• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Richard Mourdock defeats Sen. Dick Lugar in Indiana

rathi said:
Lugar is a foreign policy expert with an extremely solid track record. His conventional and nuclear disarmament work has directly made this nation safer. Both parties agree on keeping weapons out of the hands of our enemy, and as a true statesman Lugar didn't let partisanship get in the way of getting things done. Its completely idiotic to replace proven competence with nothing but rhetoric, but that is way our country is going to its detriment.
Click to expand...

It's amusing watching a part of the GOP actively give a senator who kept the country safe the boot.

The Tea Party just increased America's risk of being hit by a nuclear weapon sent via a terrorist.

Who the hell is left to ensure the Nunn-Lugar CTR is being enforced?

To those with decent foreign policy experience, it's a very odd trend to see the GOP campaign to make the country less safe.
 
cpwill said:
Mitch Daniels has done a pretty good job in that state, and Obama isn't going to win it. I think the assumption is in Murdocks' favor.
Click to expand...

I have to agree, right at this minute...but mourdoch can lose it if hes asked the right questions...remains to be seen yet if the electorate dulls to his far rightedness....lets remember a republican primary is a bit different than the general election...but I agree as of this second he has the advantage
 
lpast said:
I have to agree, right at this minute...but mourdoch can lose it if hes asked the right questions...remains to be seen yet if the electorate dulls to his far rightedness....lets remember a republican primary is a bit different than the general election...but I agree as of this second he has the advantage
Click to expand...

The point is that Lugar was a dead-nuts lock to win another term (I believe he never won by LESS than 30%), while Mourdoch is vulnerable. And the bigger point is that the idiot teabaggers are hopelessly ****ing up our government by picking off every reasonable, rational Republican in Congress. It's to the point where Republicans are making a fight out of even the most non-controversial, common sense bills imagineable (e.g. violence against women, student loan interest rates).
 
AdamT said:
The point is that Lugar was a dead-nuts lock to win another term (I believe he never won by LESS than 30%), while Mourdoch is vulnerable. And the bigger point is that the idiot teabaggers are hopelessly ****ing up our government by picking off every reasonable, rational Republican in Congress. It's to the point where Republicans are making a fight out of even the most non-controversial, common sense bills imagineable (e.g. violence against women, student loan interest rates).
Click to expand...
The point for conservatives is that they are fed up with re-electing cronies who are not conservatives, they simply have an R before their name. Conservatives such as myself would rather lose an election with a conservative candidate rather than win one based solely on party affiliation. Its based on conviction. Knocking out who liberals feel are "good" republicans is exactly the idea. If democrats feel they are good then they are not good for us conservatives. We want politicians who will stand up and vote for our convictions, not go along with the opposition. That gets us nowhere. We would rather fight and lose for our beliefs than not fight at all.
 
00timh said:
The point for conservatives is that they are fed up with re-electing cronies who are not conservatives, they simply have an R before their name. Conservatives such as myself would rather lose an election with a conservative candidate rather than win one based solely on party affiliation. Its based on conviction. Knocking out who liberals feel are "good" republicans is exactly the idea. If democrats feel they are good then they are not good for us conservatives. We want politicians who will stand up and vote for our convictions, not go along with the opposition. That gets us nowhere. We would rather fight and lose for our beliefs than not fight at all.
Click to expand...

Lugar is a solid conservative, with about the same or better conservative rating as many Republican Senators from the deep south. http://conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/2011/senate.html

I think Lugar's real "sin" was being included in an '08 Obama ad where Obama touted his work with Lugar in addressing rogue nukes as an example of his ability to reach across the aisle. Because, God knows, we don't want members of both parties working together to help eliminate loose nuclear material! We can't have THAT!!
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Lugar is a solid conservative, with about the same or better conservative rating as many Republican Senators from the deep south. http://conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/2011/senate.html

I think Lugar's real "sin" was being included in an '08 Obama ad where Obama touted his work with Lugar in addressing rogue nukes as an example of his ability to reach across the aisle. Because, God knows, we don't want members of both parties working together to help eliminate loose nuclear material! We can't have THAT!!
Click to expand...
His recent voting record has been liberal. voted for TARP, and all the bailout BS, voted for Kegan for the SCOTUS. The opposing party should uh... oppose? He didn't just reach across the isle, he had a sleep over with it.
 
00timh said:
His recent voting record has been liberal. voted for TARP, and all the bailout BS, voted for Kegan for the SCOTUS. The opposing party should uh... oppose? He didn't just reach across the isle, he had a sleep over with it.
Click to expand...

Yes, he voted correctly on those. TARP, which was signed by President Bush, was absolutely required to prevent a Great Depression II. Kagan and Sotomayor were both clearly qualified and so should have been approved unanimously, since it's the Senate's job to assess qualifications and not political leaning. Lugar has been very consistent throughout his career. He's a middle-of-the-road conservative who's expertise on foreign policy will be sorely missed. In his place we get another political hack.
 
I can't believe it's considered "extreme" to let an 80-year-old, 36-year career Senator retire rather than let him stay in office for life.

I'm sure Lugar has done some good things. But he's been in office for long enough. I'm glad we're finally getting some new blood.
 
00timh said:
His recent voting record has been liberal. voted for TARP, and all the bailout BS, voted for Kegan for the SCOTUS. The opposing party should uh... oppose? He didn't just reach across the isle, he had a sleep over with it.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the sort of mentality that is killing the republican party. Its okay to get nothing done, as long as you don't do anything that is seen as "liberal". Nobody in congress on either side of the aisle has made any useful headway on the economy. Tarp and the bailout were crap, but the tea partiers have nothing better to offer. Lugar is no worse than any of his peers on financial issues, but he can actually handle foreign issues with some competency.
 
00timh said:
His recent voting record has been liberal. voted for TARP, and all the bailout BS, voted for Kegan for the SCOTUS. The opposing party should uh... oppose? He didn't just reach across the isle, he had a sleep over with it.
Click to expand...

And that my friends, is why the Tea Party is nuts.

Those items are more important to them then preventing a nuclear terrorist attack on America.

The Tea Party just made America less safe.

And without TARP, the economy would be in shambles. Tell me, how many industrialized countries exist without a banking sector?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom