Mourdock defeats Lugar

[BigSkyBob]

Completely disgusting, in fact this is why I'm in a constant identity crisis politically. I can't line up with this mob idiocy, I can understand wanting a strong conservative, but this is nothing more than wanting a war against the president, which isn't going to help conservative causes or getting anything substantial done.

Since Lugar voted against the "conservative cause" about a quarter of the time, it most certainly furthers the "conservative cause" to replace him with a man much more apt to vote for the "conservative" position on any given issue.

Accomplishing something "substantial" requires changing business as usual in Washington. Lugar showed no interesting in changing business as usual,  while Mourdock has.

[BigSkyBob]

Ideological reasons were a minor part of why Lugar lost. Age, residency and length of service were more like it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-dick-lugar-lost/2012/05/09/gIQAj9cfCU_blog.html

Hmm...

Let me just say this - If Dick Lugar had the voting record of say, Jim Demint, and he hadn't been respectful and friendly with Obama, he would be spending today planning how to beat Joe Donnelly in the fall.

The rest of the GOP Senate caucus ought to ponder this.

[BigSkyBob]

Let's not act like Dick Lugar was some enlightened bipartisan fighter for what was right. He was basically a right-wing Republican that backed his party the vast majority of the time on their radical legislation.

But because of the 1% of the time  that he voted with Democrats, he's a RINO who had to be Teabagged.

Or was 23% a more accurate estimate?

[BigSkyBob]

Unlike the moderate heroes polluting this thread I for one am not at all sad to see Dick Lugar go.  At the same time though, Moreduck isn't really any better.

I know Lugar was nowhere close a moderate. I acknowledge he was pretty right-wing. Yet, I always admired the man, who could stay true to his political principles and still be able to work together with his ideological opponents, when there was an agreement, without hateful hackery and drama, that now is obviously required for all GOP candidates.

Frankly, Mecha, I prefer to have a Lugar Republican over some another useless Evan Bayh representing Indiana. Not to mention another teabagger.

First off, the man was (rightfully so) thrown out of political office.  He didn't die.  Please, stop acting like this guy was Jesus hanging on a cross.

When he does have his heartattack or whatever kills him then I will come on here, mopy dopy, and sob out of my mouth about how much of a true hero this guy was and how much his record of service meant to America.  However, for now I'm just glad that yet another establishment hack (yes I am saying this, Lugar was rightfully kicked out because he had fallen out with his constituents, even if his opponent is a partisan asshack) has been curbstomped here.

Second, it's funny that you act like Evan Bayh was useless because he was a moderate Democrat yet gush and moan over the sexiness that is Richard Lugar despite the fact that he was Evan Bayh Republican Style.  Frankly, Lugar was as reliable of a Republican as Bayh was a Democrat.  But no, since Lugar was the sexy maverick Republican you have to gush over him while Bayh (who I will admit to not liking, granted) is a useless attentionwhoring Democrat in Name Only.  And, while it pains me to defend Bayh here, at least Bayh was gracious enough to quit young instead of stay in way past his prime on the taxpayer gravy train.

Sure, my words may hurt, but it's true.

Sorry, dude, but I'm not going to adopt maximalist wishful thinking. Lugar was the best we could get from Indiana and change is for worse.

Of course he was simply voted out. I'm not crying all nights because of this, but I'm not happy either.

Then why should Republicans settle for "the [worse] we could get from Indiana" when any "change is for the [better]?"