Update: comments by original blogger who does not want his post to appear to attack Jon Costas. "And the thing is, I agree with all the positive things that have been said about Costas, and not a thing that I have posted says otherwise (despite how this post has been characterized at certain other places). Either he or Zoeller would make for an excellent attorney general. Personally, I lean toward Zoeller at the convention because he’s already there and has experience, but I’ll eagerly vote for either one of them in November (and do my utmost to help the party’s nominee after the convention). But it’s a simple matter of stubborn facts. Why are Costas’ supporters in Marion County resorting to strong-arm tactics and demanding such backwards and draconian measures as loyalty oaths? If Costas is a strong candidate (and I believe that they both are), such tactics should not be necessary.Moreover, from everything you folks have told me about his character (and I agree with you on it), he should want to have no part in “loyalty oaths” and other such nonsense." Scott at Hoosierpundit.
Cow here. It's been a while since I posted.
HoosierAccess had a NYT-worthy smear of Jon Costas's candidacy yesterday. I won't rehash what unnamed sources told them, but let me say this. I've known Jon Costas for a while. Jon has a reputation around here as a squeaky-clean campaigner, and it's well-deserved. Jon may be the only candidate ever to hand back a donation when the donor requested not to be listed on the CFA disclosure. In 1999, Jon ran such a clean campaign that many people thought he had no killer instinct--he wouldn't say anything bad about his opponent because the campaign's mission was to be positive and enhance the community. The rhetoric got sharper in 2003, but Jon still made a point of running a positive campaign. He never once went negative.
Jon's not running for AG out of personal ambition. He's not running for AG for the sake of finding another job and moving up the ladder. Maybe that's unusual for a politician, especially someone running for the post often called Aspiring Governor. Jon runs his campaign, he runs it clean, and he figures that if he loses, it's because people wanted someone else. Jon is one of few people who would rather lose honorably (as he did in 1999) than win dishonorably. This philosophy is unsual for a politician, but that's the big reason why Jon is a different Mayor and a different candidate. And that's why Mitch tapped him in the first place.
Second Update: You really should head to Hoosier Access to read not only the post but the flurry of comments on the same subject. Here
7 comments:
Well said Cow. I too have been a friend of Jon's for a decade and find him sincere and honest beyond the pale. Headed now to the original post you linked, with comments in tow.
Well said. I did a search for Costas in NWI Times and read a lot of great stuff. I also saw the smear at Hoosier Access this morning. He seems like a great guy.
Dan, and others, I highly recommend going to the original post at Hoosier Access. I think you have to go thru a login process to leave comments, which may take a few hours, but it's a good site and the pro Costas comments would be helpful
Let me weight in. I've know Jon awhile. I was on his 1999 & 2003 campaign committee for mayor and saw all that went on when his character and ideas got very personal. It took quite a level headed guy to take the high road, especially in 2003 when things got ugly. While I don’t believe Scott at HoosierAccess can or should debate Jon’s character, I don’t see why he thinks that an endorsement from the governor is ramming someone down the throats of delegates. Mitch could have endorsed anyone but I think he feels he chose someone that would balance the state as a whole. Jon’s track record speaks for itself…his greatest asset is listening to the people he represents. He’s done a fantastic job here in Valparaiso. Was the south under some false pretense? Were promises made and now that the governor has decided people are upset? I don’t know much about the Marion GOP environment but it would seem to me that a GOP chair who endorses a candidate would suggest that his or her people to do the same, isn’t this typical of a party? Keep in mind people have choices. Scott, seems that some sore grapes are coming to the surface.
Thanks cow, I have known Jon for about 7-8 years and I always enjoy listening to him. Jon is humble, honest,hardworking and has a servants heart toward public service. I am beyond confident that Jon would never violate the trust granted him as attorney general.
Chris - thanks much for your comment. It seems there are some niceties involved in the intricacies of campaigning downstate that we're not familiar with. I hope nobody believes Costas would deliberately violate any of these niceties, but if you didn't know Jon and read that HoosierPundit blog, you might think Jon was the devil candidate himself. Jon's an incredibly clean campaigner, and it's important that people who know him say so when the campaign is improperly accused of this sort of stuff.
(La vache qui rit)
To all of you that weighed in this afternoon, including the cow of course, let me say thanks. All too often a nice guy candidate like Jon Costas gets taken advantage of by the polorazing political types who have some axe to grind. In this case it would appear that some Republicans in Indianapolis thought that a guy who was Deputy was "owed" a job.
Republicans don't just choose the next guy in line, they choose the best candidate. Democrats just choose next in line.
Post a Comment