• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS
34°
Wednesday April 23, 2014
View complete forecast
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Stock Summary
Dow16514.3765.12
Nasdaq4161.460
S&P 5001879.557.66
AEP51.670.02
Comcast50.830.95
GE26.58-0.01
ITT Exelis18.790.04
LNC48.500.63
Navistar35.060.58
Raytheon99.50-1.97
SDI18.19-0.04
Verizon47.92-0.06
Opening Arguments

Cliff notes

The Muncie Star-Press editorial page is mighty pleased that that nasty extremist, Tea Party partisan Richard Mourdock lost by 6 percent to that paragon of moderate virtue Joe Donnelly:

We, as many, still believe the Mourdock camp did a great disservice to the state and to a statesman in kicking aside Sen. Richard Lugar in the May Republican primary. Too liberal, too collaborative, too old. Those were the slams against Lugar, perhaps the best senator ever to serve Indiana and one of the best ever to serve the Republic.

Now, at least one tea partier, Greg Fettig of the Hoosiers for a Conservative Senate, says Mourdock lost because he distanced himself from his Tea Party supporters and was disserved by a poorly managed campaign. And Fettig took another shot at Lugar, calling him, according to The Associated Press, “a fixture of Washington, big government bureaucracy,” which is just so much rubbish.

In a contrast that was both good political strategy and probably sincere, Donnelly complimented Lugar often during the campaign, appealed to “Lugar Republicans” and, last week, talked about the big shoes he would have to fill in the Senate.

There is nothing in the whole editorial -- not a single, solitary word -- about the mounting deficicts, crushing national debt and unsustainable entitlement programs that Mourdock made the centerpiece of his campaign. How could there be, really? If you're going to prattle on about the beauty of "collaborative efforts" and other such rubbish, better not call attention to what such collaboration has wrought.

On the other hand, I have to admit that what Donnelly's been saying lately is encouraging. The Journal Gazette talked to both him and GOP Sen. Dan Coats about the looming fiscal cliff. Donnnelly, among other things, said this:

President Obama is insisting on higher tax rates for the wealthiest Americans. But Donnelly, who will join Coats in the Senate next year after his election Nov. 6, supports extending the Bush-era tax cuts for a year, and he predicted lower corporate tax rates along with the end of various corporate tax breaks.

Donnelly said he also would like to see a plan “that reduces spending in a very significant way.”

Keep the lower tax rates for everybody and reduce spending in a "very significant way." Mourdock couldn't have said it better. Now let's see what actions his words are followed by.

Comments

Harl Delos
Thu, 11/15/2012 - 2:27pm

Any candidate who considers rape to be a holy institution, ordained by God for the purpose of procreation, ought to be sent to the loonie bin, not the Senate.

 

gadfly
Thu, 11/15/2012 - 11:00pm

Harl:

You are really much more intelligent than your comment indicates, so why not read everything about the poorly worded answer that Mourdock gave to the loaded question about abortion and rape.

Yes, Richard Mourdock eventually gave the explanation that should have been in his answer.  He said that  God approved of the pregnancy, else he would not have permitted it. Mourdock  did not mean that God approved of rape.  The innocent in this theoretical rape was the new life in the womb and those of us who believe that abortion is murder do not believe that God approves of such actions.

The act of rape should not enter into a decision to end a life of an innocent.

 

 

littlejohn
Fri, 11/16/2012 - 12:30pm

I don't think you need to worry about Donnelly. He's a DINO. Like all politicians, his principal concern is re-election. He represents a red state. He saw what happened to Lugar. He'll be nearly as loony as Mourdock would have been.

Harl Delos
Sun, 11/18/2012 - 12:45am

Do you and Mr. Mourdock really believe that God is incapable of creating life any other way but rape?

I am undoubtedly uncharitable in pointing out that many christians who profess to believe every word of the bible ignore the only part written by God himself: the ten commandments.  It seems to me that nearly all but the unitarians are violating the commandment against worshipping others than God, and are ignoring the many places where Jesus referred to God in the second or third person.  And even the unitaarians are ignoring the part about Jehovah saying he is the lord thy god.  Unless Jehovah is illiterate, it appears that there are multiple gods, and that different people may have different gods than Jehovah. 

Being a goy, I had a conversation with my maker, and she said that the proper noun "God" is like "me" or "Mom" in that it means something different depending on who's using the term, rather that always meaning Jehovah. And that she's not Jehovah.

I'm not trying to insult christians in my second paragraph; I'm just noting a common human tendency to accept as gospel anything learned at an early age, whether it's religion, or the relative superiority of Purdue vesus I.U., or defining okra as "food".  Logic doesn't answer such questions, but a grin-and-bear-it attitude helps.  And before someone gets het up and tries to insult me by pointing out that since I have a different God than the one Jesus prayed to, I'm not a Christian, and not qualified to make such judgments, I'll smile and point out that I'm not female, but that doesn't keep me from appreciating a pretty woman. 

And as I pointed out, I'm trying to be logical/analytical, not insulting.  Ain't nothing wrong with most christians that being more christian about others' faults wouldn't help.  But not everyone claiming to be a christian is one; those doing Satan's work typically claim to be christians, too.

I suspect Mr. Mourdock needs to spend more time conversing with his maker, and less time listening to self-important preachers.  I doubt his god will confess to needing rape as a tool to accomplish his plan.

 

Quantcast