Richard Mourdock, as treasurer of Indiana, returned 10% of his budget tot he treasury each year. He ran the treasury during a time in which Indiana had positive cash flows. He takes missions trips to Bolivia, and fought against the bailouts of the auto industry.

I guess that is what I am looking for in a politician.

As to the Obama comment, he is the president, and is due the respect of the office. He should not be thrown out because I do not like him. If he commits an offense that is warranting impeachment, the proceed. If not, then wait until the next election and attempt removal the legal and proper way.

I do think America made a bad choice. I hope the correction is made in November.

But at least Obama has actually been chosen for a real office. So far, Mourdock is just the choice of Republican candidate for November. He may yet lose to the Democrat...

But still, if someone criticises Obama as President, that's OK, but if someone criticises a Tea Party candidate, that's not fair because he's been 'chosen by the people'.

Looks like that 'double standards' thing you rail against in other, Brad :-) I'm sure you are glad that it has been brought to your attention.

I think that Ricky was highlighting that Mourdock has some flaws. He's made a point of stating that he'd rather 'win the argument' than to enter into a bipartisan discussion. The more people (on both sides) like that in Congress, the worse your problems are going to get.

I have no idea who Richard Mourdock is. Is this somebody I should bother to find out about or is it just another issue that only interests obsessives on Redscape ?

He's candidate for the Senate for the Republicans in Indiana. He beat Richard Lugar, who is the longest serving Republican in the Senate and is regarded as being pretty conservative on fiscal/economic policy, but can be a bit liberal (for his party) on some other issues. Moudock was a Tea Party favourite and won by about 2-1 in the Primary vote, so it's really the trend that he represents in US politics - even fairly right wing and solid Republicans who have worked hard for the party can be ousted if they are not completely ideologically sound.

Danivon,
I was not saying it is wrong to question Mourdock. I am saying it is wrong to question the election results as wrong. I do not question the fact that Obama won the election. I am not a birther who questions his validity to be POTUS.

Apparently the electorate has become more "completely ideologically sound"

Ricky was not questioning the result as legitimate, so stop being ridiculous. He was questioning the result politically, which is as fair game as opposing Obama while recognising he's the legitimate President.

Apparently the electorate has become more "completely ideologically sound"

Or polarised around impractical extremes, to the detriment of reasoned political discourse, perhaps...

danivon wrote:He's candidate for the Senate for the Republicans in Indiana. He beat Richard Lugar, who is the longest serving Republican in the Senate and is regarded as being pretty conservative on fiscal/economic policy, but can be a bit liberal (for his party) on some other issues. Moudock was a Tea Party favourite and won by about 2-1 in the Primary vote, so it's really the trend that he represents in US politics - even fairly right wing and solid Republicans who have worked hard for the party can be ousted if they are not completely ideologically sound.

It's also relevant that Lugar hasn't had a real address in Indiana since the 1970's and was 80 years old. I'm sure that was a factor in many people's minds.

Sassenach wrote:I have no idea who Richard Mourdock is. Is this somebody I should bother to find out about or is it just another issue that only interests obsessives on Redscape ?

No doubt you have better things to do with your time.

Well I guess if that's what the primary voters want then that's what they'll get.

Looking from the outside in it does seem remarkably as if we're witnessing an ideological purge of the Republican Party. It reminds me a little of what happened to the Tories between their loss in 97 and the Cameroon takeover, although the comparison is inexact and what's happening in America seems way more extreme. Perhaps a better comparison would be what happened to Labour after the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979. Their response was to come out with the most radically socialist program since 1945 as the hardcore base took complete control of the party. That experiment was ultimately ended by the electorate of course, which is probably how the current Republican purges will be brought to an end. Pandering solely to the base at the expense of the neutrals and the moderates is not a recipe for long term political success.

I should add though that if Lugar is the longest serving Republican in the Senate then the voters were probably pretty bored of him by now. It needn't imply that they're all rabidly conseravtive.

ray

By the way, it seems to me that liberals / progressives often suggest that Keynesian-ism is the only economic policy available. But there's much more to economics then what Lord Keynes recommended 70 plus years ago. It's not only about how much government spends or taxes. It's also about spending efficiently, taxing efficiently, regulating efficiently, supporting productivity, developing effective trading policies, and creating a long term environment whereby businesses have a sense of the rules by which to engage

.

All of this is true. But how has the American version of capitalism worked since the 80s?
The middle class is going backwards
Income and wealth have both shifted enormously to a very small percentage of people
Corporations now work to deleiver short term results so the management can cash in... for insrtance levereaged buyouts where corproations are laden with all kinds of debt, accounting practice indicates a profit and the management and/or leveraged buyout firms walk away.
Capitalism used to be about expanding th economy with productive businesses, manufacturing or providing services that customers want and need. Now, a large segment of it is leveraged buyouts that have no such ultimate aim, only the short term aim of creating enough short term profit that they can cash in....
Half of short term leveraged buyouts end in the bankruptcy of the target compnay, weighted down with debt that makes them effectively inoperable.
Essentially what has happened since 1980 is that the US has become a less equal society than it was in 1980. And as a result, less happy. There's more reasons than the one or two I've picked at here... but the point is that whats central to the malaise you sense isn't a failure of capitalism. Its a failure of a certain version of capitalism. One that didn't exist before 1980, unless you go back to the gilded age.... It was a return to the modus operendi of the Gilded Age that changed the direction of society and the shape of the economy.
Why is that important to realize? Well, lots of capitalist countries have less income inequality and healthier happier societies.
If Keynes isn't all there is, is it also worth looking at how other societieshave managed to deliver a better deal for more of their populace?

Can I recommend The Spirtit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always do Better...
From the Spirit Level:

The authors point out that the life-diminishing results of valuing growth above equality in rich societies can be seen all around us. Inequality causes shorter, unhealthier and unhappier lives; it increases the rate of teenage pregnancy, violence, obesity, imprisonment and addiction; it destroys relationships between individuals born in the same society but into different classes; and its function as a driver of consumption depletes the planet's resources.

Wilkinson, a public health researcher of 30 years' standing, has written numerous books and articles on the physical and mental effects of social differentiation. He and Pickett have compiled information from around 200 different sets of data, using reputable sources such as the United Nations, the World Bank, the World Health Organisation and the US Census, to form a bank of evidence against inequality that is impossible to deny.

They use the information to create a series of scatter-graphs whose patterns look nearly identical, yet which document the prevalence of a vast range of social ills. On almost every index of quality of life, or wellness, or deprivation, there is a gradient showing a strong correlation between a country's level of economic inequality and its social outcomes. Almost always, Japan and the Scandinavian countries are at the favourable "low" end, and almost always, the UK, the US and Portugal are at the unfavourable "high" end, with Canada, Australasia and continental European countries in between.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/ma ... irit-level

You could be bored wiuth Lugar... But when you put forward as a candidate a man who has sworn NOT to accept any kind of compromise its a clear signa that the party isn't a party of compromise.
If compromise is necessary to accomplish anything in Congress, this irrational approach is doomed to failure.
Lemmings to the sea.
Listening to Mourdoch its the usual from an ideologue. "Compromise means Democrats coming to my point of view".

Sassenach wrote:Perhaps a better comparison would be what happened to Labour after the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979. Their response was to come out with the most radically socialist program since 1945 as the hardcore base took complete control of the party. That experiment was ultimately ended by the electorate of course, which is probably how the current Republican purges will be brought to an end. Pandering solely to the base at the expense of the neutrals and the moderates is not a recipe for long term political success.

The vital difference is that in 1981 a group of moderates broke away from Labour to form the SDP, which accelerated the process greatly (and while the 1983 Labour manifesto is reckoned to be pretty radical, it's not far from the 1974 manifestos). I can't see a centrist Republican breakaway emerging realistically. It's more likely that the Democrats would be dragged rightwards to fill any vaccuum.

Ricky:

But how has the American version of capitalism worked since the 80s?

Better than Europe's, no?

The jury is still out on that, RJ. If you look at the Nordic countries, they are doing pretty well and have low debts/deficits.