[...] pulling in 18%. Abdul isn’t necessarily convinced of the soundness of the polling, but says that, in any event, it confirms his sense of how the race is going. There is a lot of wiggle room [...]

How can you look at that polling data and conclude Coats is the likely nominee? I came the exact opposite conclusion.

I agree 100% with Karlborn. Looks like Coats has serious competition. I certainly am finished voting for career politicians!

Itr all comes down to who has the most money to run on TV around the state

It's time for Bates and Behney to toss in the towel. This is a three-horse race now. Coats has his liberal votes for Sotomayor and Ginsburg hanging over his head. Stutzman has no baggage, Hostettler, not so much.

I agree with Karlborn and Luckjoe. 29-26 is even withing the margin of error. If Coats only has a three point lead with his name ID, then he's in serious trouble.

Not necessarily. The top candidates are going to be well known with or without TV commercials. It will come down to turnout which isn't necessarily driven by paid media.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/75... Maybe a question about things like these? Or, since Ryan White is back in the news, remember when the government told us that the blood supply was SAFE when it was not. Does anyone else miss Arthur Ashe (tennis star)? On the other hand, these R's are not the ones bringing disaster to medical care.

I don't trust this poll. There is a grassroots swell that is ignored
by the media. Indiana does not require voters to register as republican or democrat. My money is on Tea Party founder, Richard Behney. He is the only one that has been endorsed by Independence Caucus-meaning he has comitted to a constitutionally-
limited government.

I do not trust this poll. Indiana residents are not required to declare
republican or democrat to voted in a primary. There is a huge
grassroots swell of people who are tired of professional politicans. Richard Beheny is refreshingly honest. What you see is what you get. I support Richard Behney because he has been thoroughly vetted and endorsed by Independence Caucus.

After seeing Marlin Stutzman dabate, and meeting him at a “Meet & Greet,” he has my vote.

However, I am not the only one that is impressed with Marlin. Senator (SC) Jim DeMint and RedState have endorsed him, along with many legislators from Indiana.

I truly feel he is the person that can make the change we need in Washington.

I'm with you Cathy – Marlin is authentic and a proven leader. He came into the Indiana Statehouse and shook things up for the better. He got the first pro-life legislation thru in 12 years. He authored and led the passage of the lifetime gun permit. He cut the 4-1 pension match and the lifetime health care benefits legislators had voted in for themselves.
I'm also with you Pogden – Coats' numbers aren't even out of the margin of error.
I suppose Abdul knows the way the good ol' boys work around here and his pronouncement of a RINO nomination doesn't surprise me.

Apparently 29% of the voters polled aren't aware of this: http://vimeo.com/9435517

If it comes down to turnout, and I'm not sure of this, so just asking: isn't the GOP county chair network hugely in favor of Coats? And isn't it still pretty potent?

Just who IS the Indpendence Caucus? And you are aware, aren't you, that Behny has filed bankruptcy in the past? Not that it should singularly cost anyone an election.

The pension thing is a true victory for all of us. But: the pro-life and gun issues are not state issues……neither should've been taken up by the Gang of 150.

I did not know that Beney had filed bankruptcy and, no, it does not make a real difference to me as it is a legal business maneuver. He and Marlin Stutzman were considered and Richard
scored higher on conservative values. Independence Caucus works with others to find fiscally sound candidates within the major parties to return control of the party to “We the People”. It has exceptional learning tools. My favorite, video #2, explains earmarks. http://icaucus.ning.

To look at this poll and say Coats is the frontrunner is hard to figure.

So many in the political establishment, including marlin's indiana state house cabal, want to try and discount Hostettler. All the man does is stay true to his Constitutional principles, tell the truth and take the message direct to voters – and unlike Marlin he has never voted to raise taxes

To stop entitlements, deficit budgets and unconstitutional roles for the federal government, Hostettler has proven he is the man.

If you want unwavering support of Life, 2nd Amendment and fighting illegal immigration – the smart vote is for Hostettler.

The arguments against are inside political stuff because he's never been part of their club. He was Tea Party before there was such a thing.

Who IS Independence Caucus, Caro?

As for bankruptcy, if true, it would definitely affect my vote, although this isn't my party. Thsere could be extenuating circumstances, i.e., medical debt, illness, etc., so I'd keep an open mind. But a garden-variety bankrupt guy in the Senate? Nope.

Reminds me of my father's observation reagrding our legislature: “The village idiot needs his representation, but not that many of them.”

Perhaps a bankrupt person coulld add some common-man stripe to the Senate. But I doubt it.

It is a non profit political action group that supports like minded candidates.

We agree to disagree.

Who is the Independence Caucus? Good question!

They are a national non-profit and political action committee comprised of citizen patriots who agree that in order to regain control of our freedoms we must work within the current political system and “clean house” from the inside by vetting and endorsing fiscally responsible and Constitutionally grounded candidates. The founders were responsible for the campaigning efforts in 2008 in which Rep. Jason Chafetz (R- UT) successfully ousted a 6-term incumbent with 1/6th the money (going into the primary).

The Hoosiers involved with iCaucus are some of the most well informed, politically active, motivated individuals in the state. For the most part they do not vote to endorse a candidate without first listening to their personal interviews ( crucial component in the vetting process) and evaluating how the candidates answered the Candidate Qualification Questionnaire (CQQ).

For the record, I think it important to state here, that the iCaucus members chose not to endorse Mr. Stutzman because most of them do not agree with him in regard to his choice to not uphold the Enumerated Powers Act, which requires our representatives to state which enumerated power within the Constitution authorizes them to pass the legislation (he believes this is something each representative needs to “apply the constitution” for themselves). Our members do not believe the Federal Gov't should maintain ownership of state lands rather then giving them back to the proper states (Mr. Stutzman preferred the Fed. Gov't keep possession of the lands so he can visit them with his family- I can't make this stuff up)! And almost everyone I know does not agree with Mr. Stutzman when he says the Federal Gov't should be a “safety net” for those facing hard times and handling second mortgages. I encourage you not to take my word for it, but to listen to his interview yourself, please. Marlin Stutzman's interview (along with Bates and Behney's interviews) can be heard here: http://icaucus.ning.com/group/indiana/forum/top... NOTE: You will need to log-in first, but you can leave the group, if you choose, as soon as you're done listening)

The caucus members chose not to endorse Mr. Bates because they had already heard everything he said if they had listened to him live or in YouTube videos. His interview provided very little new information aside from the fact that he doesn't always listen to questions very well before answering them (either that or he really believes Ronald Reagan was a Founding Father, which I prefer to think he wasn't listening), he likes to sing, and his supporters are getting a “show” when they come to one of his events and will leave feeling happy. This is great to know, but most people I talk to aren't looking for someone to entertain them.

Our members didn't endorse Mr. Hostettler because he didn't participate in the vetting process at all. He told iCaucus he doesn't do these sorts of things, which translates to potential constituents as “You're not worth my time.” This is not the message voters are looking for from someone who claims to want to “represent us in Washington,” and be our voice. How can he be our voice if he feels we are a waste of his time or wont LISTEN to us BEFORE the primary?

The caucus members did not endorse Mr. Coats for several reasons. First, nobody recommended him to the caucus for evaluation (the first requirement). Secondly, our members are not interested in who the party has chosen to try to split the vote. They have had it with party politics and want a REAL citizen representative, not a lobbyist turned North Carolinian, turned Hoosier for the sake of splitting the conservative vote, ensuring that come Nov, either winner will play nicely with the lobbyists. Hoosier voters have wised-up to the game, thanks to the Independence Caucus' videos (found at http://www.icaucus.org), and know the current Russian Roulette game that's trying to be played on Hoosiers and we wont stand for it!

So, when well informed and active voters listened to Mr. Behney, who spoke simply and from the heart, who has a solid grasp of what's needed in Washington and has a fire in his gut to fight for his children's and his country's future, they had an easy time deciding to endorse Richard Behney, a real citizen- not a politician.

“WHAT?? I flipped when I read this by Mr. Stutzman!
“”"he believes the Federal Gov't should maintain ownership of state lands rather then giving them back to the proper states (Mr. Stutzman preferred the Fed. Gov't keep possession of the lands so he can visit them with his family- I can't make this stuff up)!”" AND! “”"Mr. Stutzman says the Federal Gov't should be a “safety net” for those facing hard times and handling second mortgages”"”
Really? I mean, REALLY? No thanks, Mr. Stutzman. Find your own safety net elsewhere.

I can't believe Hostettler would diss the voters like that! How can I believe he'll listen to me in office if he wont listen to voters who really want to know where he stands on the issues? Thanks for posting this…I know who I'm voting for on May 4th! BEHNEY

For those of us who are very concerned about the direction our government has taken, it is more important than ever to select our candidates with care. We want to know we are going to vote for someone who takes our concerns seriously and will stand against bigger government, higher taxes and the erosion of our rights and liberties.

Support of the Enumerated Powers Act is a cornerstone in a candidate's philosophy. Without this core belief, a candidate is just another Washington politician and merits zero consideration. I have no desire to waste my time on someone who wishes to reinterpret the constitution and bill of rights.

I want a candidate who has the same values I do, one who will reflect those views and values when s/he gets to Washington. Of all the candidates vying for our vote, Behney has the most to offer.

I would encourage everyone to go and listen to the interviews on ICaucus- they are well worth your time. I hope Hoosiers wise up! And vote in the MAY 4th Primary for the real citizen- Behney!

I watched the interviews and I'm going with Behney!

. . . and I don't need some bozo from the lamestream media telling me who the candidate's gonna' be! We've got the Independence Caucus for that!

I can't believe Hostettler would diss the voters like that! How can I believe he'll listen to me in office if he wont listen to voters who really want to know where he stands on the issues? Thanks for posting this…I know who I'm voting for on May 4th! BEHNEY!

“I heard the Stutzman interview, and I still can't believe someone would call himself a “constitutionalist” and say the stuff he did…the Constitutional authority is something each rep evaluate for himself?? What the…!”

However, this does not surprise me because I also viewed his responses to the vetting questionnaire. We do not need more authors of their own constitution.

Help! I just went to iCaucus.org and clicked on the endorsed candidates link. However, I couldn't find the interview questions or interview videos…where am I going wrong? iCaucus sure sounds like a great way to see if a person running for office is ready to serve the people though. I'm sick and tired of listening to the same old rhetoric on the incumbents commercials. Seems like they're all liars and cheats, just telling us what they think we want to hear! I'm for voting 99% of the incumbents out and starting fresh with candidates who genuinely care about this country. Sounds like iCaucus will help me weed through the BS in that regard.

How would anyone not support the Enumerated Powers Act? I think that's essential to see that we get back on the right road in government. If Behney says yes, and others no, that's a voting issue right there.

It sounds as if the people of Indiana need Mr. Behney in Washington. Vetting by the Independence Caucus is a great way of seeing who the best candidates are. Vote for Richard Behney for Indiana and the rest of the country.

Behney is the more principled and MOST Conservative of all the Candidates. I listened to the Icaucus interviews, and Hostettler REFUSED to even answer the preliminary vetting questions. What is he trying to hide from a VERY solid and VERY well organized group like Icaucus?

It would be VERY smart for the Hoosier State Republicans to rethink their vote before this Primary. Behney DEFINITELY gets my vote- a COMMON SENSE CONSERVATIVE who WILL stand on the principles that were written in the Constitution.

go to icaucus.org and click on groups, then you will go to Indiana and click on that. after that, you can go to the interviews! Good Luck!

The problem with Stutzman is that he has his own constitution.

Behney has been endorsed by iCaucus so along with that he is the more palatable candidate.

I think it is odd that the top three men on here are all GOP men! Yes, even Stutzman, he is in Indiana Senate for many years! We all need to be very careful, we have many probably on this site that want nothing more than to trip us up and split our vote! I have been very careful about checking all these men and Richard Behney always come out on top! the Bankruptcy, that can be many things, medical, business, I do know Richard Behney, he does not need to even answer that one when we have Senators and Congressmen bouncing checks all the time! Come on now lets get together and get Richard through May and on to November!!!!!

McMom,

The simplest way to ge there is to click on this link:
http://icaucus.ning.com/group/indiana/forum/top...

Otherwise, you'll need to follow these steps:

– Go the the social network: http://icaucus.ning.com
- Sign-in (like I mentioned earlier, you can leave the group if you'd like, after listening to the interviews).
- Click on the map, then click on the Indiana state flag.
- You'll be in the Indiana group's page
- Then click on the Discussion titled, “Indiana US Senate -Candidate Interviews.”
At the bottom of the discussion page, you'll see the links to all 3 interviews.

You are absolutely correct when you say iCaucus is a great way to see if a person will really serve the people. I'd be happy to answer any questions you (or others) have about the vetting process. I've helped with the vetting here in Indiana.

Stutzman sure has a lot of nerve saying that our U. S. Constitution is a document that representatives should evaluate themselves!! And he claims to be a constitutionalist??? No way. This guy is blowing smoke and mirrors.

Indiana citizens, vote May 4th for the “real” constitutionalist – Richard Behney.

Hey Hoosiers – are you going to let Hostettler get away with the things he said about you voters? He won't even tell you where he really stands on very important issues!

I'm going with Richard Behney, who doesn't hesitate to tell me where he stands and what he believes in. Vote Behney, May 4th. You'll be glad you did!

I can see many people endorse Behney. I have checked out his website, but I see very little about him. What is his education? Other than owning a plumbing company, what makes him qualified to be a US Senator? Has he ever held any other positions – even as a volunteer?

Yes, the other candidates have held offices. However, I don't see that as a negative because that gives me an idea of who they are as a politician.

Go to: http://icaucus.ning.com/group/indiana/forum/top...

There you can see how Richard Behney answered the vetting questions which are very detailed. I think you'll be impressed.

I think we all just have to research as much as we can about the candidates and look to other people/groups we TRUST for their opinions. It's time we stopped voting for people just because they're a “politician.” As we know, most politicians these days are self-serving and couldn't care less about serving the people who got them elected! We sometimes have to take a leap of faith. My vote would be for Behney; he stands for what I believe in.

KCHoosier offers an informative and compelling critique of the candidates as seen through the eyes of iCaucus. If our country is to stem the socialist tide that rises higher daily, we must elect representatives that are honest, that will listen, and that hold a deep and endurung respect for the founding fathers and the constitution they created.

Any individual that consistently gives affirmative replies to the Candidate Qualification Questionnaire referenced by RC must certainly possess the above characteristics, and, personally, I wouldn't be interested in any candidate that didn't give those positive replies. If you haven't read the CQQ, please take the time, as I just did, to do so. You'll uderstand what I'm saying and understand just how powerful an iCaucus endorsement is.

Any discussion concerning Dan Coats, John Hostettler, Marlin Stutzman or Don Bates, Jr. is merely a discussion about which candidate to settle for. Which one brings the fewest problems and carries the lightest baggage? Which one of the four is at least better than being represented by any of the other three? That's a negative conversation that we've had to indulge in all too often in the past.

In contrast, Richard Behney stands head and shoulders above the others in his veracity, reliability, and uprightness. I especially like the slogan I found on the home page of iCaucus, “Focused on integrity over big money”. Indiana has an opportunity to send a true patriot to represent them in Washington. I can't imagine myself, or anyone else for that matter, casting a vote for any candidate but Mr. Richard Behney.

Voters who are not familiar with the Independence Caucus should definitely take a look a the web site, the vetting questions, and the candidate interviews. There is no other group that vets candidates so thoroughly with such a clear consitutional base. These candidates are going to make great representatives. We need to get all of them elected, including Mr. Behney.

You Do Realize that earmarks do not change the amount of money congress spends. I could not look at the video as I am not signing up but if it says earmarks are bad you really need more information what earmarks are.

I joined ICaucus because I like all the members of ICaucus want to clean the trash out of government and get well vetted candidates in the running. We want real choices and Richard Behney is the real deal. We don't need progressive rino's to continue to destroy our Country. We want them grounded in the Constitution not in the power of the office and the cash that follows. I vote for Behney. I'm tired of the media and the 'party' telling us who to vote for.

It is interesting to note that many tea partiers in this state do NOT support Behney, even many who worked with him to put on the large Indy Tea Party last year. There are a few who stayed in his camp, but not the majority. Just a thought.

Melissa, Earmarks are government funds allocated for a particular pet project WITHOUT adherence to the “competitive allocation process”. So, yes, I do consider them bad. Just because it does not change the amount of money congress spends does not mean that money is spent wisely. I am sorry you do not want to watch the video-you do not have to sign up-it is only an educational tool. I believe you mean well, but, watch the video..it won't bite you…then enlighten me.

Richard Behney's answers to the I-Caucus test were very impressive.

I also listened to the Stutzman interview and I am truly surprised with America's eyes wide open, like I thought they were, they wouldn't see and hear the untruth in this “constitutionalist.” It sounded to me like he wanted the state's land to remain under control of the Fed. Gov't. I didn't view his vetting questionnaire, but just from the interview. . . we really can't afford someone who isn't a true conservative. We know what that does!

Certainly Indiana voters are smarter than this.

I like Behney and know the iCaucus vetting process is outstanding.

Well said.

I found this article very enlightening. It seems there is only one republican candidate for senator that knows the rules / follows those rules.

————————————————————–
All but Stutzman miss financial-disclosure deadline
By Sylvia A Smith

WASHINGTON – All but one candidate for the GOP Senate nomination have missed a deadline for disclosing their income and financial holdings.

Marlin Stutzman, one of five contenders for his party’s nod, filed the required form, but the others have not. Their reports are 10 days overdue.

Dan Coats’ campaign press secretary, Pete Seat, said an adviser gave Coats wrong information about the deadline and that Coats will request an extension “soon.”

However, Senate ethics rules say that “an extension granted to a candidate is ineffective past the date such extension will result in a report being filed later than 30 days prior to an election.”

Indiana’s primary is May 4; congressional candidates’ financial disclosure reports were due April 4.

Don Bates said Wednesday he “totally forgot about it.… It’s been sitting on my desk.”

He said he would file the report promptly.

Carl Little, a spokesman for John Hostettler’s campaign, said Hostettler wasn’t aware until Tuesday that he had missed the deadline and would file the report “ASAP.”

Little said Hostettler described himself as in “House of Representatives mode,” meaning that the disclosure forms House members must fill out are mailed to them. He said the Senate did not mail Hostettler a form.

Richard Behney said he was unaware of the requirement until a reporter asked him about it.

“We’re new to the campaign thing,” Behney said, adding that he would fulfill the requirement when he investigates what he has to do.

Candidates and members of Congress are required to file annual financial statements listing their assets, income from those assets, the gifts they received, their debts and other financial information.

Incumbent senators file reports on May 15. Candidates must provide the same information for the previous year as well as the information up to the date of the filing. So the five Republican Senate contenders will be required to reveal the sources of their income from Jan. 1, 2009, through the date they file the report.

Democrats have been critical of Coats’ failure to meet the deadline because they say it hides information about his income from lobbying.

Since he retired from the Senate in 1998, Coats has been a Washington-based lobbyist except for a period when he was President Bush’s envoy to Germany.

In the last financial disclosure report he filed as a senator, Coats reported as much as $199,500 in outside income. The report covered 1997.

He listed assets worth between $1 million and $2.8 million; the Senate allows filers to categorize income and asset value in broad ranges.

That year, Coats owned or sold stock in MCI Communications Corp., Capital One Financial Corp., Silverleaf Resorts, Sequent Computer Systems, Alternative Living Services, LCI International, Volvo, Perrigo Co., Lucandia Nautical, Vitalink Pharmacy, American Home Products Corp., Motorola, Atria Communities, AURA Systems, Bancorp, Western Bancorp Amway Asia Pacific, Grancare Inc. and Paragon Health Network.

Members of Congress were paid $133,600 in 1997.

The maximum penalty for failing to file the report is $50,000. A spokesman for the Senate Ethics Committee said smaller fines are sometimes imposed but that information on the fines and candidates is kept secret.

Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-8th, the likely Democratic Senate nominee, is not covered by the reporting requirement for Senate candidates, but he is required to file a disclosure report with the House on May 15.

House candidates have the same filing requirement for the same type of information. Phil Troyer, one of three Republicans running to unseat Rep. Mark Souder, R-3rd, filed his report.

Bob Thomas, another Souder challenger, has not. He said he got verbal permission to file late.

“If you look at the instruction booklet,” he wrote in an e-mail, “you will notice that you get an automatic extension (some confusion as to whether or not a $200 late fee is required) for up to 30 days.”

The rules state an extension may be granted, but “in no event will an extension be granted which authorizes a candidate’s report to be filed later than 30 days prior to a primary.”

Jason Kingsbury, campaign manager for Democrat Tom Hayhurst, said he and the campaign treasurer had misread the rules and thought the report was due May 15. Told of the actual due date – April 4 — Kingsbury said the disclosure report would be filed within a few days.

Since there has been so much discussion about the responses Marlin gave to iCaucus, I wanted to investigate his answers further. This is one explaination I found, and it certainly makes sense.

——————————————————————
Regarding the iCaucus questions:

The candidates were instructed that if they would say “maybe” or “no” to a given question, or thought they might change their minds on any given vote in Congress, then they should NOT answer yes. Because changing their minds might be tantamount to going back on their word. Marlin and Luke Messer and a couple of others followed that instruction to the letter.
The question about federal lands was worded very weirdly. Here's the gist: Will you support (or words along this line) forcing the Federal Government to give up all lands it has taken over except Washington DC and military firing ranges and military forts? And that is how it was worded. Now. That is NOT what was meant. This is what was meant:

Will you begin legislation to force the federal government to hand over to the states all lands – especially those lands with known oil, gas and/or coal reserves on them – so that those fields can be accessed in order to provide our own energy sources? (Or something along that order)
The people, like Marlin, thought that ALL federal land takeovers also was meant to include National Parks. The ones I listened to didn't try to read into the question as to what was meant, but rather what was actually stated. They turned to the thought of “what would the states…..who are now in extreme financial straits …..do about the upkeep of those Parks and keep the personnel on the payrolls in order to effect that upkeep?” Then Marlin did say that he enjoyed being able to take his family to those National Parks and worried that they would necessarily have to close because of the states' shortfalls of monies.

The question was flawed, and I spoke up about that at length to the Nesses. Frankly, I feel sorry for them because they are literally trying to herd cats. Keep the conversations going and yet hold to the principles of I-Caucus together. I believe that Marlin took a hit on that stupid question…..stupid because its REAL meaning was obfuscated in the REAL question asked.
I also think he took a hit because he talked about the possible repercussions of term limits and wasn't sure he could support that right now at this time.

—————————————————————

For anyone that is watching the senate race closely, and have not made up your mind who you will vote for, I hope the above explaination helps put into context the whole iCaucus debate.