Yesterday, I got a phone call from an old friend. Unlike most of my other Republican friends, who have been appalled by the Lugar-Mourdock results, he was euphoric. Why? Because Mourdock “is a bomb thrower! He’ll go to Washington and he won’t play the game!”
Also yesterday, a commenter to one of my recent blogs on the subject questioned the idea that Lugar had moved to the right during his long career. Why, he had voted for the President’s Supreme Court Justices and the bailouts, and supported the Dream Act! How could he be conservative?
If there is any lesson to be learned from the expression of these sentiments, it is that political advertising is effective, especially when coupled with an audience’s lack of understanding of basic democratic (note small d) governance. The examples cited by the commenter as evidence that Lugar is really a “moderate” who (in the opinion of my Republican friend) “played with the liberals” amount to little more than a regurgitation of Mourdock’s ads. Three or four examples were plucked from a 36-year career and relentlessly pounded on; voila! the man’s a squishy bipartisan compromiser. And compromise is bad, bomb-throwing and intransigence are what we need!
The people expressing these opinions aren’t uneducated. But they were clearly swayed by an unrelenting ad campaign fueled by lots of Super Pac money.
I don’t worry about two people with uninformed opinions. Nor do I fault these folks for not doing the research necessary to counter the 30-second sound-bites.
But I am deeply worried about the extent to which billionaires and Super Pacs will influence the millions of equally uninformed voters in November.
I share your worries, Sheila. What drives me crazy is that so very many of our fellow citizens don’t even realize that the billionaires and superpacs wield that much influence. The term “Citizens United” means nothing to them.
depressing but accurate.
Steven Colbert exposed the lack of regulation of Super Pacs with humor. Bill Adair’s PolitiFact exposes the truth, or lack thereof, in political statements. The problem with the Tea Party is that it never lets facts get in the way of political missions. Telling lies to oust someone from elected office is unconscionable. Purposefully withholding truthful context for actions or statements is also lying.
As a former Hoosier, I grew up with Lugar as my senator and liked that we had an elder statesman especially in the foreign policy realm. It is sad that the parties have polarized the extent that they have, but I think we can fault both sides equally, and Mr. Lugar is a casualty of that fight. I think the earlier resignation of Mr Bayh is another. I’m a Republican, but was sad to see him go, just as moderate Democrats are sad to see Lugar go.
Any lie repeated often enough – especially by those believed to be intelligent – will be believed as truth. When it is repeated in the media and we receive it from numerous sources on our PC in professional appearing form; it MUST be the truth – right? WRONG! We must do our own thinking and simply Google or go the factcheck for the truth. We must also listen closely to what Democrats are saying; then listen to what Republicans say Democrats are saying, rarely is their version truthful or in proper context. Think for yourselves, people, think for yourselves and use the resources readily available on your computers.
Not voting for certain people for the SCOTUS doesn’t go against democratic governance. In fact, it is a clear example of it. If I believe the Constitution gives me the right to at least own a handgun with a fifteen round magazine, then I demand my elected representatives block any an all SCOTUS appointments who don’t share that belief. Lugar voted for two justices which I believe would have no problem telling me I can’t own a handgun, only agents of the state/government can. Why would I vote for someone who doesn’t have my best interest at heart?
Why would it be wrong to force the president to compromise on his/her selections as judges/justices? Or any laws they wish to be passed? I’m not surprised your Republican friends are upset. Most Republicans, especially those enriched by the status quo, seem to support big government, big spending. Lugar gave them that. Don’t confuse these folks with conservatives. Also, not all conservatives are the same. You will have religious conservatives, but also fiscal conservatives.
The status quo of spend, spend, spend and Lugar’s support for SCOUTS justices who I believe would strip me of certain rights is why I voted against him. When folks see these “statesmen” racking up debt, they figure that it is OK to do the same thing in their own personal life. Then of course when everything blows up because they purchased the unaffordable, they demand a bailout…that someone else pay for their mistake.
I didn’t personally vote for Mourdock. It was more a vote to stop the status quo. Consensus and bi-partisanship has likely destroyed this country given our debt. Look at the moral lessons our government has sent to the population about debt and personal accountability? No wonder we have a credit card debt problem, a housing debt problem, and now a student loan problem.
Stop the status-quo; you have many opinions on many subjects and about people you identify but for some reason do not identify yourself. To me, this negates any and all of your opinions as you are a non-person.
JoAnn,
I embrace anonymity because politics has a bad record of interfering with people’s personal lives. You can dismiss anonymous comments all you want, but doing so likely is why some Republicans were “appalled” by the results. They dismiss everyone who isn’t a name. They dismiss anonymous comments on various media sources. It was pretty clear folks weren’t happen, but since they weren’t anyone important, or chose to be anonymous, their opinions were brushed off as non-important. Unfortunately for them, these people are allowed to vote, and their votes count.
Also, it isn’t like posting a name is some sort of magic identifier. I could use the exact same name anywhere on the internet, does it really have any meaning?
It would be more pleasant in a way, being influenced by an “unrelenting ad campaign fueled by lots of Super Pac money”. Unfortunately, some of us have been concerned pre-President Obama or even Bart Peterson. Public protesting, writing email, calling talk shows, and working in elections leaves less time for work and family.
Compromise always offers promise. But, as described in another local blog, if one party submits that the city should be set afire, a lead diplomat of the other side should not submit to do so in phases! A lot of America that doesn’t hate because of race, gender, or sexual orientation still believe government is too big, too unaffordable, and too far adrift from our founding orientation.