• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Practical Joe

But, you see, Joe, that's exactly the problem:

Rep. Joe Donnelly's (D-Ind.) latest ad portrays him as a bipartisan pragmatist while poking fun at his opponent, Indiana state Treasurer Richard Mourdock (R), for his uncompromisingly conservative views.

The ad reflects the central strategy of Donnelly's campaign: to frame himself as a nonpartisan while painting Mourdock as outside the political mainstream in the Republican-leaning state.

It was "bipartisan pragmatism" (God, what an awful phrase) that gave us the monster Washington has become, and it will take a lot of "uncompromising conservatism" to even begin to undo the mess. In a state that, let's be honest, does a little more that "lean Republican," I can't for the life of me understand why somebody thinks pragmatism is the winning strategy and conservatism the dirty word.


Wed, 07/11/2012 - 6:54pm

Thanks Joe, for voting for the ObamaTax.  

My property [money] doesn't belong to me, it belongs to you and you have a right to dispose of it as you see fit.  I've always been honored to sacrific all of my employment hours just for you.

Best of luck in your campaign for the governorship of Indiana.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 7:03pm

If  Joe wants to run against Richard Mourdock for the Senate Indiana Senate seat instead, then best of luck still.  


Wed, 07/11/2012 - 9:51pm

So it's pragmatic to be an uncompromising conservative when running for the Senate in Indiana. Would it be pragmatic to be an uncompromising conservative when serving in the Senate, where a considerable number of people might not agree with you?

Christopher Swing
Sat, 07/14/2012 - 4:53am

Because we've reached the point that what people are calling "conservatism" has gone completely off the deep end;

"I refuse to believe that I am the only Republican who feels this way. If CNN’s most recent polling is correct, only half of us sympathize with the tea party. However, moderate-minded people dislike conflict—and thus tend to lose to people who relish conflict. The most extreme voices in the GOP now denounce everybody else as Republicans in Name Only. But who elected them as the GOP’s membership committee? What have they done to deserve such an inheritance? In the mid-sixties, when the party split spectacularly between Ripon Republicans, who embraced the civil-rights movement, and Goldwater Republicans, who opposed it, civil-rights Republicans like Michigan governor George Romney spoke forcefully for their point of view. Today, Republicans discomfited by political and media extremism bite their tongues. But if they don’t speak up, they’ll be whipsawed into a choice between an Obama administration that wants to build a permanently bigger government and a conservative movement content with permanently outraged opposition.

"This is, unfortunately, not merely a concern for Republican voters. The conservative shift to ever more extreme, ever more fantasy-based ideology has ominous real-world consequences for American society. The American system of government can’t work if the two sides wage all-out war upon each other: House, Senate, president, each has the power to thwart the others. In prior generations, the system evolved norms and habits to prevent this kind of stonewalling. For example: Theoretically, the party that holds the Senate could refuse to confirm any Cabinet nominees of a president of the other party. Yet until recently, this just “wasn’t done.” In fact, quite a lot of things that theoretically could be done just “weren’t done.” Now old inhibitions have given way. Things that weren’t done suddenly are done."

Go ahead and vote for Mourdock, but remember that you're only encouraging this insanity.