Need I say anything about yesterday’s election results?  Probably not, but I will anyways!  The morning after elections is always full of disappointments for the losing party and candidates, but it is also a time to regroup and understand that there is hope.  So here is my assessment – purely personal of course – on the Indiana races:

Senate – Sheriff Ellsworth vs. Carpetbagger Coats:

Coats was hand-picked to drop back into Indiana after Evan Bayh decided to self-limit his senate terms.  Coats and his wife were all set to retire in North Carolina – review the clip where he stated “if you don’t tell the good people of Indiana” referring to his plans to get out of Dodge permanently (although he hadn’t lived in Indiana for over a decade) and make his retirement home in North Carolina.  He even noted how excited he was at the prospect of registering and voting in North Carolina.

Of course, the issue of residency reared its ugly head, so he followed what is becoming an all-too-common path to running for office – he rented a space in the appropriate jurisdiction –  in this case, Indiana – to establish residency.  I would imagine it is a studio or something not too expensive since he likely will not be here much, if at all.

Odds are Coats has not sold his home in North Carolina – heck – I would bet the farm he hasn’t sold his home.  He will be an absentee Indiana senator, commuting to North Carolina during his term where his real home is located.  Any bets on how often he will actually step foot back in Indiana – the state he abandoned years ago?

This race is one of the most puzzling, but it shows that Hoosier values is an empty phrase to all those who voted for Coats.  I mean how is it he runs on Hoosier values when he hasn’t been a Hoosier for 12 years?  Shouldn’t he have been espousing North Carolinian values or lobbyist values or Washington, D.C. values?  Any values but Hoosier values.

At any rate, look for Coats, now 67, to run one term and then get back to his original retirement plans away from the “good people of Indiana”, which makes it almost certain he won’t spend much time in Indiana during his senate term.  Why would he?  He will mosey back to North Carolina, live in his $2 million dollar home, more than likely return to lobbying, and never give the “good people of Indiana” a second thought.

Both parties have probably already started thinking ahead to 2016.

House of Representatives – Hayhurst vs. Stutzman:

No surprise that this is the most disappointing of the races for me.  After beginning on Tom’s campaign in September 2009, the loss is extremely discouraging.  I watched Dr. Hayhurst traverse this district, walking door-to-door, speaking at events, participating in parades, and running a heart-felt campaign to be this district’s representative in Congress.  Hayhurst did not jump from one race to another – he focused on the congressional seat for Indiana’s Third District and would have made a great representative for the Third District.

Stutzman was selected in June, did very little campaigning, and probably looked at the race as an “entitlement” and pretty much a given.

I have to wonder whether Stutzman’s desire for the congressional representative’s seat was sincere or simply opportunistic. Since the age of 26, Stutzman has run for or held one office after another:  Indiana House of Representatives, Indiana Senate,  U.S. Senate, and now U.S. House of Representatives.  One gets the sense that “any old office will do.”

All the while, Stutzman continues to allege he is a “fourth-generation” farmer – but  more likely he is  a “FINO” – a “farmer in name only.”  I mean, how do you run for four offices in eight years, participate in legislative sessions, and farm full-time? And, now as a full-time legislator, how will he keep claiming he is a farmer?

Anyone who has been involved in farming knows that you don’t climb down off a combine for a photo shoot,  go back to campaigning, and then call yourself a full-time farmer.  Farming is hard work and requires long hours – even with the advent of technology those agricultural products don’t magically appear on your table or the store shelves.

My guess for Stutzman’s future?  He will attempt to stay in the House of Representatives until the opportunity for the 2016 senate race raises its head.  He will then switch gears again and go for the open senate seat which I predict Coats will vacate to return to North Carolina.  Opportunism at its height!

Local Races:

Morris vs. Wyss

What a disappointment – citizens complain and complain about career politicians yet continue to send the same politicians back year after year in a self-fulfilling cycle.  While Wyss may be a likable guy – he is a career politician with 25 years under his belt. Maybe the voters see part-time politicians differently than full-time politicians.  I have to wonder if all those voters who whine about career politicians have taken a look in the mirror and understand they are the very reason these politicians have careers in politics.

In the Indiana Senate race for District 15, the voters had an opportunity to send new blood to the state senate.  Jack Morris was well-informed on the issues confronting our state while Wyss tends to author or sponsor laws that are pretty much negligible and may be difficult to enforce.  Many of his efforts have been referred to as “nanny-state” legislation.

On the bright side, this race did force Wyss to campaign and remind voters who he was and what he looked like – something he hasn’t had to do much of with little competition in the past.

Ross vs. Dodge

This one was a real shocker – Codie was an excellent candidate following the path of Ed Roush’s campaign style and was well-informed on issues, especially those involving education.  As a previous teacher, his background would have been valuable in the area of education and its trials and tribulations.  With Daniels now poised to privatize our public schools, we need representatives who understand just what is at stake in this arena.

Dodge was also forced to campaign to keep his seat.  A small business owner who is now retired, Dodge has had very little impact in the Indiana House and prefers to maintain a low profile.

Indiana General Assembly:

Daniels’ Dangerous Tri-Fecta:

With the Indiana House of Representatives a 58 to 42 majority for Republicans, Daniels will now have the trifecta of power.  Republicans have whined about Obama’s trifecta for the past two years, so now let’s see if they acknowledge the danger in the trifecta they now will possess.  Bet you won’t hear a peep out of them.

With Daniels’ Republican minions now in control of both House and Senate, you can kiss goodbye any hope for Indiana’s environment, education, and social services.  With Daniels now in charge of two kowtowing legislative bodies, his privatization plans – even though terribly flawed in some cases – will kick into high gear.  Remember Daniels’ earlier reactions when he didn’t get his way on what he wanted;  he sometimes acted like a spoiled child and often was not involved in the legislative process.

In the area of environment, he has already diminished IDEM’s enforcement powers to the point of extinction along with attempting to do away with environmental regulations that protect our Hoosier air, waters, and lands.  Daniels sees Indiana as one big factory farming lot and will continue his efforts to increase the number of Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) regardless  of the detrimental impact on air, soil, and water.  But that is of no import to the pro-big business minded Daniels.

Daniels contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to candidates through his “Aiming Higher” PAC, so look for a number of representatives to be in Daniels’ pockets when it comes to key votes. Look for a new and energized Daniels to steamroller through his destructive privatization plans for our state during his remaining two years.

Sarah Palin may have considered herself a lame-duck in her first term, but you can bet Daniels will go with the label “game-duck” as in ” I am game to destroy Indiana’s environment, education, and social programs.”


The issue of partisan redistricting now leaps to the front and center.  The redistricting will occur in 2011 based on the 2010 census.  Todd Rokita, the soon-to-be ex-Secretary of State, has put forth a plan called “Rethinking Redistricting” under the guise of helping us poor, uniformed Hoosiers better understand the redistricting process.

I understand it quite well, thank you – redistricting is political – always has been and always will be.  The party in power in the Indiana House of Representatives attempts to draw and re-draw lines to better enhance its chances of retaining control of the federal congressional legislature.

If the Republicans decide they would rather oust Joe Donnelly in the 2nd congressional district and not worry about keeping Marlin Stutzman in the 3rd congressional district, then a map will be designed to shift either all or part of the red county of Kosciusko into the 2nd district thus creating  a larger Republican voter base.

Since Donnelly barely hung on in this race, a shift could cause major problems for his re-election in 2012.  But what may be bad for Donnelly could be good for Third District Democrats.  Removing Kosciusko County means that the Third District will need to pull in voters – most likely from the south in what is now Pence’s 6th district – as it was in the days of the old 4th district, which was somewhat more Democrat-friendly than the current 3rd district.

Indiana State Elected Officials:

Secretary of State:  Vop Osili vs. Charlie “I don’t know where I live or vote” White

Who’d have thunk Hoosier Republicans would vote in a guy who is under investigation for voter fraud, and who, if convicted, probably will be removed from office?  Obviously, either Republicans have again abandoned those “Hoosier” values which so often drip from their lips, or they just don’t get it.

Sure, he is innocent until proven guilty, but he has already acknowledged his “error” by resigning from the Fishers’ town council he represented.  He was involved in drawing the council’s boundary lines, so his “oops, I didn’t know” act has little credibility.  His resignation is one of those “I got caught” moments requiring action.

Vop was a great candidate.  I got to know him back in the late winter when I asked him to speak at our Third District Breakfast Club.  A graduate of Carnegie-Mellon and Columbia University, he is a small business owner.  He is thoughtful, well-informed, articulate, and energetic.  My prediction?  Watch for Vop to continue to be a rising star in the Indiana Democratic Party, and, perhaps at the national level.


Pete Buttigieg vs. Richard “I like wasting taxpayer money” Mourdock

Another rising star in our party, Pete Buttigieg, is the son of educators and grew up in South Bend.  He was valedictorian of his high school class and went on to earn a degree from Harvard before studying economics at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar.

Before leaving his job to campaign full-time, Pete’s career as a businessman took him across the country and around the world. Providing analysis and insight to key decision-makers, he has worked in a variety of areas including economic development, retail strategy, energy and logistics.

Sam Locke vs. Tim “I like campaigning on the taxpayer’s dime” Berry

Sam was born and raised in Connersville, Indiana, and graduated from Connersville Senior High School.  He went on to attend Indiana University – Bloomington on a ROTC scholarship and graduated with a BS in Secondary Education and BA in Political Science before being commissioned an officer in the Air Force.   He earned his Master of Public Administration degree from the University of Wyoming while serving in the Air Force at Francis E. Warren Air Force Base.

Sam is another young and rising star in our party.  We are truly fortunate to have had three great candidates for our state offices, and who I hope will continue to grace the Democratic party with their achievements and efforts.

Some Final Thoughts

While yesterday was a tremendous defeat for Democrats here at home and nationally, I have been around long enough to know that this is not the demise of the Democratic party.  This is a cycle in our country’s political process.  We watched the huge democratic victories in 2006 and in 2008, and now the victories – at least some of them – have swung back to the Republican column.

The Republicans will be no more successful at pleasing the American voter than the Democrats.  And, the Tea Partiers will find they are such a small number that they will really have no impact on policies or the direction of our country.  I can’t wait to hear the bellow of Rand Paul in the Senate that “we have come to take back our country” only to realize that his voice is a mere mouse squeak in the scheme of things.

Voters are becoming ever more a crowd that wants something done immediately despite the fact that most issues require time – and sometimes a lot of it.  They refuse to understand that our system was created with a check and balance factor that makes the wheels turn slowly.

Americans have become conditioned to instantaneous gratification – partly as a result of technology and the fast pace of our lifestyles.  When I was offline with no internet for five days this past week, I had to talk myself down from the ledge.  Just kidding, of course.  But think about how we all demand everything immediately.  What is fast today will be slow tomorrow and on and on.

As we ramp up our expectations for speed, speed, and more speed, we are not willing to accept the notion that our Founding Fathers created a political system meant to crawl toward resolution of a myriad of issues – and those issues were not the same increasingly complicated issues we face today.

While yesterday was, indeed, a bad day for Democrats, I think of the song from the Poseidon Adventure “There’s Got to be a Morning After.”  Democrats will reinvigorate themselves as in the past, and the cycle will begin anew. With the outstanding slate of candidates we fielded this election, I have tremendous hope for upcoming elections.

And, indeed, today is that morning after, and I am already looking forward to upcoming campaigns!






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 Agriculture and Food Production, Confined Animal Feeding Operations, Congress, Democrat Party, Democrats, Environment, Farming, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Industrial farms, Marlin Stutzman, Mitch Daniels, Politics, Privatization, Republican Party, Republicans, Third District and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Laurie says:

    Wow, I learned so much from this. I wasn’t aware of the redistricting situation. Is redistricting a “given”?

  2. cw martin says:

    Other than the name calling as you went along, this was a very well-thought article. Actually , I agree with you on Dan Coats (I wrote in Jim Miller) and Charlie White (I voted the libertarian). And I believe you when you talk of Hayhurst’s hard work and sincerity, though I came to the conclusion Marlin was a better choice. I admit I’m a bit puzzled that you don’t like the fact that Stutzman has ambition. The higher you go, in politics and life, the more change you can effect. And perhaps you shouldn’t have been so shocked about Ross’ loss. If his campaign style is like Ed Roush’s, then it would be what, thirty years out of date?

  3. CW:

    Roush’s campaign style was the door-to-door, face-to-face contact. That never goes out of style.

    I don’t begrudge anyone who has ambition, but to run for one office after another, in this case, seems to me is just having any office that can be won. Isn’t this going against what Republicans are criticizing? The career politician? I believe Stutzman has already said he thinks 18 or so years is okay.

    How do we get back to a “citizen” legislature if that is the attitude? Souder ran on a promise of six terms, and then he broke it. He was well on his way to becoming a fixture had it not been for the affair that drove him from office.

    Voters can’t have it both ways. If voters want a career politician, then admit it. If they don’t then make sure new blood is put in every so often.

    As to my name-calling, I thought most of my references were pretty accurate. I call it labeling – not name-calling!!

  4. tim zank says:

    You didn’t seriously expect to win did you? Might I suggest (if you did), the next time around you venture a tad farther out than your west central neighborhood when taking the pulse of the populace? Republican candidates swept by huge numbers because people simply don’t like what democrats have to offer. Not exactly rocket science Charlotte. I admire your heart, but open your eyes.

  5. cw martin says:

    1. we’ll never get back to a “citizen legislature” as long as it costs money to run. It is just impossible for the normal joe to get anywhere in politics when your opponants are spending x000 dollars in campaigning.
    2. so months ago when i called Hayhurst a liberal in a blog post, i was labeling and it was a horrible thing and i was ignorant of the man i labelled and all that. (and my point wasn’t even his liberal-ness!) But it’s okay for you to label those who you disagree with with “malice aforethought”. I’m sorry, but that happens too much when liberals talk about conservatives. It demeans your cause. When you took me to task, I thoughtfully considered what you said. I wonder if you will do the same.

    • CW:

      You said you agreed with me on Coats and White, so are my “labels” acceptable as to them? Maybe I should say I am using descriptive phrases, but the words I used were from newspaper reports about their activities. Malice aforethought is a pretty strong statement – that could apply to literally every blog article written by thousands of bloggers.

      I do apologize if we see my use of words in a different light, and, if you have followed my blogging, you will notice that I do not, in general, write in a hostile style, although some of my readers sometimes see it that way.

      I do agree that I could have left out the descriptive phrases, but those were the words that came to mind as I was writing, and, to be honest, I didn’t think they would be taken in an offensive way.

  6. Tim:

    Sorry to disappoint you – but I get out of West Central quite a bit, so that is a bogus comment. I talked to hundreds of people – Republicans, Democrats, and Independents – all over the Third District while phone banking and there was not the support for Stutzman that was reflected in the turnout.

    Seems to me you are forgetting 2006 and 2008. The Republicans got kicked to the curb – hard. The cycle will repeat itself time after time, and I think you will see it getting shorter in between turnarounds.

    As I said, voters want instantaneous improvement and it isn’t going to happen. The Republicans will not get much done and will be facing the same dilemma faced by the Dems this year. Please try to remember that the voting public didn’t like what the Repubs had to offer two elections in a row.

    And, of course I have heart – just like the Republicans did after 2006 and 2008. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

  7. cw martin says:

    Not offended, just wanting to be judged on the same basis. Carry on.

    And I believe I’ve called Coats a carpetbagger too, so whip me with the wet noodle.

  8. tim zank says:

    For what it’s worth Charlotte, in r/e the Dodge/Ross race, Codie probably would have been better served without the outside help from Indianapolis. He was coming across (here in Steuben County) as a personable, level headed nice guy with a lot of energy and a positive message until about the end of August. That’s when every other day all of us that live here were inundated with oversize flyers in our mailboxes basically beating the bejesus out of Dick with outrageous claims. Then the radio & tv started with the same nasty and dishonest message and it closed a lot of doors for him. The Democrats up here don’t “hate” Dick, our elections are downright civil and our candidates on both sides respect one another (at least in public). I haven’t seen ANY candidate up here go negative like he did, even our newspaper editorial board made note of it.

    Once Indianapolis took over his message it went downhill fast for him.

  9. Tim:

    I dislike the negative commercials, and I think the candidates tend to worry about who will get in the first blow. Then it goes downhill.

    I did like Brad Ellsworth’s explanation of why bring up past votes, etc. when he said what politicians did in the past is, in a sense, their resumes. He went on to say that the voters have a right to know what the resume contains. I guess the problem becomes where to draw the line and move forward with positive commercials.

    Just for the sake of speculation, I wonder what would happen if, in an election, one candidate took the high road and did only positive campaigning and the other candidate took the path of negative advertising.

    Do you think the “high-road” candidate would be seen as boring and lose the audience? I mean, look how tied Americans are to negative shows like Jerry Springer and all the reality shows.

    • tim zank says:

      Charlotte, I know the “negative” messages work in big races and big cities (though I don’t like it) and I honestly don’t know if a “high road” candidate could pull it off in a big race. The optimist in me would hope so!

      I know they can in smaller markets like ours because it’s much harder to be “uncivil” to opponents when we all see each other on a daily basis, we do business with one another, our kids go the same schools, we see each other at the same stores etc etc etc.

  10. Richard Shaft says:


    There are so many things I would like to say to you right now, but you remind me of my union brainwashed brother; it’s like talking to the wall. Therefore, I guess I will just submit a brief remark concerning your sad feelings about the elections: IN YOUR FACE!!!! Yes, I’m sure the pendulum will swing the other way again, but at least I don’t have to see that complete incompetent, crazy, out-of-touch, extreme, left-wing liberal zealot Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House anymore! Thank God!!
    As far as Dr. Hayhurst, he needs to give it up. He’s like the boxer who gets to the championship and always loses. He is, however, a very nice guy and very well intentioned, but he’s also the type of candidate who would want more government control of health care. How well has that worked for the Canadians Charlotte?
    Concerning your golden boy Codie Ross, your previous blogger had it right. I, myself, received about dozen of his oversized negative flyers about Dick Dodge. I will be honest with you, I’m not the biggest fan of Dick Dodge, he is getting too old and is not that pro-active. This definitely needs to be Dick’s last term. But I sure as heck wasn’t going to vote for a former school teacher who thinks that public education is a “sacred cow,” and that its budget should be off limits to cuts. That’s what is wrong with public education, it is more about the teachers and their stupid union rules than the students!

    I’m definitely going to enjoy the next two years. I highly doubt our most egotistical and arrogant President ever will admit to being on the wrong course, but it will be nice to see him halted in his socialist endeavors!!!


  11. Richard:

    Love the childish screaming “In Your Face.” The only thing I can say to you is that you will be in the same position in one or two terms.

    The Republicans were total obstructionists for the entire two years, and now they have to put up or shut up.

    So enjoy your two years – it will go fast.

  12. Jim Stanley says:

    Our Socialist President? Oh, you mean wanting to tax the wealthy equitably…like raging Socialist Dwight D. Eisenhower? Or do you mean expanding the reach of government like that notorious Red, Dick Nixon?

    What was the tax rate on top incomes during the Eisenhower administration?

    What rate did Obama propose to raise top income taxes to in letting the Bush tax cuts expire?

    How many federal agencies, departments and bureaucracies were created under the aegis of the Nixon White House?

    And how many agencies and federal departments has Obama proposed to create?

    If people want to slam Obama because he’s a corporate shill, fine. Every President from Reagan has been that. But a Socialist? OMG. Don’t make me laugh.

    • tim zank says:

      What you rabid Obama fans don’t seem to grasp is this: Whatever happened in the past is precisely that, the past. We don’t condone previous government expansions, or any other previous bad decisions. Our philosophy is simple, don’t repeat the previously bad decisions.

      This President is glaringly fixated on increasing the reach and power (and debt) of the government. Tuesday night showed quite clearly, a majority of this country’s citizens reject his agenda.

      You can rant and rave all you want about previous administrations, it doesn’t matter, it’s a “moot” point because today is where we’re at and tomorrow is what we have to prepare for.

  13. john b. kalb says:

    Jim – Obama hasn’t proposed many Federal Agencies (A couple in the Obamacare Bill),Federal Departments (again , by my count, three in the Obamacare Bill alone!), but he sure has increased bureaucraces by appointed way too many tzars to tell all citizens what they can and can’t do in almost all human activities!!!! – and always without bothering with a legislative passage of a law to back up his ruling!!!

    Socialist, per Websters is one who “practices government control of the production of goods and services”. Like ownership of Government Motors, forcing all to buy a product(Healthcare Insurance),firing managers of businesses, et al. And you deny that this is happening in DC under the present congress and executive branch of our national government???

  14. So leaving the past behind was what the Republicans have done for the past two years? They practiced the art of saying “no” to the max. I find it interesting that now Republicans are saying “get over it” when they never got over it in 2006 or 2008.

    • tim zank says:

      Well, maybe they’ll respond to Obama like he responded to them (right after his coronation)remember? He said “I won”. That got things off on the right foot now didn’t it?

      But to your worn and weary talking point “the party of no” the party did exactly the right thing, when someone proposes awful awful policies the correct thing to do is to say NO. I’m gladly part of the party of no. No to everything this administration proposed. I don’t want a European style socialist government, and as Tuesday night showed, the rest of the country feels the same way.

      Give me gridlock over socialized medicine all day long.

  15. John:

    Your definition is not quite accurate since socialism is government ownership as well as control. If you limit the definition to control, then, of course, you will have plenty of examples.

    Do you consider government ownership and control of our postal system socialism? After all, this was established by those who wrote the Constitution.

    We are forced to buy car insurance. Is that socialism? I am sure one can find some argument to support the forced buying of auto insurance.

    You have used GM as an example. Any other examples other than the bailouts that occurred? Are the mega-corps – Monsanto, Microsoft, IBM, Walmart, Sears, Case IH, Eli Lilly, owned and controlled by the government? I could go on and on. We are not even close to our government owning and controlling the means of production and distribution of goods and services.

  16. Tim:

    I don’t agree with what Obama said right after the election – that is simply throwing down the gauntlet.

    I do disagree with your evaluation of saying no as the “right” thing. This is a subjective thing. What Republicans see as doing the “right” thing, many other see as the “wrong” thing.

    I don’t think Tuesday’s elections were a total rejection of Obama’s policies. I think the public wants jobs and a strong economy. I would almost bet you if the economy had turned around and employment would have been down to 5% or so again, Democrats would not have come out on the losing end. The health care issue was a distraction.

    Obama should have paid attention to the economy and jobs – health care could have been tackled later.

    • Richard Shaft says:


      In response to your retort to Tim’s comment, I totally agree with you that Obama should have totally committed to the economic problem first and then worried about health care later. But here is were your liberal eyes are blinded to the truth, Obama doesn’t really care about Americans having access to health care. He cares more about his socialist/liberal ideology, otherwise he would not have shoved the health care bill down the throats of Americans when the majority of Americans were opposed to it (fact).

      Since Obama and his fellow kool-aid drinkers seen that they had a super majority in congress, they figured is was a perfect time to implement something as controversial and socialist in scope as “universal healthcare.” Just like your other liberal hero FDR in his move to implement Social Security.

      Why do you think Obama did this? Because he and other liberals know that once a massive socialist program like universal healthcare or social security is passed into law, it usually stays a law.

      Therefore, I submit to you Charlotte that Obama is a true socialist. Otherwise, like you previously stated, he “should have” focused on the economy first. So, there you go, the proof is in the pudding.

      P.S. This blog is also directed at you Jim Stanley and your comments about Eisenhower and Nixon. Those two presidents, like George “W” Bush, forgot they were supposed to be fiscally conservative first, Republicans second.

      • Richard:

        If we look at your reasoning, your argument that “Obama should have focused on the economy and jobs without undertaking health care; therefore, he is a socialist” is a flawed argument.

        Whether or not Obama is a “true” socialist is something only he can answer although others may observe, speculate, and draw conclusions.

        Obama did focus on the economy and jobs but perhaps not with the intensity that should have happened. The fact that he decided to also move on the health care topic does not make him a socialist. Your argument: A = Economy and jobs should have been focus + B = Obama also focused on health care ergo Obama is a socialist is a leap in logic.

        As to Bush, Eisenhower, and Nixon, I notice that you avoided the issue as to whether or not their actions were socialistic in nature.

        I am curious, though, how John and you look at the postal system as set out in our Constitution. The Founders created a system owned and managed by our central government – socialistic in today’s words. While it may be debatable whether or not the drafters of our Constitution understood that they were entrenching socialism in our Constitution, socialism had surfaced in Europe, so it was not unknown.

        Article I, Section 8 states “The Congress shall have power …. To establish Post Offices and post Roads.”

        Here are the comments of James Madison found in Federalist No. 42 in reference to this power:

        “The power of establishing post roads must, in every view, be a harmless power, and may, perhaps, by judicious management, become productive of great public conveniency. Nothing which tends to facilitate the intercourse between the States can be deemed unworthy of the public care.”

        Here is another issue that gives a government ownership and control – that of education established in Indiana’s Constitution:

        ARTICLE 8. Education
        Section 1. Common school system

        Section 1. Knowledge and learning, general diffused throughout a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government; it should be the duty of the General Assembly to encourage, by all suitable means, moral, intellectual scientific, and agricultural improvement; and provide, by law, for a general and uniform system of Common Schools, wherein tuition shall without charge, and equally open to all.

        Is this socialism?

      • john b. kalb says:

        Charlotte – The Federal postal system was set up in the Constitution because it met the need for “free systems of expression” backed by the national government. This is one of our freedoms along with the 5th estate freedom of the press. These two worked together in the early years of our republic because a large part of the mail was newspapers. I fail to see why you keep using the postal system to back up your claims of socialistic parts of our political system from it’s start. Article I, Section 8 as you quote, pinned down one of the duties of the Federal Government- “to provide postal roads and post offices (and postmasters)” for use to benefit the public – NOT the government!

        As far as Indiana’s Article 8 covering education and it’s section 1 on a common school system – this deals with an item left to the states – not a Federal right! We have since, nationally screwed this up with the establishment of the Federal Department of Education – which was not covered in any way in the Constitution. This funtion was left to the states to furnish – the Education Department on the Federal level should be terminated – and hopefully will be in the next 5 to 6 years!

        No, Charlotte, these items are not socialism-but, the Federal Education Department is sure leaning that way!

        Charlotte – How you can compare the GM take-over to our Federal postal system and our common school system? GM’s production is NO intended for a public benefit! The postal system and our common school system are intended for the entire publics benefit.

  17. Norma says:

    This might have been interesting if not so biased. I’ll just say this about the carpetbagger–Hillary Clinton.

  18. Norma:

    Now let’s not forget the following carpetbagger extraordinaire:

    “On August 8, 2004 – with 86 days to go before the general election – the Illinois Republican Party drafted Alan Keyes to run against Democratic Illinois Senate member and future President of The United States Barack Obama for the U.S. Senate, after the Republican nominee, Jack Ryan, withdrew due to a sex scandal, and other potential draftees (most notably former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka) declined to run.”

    The Washington Post called Keyes a “carpetbagger” since he “had never lived in Illinois.” When asked to answer charges of carpetbagging in the context of his earlier criticism of Hillary Clinton, he called her campaign “pure and planned selfish ambition”, but stated that in his case he felt a moral obligation to run after being asked to by the state GOP. Tsk. Tsk.

    Wow, what a hypocrite.

    At least Bill and Hillary purchased a home in New York and have lived there for years. Coats rented just to meet the residency requirements.

    And, finally, I am a Hoosier and live in Indiana. Coats is a carpetbagger. Let New York deal with Hillary – hmm, I believe they elected her a couple of times. And, let Illinois deal with Keyes. Hmm, he lost with just 27% of the vote.

  19. tim zank says:

    Charlotte, does it make you the least bit uneasy that Obama and Pelosi have both chosen to forge ahead with the mantra “it was poor messaging not our policies”?

    Or will they be able to convince those millions of voters from last Tuesday they really do have the answers to our problems?

  20. Tim:

    I think it is a combination of the two. Am I uneasy? Only in the sense that as I often refer to “burying one’s head in the sand”, I see some of that going on in the Democratic party. It doesn’t make me uneasy; it just makes me wonder why Obama and Pelosi aren’t trying to figure out what really went wrong.

    I do think that most Americans, if asked about specific items in the health care bill would support some of the measures.

    The first that comes to mind for me is the “preexisting condition” provision. I was born with a preexisting condition – that of dislocated hips on both sides and almost no hip shelves to boot. Dad and mom were poor and had no insurance. My surgeries and much of my follow-up treatment was paid by the March of Dimes and the Shriners.

    As a young adult, I was not covered under insurance policies because of the preexisting condition clauses. Slowly, over the years, the insurance companies modified the clauses to include limitations on the number of years of exclusion.

    Should I be penalized because I was born with a preexisting condition? Or is it acceptable for our society to say, “Too bad but that’s the luck of the draw?”

    But that leads to a discussion of preexisting conditions that are a result of lifestyles within the control of the individual and those preexisting conditions not in control of the individual – mine, for example. And, if we divide the discussion into those two camps, do we count heredity as a factor?

    And, at that point, it becomes complicated, and I get a headache thinking about it. 🙂

    • john b. kalb says:

      Charlotte – The pre-existing conditions item is no different than any other reason for refusing to insure anyone – the only insurance you can buy with a pre-existing condition is some life insurance policies – the pre-existing condition is that (due to sin entering the world) we are all going to experience a physical death sometime – no exceptions! The life insurance premium is determined by actuaries, knowing that statistics can predict how many years you are expected to live. If you apply for life insurance and you have previously attempted to kill yourself (or you smoke tobacco products) you may be refused ( or you will have to pay a much higher premium). If you have had many chargeable wrecks and have killed people in these accidents, you may not be able to be issued a automobile policy (or you will pay a very high permium) If you have attenmpted to burn down your business building a year ago, what insurer is going to issue you fire insurance on your new facility? All of these examples fall under the category that you describe as “lifestyle choices”. So, are there examples of rejections where your prior actions are not involved in the reason for rejection? Yes, I believe your case of being born with hip dislocations is one of them. The fact that your required surgeries and follow-up treatment were handled by the March of Dimes & the Shriners points out that there are other means than health insurance to pay for unplanned, unafordable, and uncovered health bills in our society. One of the reasons for the present health insurance problem is that starting in 1932, our federal and state governments have attempted to take over the voluntary coverage of needs by our neighbors, replacing it with mandated, involuntary, entitlemented and bureaucratic programs – all of which are inefficient and lead to citizen dependence on government with the resultant “don’t-give-a-care” attitude and expectation of entitlement prevalent in today’s society in our country.

      • John:

        The situations you mention are within the individual’s control – i.e. committing suicide, attempting to burn down a business, etc.

        And, as I indicated, it gets complicated when a lifestyle choice causes a condition. I acknowledged that. As far as other groups, agencies, etc. to cover conditions, yes, those exist.

        But, I believe it is much more efficient and reliable to end the preexisting condition requirement rather than leave those with preexisting conditions to the availability or nonavailability of services such as charities or agencies.

        I was fortunate in that The March of Dimes and Shriners are set up to help infants and children.

  21. John:

    And universal health care would not be to benefit the public? The bailouts were touted because they did benefit the public by preventing disastrous consequences. How on earth are the bailouts socialism when it was not a “takeover?” The public received stock in the auto companies, and I believe the Wall Street bailouts were based on loans. Here is a fact from October 20, 2010:

    “The U.S. government’s bailout of financial firms through the Troubled Asset Relief Program provided taxpayers with higher returns than yields paid on 30- year Treasury bonds….”

    This is not a government takeover. It was a business deal and appears to be of benefit to the taxpayer, not the government.

    The postal system is a money making enterprise owned and controlled by the government. Let me ask you this. If the Constitution had set up a system to provide health care for the public, would you then have supported it as acceptable? The Preamble says one of the reasons for establishing the government through the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.”

    The postal requirement in Article I, Section 8 was in effect almost three years before the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of the press was established, so while freedom of the press may have been a concern in the early colonial days, the primary reason for the postal service was to support the moving of correspondence and packages of which newspapers were a part.

    • john b. kalb says:

      Charlotte: First of all, the first postal system DID NOT carry any parcel post – this came into operation only after 1900. The only parcels allowed were those containing letters or newspapers, all going to the same post office. Later, when packages were sent by mail they were limited to not over 4 pounds.

      Secondly, in only a very few years of it’s existance has the postal system made a profit! It has been drawing on the US Treasury for part of it’s expenses, and it still does!

      In 1792, the postal rates for newspapers was 1c going within a state or up to 100 miles. It was 1-1/2c going over 100 miles. At this time and until 1845, the cost of sending a 1/2 ounce single page letter 450 miles was 25c – and a two page letter was 50c. So, most of the early mail was newspapers, as I stated. It is documented that the two sons of Calvin Fletcher, who were going to school in the Eastern U.S. paid 1-1/2c to send a newspaper to their parents on the day they left school to return to their Indiana home, to informing them of their approximate arrival date, thereby saving 23-1/2c in postage.

      • John:

        I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. You put forth a definition of socialism, and I noted that it was not quite accurate. But either way, the government owns and operates the postal service. That is socialism according to almost any definition you check.

        I am finding it quite fascinating that those who oppose socialism are trying every which way they can to dismiss the plain fact that the Founding Fathers set up government ownership and control of the postal system.

        Call it what you like, but if you look at the meaning of socialism, there is no way around it. The reason for establishing government control and whether or not the postal system makes a profit are red herring issues.

  22. Richard Shaft says:


    You know, if Obama wouldn’t have been blinded by his own ideology when came to him implementing universal health care, he could have made some serious progess in that realm without alienating and scaring the crap out of non-liberal Americans, but what do you expect with an ego like his?

    I guess making different health insurance plans accessible across state lines, or giving tax credits to people who did not possess health insurance didn’t fit his (and I say it again) socialist plans? He wanted all or nothing. Yes, yes, I know. “But Obama didn’t force the gov. one payer option.” The standard counter argument used by liberals to defend against Obama’s “perceived” socialist policies. Well, the only reason Obama didn’t get his “gov. option” was because his fellow democrats were getting frightened (and rightfully so) with the approaching election. Obama had to make that compromise, which totally ticked off his “fellow traveler” supporters. When are liberals going to learn that conservatives and some republicans actually do have good ideas (i.e. accessing health insurance accross state lines, tax credits for people who have to purchase their own health insurance). But Obama wouldn’t support that plan because it wasn’t a part of his socialist agenda: make the people of America totally dependent on the government.

    Like I said before, Obama’s arrogance will not allow him to compromise with the republican majority in congress. Thus, Mr. Obama remember what you said in 2008, “elections have consequences.”

    P.S. However, when it come to the pre-existing element of health care insurance, even though I’m a die-hard conservative, I do have to lean a little your way Charlotte. It’s hard to deny someone health coverage with pre-existing condition when they were born with it. Moreover, Charlotte, I am sorry to hear about your hip problem. My brother had a hip disease ( I forgot the name) in which he had to wear a leg brace through his elementary years in school.


    • Richard:

      Competition should exist as to provision of health insurance. Indiana has only two major companies that dominate the health insurance field.

      I do not have health insurance coverage right now. COBRA is a joke – the cost would have been around $350 to $400 a month for me. Since that was not possible, I did shop around and asked for rate quotes after I retired. I got several monthly quotes that were reasonable, but the catch? The deductibles were anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000.

      I wonder if your brother had something similar to my condition? I spent a total of 20 months in body casts – from the age of 4 to about 6. Then I had to learn how to walk again. I remember I also had to wear a brace even then for about another year on my one leg.

  23. john b. kalb says:

    Charlotte – Obama’s health insurance plan DOES NOT meet the “public benefit” clause because it benefits only a very small minority of the “public”! And this at the expense of the majority! When is this stuff going to stop??? RIGHT NOW!!!!

    If our government wants to help people out who cannot afford health care, then do it with a law that does not trample on 94% of the tax-payers to benefit 94% of those who pay no taxes. And just for your info, my wife and I are in the 50% who do not pay income taxes.

    And the yield on Treasury Bonds is so low that any return on an investment will earn more than they do! I thought that GM just sold new stock to raise dollars to enable them to pay back what they received in “bail-out dllars. If that’s so, how can the US Government own any of GM, unless it bought some of this new stock issue?

    • John:

      Is there a percentage requirement in the Preamble? Or is there a percentage requirement as to any law that benefits the public?

      Look at the Kelo v. City of New London fiasco. Did that SCOTUS decision protect the entire public? Absolutely not. It was an egregious decision that only protected a certain portion by finding that economic development could be used as a basis to exercise eminent domain over private property. In fact, the entire issue is now moot because Pfizer abandoned the property involved in the law suit.

      To attempt to argue that every law – whether it be a Supreme Court decision, a Congressional Act, or an agency regulation – has to protect 100% of the people is unsustainable.

  24. Judith Steckly says:

    Great IPO proves GM bailout was the right thing to do! Counting suppliers, up to one million jobs were saved. Most, if not all, federal funds will be recovered, and in a relatively short time none of the GM Co. stock will be owned by the government.

    With exit polls showing that support of the Affordable Care Act was nearly 50 percent, as it is implemented that support will grow. Hopefully Republicans will not be able to repeal this cost and life-saving legislation.

  25. And what about “ROACH”!? I GOT NEARLY 24,000 VOTES! Well within the statistical totals , that the other local and state democrats won in Allen County. Despite the best efforts of the JG, and the local democrat Party Hacks. sure- I would have gotten more, if they werent such defaming libeling slandering liars, who have some kind of vendettaagainst me, since day 1, and i dont know why. try to get a lawyer, and sue? goog luck- they bled bandidos dry, andtried to do in Bodenhafer, then Kelty, and now Kotsopolous. I see a pattern emerging here. and why no crucification of chairman
    shine for his criminal activities? and why no mentionj of David roach s successful eforts to clean up the cherryms\ater rackets, and pave the way for legalized gambling, vegas style?
    And no mention of my very vocal advocacy of leglaizing Marijuana Here in allen county/ Indiana. Its not like theres a multitude of stoners here, as drug seizures by the Sheriff would indicate- 6700 lbs? 6 million dollars?!! no supply without demand.
    think how that would save tax dollars from the court system, and atract creative class types, and reduce brain drain?!
    theres lots of Hoosiers that cant drink alcohol, due to medical conditions, or due to mood swings/violence while drinking, or becoming victims of alcohol related violence-
    Stoners are content to smoke some weed, watch tv, blog, and eat cheetos, and drink mountain dews- all goo d things. (except cheetos, and computer keyboards dont mix.)
    I should run for Mayor- 24000 votes- the local democrat party will be shellacked again, but ot for lack of trying. and think of the fun throwing the pipe wrench into the cross primary dino/rino voging/ deceit every may.
    Or we need a few independents this november- via petition, to mess things up.
    so will the local democrat party with their lapdog spokesman, Mr Knuth, their wizard, harry potter downs, and our invisible chairman, bybum actually fpull a few council candidates out of their hats? PRESTO!? we shall see.
    Besides- the democrats are prety well outnumberedanyway, so its mostly a futile effort anyway, especially 2011.
    dont blame me- I voted for ROACH at least a dozen times…

Comments are closed.