Indiana GOP lines up behind Lugar's primary challenger

[CARLHAYDEN]

Perhaps you will next assert that "no one opposes socialism" ?

Most active supporters of the Democratic Party, including every notable member of current administration wholeheartedly and passionately oppose socialism. "Socialism" is not a factor in American politics - everybody, except for a few fairly marginal characters, views it as a strange foreign concept.

As for foreign policy, I would be shocked if more than, say, a dosen of Republican Senators would consider Lugar an "idiot leftist". In fact, your stated points of view seem to be far further away from the Republican mainstream view, than his. People who have seriously thought about foreign policy, irrespective of their overall political views, would not consider Lugar and idiot leftist but, surely, would not be particularly complimentary about the mental capacity of those who call him thus.

Lugar suffers from the same mental incapacity that afflicted Neville Chamberlain, i.e. believing that a '"piece of paper' would provide any degree of protection from a hostile power.

He has repeatedly supported modern versions of appeasement.

To you, this policy may seem wise.  To me, it is a thoroughly discredited policy.

I believe it was Albert Einstein who once noted that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is crazy.

Well, pursuing appeasement is crazy.

[Brittain33]

How does the START treaty represent "appeasement"? Please specify what is appeasement relative to what would have happened if the treaty were allowed to expire--not by analogy to different treaties.

[CARLHAYDEN]

How does the START treaty represent "appeasement"? Please specify what is appeasement relative to what would have happened if the treaty were allowed to expire--not by analogy to different treaties.

You REALLY need to look at the treaty!

[Brittain33]

How does the START treaty represent "appeasement"? Please specify what is appeasement relative to what would have happened if the treaty were allowed to expire--not by analogy to different treaties.

You REALLY need to look at the treaty!

CARL, I am giving you the opportunity to tell me what's on your mind and why it worries you. Seize the moment! Point out the worst parts and tell me how they lead to a worse situation than allowing the treaty to lapse. Talk to me as if I'm as stupid and addle-brained as Dick Lugar.

[Landslide Lyndon]

CARL, I am giving you the opportunity to tell me what's on your mind and why it worries you.

Here is a look in Carl's mind.

[CARLHAYDEN]

How does the START treaty represent "appeasement"? Please specify what is appeasement relative to what would have happened if the treaty were allowed to expire--not by analogy to different treaties.

You REALLY need to look at the treaty!

CARL, I am giving you the opportunity to tell me what's on your mind and why it worries you. Seize the moment! Point out the worst parts and tell me how they lead to a worse situation than allowing the treaty to lapse. Talk to me as if I'm as stupid and addle-brained as Dick Lugar.

I don't think you are stupid.  So, here's some information (of which you may have been unaware);

http://senatus.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/kyl-corker-outline-objections-to-new-start/

[Brittain33]

Thanks for the link. I don't see anything about the treaty in there--only the concessions that Kyl and Corker wanted in exchange for supporting it, which Obama met.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Perhaps you will next assert that "no one opposes socialism" ?

Most active supporters of the Democratic Party, including every notable member of current administration wholeheartedly and passionately oppose socialism. "Socialism" is not a factor in American politics - everybody, except for a few fairly marginal characters, views it as a strange foreign concept.

As for foreign policy, I would be shocked if more than, say, a dosen of Republican Senators would consider Lugar an "idiot leftist". In fact, your stated points of view seem to be far further away from the Republican mainstream view, than his. People who have seriously thought about foreign policy, irrespective of their overall political views, would not consider Lugar and idiot leftist but, surely, would not be particularly complimentary about the mental capacity of those who call him thus.

Ag,

I went back to my posts to which you are supposedly 'replying," and checked and there was absolutely NO reference whatsoever in them to "Most active supporters of the Democratic Party" nor to "every notable member of the current administration,."  Indeed, there was NO reference to ANY member of the current administration in my posts on this thread!  So why this red herring???

Next, if you check the record, you will find that most Republicans in the Senate agreed with Senator Kyl (and McCain) in opposing the most recent START treaty.  But I guess you don't believe that they are "serious people."   But then, if seems that to you "the Republican mainstream" consists of those who largely vote with the Democrats, rather than the majority of Republicans.  

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00298

Now, if you check, you will find that Lugar has one of the poorest records of any nominally Republican Senator on national defense.  Heck, even some Senate Democrats have better records!

CT U.S. Senate   Joseph Lieberman   Independent Democrat   80
NE U.S. Senate   E. Benjamin Nelson Democratic                   90
IN  U.S. Senate   Richard Lugar          Republican                   60

http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=4883

In fact, not a single Republican Senator had a lower rating, and only one has a low a rating a Lugar.  But, I guess that's why you consider him to be in the mainstream.  But I ask, of which party?

[timothyinMD]

Joe Donnelly is talking about taking on Mourdock and running for Senate. Getting a rougher seat in redistricting is likely a good incentive, especially if Mourdock turns out to be the Ken Buck of Indiana in a more balanced year than 2010 was.

That is extremely unlikely.

1. Obama will not win Indiana in 2012, period.  No help from the top of the ticket
2. All the stars were aligned for the dems in 2008, when Indiana did vote for Obama, and they overwhelmingly re-elected conservative, fiscal hawk, reformist Gov Mitch Daniels

[Badger]

Joe Donnelly is talking about taking on Mourdock and running for Senate. Getting a rougher seat in redistricting is likely a good incentive, especially if Mourdock turns out to be the Ken Buck of Indiana in a more balanced year than 2010 was.

That is extremely unlikely.

1. Obama will not win Indiana in 2012, period.  No help from the top of the ticket
2. All the stars were aligned for the dems in 2008, when Indiana did vote for Obama, and they overwhelmingly re-elected conservative, fiscal hawk, reformist Gov Mitch Daniels

1). A little early to predict that, no? At any rate, even IF Obama loses Indiana it's not likely to be far off his national vote and GOP coattails will likely be minimal.

2) Never ever compare the liklihood of federal election results based on governor races. Totally apples and oranges. Consider 2002 OK, KS, TN, WY, etc. Or 2006 RI, CT, CA, MN and VT for that matter.

[Iosif]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/149155-daniels-endorses-embattled-lugar-calls-him-a-role-model

[Landslide Lyndon]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/149155-daniels-endorses-embattled-lugar-calls-him-a-role-model

So, I guess he doesn't run for president after all.

[ag]

I guess, Daniels is just not a mainstream Republican - he should be kicked out of the party.

[feeblepizza]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/149155-daniels-endorses-embattled-lugar-calls-him-a-role-model

So, I guess he doesn't run for president after all.

Mitch just pissed of the Tea Party. I'd like to see him try and run now. He'll probably endorse Barbour and hope for a VP slot.

[tmthforu94]

I respect Mitch Daniels a lot more now. Good to see Indiana having public officials with some common sense.

[Mr. Morden]

Daniels was obviously going to endorse Lugar, as they're longtime friends, and Daniels used to be his chief of staff.  Plus, Lugar has basically already endorsed Daniels for prez.

But Daniels remains non-committal on whether he's actually going to do anything (such as campaign appearances and the like) to get Lugar re-elected:

http://gop12.thehill.com/2011/03/mitch-daniels-wont-commit-to.html

[All Along The Watchtower]

Lugar was once considered pretty conservative-back in the 1970s.

Reagan would be considered a RINO in today's Republican Party (not the GOP's fantasy "Reagan")

[tmthforu94]

Lugar was once considered pretty conservative-back in the 1970s.

Reagan would be considered a RINO in today's Republican Party (not the GOP's fantasy "Reagan")

Lugar is a conservative. He just apparently isn't conservative enough.

This race has my blood boiling, and we're still over a year out. Mourdock's now attacking Lugar for co-sponsoring a bill with Obama. He must not know that happens all the time in Washington, and some of the Senate's most conservative members have done it with Senators even more liberal than Obama was.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I'm not suprised that he would. It's gonna be a good race.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Finally, the Americans for Democratic Action released their 2010 scores, and, not surprisingly, Lugar scored as the fourth most liberal nominal Republican in the Senate, trailing only the Maine twins, and dead duck Voinovich of Ohio.

http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/VR%202010%20FINAL%281%29.pdf

[Landslide Lyndon]

Finally, the Americans for Democratic Action released their 2010 scores, and, not surprisingly, Lugar scored as the fourth most liberal nominal Republican in the Senate, trailing only the Maine twins, and dead duck Voinovich of Ohio.

http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/VR%202010%20FINAL%281%29.pdf

Not that it will change your mind, but I think that says more about the state of today's Republican party than about Lugar himself.

[Badger]

Finally, the Americans for Democratic Action released their 2010 scores, and, not surprisingly, Lugar scored as the fourth most liberal nominal Republican in the Senate, trailing only the Maine twins, and dead duck Voinovich of Ohio.

http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/VR%202010%20FINAL%281%29.pdf

Not that it will change your mind, but I think that says more about the state of today's Republican party than about Lugar himself.

Exactamundo. The "fourth most liberal GOP Senator" supported the ADA position a whopping 25% of the time. He earned this basically by two votes in favor of the nuclear arms treaty that CARL has ranted about, voting to confirm Kagan, supporting the DREAM act, and supporting:


"14. H.R. 2751 - FDA Food Safety
Modernization Act. Legislation to allow
the Food and Drug Administration to
directly recall tainted products, rather
than rely on manufacturers’ voluntary
cooperation. Passed 73-25: Nov. 3, 2010."

An outlandish piece of socialism obviously.

It just hit me: The GOP has truly become the CARL HAYDEN party. He is quite representative of its ideological "center".