{ require_once('class.compressor.php'); //Include the class. The full path may be required } $compressor = new compressor('css,javascript,page'); Left In Aboite: Souder hasn’t earned re-election <$BlogMetaData>


Monday, October 09, 2006

Souder hasn’t earned re-election

From today's Fort Wayne Journal Gazette:


Should make good on pledge to leave Congress

By Joseph Weiler







Hayhurst(L) and Souder(R)




Mark Souder is not the man to represent the 3rd Congressional District for the next two years. I believe Tom Hayhurst is a far better choice. For those of you who know me, you understand that this is not the knee-jerk opinion of another liberal letter writer.

For more than 20 years, I served as an editor of Fort Wayne’s conservative evening newspaper, the last decade and a half as its executive editor. I had a unique opportunity to meet with community leaders and everyday citizens to learn what they were working to accomplish and what they valued.

As executive editor, I was a member of the newspaper’s editorial board. I attended interviews with candidates, discussing and debating their strengths and weaknesses. I would measure what they had to offer against the needs and desires of voters. I would do my best to steer the newspaper’s endorsement to the candidates who demonstrated integrity, talent and a commitment to traditional conservative values. To me, those values included a love for our community, dedication to a smaller and less intrusive federal government, an understanding and appreciation for states’ rights and a commitment to and solid understanding that government is the guarantor of equal opportunity, not equal success.

Until my retirement in February 2003, the newspaper endorsed Souder for election each time he ran. However, were I casting my vote on that editorial board today, it would be a solid “no” for Souder.

He knows I feel strongly that he should have honored the pledges he made to the district when he first sought election. One of those was that he would serve for no more than 12 years. Well, his 12 years are up. Why is he running again? He says that because of congressional redistricting, which by law takes place every 10 years, he now represents a “new” district. But long before Souder made his 12-year pledge, he had become well schooled in the workings of Washington and was fully aware of the redistricting ahead. Were Souder a man of honor, he would value his integrity above re-election. It appears he does not.

But there is a more troubling aspect to Souder that makes me even more certain he is the wrong man for the job. Souder is among a key group of Republicans known as neoconservatives, or “neocons.” Playing on religious themes, they have appealed primarily to a group of conservative Christians who felt disenfranchised, particularly in the post-Reagan era.

Unfortunately, in appealing to this special-interest group, congresspersons such as Souder have felt free to shun all others, not listening to their concerns, not respecting their ideas and personal values, not including them among the constituents they serve.

And by this intentional isolation from all that they disagree with, the neocons have been among the primary instigators of the bitter politics that now, after almost six years of total Republican control, has left Washington in shambles. How sad that is.
In 2006, one cannot oppose the war in Iraq without being labeled a traitor; one cannot discuss equal rights of inheritance without being labeled a sodomite; one cannot question the curbing of our basic liberties without being called pro-terrorist.

In this atmosphere, little progress can or will be made in Washington. And Mark Souder is a key player in ensuring that no progress is made. This isn’t good for Republicans. This isn’t good for Democrats. This isn’t good for independents. And it certainly isn’t good for you and me.

I became familiar with Dr. Tom Hayhurst as a public servant serving on the Fort Wayne City Council. More recently, I talked one-on-one with him on a broad range of subjects from the war on terror to taxes to same-sex marriage. I am a longtime backer of conservative policies, so Hayhurst did not always agree with me. But on numerous occasions, he took the time to try to understand my positions, found key areas on which we did agree and promised to consider some issues I believe are important – for me and for you.

Whether you are a radical conservative or a liberal atheist or, like most of us, trying to survive somewhere between the extremes, it is time to vote for someone who will respect and listen to us all so that we can once again begin to listen to and respect each other.

Joseph Weiler retired as executive editor of the News-Sentinel in February 2003. He wrote this for local newspapers.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

19 Comments:

Blogger Human said...

Okay, just on looks alone, the guy on the right looks like a pervert.
Not that I'm prejudice against neo-cons or nothing.

Peace.

title="comment permalink">October 09, 2006 8:46 PM  
Blogger John Good said...

I think he looks live Butthead. . .you know, as in Beavis and. . .

title="comment permalink">October 09, 2006 9:03 PM  
Blogger Jeff Pruitt said...

I agree. Souder hasn't earned re-election and I hope he doesn't win. Having said that, Hayhurst hasn't EARNED his election either. To run silent from the Iraq war as a Democrat is a disgrace.

And John, for you to try and smear me on a statewide blog is ridiculous. To suggest that I'm a Souder troll? You should know better than that and I'm sure you do. I've lost a lot of respect for you after that.

I've disagreed w/ the Hayhurst campaign for quite some time and I've been very vocal and angry at what I feel is a wasted opportunity. But to have my "credentials" questioned as a Democrat because of it is a complete cheap shot John.

To suggest that my anti-Bush post at Just for the Record somehow labels me a Republican shill is comical. You should be ashamed. I used to read this site because I believed in your message and thought we were in this fight together. I guess I was wrong.

I can respect that you disagree w/ me on the Hayhurst campaign and I'm willing to take criticism because of it. But you stepped over the line w/ your comments on TDW.

I said this before and I'll say it again - and I don't give a damn if you like it or not. IMO, the truth is this stance makes me a STRONGER Democrat than yourself:

"I REFUSE to support any candidate that doesn't make a speedy withdrawal from the Iraq debaucle one his major campaign issues."

title="comment permalink">October 10, 2006 1:03 AM  
Blogger John Good said...

Jeff - In every single posting you have made on every single blog, you have questioned Tom Hayhurst's electability. This is definately the sort of election when party unity IS called for, and YOU are not on board.

Do not question MY strength as a Democrat; *I* actively talk about Dr.Tom to others, I post everything I can find about him, and I don't talk despairingly about him as you do. To second-guess his campaign's diection at every opportunity is not what I'd call being a strong Democrat. . .

title="comment permalink">October 10, 2006 6:19 AM  
Blogger Jeff Pruitt said...

John,

Just because he has a D next to his name doesn't mean I must worship at his feet. I've written to Dr Tom and made suggestions about the campaign. He's running his own campaign and I understand that - I've been hard on him because I think he's wasted this opportunity. I've questioned his electability because it SHOULD be questioned and not because he's a poor candidate but because of the campaign strategy. I've seen this from Democrats for too many years in too many places for me to sit back and be silent.

I've hoped that he would come out w/ a position on Iraq and believe me I was/am willing to do a complete 180 if/when he does this.

And I have no problem w/ you criticizing me for not uniting behind Hayhurst - perhaps I deserve that criticism. I tend to think that our blogging community is so small here that we don't make a nickel's worth of difference in that campaign anyway.

However, for you to distort the facts of my JFTR involvment and insinuate that I might be a Souder troll is unfair and unjustified.

We ARE on the same side and we both want Souder to lose. I just won't line up behind someone and follow them when my conscience won't allow it...

title="comment permalink">October 10, 2006 9:31 AM  
Blogger LP Mike Sylvester said...

I have never had ANYONE question whether I want Souder to lose. I want Souder to lose very badly...

I do not feel that Hayhurst has run as strong of a campaign as he could have. Since the Reps and Dems on the State Election Board have eliminated several Libertarians from the ballot (Due to a law that was written just to make it harder for Libertarians to be on the ballot) I will be voting for Tom Hayhurst.

I am not really voting for Tom Hayhurst; I have no idea where he stands on most issues that are important to me. I am voting AGAINST Mark Souder.

I think Jeff Pruitt is one of the best Democrats that I know.

John you need to take a deep breath partner. You hate it when the Republicans say "You are with us in the war on terror or you are against us." You are taking that exact same stance with Jeff...

I am surprised...

Karl Rove would be proud...

Mike Sylvester
Fort Wayne Libertarian

title="comment permalink">October 10, 2006 10:03 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

HELP?!
I don't like either Souder or Hayhurst at this point.

title="comment permalink">October 10, 2006 10:44 AM  
Blogger fairplaybeach said...

trying2hide is right on...

title="comment permalink">October 10, 2006 1:16 PM  
Blogger LP Mike Sylvester said...

Trying2hide:

You are right on...

We are once again voting for the less of two evils...

I think that Mark Souder has had TWELVE years to prove to us what he can do...

Lets help send Mark Souder home...

Mike Sylvester

title="comment permalink">October 10, 2006 3:25 PM  
Blogger azgoddess said...

i think this is well written and unbiased...nice!!

title="comment permalink">October 10, 2006 4:05 PM  
Blogger John Good said...

Jeff - I apologize if I crossed a line. I was ANGRY, and I still am. . .we both KNOW that Tom Hayhurst is against the Iraq "situation" (I hate calling that thing a "war"). Or maybe I should say we both know that his position is more in our direction than Souder's (We KNOW his).

I'm not asking you to support him because he has a D beside his name, although given the current climate that IS a good reason. If you aren't satisfied with the answers you've gotten/not gotten, then please DO be the good Dem that I want to beleive that you are and help us get rid of neocon Souder.

If I am wrong about Tom's position on Iraq, then I promise you that I will be the first one to speak up about it. But I don't feel that will come to pass.

The MSM has all but ignored this race due to the other three house races in Indiana grabbing all of the glory. Tom is finally getting lots of press; I feel gratified by this. To see negatives thrown into the mix by a fellow Dem pushed me into attack mode. I am passionate about this one, and defensive, obviously.

I hope you will help us turn out Souder in any way that you can. And again, I apologize for the comments that crossed the line.

title="comment permalink">October 10, 2006 7:03 PM  
Blogger John Good said...

Mike - It is IMPERATIVE that we take Souder down. He's a part of this whole neo-con group that has been destroying our nation. There are lots of good Republicans out there; these guys aren't them!

Please let me know what issues are most important to you and I will get you Tom's stand on them if I can.

title="comment permalink">October 10, 2006 7:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All is well John, and I realize that a fellow Dem criticizing a campaign that hopefully will oust Souder is not a popular position and can be irritating. I have honestly been trying to get the campaign to rethink their strategy. At this point, it probably no longer does me any good to continue my Hayhurst rants so I will cease them.

I want Souder to lose, I truly do, but I am very passionate about the Iraq mess. I hope you're right that he's closer to us than Souder is. Nothing would disappoint me more than to vote for a candidate who would continue to support the administration's "stay the course" strategy. In fact I'm just not sure I can do it despite my anger towards Souder. Hopefully, an Iraq question will be asked during the debate and I can easily walk into the booth and cast my vote for Hayhurst. If not, it's going to be an agonizing decision for me but either way I would obviously NEVER vote for Mark Souder...

title="comment permalink">October 10, 2006 7:32 PM  
Blogger Robert Rouse said...

Jeff, I'm just curious as to how often you make it to the locl peace rally on the courthouse green each month? I only ask because I am there every month. This is a war that has to end. And I applaud your committment, but sometimes you have to walk the walk as well.

That said, I am backing Hayhurst on this. I've spoken with Dr. Tom on several occasions and I can tell you that he is a bright and insightful man. I've been a little concerned with the lack of Hayhurst campaigning, but it appears that is turning around with the recent spat of ads.

I think we'll learn a lot more over the next couple of weeks, and if Souder actually does get around to debating Dr. Tom, then we'll get a healthy dose of what Hayhurst is all about. And that's just what the doctor ordered.

title="comment permalink">October 10, 2006 7:53 PM  
Blogger Jim Wetzel said...

"Please let me know what issues are most important to you and I will get you Tom's stand on them if I can."

Your connections must be lots better than mine. Anyway, here were my questions for "Dr. Tom." I hope you have better luck than I did in getting a straight answer ... or any answer, apart from KnuthAbuse, as far as that goes.

title="comment permalink">October 10, 2006 7:59 PM  
Blogger John Good said...

Bartleby - I suspect MY connections ARE alot better than yours. Even that withstanding, my best answers for you right now can be found here:

issues

title="comment permalink">October 10, 2006 8:08 PM  
Blogger Jim Wetzel said...

Thanks for the shout-back, John. I don't find his questionnaire responses especially forthcoming, but I do appreciate your effort in pointing them out.

Why the guy can't be bothered to answer his mail -- especially when he has a mailto link on his campaign web site -- is difficult for me to understand. You have to think that if they won't respond before they get elected, there's extremely little chance that they'll do so afterward.

title="comment permalink">October 10, 2006 8:29 PM  
Blogger LP Mike Sylvester said...

I have supported Hayhurst since the day it was clear to me the Indiana Election Board (Reps AND Dems) would keep a valid Libertarian off the ballot in the 3rd Congressional District.

That being said; Tom Hayhurst could have done better on telling us where he stands on issues. I have had to guess in many cases...

I am voting for Tom Hayhurst; as are most Libertarians that I know in this area...

Mike Sylvester

title="comment permalink">October 10, 2006 8:33 PM  
Blogger John Good said...

Bartleby - I suspect he's a bit busy right now. Grass roots campaigning is alot harder than periodically jumping on the local puke funnel(WOWO) and preaching to the choir.

I received a short, but to the point, response from Tom when I emailed him about your queries earlier. And I'm the party faithful. =)

I hope you'll either attend or watch the debate at IPFW (See post on Fort Wayne Left if you need the details).

title="comment permalink">October 10, 2006 8:34 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

$compressor->finish();