Dick Lugar Crushed Like The Bug He Is

Career politician and 36-year Republican Senator from Indiana — who hasn’t lived in Indiana for 36 years — and media darling Dick Lugar got absolutely crushed in his re-election bid. Absolutely crushed. In a Primary. Because the TEA Party and Sarah Palin favored Richard Mourdock over the absolute squish and out of touch and out of reach Dick Lugar.

Stupid Democrats (which would include nearly the entirety of mainstream media) had predicted a Mourdock victory over Lugar would mean a better chance that a Democrat, someone vastly more Liberal than Mourdock, would have a chance to win in Indiana. This year. After the outrage that caused 2010. While Democrats are busily doubling down on what caused the outrage to begin with.

Now that the votes have come in and Dick Lugar, the incumbent, got the vote percentages normally reserved for pretender challengers, and Richard Mourdock, the challenger, got the vote percentages normally reserved for respected incumbents, what will the “in the pocket of the Democrats” lamestream media have to say?

It will be interesting to hear the lies they push.

It would also be interesting to hear the lies Wagonwheel hears and relays here, except that he’s forbidden from commenting on this article, as is his mentor PIATOR (who seems to have vanished once again).

29 Comments

  1. Hopefully, this is a sign of things to come. I know Republicans need to build towards regaining control of the Senate, but we also need to elect someone who will do what we elect them to do. Someone who has been in the Senate for 36 years and is so out of touch with his constituents isn’t likely to be that person.

  2. You mean the Republican won the Republican primary? :)

    At least in Indiana, at least for this election, the TEA Party voters have proved that they have not gone away, that they were not a one-and-done 2010 phenomenon.

  3. Senator Lugar’s gracious concession speech, via Donald Douglas:

    From time to time during the last two years I heard from well-meaning individuals who suggested that I ought to consider running as an independent. My response was always the same: I am a Republican now and always have been. I have no desire to run as anything else. All my life, I have believed in the Republican principles of small government, low taxes, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and trade expansion. According to Congressional Quarterly vote studies, I supported President Reagan more often than any other Senator. I want to see a Republican elected President, and I want to see a Republican majority in the Congress. I hope my opponent wins in November to help give my friend Mitch McConnell a majority.

    If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. 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.

    This is not conducive to problem solving and governance.

    In other words, if he is elected, Mr Mourdock will not be a go-along-to-get-along Republican; this is a good thing!

  4. Someone who will probably have Mr hitchcock delete his comment wrote:

    No, it is not a “good thing.

    In fact it is a tragedy to see a good Republican go down. His statement illuminates said tragedy.

    The fact that he has gone down to the TEA Party wing of the Republican Party is just one more sign of how far right the party has shifted, along with our esteemed Editor.

    We have known for a while now that the Democrats have some toleration for Republicans who are not real conservatives, because they sometimes get those Republicans to go along with Democratic initiatives. Mr Lugar was defeated for renomination because Republicans were actually given a choice in this election, and they took their choice. That’s democracy for you!

    ‘Tis a damn shame! Senator Dick Lugar has been a pillar in the Senate for decades, and he will be missed. He was the voice of moderation in the Republican Party, which is why he has been voted out, because Indiana Republicans do not want moderation. Instead, they want extremism.

    No, we do not want “moderation,” when moderation means surrender to the left.

    But there is some good news that could come out of this, and that is the election of a Democrat to the Senate from IN, assuming that the Democrat is a capable and qualified individual. He/she probably will be, because this is what Democrats usually are!

    Well, y’all will have your chance now, won’t you? The voters of the Hoosier State can select whom they wish this November, and, who knows, you just might get your wish. But, then again, you might not. :)

  5. Oops! I did not see the author. As such, I violated Hitchcock’s stated rules by responding to SINP. So, Mr. H, my apologies and feel free to delete my comment at your leisure.

  6. And our free speech devotee, our Editor, is fine with that on his blog. Go figure this one out, because I cannot!

    Of course not. Because on most issues, a brick has more sense than you.

  7. Last time I looked this blog was private property and therefore has nothing to do with free speech or censorship. It has to do with property rights so the owner gets to say what is included or excluded. Speech here isn’t a right it’s a priveledge. If one abuses the priveledge, one is banned. And rightly so.

  8. Richard Lugar’s rejection by GOP voters is very good news, he was long out of touch, overstayed his welcome, was playing footsie with Harry Reid, and certainly deserved to lose.

    Lugar was a poster boy for the squishy wing of the GOP establishment, his open support for, and even occasional co-sponsorship, of Democrat legislative initiatives (which were opposed by his own party leaders) marked him out as one of the worst RINOs in the Senate.

    Richard Mourdock would do well to ignore Lugar’s stupid assumptions contained in the second paragraph of his concession speech (in the Editor’s comment @08:27). It’s exactly why voters rejected Lugar and opted for a candidate who wasn’t afraid to represent their interests.

  9. because it puts to a lie his profession of absolute belief in the First Amendment.

    This ignorant statement yet again shows you have zippo understanding of the amendment. None. To the contrary, it shows Editor understands it perfectly.

  10. No, it shows that our Editor is acting against that which he says that he is for. I didn’t expect you to understand that, koolo.

    You’re right — I rarely understand people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

  11. This is not just Mourdock, it is today’s Republican Party.

    Can you imagine Ronald Reagan ever making such a statement?

    Yeah — it’s sort of like Obama saying, “I won.” Remember that one? But that’s OK because he means well.

  12. Perry asked: Can you imagine Ronald Reagan ever making such a statement?

    Why yes, it sounds exactly like something Reagan would say, and thank you for asking.

    And, I applaud Mourdock for saying it, (see the third paragraph of my comment @11:11 above). Mourdock’s statement certainly represents my view of bipartisanship and likely the view of a clear majority of GOP voters in Indiana who voted for him, and it’s not difficult to imagine the same view might represent similar views by GOP voters in other states.

  13. As welcome as Lugar’s rejection is, the real delight this morning is the results in West Virginia. The UK Mail Online has the story.

    How unpopular can Obama get? Texas INMATE gets 40 per cent of votes against President in West Virginia primary. Prisoner Keith Judd got 40% of vote in West Virginia to Obama’s 60%

    Inmate 11593-051 got on ballot by paying $2,500 fee and filing forms. Attracting 15% of vote normally qualifies candidate for a delegate to the Democratic National Convention

    By Louise Boyle, 9 May 2012

    Just how unpopular is President Obama in some parts of the country? Enough that a man in a Texas prison received four out of 10 votes in West Virginia’s Democratic presidential primary.

    Inmate Keith Judd, 53, is serving 17 years for extortion at the Beaumont Federal Correctional Institution. He was sentenced in 1999 for making threats against the University of New Mexico and is due to be released on June 24 next year.

    With 93 per cent of precincts reporting, Obama was receiving just under 60 per cent of the vote to Judd’s 40 per cent…

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141657/Texas-INMATE-gets-40-cent-votes-Obama-West-Virginia-primary.html#ixzz1uOLnoDWa

  14. “Private property has nothing to do with free speech except to provide a rationalization to squelch/control it. The principle of free speech is either accepted or not, adhered to or not.”

    Horse crap Wagonwheel. Free speach has to do with whst the government can or can’t do. On my private property, if I don’t like your speech I’ll throw your ass off. Would you allow someone on you private property to stand there and throw around the F-bomb at you and your wife or whould squelch/control it and have him removed?

  15. You didn’t really mean the, did you koolo, as you’ve continued to violate what you apologized for a number of times afterwards. Rather insincere, aren’t you koolo, just one more example of your flawed character!

    The difference between you and me (besides the obvious, that is) is that I won’t bitch about it endlessly when Hitchcock eventually arrives and deletes our comments.

    Get it? No, you don’t. And never will.

    Now, speaking of flawed character, go back to abusing your wife.

  16. Wagonwheel wrote:

    Private property has nothing to do with free speech except to provide a rationalization to squelch/control it. The principle of free speech is either accepted or not, adhered to or not. Obviously, our Editor has chosen not to enforce his much bandied belief in free speech on his private property, which is his right, but a most unfortunate choice, because it puts to a lie his profession of absolute belief in the First Amendment.

    Allow me to quote, for the umpteenth time, the First Amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Various Supreme Court cases have “incorporated” most of the Bill of Rights as being applicable to state action as well, through the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Now, what the Editor, or anyone else, may say of do on this site, is not covered by the First Amendment internally; the site is private property. What the First Amendment protects is our right to say anything we wish from state or federal government action.

    You, on the other hand, would not actually amend the First Amendment, but would have the courts “interpret: it in such a fashion as to allow the government to prohibit certain speech, based upon who was doing the speaking; corporations happen to be your particular villain in this, and you have decried Citizens United v Federal Election Commission so many times that I hardly think it necessary to dig up a citation.

    An absolute interpretation of the First Amendment is that the First Amendment means exactly what it says, that Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

  17. Wagonwheel wrote:

    “Just how unpopular is President Obama in some parts of the country? Enough that a man in a Texas prison received four out of 10 votes in West Virginia’s Democratic presidential primary.”

    I don’t deny what a weird result this was, but it doesn’t surprise me, because TX is a very weird state. I know from personal experience there.

    Weird can be good, for example by producing the most brilliant American lawmaker ever. I am talking about LBJ. Read Robert Caro’s Volume IV. However, have you considered that TX is an open primary state, meaning that Republicans could have been creating mischief by voting in the Democrats’ primary, which is probably what happened, knowing how weird TX Republicans are. I mean, they elected Rick Perry as Governor, didn’t they?

    Which proves just how smart they are. They also gave us Presidents George H W Bush and George W Bush, for which we all thank them. However, while the prisoner is in jail in the Lone Star State, the election referenced was the West Virginia Democratic Primary.

  18. I have deleted multiple comments and maybe should have deleted multiple more comments. Since this is not a government agency but rather private property, I have the Constitutional right to Freedom of Association and need not worry about the fact Congress cannot restrict free expressions (since I, and we, are not Congress or Government).

    Wagonwheel and his sock, PIATOR and his multiple socks are expressly forbidden from commenting on my articles. As such, any comments they make on my articles, unless explicitly permitted, are in violation of the rules and subject to deletion. Any comments made by others in response to the forbidden comments likewise face deletion, with no recourse.

    In the future, unless I have explicitly permitted either of the Two Ps in a Pod to comment on my articles, anyone’s response to their verboten comments is also verboten and subject to deletion, with no record of their former presence.

    Now, please make all further comments related to the article itself or the logical periphery. And ignore forbidden commenters out of hand. Or I’ll have to do some more garbage removal.

    Thank you. Thank you very much.

  19. Richard Lugar, a good man who stayed too long.

    Lugar came to the Senate in 1976 and for most of that time he was considered a solid conservative, yet a clear majority of Indiana GOP voters found his recent record sufficiently lacking to replace him with a more reliable conservative voice.

    This is no small matter, the rejection of a long-serving senator with all his accumulated seniority is sending major shock-waves through the GOP establishment, and Democrats are also taking note.

    Lugar’s loss simply can’t be explained as a result of some local scandal, or a charismatic opponent, or the isolated work of a few hometown political opponents, it takes much more than that to knock off an incumbent. It takes a TEA Party.

    Lugar is stunned and is casting about for answers, his letter blames a general increase in the level of partisanship for his loss. He claims his bipartisan efforts to enact legislation he believed was helpful to the nation, even though it was opposed by GOP leadership, doomed his reelection changes.

    He’s wrong about the reasons for his rejection, but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be honored for his many years of faithful service in the Senate. He was a strong conservative voice and although he got off-track toward the end, he’s still one of us.

  20. I understand where you’re coming from Ropelight, but any time I see a person from any party who has been a senator for six terms, I think it’s time to get rid of’em. There really should be a two term limit for senators and a four term limit for the House. I know, I know, the “people” determine the term limits with their votes but I can’t stand career politicians, they’re out of touch. And unlike Wagonwheel, I don’t want a one party dictatorship, nor do I believe every Democrat alive has a “god-awful” and “immoral” political philosophy. I reserve those adjectives for the anti-God, anti-second ammendment, anti-tenth commandment socialists and communists.

  21. “We would lose people like Lugar if we had had the term limits you favor.”

    Perhaps you didn’t notice but we did “loose” him. And it ain’t no loss. We do not need “continuity in Congress”, we need ingenuity, creativity and new ideas. The same old farts doing the same old crap may be your idea of good government but it ain’t mine.

    You’re the guy always squalking about lobbyists and PAC’s yet you want these clowns to hang around and get paid off. Cause that’s just what happens when people are ensconced in power. Just look at some of these creeps. Besides, what do you give a rats ass about a god-awful, immoral Republican?

  22. Hoagie, I too am in favor of term limits. Your formula of 4 terms for House members and 2 for Senators strikes me as about right. I’d also extend the idea to limit government bureaucrats to 12 years total service, that way there would be no career government workers and no unions and no retirement plans.

  23. Ropelight wrote:

    I’d also extend the idea to limit government bureaucrats to 12 years total service, that way there would be no career government workers and no unions and no retirement plans.

    Unfortunately, if there were no retirement plans available, government service would be limited to those who were already wealthy enough not to need to worry about their retirement. I don’t see that as a better alternative.

  24. WW wrote:

    I have always admired him for his knowledge, especially about foreign affairs, and for his willingness to work across the aisle.

    Fixed that for you”: “I have always admired him for his knowledge, especially about foreign affairs, and for his willingness to work across the aisle compromise away Republican principles and vote for whatever the Democrats wanted.”

  25. WW wrote:

    Cheney and Rush are clearly extremists. If you don’t see that, then you are an extremist as well.

    To quote the late Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

    We already know that you certainly consider those fine men to be extremists, but your Editor would suggest that you need to define what you mean by extremism. Both men apparently believe that people own what they earn, and have a right to what they earn; is that somehow extreme? You support returning income tax rates for the top bracket to the 39.6% they were prior to 2001, while Mr Cheney supported the 2001/2003 tax cuts which took the top rate down to 35%; does that 4.6% somehow cross the border from centrism to extremism? Vice President Cheney supported liberating Iraq from the Ba’ath Party tyranny; is the border of extremism somehow between that and, say, John Kennedy’s inaugural address? Vice President Cheney supported military tribunals and rendition of terrorists to third countries, in which harsher treatment might be expected; President Obama has continued those policies. Does that make President Obama an extremist?

    You have supported:

    • An entirely new government power, to compel individuals to buy something which they may not wish to buy;
    • The partial redistribution of individual wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not;
    • Turning Social Security from a retirement plan to a welfare system, in which retirees would have to prove they were poor to receive their retirement checks;
    • Limitations on the Freedom of Speech based upon who is speaking;
    • Limitations on the Freedom of the Press, based on who is publishing;
    • Limitations on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; and
    • A return to military conscription.

    Can you see how some of us might view those as extremist positions?

  26. Mr Editor, FYI, the quote you attribute to Barry Goldwater comes from his speech to the 1964 GOP Convention. Goldwater’s prepared remarks were written by Karl Hess. Both men were aware the quote was first enunciated by Marcus Tullius Cicero.

    Additionally, a 12 year limitation on government employees is an attempt to prevent career bureaucrats. If term-limits for elected officials is a good idea, why not a similar limit on bureaucrats, and for the same reasons? No unions and no retirement programs, government service becomes service to the nation, not a career.

  27. WW complained [as he always does, and I deleted his prohibited comment. I was about to delete this comment as well but chose to allow it to prove the point the Editor made. Not that Perry is allowed to respond, because he is prohibited from doing so in this thread. -- JH]:

    But you hve misconstrued my positions, Mr Editor, most of which are quite moderate, actually. It is you who have shifted far right, which has distorted your perceptions, badly!

    Really? There were seven separate points above; which ones do you believe I have stated inaccurately?

  28. Ropelight wrote:

    Additionally, a 12 year limitation on government employees is an attempt to prevent career bureaucrats. If term-limits for elected officials is a good idea, why not a similar limit on bureaucrats, and for the same reasons? No unions and no retirement programs, government service becomes service to the nation, not a career.

    The vast majority of federal employees, though technically bureaucrats, have little real power. What harm is done to policy or to the nation if my mailman holds his job for more than a dozen years? If a registered nurse has worked at the Veterans’ Administration Hospital in Lexington, Kentucky, for 22 years, I see no harm in that.

    I would suggest that the biggest problem with career bureaucrats is that the rules under which they operate frequently lack common sense, and that many of the “noes” from bureaucrats are really coming from people who lack the power to say “yes.”

    One great lesson in life: never accept a “no” from someone who does not have the power to say “yes.” The proper response is always, “Thank you, I understand what you are saying. May I speak with your supervisor, please?”

Comments are closed.