• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dick Lugar loses primary

Lugar has some parting words about his opponent:

“If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator,” Lugar said in the statement, according to the Evansville Courier and Press. “But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington.”

But wait, there’s more:

He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it.​
Click to expand...
 
R.Mackey said:
While I personally found Senator Lugar to be somewhat dense, I am kind of appalled at why he lost his comfy seat -- he failed to support default on government debt, he dared to support nuclear arms reduction, and he actually made deals with Demmycrats once in a blue moon. .
Click to expand...

Mourdock's latest ads included the fact that Lugar voted for Obama's Supreme Court nominees.

The bastard! How dare he!
 
pgwenthold said:
Mourdock's latest ads included the fact that Lugar voted for Obama's Supreme Court nominees.

The bastard! How dare he!
Click to expand...

And traditionally, SC nominees would get votes from the other side provided they weren't nutcases like Robert Bork. What does this say to the remaining "sane" Republicans in case a) Obama is re-elected and b) he has to fill another SC slot? Will the GOP oppose any nominee no matter what, lest they get attacked like Lugar was?
 
The cite in Brainster's wiki extract is a dead link, but this appears to be the source article in question.

In a lengthy speech at the National Defense University, Indiana Sen. Richard G. Lugar weighed the benefits of talking to foreign leaders, including U.S. enemies, against other actions, such as military force. The issue marks one of the sharpest divides between Obama and John McCain , who has called the Democratic nominee naive for suggesting that he would sit down with leaders such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Lugar, however, praised Obama, noting that isolation often does not resolve contentious issues.

“He correctly cautions against the implication that hostile nations must be dealt with almost exclusively through isolation or military force,” Lugar said in a prepared remarks released before his speech. “In some cases, refusing to talk can even be dangerous.”

Lugar, however, said McCain is right to warn that “there are times when diplomatic approaches to rogue regimes have little efficacy.”
Click to expand...

Yes, Brainster. This is exactly like Joseph Lieberman actively campaigning for McCain and speaking on McCain's behalf at the Republican National Convention.
 
ANTPogo said:
The cite in Brainster's wiki extract is a dead link, but this appears to be the source article in question.



Yes, Brainster. This is exactly like Joseph Lieberman actively campaigning for McCain and speaking on McCain's behalf at the Republican National Convention.
Click to expand...

This is why people are saying that the Republicans are going too far in their partisan crap. When you try to equate Dick Lugar with Joe Lieberman, you are clearly working outside of reality in any sense of the word.
 
ANTPogo said:
The cite in Brainster's wiki extract is a dead link, but this appears to be the source article in question.



Yes, Brainster. This is exactly like Joseph Lieberman actively campaigning for McCain and speaking on McCain's behalf at the Republican National Convention.
Click to expand...

You're thoroughly missing the point. Republican primary voters had much more reason to oust Lugar this year than Democratic primary voters had to oust Lieberman in 2006.
 
Brainster said:
You're thoroughly missing the point.
Click to expand...

Nope. Your point was, and I quote, "Dick Lugar = Joe Lieberman".

And while that might be true on Planet Republican, here on Earth it's so far off the mark as to be pathetic.

EDIT: And go back and reread the wiki article. Lugar and Obama have been involved in bipartisan cooperation with each other since long before even the 2006 election. If his good relationship with Obama didn't cause Republican voters to ditch him in 2006 (he ran effectively unopposed), why did it suddenly cause them to ditch him now?

Free hint: it's not Lugar that changed.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
This is why people are saying that the Republicans are going too far in their partisan crap. When you try to equate Dick Lugar with Joe Lieberman, you are clearly working outside of reality in any sense of the word.
Click to expand...

Consider the source.

Daredelvis
 
daredelvis said:
Consider the source.

Daredelvis
Click to expand...

Point taken, BUT note that Lugar was just booted out of the Senate in favor of a far more extreme candidate. And the ads that were run were not all that dissimilar from that attitude expressed here. I don't think it is all that uncommon of a belief. Granted, the problem is two fold, they underestimate the extent to which Lieberman swung in the other direction, and massively overestimate the extent to which Lugar has.
 
Brainster said:
Dick Lugar = Joe Lieberman. Catch the liberals around here mourning for Joe.
Click to expand...

I'm just such a liberal who was telling many other liberals to leave Joe alone. And I continue to do so.

Now where are the Republicans around here telling their Tea Party brethren to dial it back a notch?

How about you, Brainster?
 
R.Mackey said:
While I personally found Senator Lugar to be somewhat dense, I am kind of appalled at why he lost his comfy seat -- he failed to support default on government debt, he dared to support nuclear arms reduction, and he actually made deals with Demmycrats once in a blue moon. And so hangin's too good fur 'im, it seems.

Wake me when these political temper tantrums stop being rewarded...
Click to expand...

This ^^^

I fear that until the Tea Party/GOP gets its collective ass handed to them in a big election that this is the "new normal" for the Republican party. Of course, combine that with the shifting demographics of the nation (think less white, more Hispanic) and having more extreme voices in the GOP is not going to be good for the party, or country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom