Marlin Stutzman has two choices: If he was indeed lied to, he should run for Speaker; if he is lying, he should resign.

I have admired Marlin Stutzman for his positions during his short time in Congress. He has always been a solid, pro-life conservative. He supported the 2013 government  shutdown.

Last night, Stutzman changed his original vote on the rule that  allowed the cromnibus bill to come to the floor.  Had he not done so, it is likely that the bill would have died.

According to CQ Roll Call:

“After the “cromnibus” passed Thursday night, [mc_name name=’Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN)’ chamber=’house’ mcid=’S001188′ ], R-Ind., made the rather shocking claim that GOP leadership convinced him to vote for the rule allowing the bill to get to the floor by telling him they were pulling the bill anyway.”

Here’s the complete Roll Call article:


If Stutzman is telling the truth, he wasn’t “hoodwinked” or “misinformed.” He was outright lied to.

And he should not be happy about it, nor should he accept it.

Indeed, he has only one honorable recourse open to him: the should announce that he will run against Boehner for Speaker in the next Congress. His leadership has violated the trust he delegated to them; he cannot continue to support them.

Assuming that Martha McSally wins her recount vote, the GOP will have 247 members in the House in January.

More important, it thus only takes 30 votes against Boehner to deny him election.

Surely there are 30 conservatives in the House willing to take a stand against a corrupt, venal, incompetent, and utterly-devoid-of values-and-principals leadership.

CQ, in the article, confirms that Stutzman’s statement is consistent with what they heard. That’s a good thing, because if Stutzman were lying to cover his posterior, then he should resign now, or, failing to do so,  the good people of his district should start looking for a candidate to  run against him in 2016.

One thing about this whole story is confusing (and admittedly, I do not understand the often arcane House rules and procedures.)

If the leadership, as it professes, was supposedly going to pull the bill later on ( after the rule passed), one must ask: WHY?

What would they gain by doing this? What would be accomplished by this course of action?

I can’t see any reason for them to proceed in this way.

And here’s where it gets complicated, and disturbing:

If I can’t see any reason, if there is no viable explanation, then surely Stutzman should have asked himself the same question.

I would like a further explanation from the congressman. Surely he owes us that much.