The City County Observer endorsed Evansville’s Richard Mourdock over Senator Dick Lugar in the Republican primary. The words of candidate Mourdock of the last two days have convinced us that our endorsement while made with the available information at the time was not the right thing to do.
The CCO regrets its endorsement of Richard Mourdock in the primary and hereby endorses Mr. Mourdock’s opponent Joe Donnelly for the United States Senate seat from Indiana. It has become apparent that the beliefs expressed by Mr. Mourdock with respect to women’s rights and the crime of rape are not consistent with the City County Observer’s goals of seeing good public policy implemented locally and nationally.
Well put! I think the voters are making the same decisions now as well. Makes one wonder how many early and absentee voters are wishing they could change their ballots.
Yes, I agree. Many early voters are regretting that decision, I’m sure.
You must be joking…
You do realize there is a Libertarian, Andrew Horning, in that race, right? He has taken BOTH the major party candidates to school in the debates preaching limited government. His philosophy on women’s rights is in line with the CCO, plus he doesn’t have all the baggage Donnelly has. Why on earth would you overlook him in your endorsement?
Have you completely lost your balls or what?
If you want your endorsements taken seriously, make them a little less flippantly and with greater fidelity to your actual core philosophy next time and you won’t have to join the flip-flopping line dance.
Endorsing Donnelly? You might as well have just rescinded your endorsement and refrained. I’m actually kinda disappointed by this, Joe. I honestly thought you had more sense than this.
You also realize that though they have some good issues and make valid points that a Libertarian vote is wasted. Ya ya I know if everyone voted it wouldnt be wasted but thats just not going to happen. Make your vote count instead of a protest vote.
Total BS. The only “wasted” vote is one that did not satisfy your own conscience, or one that you would struggle explaining to your kids later.
If the idea is to undermine Mourdock over his statements, then encouraging Republicans to vote Libertarian in this race makes perfect sense without sacrificing principle.
Im not gonna argue there as far as undermining Mourdock but Libertarians just arent viable. Andy, who I have met several times, is a nice man, good speaker and very knowledgeable about the issues but will never get elected to anything and will probably end up at about 3.5% percent is hes lucky. I think he got around 2% in his 2008 Gov. race. Libertarians are great as spoilers but just not gonna accomplish anything other than being a foil for either party.
That’s what they said about the Lib Dems in England. Oh how times have changed.
The whole purpose of holding elections is to determine who is “viable”. If other people insist on voting for the lesser evil, getting evil as a result, and then bitching about it, I can’t help that. Only thing I can change is how I vote. If neither the Republican nor the Democratic candidate is reflecting my viewpoint, why on earth would I sacrifice my position to reward either of them for that? That only weakens my position. I could take the pragmatic approach like so many others do who think they are working from a position of strength and superior intelligence, but I would be forgetting that pragmatism is what has led us to the position we are in now. If I hold fast, one of these parties will eventually see an important niche of voters not being catered to, and they just might adopt a few more libertarian planks into their platforms, or risk losing the deciding votes to the other candidate in every single election.
Just realize, the way things are isn’t necessarily the way things will always be. Whenever the people get well and truly fed up with the status quo they keep getting from BOTH parties, the Libertarians will be there. For people like me who vote with principle in mind rather than pragmatism, we will keep finding ourselves pulling the “L” lever in a lot of races.
One more thing… The people who decide the course of history in large part are those who go against the grain and keep doing it until the tables turn their direction. Mindless followers have their place in society, but no one remembers them in the end.
Thank you for endorsing the clear choice in this race. Joe Donnelly will be a fantastic Senator, and I look forward to his win.
Time for Mr. Keep it Real to step in:
1. Dick Lugar is an old man who has lost touch with his
constituency and his roots. Richard Nixon’s Favorite Mayor..
2. Mourdock has devoted his career to public service in Indiana..
People who have worked with him speak well of him…
3. Let’s not judge a person by their best act on their best day or
their worst act on their worst day…
4. Democrats are trying to trap republicans like Mourdock and Aiken in
Missouri to say stupid stuff about “women’s issues”
5. Stop piling on and think long-term…
“Democrats are trying to trap republicans like Mourdock and Aiken in
Missouri to say stupid stuff about women’s issues.â€
That is a rediculous statement!
Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock freely and without entrapment made their two rediculous statements.
Mourdock’s assine quote was made during a debate in response to the moderator’s question to all the participants. Let’s look at Mourdock’s answer:
“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
“I struggled with it myself for a long time …” Does that sound like someone who was “trapped by Democrats” into making an off the cuff remark?
Now, where’s the bullshit buzzer …
Besides blacks, women is one of the few groups where Obama had been polling a double digit lead over Romney (despite his continuing treatment of Hillary Clinton). In order to solidify this crumbling lead yes verbal traps are being laid for Republicans who are playing to their religious base…anyone who remembers the Sandra Fluck (sp?) incident from earlier this year knows this.
Weinzaple (sp?), Hostetler, Lloyd, Abell are all on the ballot all of the time..
If you don’t want to vote for Mourdock cool, but give a logical reason..
You left out the 45% Obama has among Hispanics, the largest minority group in America.
And of the 4 people you just named none of them are on the ballot this year, unless you count Maggie Lloyd but its clear your refering to Russell. Verbal Trap? How do you feel about abortion isnt much of a trick question
Okay, last post. Karl Rove came up with the strategy of growing the base instead of making a big tent. Axelrod is doing this for Obama
Some issues unite Americans (tax reform, less govt. red tape) while other issues divide Americans (abortion, gun control, death penalty).
Obama campaigned as a unifying figure in 2008 and a divisive figure in 2012. He is just trying to grow his base to win this election and one way to do this is to bring back the fear of back alley abortions…
Mr Mourdock is merely expressing one of the unfortunate consequences of Calvinism or predeterminist thinking often found among the uber religious sect. This is a logical maelstrom from which there is no escape. Countless nights of drunkened debates with friends throughout my teens and twenties taught me that fatalism has dire consequences for the idea of “free will”, and the ramifications in the ideas of “crime” and “justice” are likewise dire.
Basically, anytime you view the world and human beings as merely a bunch of predetermined chess pieces that invisible entities in alternate dimensions, i.e. gods and devils, push around a gaming table, you have committed a kind of philosophical suicide that disqualifies you from exercising an open mind. You have removed yourself from the realm of the observable, tangible world and have entered a fairytale world of your own device.
The problem is…a lot of voters live in that same fairyland that Mourdock lives in. I wouldn’t be surprised if he wins regardless.
We have said the same thing around the old water cooler today. After all, this is Indiana.
Old Joe is still voting for Mr. Mourdock who will oppose the Obama deficit spending which is a critical national security interest.
If I am the old Joe referred to here I have already voted in California where Mr. Mourdock is not on the ballot. I do not think that I cast any votes that President Obama will benefit from or approve of.
Same thoughts here. I’m going to vote Mourdock. Abortion is a done deal, it’s already been decided, it’s abortion on demand. I have absolutely no problem with Mourdocks statement, it’s the way he feels. No effect on anything. May be a fairyland that I live in but for some odd reason I think Mourdock is the better of the 2. My preference would be Horning, but no need to waste a vote.
That is strange. I thought Mourdock attended CFC, and I am fairly certain that neither of those Cs stand for Calvinism. Have you ever had a conversation with Mourdock, ever sat down and had a beer with him? It sounds to me like you are the one dealing in labels and fairy tales. Do people who believe in God so threaten your world that you must demonize them in order to function?
___
“Demonize” is a very strong word for what I actually just did, which was merely “question”.
As always, if you’d like to debate on the actual content of my comments, I’m always game for that. I relish in a good debate.
To answer your question, no I have not sat down with Mourdock and had a beer or discussed religion. Is it possible his remarks are not an accurate representation of the totality of this beliefs? Sure. But going purely on what he said, I think he’s just another one of these people stuck in the intellectual dark ages before the advent of the scientific method and the movement toward reason over superposition as a means of determining truth.
Forgive me if I paint with a broad brush, but I do it in the interest of brevity and keeping to a survey of the subject rather than an exhaustive critique.
Sure, he is “stuck in the intellectual dark ages”, while you, on the other hand, have it all figured out. Well you know what, you and I are on the sidelines and Mourdock is in the game.
_____
Since when is being in public life, or being “in the game” as you say, some kind of proof of intellect?
Being a good politician usually just means having the talent to pander to the lowest common denominator, not being the most intelligent.
You don’t have to agree with me. I have no monopoly on truth. It’s just my opinion.
Mourdock is not following a fatalistic view of the world. Mourdock is being true to his pro-life principles. What logic can say that life begins at conception and should be protected unless it is conceived by rape or incest?
Even Andrew Horning has come out in support of Mourdock’s statement. Which shows him to be a person of integrity and understanding.
And please, do you really think you gained a correct theological understanding through drunken debates with your friends?
I’ve struggled with the righteousness of rape for a while, and I came to realize that what was good enough for the women of Shiloh at the hands of the Benjamite men in Judges chapter 20 is good enough for American women at the hands of modern day political theocrats.
You’re actually referring to Judges Chapter 21. After slaying every man and woman or the rival Benjamin tribe, the Israelites, on the advice of the “Lord”, distributed the virgin girls amonst themselves. Those soldiers who were left without virgins were again instructed by the “Lord” to go to Shiloh and steal virgin girls from there.
I believe there are similarly shocking passages in Deuteronomy where the Lord actually instructs Abraham in how the spoils of war should be divvied up amongst the soldiers, including the taking of virgin girls and the enslavement or death of all others.
Interestingly in Deuteronomy, women who reported being raped in the city were to be stoned to death if no one had heard them screaming during the act of rape:
“22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city;…”
Yeah, the Jewish Orthodox religion isn’t violent though. We must stand with Israel over the warlike Muslims, whose religion is anti-women and warlike. What a joke.
“What logic can say that life begins at conception and should be protected unless it is conceived by rape or incest?”
A fair point, but likewise what logic that says the fetus has the right to take up residence inside an unwilling mother who was the victim of a forced conception, not a willing participant in the act of conceiving? What logic says she has a moral obligation or duty to carry that fetus to term? This is adding insult to her injury and is a clear imposition on her free will. So now not only was she raped the first time, but now the rapist gets a state-protected carrier of his offspring? If the purpose of sexual intercourse is solely the act of conceiving offspring, then why not just cut to the chase and provide clinics where politicians will just hold down unwilling women and let rapists do their thing in a sterile, supervised environment?
I think a better question is, where does the idea come from that life begins at conception, when conception itself does not produce an organism capable of living outside the mother’s body, thinking or feeling pain? That stage comes much later in development.
One characteristic that ALL life shares is some kind of neuro-network or brain. you can’t really have “life” without a brain. The brain doesn’t start firing until about week 5 or 6. Before that, a fetus is a collection of divided cells without any independent neural activity. Why is this not a rational compromise?
Here’s a decent article for a discussion on this… Yes, I know it’s the NYT, but it’s still a decent article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/chapters/0619-1st-gazza.html?pagewanted=all
As for your other question…I think I gained a correct theological understanding of how screwed up the Bible is by reading the thing. The drunkened debates basically solidified my disdain for non-nuanced, fundamentalist lines of thinking.
I have struggled with the passages you quote from Deuteronomy and came to realize that a virgin who did not scream out when raped earned her stoning because then it was not a legitimate rape and she did not give her body sufficient biological stimulus to shut down the whole conception process.
“Earned her stoning”… Do you care to rephrase that, or is that your position?
In either case, what about if a rapist, I don’t know, puts his hand over her mouth or stuffs a sock in it? Or what if she’s raped from behind while face down in cow dung? Would that represent a sufficient excuse to evade public stoning, or would the test be more stringent under your administration?
I just realized you were taking the piss. I’m a little slow today. Sorry.
Mourdock has devoted his career to running for office. Congress what 2,3 times? Commissioner? Coming in 5th in the best of 3 for county council. I think we have had our fill of Dick. Time for him to come back to Vanderburgh County.
Joe Donnelly pulled a measly 12,500 votes out of St. Joesph County in the May 8, 2012 primary election. I think it is about time we send Joe Donnelly back to St. Joesph county. Maybe he and Stan Levco can find a way to keep Donnelly’s friend Butch Morgan out of prison for vote tampering.
___
Well said. I feel the CCO was rather knee jerk on this endorsement.
Great endorsement. I’m very impressed with your willingness to change your mind and realize your mistake. This shows what a great editorial team you have. There are many people, like me, who are scratching their head and doing a double take on Mourdock. I will no longer be voting for him.
As a woman who is very concerned about politicians telling me what I can and should do with my body, I am happy with your endorsement. I don’t read this publication very often, but I just might start.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/87be7156f5/republicans-get-in-my-vagina
I find it ironic that the same slow learning individuals that say they don’t want the government telling them what they can do “with their body” are perfectly OK with the government telling you what you can eat or drink. Killing a defenseless child OK, but a 32 oz cola, not so much!
Hey Nancy Reagan, this “slow learning” individual, like other democrats, is of the opinion that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. If you want less abortion elect democrats. Womwn are less apt to have an abortion when they have access to the resources they need to clothe, feed and house the child. Why is it that republicans are concerned enough about the unborn child to kill, but couldn’t give a shit less about the kid once they’re here? The abortion rate is lower under democrats as shown by Clinton vs. Bush. Allowing a woman to choose doesn’t mean that they necessarily choose abortion. Abortion is not a particularly common procedure in the grand scheme of pregnancy and occurred long before Roe v. Wade. The issue isn’t really whether abortion is legal but whether we are willing to not only educate young women about sex but also care for them if they get pregnant. Republicans are consistently unwilling to do either. You’d rather bitch and whine about the bible and your tax rate. Education and entitlement programs work to combat abortion, but you aren’t willing to put your wallet where your mouth is. You’d rather say stupid things like abstinence is the answer (just say no).
And when was the last time someone told you what to eat or drink? Bloomberg is an independent and was a republican before that. Limiting the size of a beverage isn’t the same as telling one they can’t have it. I’d be interested in your BMI, as I’m fairly certain you can still eat yourself to death in this country. What a ridiculous combination of issues. Why don’t you give me a break with your nonsense and STFU.
Clinton Signs Welfare Reform Bill, Angers Liberals
Clinton
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Aug. 22) 1996 President Bill Clinton today signed a sweeping welfare reform bill that ends the open-ended guarantee of federal aid and shifts much of the responsibility for public assistance to the states. (288K WAV sound)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
” The abortion rate is lower under democrats as shown by Clinton vs. Bush…….”
____
Clinton just managed to shift the responsibility to the states. Since Indiana has a “welfare to work” requirement the Democrats now want to count being on welfare as work.
The attempts at redistribution of wealth that come out of the democrat party are never ending.
___
Kudos to the CCO for taking this principled stand and doing the correct thing.
Now the CCO is a feminist over being pro-life? What a horrendous decision.
The horrendous decision was made by Richard Moudock when he decided to word his response as he did.
You either respect the sanctity of life, all life, or you do not. You can not have it both ways.
When your elderly mother or father needs a lifesaving operation, would you want someone like Joe Donnelly, who shows little respect for life, on a panel deciding whether or not your parent gets that operation?
I have never understood how anyone could think for a minute that they could score political points by being in favor of killing babies.
____
Let’s also extend that idea to overseas adventures that kill millions of innocent civilians, whom we write off as “casualties” simply because they are not Americans or white, or whatever excuse we use to keep voting for the same people who vote for unnecessary, avoidable wars.
Let’s also talk about this lady:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/jane-roe-of-roe-v-wade-airs-anti-obama-ad-in-florida-video/
___
CCO would have done better to stick to its first instincts.
When you do not stand for something it is easy to get jerked around.
___
War is most definitely necessary at times. Saddam and Bin Laden (if you believe that 9-11 wasn’t a conspiracy) definitely needed to be pursued, shot, and killed immediately.
Especially Saddam who was gassing and torturing an enormous amount of people. IRAQ was probably over oil but it was a justified war overall.
Correction Jordan, Iraq was over Dollar Hegemony.
Hussein was pricing his oil in Euros rather than dollars. His army was non-existent. The myths about him gassing people were overblown and regurgitated from a time when WE were selling him the gas!
Even if you buy the official myth of 9/11, Osama Bin Laden should have been taken out with Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Invading Afghanistan with full a full army was not necessary or productive, unless of course you’re talking about production of opium and heroin, which skyrocketed after we invaded rather mysteriously.
I really don’t have time to revisit this debate. You have a lot to brush up on here.
If god jerks you around i guess thats a gift too?
The CCO reason for endorsement of Joe Donnelly based entirely on one event issue/personal religious believe is terribly disappointing because of all the issues (economy,jobs,defense,energy independence etc) that needs to be reviewed and taken into proper consideration–not just point when endorsing somebody.. It illustrates in this situation the CCO really did a knee jerk reaction and did a shallow thought process. You are better than that!
No doubt Mourdock is wrong on this one point. But give me a break. Donnelly and Obama are like two peas in a pod. So how could the CCO logically support Donnelly when you strenuously oppose Obama?
I do not believe Mourdock has the correct understanding what God does or does not do according to the what the Bible teaches. He needs to get a proper understanding of what the Bile actually teaches.
Additionally, I find it _______ for a politician to speak for or interpret the intent of God. (You fill in the blank.)
“He needs to get a proper understanding of what the Bile [sic] actually teaches.”
A politician doesn’t need to understand the Bible, he just needs to understand the Constitution of the United States. “Understanding the Bible” is what has led half of our politicians already to pledge virtual allegiance to Israel over their own country and their own people.
If you want to convert sinners, join a church. If you want to uphold the Constitution, run for office. Two different functions.
I do not think I made my main point clear. Mourdock personal religious position alone should not be the only thing that he should be judged on as for as determining who to endorse.
By the way,there sure was a lot of God around when the constitution was written.
Mourdock has forgot more than Donnelly knows and practices regarding the constitution.
Yes–Libertarian, Andrew Horning, is a better choice than Donnelly but Mourdock is still the best overall choice.
God was purposefully left out of the Constitution. The First Amendment clearly draws a line between state and religion. You’re right there was a lot of “God” around, but there were a lot more sober heads who knew the historical detriments of having an official state religion. The persecutions and upheavals that came along with the English Kings and Queens endorsing an official religion was much fresher in their minds and was something they chose wisely to avoid. The Founding Fathers were not Evangelical Christians.
At any rate, I think I have been somewhat mistaken here, which is a fault of mine. I have not explained myself adequately. I have no problem with people believing in God. I have no problem with politicians believing in God. The only problem I have is with people and politicians who use their beliefs to enforce their notions of Biblical morality on everyone, even those who do not believe in Biblical doctrine.
By no means is the subject of abortion at the top of my “to do” list. I think we have plenty of other pressing problems, like for instance the millions of actual, indisputable living, breathing human beings we’re killing overseas in our military adventures. However, since the subject at hand is abortion, I feel compelled to clarify my position in the matter.
I believe Roe v. Wade was the wrong decision. I believe that it’s an issue that should be under States’ purview, not Federal. I would not be totally averse to a Constitutional Amendment banning some kinds of abortion. That would be the only proper way to give the Federal Government any purview in the matter. I doubt one would ever pass, but it would at least be following the letter of the Law to take that approach. For me to support it, I would have to see the specific language used and it would have to leave room for abortions in cases of rape, incest, mother’s health concerns, quality of life of the fetus, etc.
I think there is a strong argument for the presence of “life” before the gestation period is completed. Where that “life” begins is debatable, but I would tend to draw that distinction when the fetus can feel pain in the womb, or perhaps the earliest term any fetus has been known to have developed and been able to survive outside the mother’s womb.
However, I don’t hold these positions on religious grounds, I hold them because I think they are the reasonable positions that are consistent with my philosophy of equal protection under the Law, to which a fetus of certain development might rightly be entitled. “God” need not enter into it. In fact, I’ll submit to you, He only muddies the waters and inflames temperaments. The proper approach is through consistent application of the Law and/or Constitutional Amendment.
On the immediate subject of Mourdock’s statements, this whole idea of a woman being raped being made to carry the rapist’s child to term by a bunch of politicians in Washington, none of whom have been in that position, is just disgusting. Clearly a compromise is in order in such cases. Anyone who can’t see that has simply never been in that position and has no right using the strong arm of democracy to add insult to a woman’s injury.
“If you want to convert sinners, join a church. If you want to uphold the Constitution, run for office. Two different functions.”
____
I would love to have been in the room if you could have gone back in time and told that to Rev. John Witherspoon.
_
Mourdock is a man of deep-felt convictions and has frequently been painfully consistent in his faith. If you truly believe that at conception a new and distinct life is created, a life that is separate from the mother and that as a separate and distinct human being has a protected status under the law….. then you must hold the tragic event of the rape of the woman as a separate event from the God given gift of life to the child. The only way for his comment to be offensive is if you deny that the woman and the child are separate and distinct human beings at conception. If you do not believe in God, then you should be offended by Mourdock’s statement. If you do not believe that a child becomes a God given gift of God at conception, then you should be offended. I suppose we with have to wait for the election result to discover how many offended God-less atheist go to the poles and vote. At least one of you guys needs to show-up to offset my vote for a God fearing faithful servant of our community and of our state.
What ever happened to that religious principle that Christians don’t judge one another? I believe in God as well as a woman’s right to choose. This county’s constitution gives me the right to define my God however I see fit. My God loves everyone, even those who have abortions. Since when do I have to be an atheist to have this belief? Let me guess, I’m wrong about God and not a good Christian. If so, see the beginning of this paragraph.
if you are fully confident in your position, you would not be concerned about a strangers judgement… I personally differ from Mourdock’s statement by expanding the definition of ” preserve the life of the mother” to include sociological and psychological impact and not just physiological. I would further suggest that the woman, her doctor and where possible, her family are the best judge of that impact. In my view, the actual act of abortion remains an act of homicide, but just as our legal system treats justifiable homicide differently than cold blooded murder, our system must recognize that there are times when one life must be given to save another.
Mourdock will win the Senate race, hands down.
End of story.
30
Anyone who garnered enough primary votes to retire Richard Lugar has enough votes to win this election.
As I have stated, Joe Donnelly only received 12,500 votes from St. Joesph county in the May 8th democrat primary. Hoosiers are a conservative people, as are the majority of Americans according to polls.
___
Comments are closed.