The Joe Donnelly camp came out swinging at Republican Senate nominee Richard Mourdock, arguing that his promise not to cooperate with Democrats is extreme and not in the national interest.
Mourdock replied that it’s okay to compromise about policy, but not about principle.
Call me a cynic, but I immediately thought of an old anecdote:
George Bernard Shaw once found himself at a dinner party, seated beside an attractive woman. “Madam,” he asked, “would you go to bed with me for a thousand pounds?” The woman blushed and rather indignantly shook her head.
“For ten thousand pounds?” he asked. “No. I would not.” “Then how about fifty thousand pounds?” he continued.
The colossal sum gave the woman pause, and after further reflection, she coyly replied: “Perhaps.” “And if I were to offer you five pounds?” Shaw asked.
“Mr. Shaw!” the woman exclaimed. “What do you take me for!” “We have already established what you are,” Shaw calmly replied. “Now we are merely haggling over the price.”
Hold that thought.
Let’s look at what Mourdock’s websites identify as the four “critical issues”:
Obama Care must be de-funded and repealed
Richard Mourdock firmly believes that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act forced on Americans by Obama’s administration is unconstitutional and must be stopped at all costs. We cannot have the Federal government sponsoring abortions, nationalizing our care, or bankrupting our nation with socialist ideals that do not work in the real world. Mr. Mourdock will fight to see “ObamaCare” overturned in the courts, defunded in Congress, or repealed through legislation.
Is Mourdock prepared to abolish Medicare, a “nationalized care” plan, or is that a “socialist ideal that does[] work in the real world”?
The failures of Barack Obama and his Administration
During the final Presidential debate of 2008, then Senator Barack Obama was quoted as saying that Senator Dick Lugar was one of the individuals “who have shaped my ideas and who will be surrounding me in the White House.” Senator Lugar has co-sponsored legislation with Obama and has proven many times that he is truly a Republican in name only. In contrast, Richard Mourdock is not a supporter of President Obama and has been hyper-critical of the President’s out of control spending, government takeovers of private sector business, and his continual attacks on our economy. The very fabric of our society is at stake and centrists like Senator Lugar must be replaced by conservatives who will rebuild America as it should be. Richard Mourdock is the candidate for the future of America.
How much spending is in control by Mourdock’s lights? (N.B. “Hypercritical” is commendatory?!)
We must put an end to illegal immigration
Richard Mourdock is against any form of amnesty for illegal aliens, including the DREAM act which was supported by his opponent, Dick Lugar. Mr. Mourdock knows that we must secure our borders to protect against acts of terror but also to put an end to the continued loss of American jobs. Our laws and rules must be upheld. Mr. Mourdock wants immigrants to have their own piece of the American dream, but they simply must follow the rule of law to make it happen.
Is it okay for them to come in unlimited numbers if they’re not terrorists? How many legal immigrants will we allow in to steal “American jobs”? And in what sense are jobs not “American” if they’re done in America?
The 2nd Amendment and our rights as Americans
Mr. Mourdock knows that crime will not be controlled simply by making gun ownership illegal. The ability for Americans to keep and bear arms is protected by the constitution of the United States of America for good reason. By making gun ownership illegal, we are simply guaranteeing that criminals will always be armed and the good citizens of America will be unable to lawfully defend themselves. The constitution has been under constant attack since the election of Senator Lugar’s good friend, Barack Obama. We must defeat Lugar and the policies of destruction that RINO’s like him and the left have implemented for the past 3+ years. Richard will fight for our God given and constitutionally protected rights while re-establishing our core, conservative values in the Senate.
For what “good reason” is “the ability for Americans to keep and bear arms … protected by the constitution”? Absent that reason, what will Mourdock do in addition to making gun ownership illegal, since “Simply making gun ownership illegal won’t control crime”? Are there any Americans who forfeit their right to keep and bear arms? What arms do we have a God-given right to keep and bear? Bazookas? RPGs? Nukes?
What is the principle that makes total obstructionism a vital “principle”?
Like everyone else in Washington, Mourdock will be haggling over the price, even when his haggling technique is cross-armed, chin-jutting obstructionism.
* * * * *
View this in a browser instead of an RSS feeder to see Tweets at upper right, or subscribe on Twitter.
Tipsy Teetotaler ن 