The candidates running to be the Republican nominee for Senate blamed the spending on the Democrats. And, in other news, the sun rose in the east.
The candidates – former U.S. Sen. Dan Coats, former Rep. John Hostettler, state Sen. Marlin Stutzman of Howe, financial adviser Don Bates Jr. of Winchester and Fishers businessman Richard Behney – all took part in the two-hour round table at River of Life Community Church.
. . .
They did little to distinguish themselves on the issues Saturday, all blaming Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress for runaway government spending and bigger government.
If you disagree with current federal spending levels, and there is an argument to be made, I would suggest that you can’t expect much relief from candidates who simply blame the other party. Democrats have to own the fact that they’re the party in control at the moment, have controlled Congress since 2007, and have controlled the White House since 2009. Republicans have to own the fact that federal spending and budgets were under much better control before Bush and the Republican Congresses of the early 2000s.
Candidates who don’t understand (or won’t acknowledge) how we got where we are currently aren’t likely to be able to do much about getting us somewhere else. Just saying “the other side sucks,” won’t cut it. Mind you, this isn’t an argument for bipartisanship just for bipartisanship’s sake; just that there is blame to go around — though, not necessarily equally apportioned among both major political parties. I once read that only the powerless can ever truly be innocent; which, I suppose, explains some of the appeal of 3rd parties in our country.
When Rs or Ds point across to the other and say, “the other side sucks”, they have me convinced. Both of them.
But, spot-on. The Republicans can’t make a very compelling case. When they had the White House and the majorities in Congress, they increased spending than LBJ ever did. Sure, they find religion when they’re in the minority. Great.
But the appeal of third parties isn’t just the innocence. It’s having the proof that neither of the two parties in power have any commitment to cutting spending or deficits. When that’s true, and it’s a priority to a voter, their only real choice is a third party.
The trouble with any third party is that it would be more extreme and out of touch with the undefined, ever fickle center of the American public.Just because people are upset with the same things doesnt mean they seek the same solutions..Big mistake by the Tea Party folks.People for the most part just want to left alone,but also expect our famework of state and national and local institutions(how we broadly define government) to function so each of us can be successful within this familar framework. … We expect and turn to new government initiatives because we have no choice: the private sector is no longer functioning. There really is no consensus on what needs to be done because ideology dictates action. No one understands what derivatives are and how they brought down the banking system,but Glenn Beck understands it all explains on his blackboard.He ‘seems logical’,so he must be right,and no one else is explaining anything so clearly.
Senator Rich McConnell was on CNN at length yesterday with Candy Crowley and he gave the Republican side: Obama means big government.He has to be stopped.If institutions fail,they fail,just dont blame our side.Wait it out to self correct.
Keep the message simple and be consistent..
But there will be a continuing push for bigger government in the future only because it’s a necessary counterbalance to ‘big private’. More and more people don’t see success when things are said to be ‘functioning normal’. ‘Free market’ is now suspect and those who ponder when good times return,will seek to explain what happened.Free market economics had been become a money maker for a new elite who had inside information and who no longer see ‘work’ as honest.. This will be the new developing debate .
Lou said, “The trouble with any third party is that it would be more extreme and out of touch with the undefined, ever fickle center of the American public.”
Third and fourth and fifth parties would allow/force alliances on certain issues, thus representing the “middle”. Truly “extreme” stances that could not form a majority coalition would still be marginalized. Viable third, fourth and fifth parties would allow for a wider debate and more issues would be introduced into the “marketplace of ideas” instead of being ignored if they don’t fit into the dogma of the two party system.