2010 Primary election - a referendum on the status quo

The Tea Party dominates the political headlines, Americans clamor for change and the phrase 'politics as usual' is thrown about in every discourse on the problems facing America. The 04 May 2010 primary election was the mini-referendum on the status quo.

One particular US Senate race gained national attention not only because it is seen as a pivotal race but because it has been framed as a battle between the status quo and the much needed change that has been called for.

On 26 September 2009 Indiana State Senator Marlin Stutzman, a fourth generation farmer from Howe, Indiana, announced that he would be seeking to challenge US Senator Evan Bayh for his seat. Former US Congressman John Hostettler officially announced on 03 December 2009 that he would be joining Tea Party activist Richard Behney and Stutzman in a race to challenge Bayh.

In February 2010 I began hearing rumors swirling about the Indiana State House that Evan Bayh was going to retire which he officially announced on 15 February 2010. Don Bates, Jr.a financial advisor from Anderson, Indiana, announced that day that he would also seek the nomination.

On 10 February 2010 Washington DC lobbyist and Virginia resident Dan Coats, who said North Carolina was 'a better place' than Indiana, announced that he would also be seeking the seat held by Bayh, in Indiana.

The decision by Coats to seek the US Senate seat from Indiana was not an organic one of Coats'. It was, rather, the idea of a group of political leaders in Texas who felt their agenda could best be accomplished by a legislator who hadn't promised to vote according to the will of the people and his conscious, such as Stutzman had repeatedly done.

This group scoured the country and quickly found a recognizable name in a Virginia resident, Dan Coats.

The other four candidates campaigned regularly while Coats essentially took the election for granted. The most relentless campaigner from my perspective was Marlin Stutzman. After a brief rest from the 2010 session of the Indiana General Assembly I began campaigning for Stutzman.

In early 2010 Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates Director of Minority Affairs, Don Chavis, and I cold-called Marlin Stutzman while we were at the State House one day. Stutzman was in a conference room with us within 10 minutes. Stutzman engaged us in a conversation about child custody issues of which he was well aware and had clear ideas on the direction that the law needed to go in this area. [photo: Showalter, Stutzman, Chavis]


The Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates endorsed Stutzman because it was our feeling that he showed the greatest promise to stand up against the status quo. The well-financial and influential special interest lobbyist who seek to see harm continue to plague children so their clients may financially benefit from the fallout would not influence Stutzman. Stutzman made the pledge to do what is best for children even if it would go against party leadership or specialist interest campaign donors and cost him a re-election bid.

Coats has been a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry which sees substantial profits from treating children subject to abuses created by the effects of family law court abuses.

On 19 April 2010 Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates Director of Public Affairs, Sara Graves, Director David Lemmell, Stephanie Smith and I attended the US Senate candidates debate at Franklin University. There I was able to ask the question of the candidates would he go against party leadership in doing what is best for children. You may see the responses here.

I also spoke to each candidate individually. I was impressed by this group of candidates but could not shed my feeling that Coats was committed to making a clean break from special interests and the status quo in Washington in favour of doing what is best for children. Following the event I interviewed Stutzman. I came away that day feeling more assured that Stutzman was the best candidate for US Senate in Indiana.

I was with Stutzman on many occasions leading up to the election. Dinners provide great opportunities to relax and just discuss various issues with legislators or candidates. The hours of discussion that Marlin had with myself or others in my presence always demonstrated the sincerity that he has and commitment to our Hoosier values.

I campaigned daily for Stutzman leading up to the election. Often times in Boone County but also Hamilton, Hendricks and Marion. I informed many people about Marlin and why he was the best candidate to go to Washington to represent Hoosiers. I like to think that I did have some influence. In Boone County the results were closer; Dan Coats 2,595 votes - 33.6%, Marlin A. Stutzman 2,470 votes - 31.4%.

Unfortunately, reality smacked us in the face last night. 40% of Indiana Republicans who voted in the US Senate race chose to go with the status quo. They chose as their candidate a Washington insider who maintained the status quo when he was previously there as an elected representative from Indiana. It is truly sad that those voters enthusiastically supported a continuation of policies that will see children harmed or killed regularly so a few may profit financially from the destruction of the lives of those children.

Maybe there is hope that Coats will change his ways. If his refusal to comply with the campaign finance laws is any indication then I don't hold out much hope.

As Stutzman said, "Covering up who he lobbied for, and where the money he is now spending on his campaign came from is not within his rights or within the law. At this point we are only left to believe that Dan Coats is wholly owned by Washington special interests."

Subscribe

Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates

©2010 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.