WHERE IN THE WORLD IS MARLIN (AND HIS MONEY)?

Rumor has it that the powers that be have advised Stutzman to lay low because he has the election “in the bag.”  Maybe that’s why Stutzman makes half-hearted appearances at functions and leaves before they conclude.   Or why he has yet to make his positions public after indicating that things were “coming together.”

Stutzman has made few appearances throughout the district – could it be because the Republican higher-ups have told him to keep his mouth shut lest he put his foot in it?   And where is his money?  Of course, the old standbys are evident – Popp and Freeland.   But little else is showing up as of today’s date.  The filing deadline was September 30th, so maybe we will see some donations somewhere.

His little “please choose me” caucus party at the Tin Caps cost $1944.00, but other than that there has been little action to date on expenditures.   Now, do I believe for one second that his money sources are not there?  Absolutely not.  What is interesting – and I am not an expert at reading these FEC reports – is that Stutzman is still showing as receiving money through his expired Senate campaign committee.

I was under the impression that the Senate primary determined that Mr. Stutzman was no longer in the Senate race since he had been upended by the carpetbagger from North Carolina, Dan Coats.  Yet, a 115-page report was filed on July 15, 2010, under the reference  SOIN00095, which appears to be a Senate designation.

The voters are being deprived of a real house race by Stutzman’s absence.  He mostly appears at functions where he is well insulated by supportive crowds.  He continues to mislead in his responses to legitimate questions – for example, how was he forced to take the farm subsidies when intentional applications must be made to receive them?

Of course, the traditionally red-dominated Third District certainly enables him to assume a “tsk, tsk, I have it made” attitude followed by his decision to conduct his campaign in abstentia.

On the other hand, Dr. Hayhurst has consistently been touring the Third District, answering questions and facing full-on the residents of this district.  Why?  One simple distinction.  Dr. Hayhurst and his wife believe in this district and want the best for its residents.  Stutzman grew up in Michigan, and he lives in Howe with most of his farming operation located in Michigan – not Indiana.

And, as to Stutzman’s  latest endorsement from the NRA?  Apparently, the NRA believes it is more acceptable to pay lip service to the protection of our rights and to sit back and vote for gun rights secured by the Second Amendment rather than actually serve your country and understand what it means to help serve and protect.

Dr. Hayhurst voluntarily served during the Vietnam War era as a Major in the Air Force  – certainly distinguishes him from Stutzman’s non-service even though Stutzman certainly could have chosen to volunteer as Dr. Hayhurst chose to do to protect this country.

So, I guess I will ask again – where is Marlin and his money, and what is he up to?  The  old saying has it that hiding is the coward’s way out.

About these ads

About Charlotte A. Weybright

I own a home in the historical West Central Neighborhood of Fort Wayne, Indiana. I have four grown sons and nine grandchildren - four grandsons and five granddaughters. I love to work on my home, and I enjoy crafts of all types. But, most of all, I enjoy being involved in political and community issues.
This entry was posted in Congress, Democrats, Government, Marlin Stutzman, Third District and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to WHERE IN THE WORLD IS MARLIN (AND HIS MONEY)?

  1. Laurie says:

    OMG What a wonderful and TRUTHFUL article. I think this should be submitted to all papers in the 3rd distrct as a guest editorial.
    People need to know the truth about this man. Too many people are blindly following the Republican Party with no idea who they are voting for. We’ve been embarrassed all these years with Souder representing us. We can’t have another embarrassment. Dr. Hayhurst is SO bright, genuine and concerned about this district. He deserves this position. Stutzman doesn’t.

  2. Laurie:

    Thanks for your comments. Dr. Hayhurst certainly is the right choice for this district. I truly believe that the Republicans have been handed a line and, apparently, do not really know – or worse yet, care – for whom they support.

    Stutzman’s absence in campaigning leaves Republicans with little to no info about his plans, positions, or goals.

  3. Charlotte,

    I find your post to be pretty funny.

    I am a military veteran myself and I have to admit that I often vote for veterans myself. I respect the fact that Mr. Hayhurst served in our military; it is a point in his favor in my mind.

    Do you understand what the NRA stands for? The NRA supports candidates who they think will pass laws that protect our second amendment rights. The NRA feels that Mr. Stutzman will protect our Second Amendment rights better than Mr. Hayhurst and that is likely why they endorsed Mr. Stutzman.

    I will definately be voting for Mr. Stutzman in the upcoming race. He has a conservative record in the Indiana Seante; more importantly, he will help give the Republicans the majority they need to replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Speaker Pelosi has damaged this country badly by expanding Government and driving up Federal spending. The new Demcoratic health care policy she pushed through Congress has ensured that the Demcorats are going to be soundly defeated in a couple of weeks.

    The Democrats should be defeated in November…

    Mike

  4. Mike:

    I would assume the humor you found in my post was due to the issue of the NRA since you didn’t address the issue of Marlin’s whereabouts and his funding.

    Yes, I do understand what the NRA represents. It is a one-issue group which focuses on the Second Amendment. I believe the NRA has made an unwise choice in that Dr. Hayhurst is also a supporter of the Second Amendment and has a gun permit and weapon himself. He is a conservative Democrat who would support the Second Amendment just as strongly as Stutzman.

    I assume that the NRA’s only reason can’t be party affiliation since they just endorsed Ellsworth over Coats.

    • Cara says:

      I believe Dr. Hayhurst showed his support of the Second Amendment by volunteering during the Viet Nam era…..what has Mr. Stutzman done to equal that? Actions speak louder than words.

  5. Charlotte,

    The humor was due to the portion about the NRA.

    I have also noticed that Mr. Stutzman has kept a low profile and I do not dispute that. I tend to agree with you that he is likely keeping a low profile because of internal polling data.
    That is a common tactic that Republicans and Democrats have used for a long time.

    Mike

  6. Jim Stanley says:

    Dear Mike,

    Thanks to you for your service to our country.

    You’re supporting Marlin Stutzman because he has the NRA endorsement. Is this a pivotal issue for you? Are you also planning to vote for Brad Ellsworth for Senate? He, too, has the backing of the NRA.

    Just curious.

    Jim

  7. Cara,

    Serving in the military has little to do with supporting the second amendment. Once again I tend to respect those who serve in the military; however, there are numerous veterans who served in the military; however, want to curtail gun rights.

    Do you support all military veterans?

    Cara I have a very specific question for you, Charlotte, and Jim. Did each of you vote for John McCain over Barack Obama in the last election since John McCain was a veteran?

    Mike

  8. Jim,

    You should read my comments. I am supporting Stutzman and I listed my reasons in my comments. My reasons have nothing to do with his NRA endorsement.

    Second amendment issues are important; however, they are not in my top five or ten issues.

    My biggest issue is decreasing the size of the Federal Government and restoring the constitution. I want to cut Federal spending in every part of the Federal government incluing the military.

    As far as the senate race goes I am NOT voting for the Republican in that race. He is a lobbyist and is a carpetbagger who has not lived in Indiana for a decade. There is no way I would vote for Coats next month. I find it interesting that Ellsworth got the NRA endorsement and I think that will help him. I will be voting for Burris the Libertarian in this race. She is a great candidate and she is the far better of the three candidates.

    Mike

  9. Jim Stanley says:

    Hi Mike!

    Thanks for the clarification! Apologies on my end for not paying closer attention.

    I’m not a big 2nd Ammendment voter either. Frankly, I’m not comfortable with either extreme in that debate.

    Cheers!

  10. jeanne says:

    In Stutzman’s own words: “I think it’s time that we cut our federal government back to the size of the original piece of parchment that it was written on.” The reason he is “laying low” is probably because he would have to explain just exactly which parts of the government would fit into that space the parchment occupies and which do not. Someone has quipped that this “cutting” would nullify the 20th century. Stutzman has made plenty of statements during his Tea Party appearances that match those of Miller, Angle and other extremists on whom the national media has focused. What does that say about IN-3 that no one, either in the local media or national, is saying anything about Stutzman’s radical views?

  11. Jeanne:

    I agree – I am tired of the right-wingers and Tea Partiers screaming about going back to the “founding principles.” My response is similar to yours – why would we want to wipe out an entire century? The Declaration of Independence states as a “principle” that “all men are created equal.” Yet,it only applied to wealthy, white, male property owners in the founding of this country. It sure didn’t apply to minorities and women. Go back to that principle as seen in that day and age? No thank you.

    The Constitution enshrined importation of slaves until 1808 – 32 years after the “founding principle” of “all men are created equal” was established by the Declaration of Independence and 20 years after the ratification of our Constitution. After that, it took another 50+ years to end slavery, in and of itself. England abolished slavery way before we did. Go back to that mindset where people believed (and it was implemented in laws) that they were superior to other races? No way.

    Minorities and women were excluded from participation for decades in the political process – women for over 130 years. Go back to those principles? Not on your life.

    And, how about that original principle of our senators being elected by the elite, wealthy, male, propertied members of the state legislatures? No thank you to that one either.

    The sad thing is that most Americans have no clue what is in the Constitution let alone the maneuvering and negotiations it took to get it written and ratified.

    I would be interested as well to see what Stutzman would cut to take us back to those Constitutional principles. What I have found is when I raise the points above, the naysayers brush it off and say they didn’t mean those principles. Which leaves one to ask, then just to what principles are you referring?

    The only ones I have seen so far are those of small government and less government spending. We are not the same country we were when the Constitution was written and passed. We had a small country in 1788 (ratification) of roughly 3,000,000 people. We have a population now that is 110 times that of 1788.

  12. jeanne says:

    How many candidates who aspire to represent us in Congress would make the following statement about the Second Amendment: “Our founding fathers understood the necessity of protecting the right to bear arms–not from the bear in the woods but from their own government. And I think people need to realize that.” (Stutzman to Michiana 912 10/5/09) What is Stutzman calling for here? A Hutaree Militia answer to how to solve your disagreement with the federal government? It is interesting that Stutzman talked about George Washington as being someone he most admired. Does he know that Washington put down the Whiskey (tax) Rebellion when the rebels took up arms?

  13. Andy S. says:

    @Charlotte –

    “The sad thing is that most Americans have no clue what is in the Constitution let alone the maneuvering and negotiations it took to get it written and ratified.”

    Agreed.

    Justice Stevens was on NPR yesterday talking about the Constiution and what it means to different people.

    He stated:

    “To suggest that the law is static is quite wrong,” he says. Stevens argues that “the whole purpose was to form a more perfect union, not something that’s perfect when we started. We designed a system of government that would contemplate a change and progress.”

    “A more perfect union…” is something we all are hopefully striving for.

    When I hear or read statements like Stutzman’s listed below it concerns me:

    “I think it’s time that we cut our federal government back to the size of the original piece of parchment that it was written on.”

    There is this “myth” there was a time of innocence in our history.

    The facts are otherwise. Whether it be excluding women from gov’t, enslaving African Americans, exterminating Native Americans, rounding up and placing Japanese-Americans in containment camps, demonizing homosexuals, etc., there is always an opportunity to make our country – a more perfect union for EVERYONE.

  14. Jim Stanley says:

    It’s nice to see that some people understand the Constitution to be a document that’s about “WE”…not “I”.

    Doing things collectively is fraught with the potential for mistakes, graft and corruption. In fact, the only option more chilling to me is trusting the market to sort things out, trusting corporate interests or relying solely on the sheer goodheartedness of individuals (be they managers and CEOS or just regular folks like you and me).

    So, for my money — I’ll choose doing things as a union of people, rather than a bunch of lone rangers and loose cannons. The latter model is working its magic in Somalia these days. The former — though remarkably far from perfect — is still the best we’ve got.

  15. Jeanne,

    It is unfortunate you feel that way. The truth of the matter is the Federal Government is far too large and is extremely inefficient. The Federal Government has grown by leaps and bounds; however, many of the expanded Federal programs have failed.

    Poverty is a good example. The US spends more to supplement the inicome of the poor then ever before; however, the poverty rates over the last seventy years are roughly the same as they were before the Federal Government spent all of this money.

    The Federal Government spends an incredible amount of money on education; however, based on every metric I have ever seen the quality of education in this country has deteriorated…

    I for one hope Marlin gets elected and I also hope that the Republicans manage to cut Federal spending significantly. Here are a few ways to cut Federal spending:

    1. Abolish the entire Federal Department of Education. It has 100% failed. Instead education should be the purview of the 50 states and each state should develop its own education system.

    2. Abolish all farm subsidies and let farmers charge what they want for their products.

    3. Abolish the Federal income tax and change to a simple consumption based tax.

    4. Close half of our military bases overseas and bring those troops home.

    5. Eliminate wasteful military spending.

    6. Freeze Federal spending in every department for five years.

    7. Eliminate the entire Federal Unemployment system. Instead each of the 50 states should run their own unemployment system.

    Mike

  16. jeanne says:

    Mr. Sylvester,

    Wow, that is quite a list. Good luck on reducing military spending, which is more than half of the discretionary spending budget. You have some good ideas as far as where the problems are. Unfortunately some your solutions are unworkable. I know more about #3, if you are referring to the Fair Tax Act or something like it–sometimes called a national sales tax. Here are some references on it and why it would not be a good solution to our frustrating tax laws:

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-25&tab=summary

    http://chattarati.com/editorial/columns/2010/3/4/fair-tax-bill-goods-3rd-district/

    wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
    for the tax: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=obama_talkingpoints

    http://mediamatters.org/research/200605260004

    http://www.ehow.com/about_5032455_problems-fair-tax.html

    http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

    http://www.urban.org//UploadedPDF/1000785_Tax_Break_5-16-05.pdf

    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/improve/retail/index.cfm

    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3285

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/bartlett_fair_tax.pdf

    http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/taxreformpanel/final-report/TaxPanel_8-9.pdf–see Ch. Nine

    Here is some background on the unemployment tax:

    http://www.answers.com/topic/federal-unemployment-tax-act

    If I recall correctly, the federal government got involved in education and a tax for unemployment because many states were not, for various reasons, adequately educating their children or providing adequate relief for the unemployed. THE COMMON GOOD would have been the justification for the federal government to assist/encourage states to improve their citizens lives. I am no fan of some provisions in “No Child Left Behind” but neither do I think federal aid should be eliminated altogether–especially when states are struggling in this recession to pay teachers. I see the involvement of the federal government as an effort to even out the disparities among the states–in other words, to promote the COMMON good.

    There are many reasons for poverty. I grew up on the north side of Elkhart and went to school with kids from the Sawmill area, which was considered a slum at that time. I have also lived in Africa and Asia where our concept of U.S.poverty would be considered luxury to the poor. To say well, we spent all that money and look, there are still all these poor people does not mean we should stop spending money on programs to alleviate that poverty. What would you change in the federal government to improve the lives of the poor, and to reduce the numbers of the poor? Would you stop spending the money? Yes, the federal government needs reform but eliminating whole departments is not the answer.

    Marlin Stutzman has not taken a public position (as far as I know) on eliminating food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Why? He announces proudly that he is a “strict constructionist” and a “10ther”. That ideological position would require opposition to these federal programs because they were not listed among the enumerated powers in the Constitution. Stutzman wants to pick and choose which federal programs to eliminate–the ones he opposes (or the ones he thinks are politically palatable)

    I think Stutzman’s real aim, in regard to education is to privatize it. That is one reason he supported legislation in the Indiana Senate to give tax credits to low to middle-income families (who qualify for reduced or free school lunches) to enroll their children in private schools. Getting rid of the U.S. Department of Education would be another way to accomplish his goal.

    To Republican voters in IN-3 I would say, “be careful of what you wish for, you may just get Marlin Stutzman.”

  17. Jeanne,

    Why do you think it is impossible to reduce military spending? We reduced military spending when Bill Clinton was President. The Democrats cried about military spending right up until they got majorities in Congress and now they are the ones increasing military spending.

    I am a CPA and I prepare tax returns for a living. I disagree with you about the Fair Tax; I think it would help this country significantly. That being said the Fair Tax will not become law unless we throw out most of the politicians currently in office of both Parties. I looked at many of your links and many of the people who wrote them have no idea of what they are talking about. Please understand I prepare several hundred tax returns each and every year so I think I have a fair understanding of this issue.

    I understand your views on the “common good.” That being said the Federal Government should get out of both education and unemployment. Education spending has sky rocketed and the quality of education in this country has not sky rocketed; in fact, since the Federal Government has got involved our world rankings in eduaction have decreased dramatically. We need to learn from that.

    I agree that there are many reasons for poverty. I have travelled to about 20 different countries in my life including many very poor ones. That being said it sounds like you have seen more poverty then I have. I think that all of the money we spend on helping the impoverished actually serves to ensure that many of those people stay in poverty. If you go to any of the “projects” in a major city you should understand why. We now have people whose families have been on welfare for multiple generations and that is wrong.

    You asked how I would fix poverty and that is a fair question. First off I do NOT think we can fix poverty; however, I do think we should try to assist the poor; at least for a short period of time. I would do the following:

    1. Reform welfare so that you can only be on the program for a limited time and you can only stay on the program if you are taking steps to improve your education and get a job.

    2. I would abolish every Federal Program that provides or subsidizes housing. All these programs do is concentrate the poor in communities where all of the people are poor. This does not help us at all, once again visit the “projects” in Detroit.

    3. I think we should improve our education system. Our education system has failed to educate our citizens and that must stop. First off get the Federal Government entirely out of the process. Secondly the schools need to change how they operate; they need to be allowed to remove students who refuse to learn so these students stop detracting from those people trying to learn. Third our schools need to change what they teach kids. Schools need to emphasize math, english, science, history, etc. They also need to teach some life skills like how to balance a check book, how to write a resume, etc. The schools need to stop spending so much effort on art, music, and the like until they prove that they can teach the basics.

    That would be a good start…

    Mike Sylvester

Comments are closed.