Indiana GOP lines up behind Lugar's primary challenger

[CARLHAYDEN]

Lugar is pretty far right-wing, his only mistake is that he's not 100% insane.

Jfern,

Please drop that canard that "Lugar is pretty right wing."

Its not only false, its so absurd its insane.

[CARLHAYDEN]

 its so absurd its insane.

I'll just let the others make the obvious jokes about Carl using that description for somebody else.

On a previous thread about the subject I extensively documented Lugar's voting record, from the perspective of conservatives (ACU), liberals (ADA) and media (National Journal).

I guess from your perspective telling the truth is a "joke."

[CARLHAYDEN]

Update:

The ACU finally came out with its 2010 ratings.

The lowest ranked Republican Senators:

Kirk (IL)            62.5 (only a handful of votes in lame duck session)
Voinovich (OH) 63 (retired)
Snowe (ME)     64
Collins (ME)     64
Lugar (IN)       71


The Republican average was 91.8, with the media 95.

When ADA ratings come out will update those.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Ratings from interest groups aren't relevant in my opinion/description of politicians. I'm not that stupid.

As I pointed out in a previous thread on the subject, both liberals (ADA), conservatives (ACU) and nonpartisans (National Journal) ALL agreed that Lugar was on the left of the Republican party.

So, they're all wrong and you're 'correct'?

Hmm.

[CARLHAYDEN]

So, what you mean by a term has nothing to do with what most sources mean by a term?

Hmm.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Daniels won't ruin his cred with GOP activists to save Lugar, not when he's eyeing a 2012 Presidential run.

But hey, Lugar (I-IN) would be great. Unfortunately Indiana has some draconian ballot access laws, though: as an independent candidate he'd need 34,195 signatures by the end of June.

(edit: fixed the number of signatures. FYI: in Indiana, a candidate not running for a party with automatic ballot access has to get a number of signatures equal to 2% of the total votes cast in the most recent Secretary of State election to appear on the ballot.)

Daniels has been acting quite stupidly lately.

Wouldn't put any move to the left as something he wouldn't do.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Finally, National Journal has released its ratings for Lugar,

In their schema he as a conservative rating of 63.7, with almost all Republican Senators having higher ratings.

Waiting on Americans for Democratic Action to get their act together.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Finally, National Journal has released its ratings for Lugar,

In their schema he as a conservative rating of 63.7, with almost all Republican Senators having higher ratings.

Waiting on Americans for Democratic Action to get their act together.

But if you look at the breakdown, you'll see that pretty much the only reason he appears to be so moderate is his stance on foreign policy issues. He's to the right of the party center on economic issues and slightly to the left of it on social issues. Pretty conservative for a Republican in an Obama state, no?

Please check again.

On Foreign Policy, Lugar is indeed an idiot leftist.

On Social Policy, he's more than "slightly to the left." 

On Economic Policy, he's near (not to the right of) center of the Republican party.

Finally, when you add to it his abrasive personality, he's toast.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I realize that one of the problems with those on the left is that they find it inconceivable that anyone would dare disagree with the,

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

[CARLHAYDEN]

I realize that one of the problems with those on the left is that they find it inconceivable that anyone would dare disagree with the,

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

Plenty of people oppose socialism.

But even people who disagree with Lugar's views, don't consider him stupid or ill-informed. Similarly, people don't generally call Sarah Palin hideous or George W. Bush short. They won't call him stupid unless they're trying to throw everything and the kitchen sink at him because they are so consumed with rage that they don't care if their charge is correct. Or all they know about him is that he disagrees with the Tea Party on some treaty, so therefore he must be "stupid."

Apparently you do not grasp my point.

Like Neville Chamberlain, Lugar has a childlike belief in treaties.

Such a belief is idiotic when viewed in the light of experience.

So, yes, on foreign policy Lugar is an idiotic leftiest.

[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.

[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!

[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/

[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?

[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