need to rid ourselves of national debt, will you forego at least half of your income to help reduce that debt?
   These are my questions for candidate David Ford. One should take note I do not ask him with which political party he has voted in the past. I also do not ask him if he will promise to vote for at least one-half of the Democratic Party candidates in the general election in November.
   So, David Ford should get out a Number Two pencil and let me know his beliefs/positions. I doubt that he will. He is a so-called “stealth” candidate, one who is attempting to obtain the nomination of the Democratic Party when, in reality, his beliefs run counter to the majority of the Democratic Party voters in Indiana’s 5th Congressional District, people who might not agree on everything, but at least probably, nearly all, agree the candidates should be “transparent.”
  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.