There are three “Tea Party” type Republicans running for Senate seats in the Midwest, who are facing tough fights by Democratic opponents, and the hope is that all three of these irresponsible Republican nominees are defeated.
The three are:
Congressman Todd Akin, challenging incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill in Missouri.
State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, challenging Congressman Joe Donnelly in Indiana.
State Senator Deb Fischer, challenging former Senator Bob Kerrey in Nebraska.
Akin, Mourdock, and Fischer represent extremism that would create more conflict and confrontation in the US Senate. And Akin and Mourdock have made outrageous statements about rape, angering any decent person who cares about women’s rights.
McCaskill has been a courageous Senator, and Kerrey was once a Presidential candidate twenty years ago, who now has been endorsed by his former Republican Senate colleague, Chuck Hagel, a true example of crossing the aisle. Both Kerrey and Hagel were outstanding US senators, and once could wish that both were still in the Senate, but now there is an opportunity to return Kerrey to the Senate.
Donnelly is a responsible moderate Democratic Congressman, who would be a great improvement over Mourdock although neither would fully replace retiring Republican Senator Richard Lugar, defeated by Mourdock in the Indiana Senatorial primary this past spring.
These are certainly key Senatorial races to watch on Tuesday night!
When you think about it, over the past 116 years, the shift of evangelical voters has gone almost 180 degrees.
The Progressive jump start of the Democratic Party began in 1896 with William Jennings Bryan philosophy that he summed up:
“The poor man is called a socialist if he believes that the wealth of the rich should be divided among the poor, but the rich man is called a financier if he devises a plan by which the pittance of the poor can be converted to his use”.
It’s amazing that back then that his views of “born again” were that it was voters Christian duty to vote for a candidate who would expand the power of government and use that power to aggressively help those in need.
The only thing in common that today’s evangelicals have in common with Bryan is that
they do not believe in evolution!
That is a very perceptive comment, which I do not think I had quite formulated in my mind, but you have now had an effect on my thinking! WOW! Thanks, Paul!
Professor,
It must be pointed out that Bryan was not a true Evangelical in his faith; he was actually
Presbyterian; however, his interjections of religion into politics were truly evangelical.
The only difference is that his outlook was positive–do good on earth, regardless of the outcome. He thought religion had practical value in reconstructing society. Most Evangelical thought processes were for ultimate personal salvation.
But if you look into what Bryan proposed, he truly was one of the founding fathers of Progressivism. Even Herbert Hoover said of the New Deal, “Bryanism under new words and methods.
There is a great book that I recently finished. “Almost President”, by Scott Farris. Each chapter has a focus on Presidential candidates that lost, but had a great impact on the political environment for years to come. Clay, Douglas, Smith, Dewey, Stevenson, Goldwater, McGovern, Perot are highlighted.
The final chapter lumps Gore, Kerry and McCain, only because they are the most recent and history has not ultimately defined what impact they may or may not have.
THe appendix also goes through and does a paragraph or two on all the losing candidates back to the Federalists. A very interesting book.
Yes, the Farris book is a fantastic book, and must reading!