"When you're looking at a vote count and you see two members voted against something, you think, oh, it's (Texas Republican) Ron Paul and John Hostettler," said Lauren Noyes, director of U.S. House Relations for the conservative-leaning think tank the Heritage Foundation. In his eight years in Congress, Hostettler has fashioned a niche for himself as socially and fiscally conservative, unafraid to vote against spending bills he sees as too high even when they might include pork for his own district. He seldom votes for constitutional amendments (among the exceptions: he supports an amendment banning flag-burning). And he has opposed measures that would buy more federal land under the belief that the government already owns too much land.
Special-interest group scorecards - which rank House members by their votes - tell the story: The National Right to Life Committee gave him a 100 percent ranking, Planned Parenthood gave him a 0. The Christian Coalition gave him a 92. The Humane Society gave him a 0. This year alone, he has been in the minority of his party on a handful of bills. Among them: a bill proposing a tax limitation amendment to the Constitution of the United States. A bill that would create investigative teams to assess building performance, emergency response and evacuation procedures after a massive building failure. And a bill that would improve block grants for welfare programs.
Last year, he voted against bills funding the Commerce, Justice and State departments as well as a bill funding the Agriculture Department. He voted against the massive "Leave No Child Behind" education bill. But he supported spending bills funding the legislative branch, the District of Columbia and military construction.
Hostettler's Washington office hung up numerous times on a reporter seeking comment on his voting record.
Hostettler's votes, unsurprisingly, have earned him attacks from his challenger, Bryan Hartke, who said the 8th District is ill-served by someone who does not support funding for basic governmental programs. That Hostettler continually votes against prescription drug benefits is a slap in the face for older 8th District constituents, Hartke said. "There are people who can't afford food and medicine that really need help," he said. "The biggest comment I hear is 'How can he say we don't need it? Just come and talk to us.'" Hostettler's 'present' vote on Traficant also mystifies Hartke. "As a voter and a constituent, I would demand he say yes or no on issues like that," he said.
Immediately after the vote, Hostettler issued a statement saying he voted present because he believes that Congress must maintain autonomy from federal courts. "Congress has so abdicated its role on the most important issues of the day that the voice of the people has been drowned out by that of an unelected and unaccountable Judiciary," he said.
Scott Stoermer of the League of Conservation Voters is also mystified by Hostettler's voting record.
"He has failed to cast a single pro-environmental vote in the last two years," he said, citing votes that would enhance farmland conservation and endangered species. "He's pretty much against everything."
Hostettler has repeatedly landed on that group's "Dirty Dozen" of anti-environmental congressman. He didn't land on it this year, simply because Stoermer said his race is not as competitive this year.
Others respect Hostettler's willingness to vote in the minority.
Jim Backlin, legislative director for the Christian Coalition, said Hostettler has had a nearly consistent 100 percent score since the beginning. Hostettler voted against a bill for school vouchers last year, but other than that has mirrored the coalition's views on issues.
While other consistent conservatives vote with the coalition but don't necessarily speak out on them, Hostettler speaks out, Backlin said.
Noyes said while some fellow Republicans might occasionally resent him voting against close bills, they respect that he stands up for what he believes in in a traditionally tumultuous district.
"He does not always vote in the way that would be politically the best way for him to vote," Noyes said. "But he really sticks to his principles."
Having said that, lemme tell you of an article which appeared in the last Warrick County Register; which, is this county's paper "of record."
Keep in mind; the thing's *given* away free; as, it'd appear no one's willing to cough up the fifty cents for a once-a-week copy?
Here's esentually what happened.
Hostetter was to have met with a woman's group whose cause was Breast Cancer, BC research, prevention etc.
This local paper of our's was agast (in their editorial) when Hostetter -- & according to the paper's writer -- while meeting with this group told 'em that recent "research" had concluded women who'd had an abortion, showed higher instances of breast cancer.
The *spin* on the "editorial" was many & varied; such as...
"How could he [Hostetter] be so cruel - so stupid - so insensitive - so uncaring" yadayadayada.
Followed up with, "Does this man Hostetter realize he's hurting his OWN political chances with this kind of rhetoric?"
Then the obligatory *guilt* thang to end it..."Hostetter had NO WAY of knowing if one or *any* of these women had underwent an abortion; so, *WHY* even bring it up!?"
Get the picture??
The man's actively pro-life to the nth degree & that's certainly no secret!!
*Since* this area of Indiana's overwhelmingly conservative, the people usually elect pro-life candidate(s) -- which explains to *my* satisfaction* why the guy's been elected repeatedly -- this paper then feigns shock by insinuating Hostetter was *implying* something more than what he actually said?
Deliberately & painstakingly itemizing each of THEIR (above stated) points; based, upon Hostetter's one statement?
~oy.
Sense an *agenda* here??
Same ol' modus operandi as the The Associated Press' quisling contributing rags will use at the LA/NY Slimes, WACompost, Atlanta Urinal & Constipation, Miami Heresy etc et al.
Point is: there're forces out to torpedo this man this cycle.
They're using tactics that've a distinctive -- albeit familiar -- Liberal-Socialist reek to 'em & most importantly they're using these *smears*, *scares*, *indictments* in an area which should very well be a slam-dunk for Hostetter.
A measure of the Left's desperation?
As I said, the rag this article appeared in is a "Give-Away"; so, take it for what it's worth.
...it went into my trash can anyway; as, it always does.