|
|
Post by godotwaits on May 9, 2012 12:49:40 GMT -5
It's on msnbc now. Someone might want to drag it over for discussion. Are we doomed to political zealotry here in after? Scary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on May 9, 2012 13:06:59 GMT -5
parts....
" I knew that my work with then-Senator Barack Obama would be used against me, even if our relationship were overhyped. I also knew from the races in 2010 that I was a likely target of Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and other Super Pacs dedicated to defeating at least one Republican as a purification exercise to enhance their influence over other Republican legislators."
"I knew that I had cast recent votes that would be unpopular with some Republicans and that would be targeted by outside groups.
These included my votes for the TARP program, for government support of the auto industry, for the START Treaty, and for the confirmations of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. I also advanced several propositions that were considered heretical by some, including the thought that Congressional earmarks saved no money and turned spending power over to unelected bureaucrats and that the country should explore options for immigration reform.
It was apparent that these positions would be attacked in a Republican primary. But I believe that they were the right votes for the country, and I stand by them without regrets, as I have throughout the campaign. "
"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. And he will find that unless he modifies his approach, he will achieve little as a legislator. Worse, he will help delay solutions that are totally beyond the capacity of partisan majorities to achieve. The most consequential of these is stabilizing and reversing the Federal debt in an era when millions of baby boomers are retiring. There is little likelihood that either party will be able to impose their favored budget solutions on the other without some degree of compromise.
Unfortunately, we have an increasing number of legislators in both parties who have adopted an unrelenting partisan viewpoint. This shows up in countless vote studies that find diminishing intersections between Democrat and Republican positions. Partisans at both ends of the political spectrum are dominating the political debate in our country. And partisan groups, including outside groups that spent millions against me in this race, are determined to see that this continues. They have worked to make it as difficult as possible for a legislator of either party to hold independent views or engage in constructive compromise. If that attitude prevails in American politics, our government will remain mired in the dysfunction we have witnessed during the last several years. And I believe that if this attitude expands in the Republican Party, we will be relegated to minority status. Parties don't succeed for long if they stop appealing to voters who may disagree with them on some issues. "
"Too often bipartisanship is equated with centrism or deal cutting. Bipartisanship is not the opposite of principle. One can be very conservative or very liberal and still have a bipartisan mindset. Such a mindset acknowledges that the other party is also patriotic and may have some good ideas. It acknowledges that national unity is important, and that aggressive partisanship deepens cynicism, sharpens political vendettas, and depletes the national reserve of good will that is critical to our survival in hard times. Certainly this was understood by President Reagan, who worked with Democrats frequently and showed flexibility that would be ridiculed today - from assenting to tax increases in the 1983 Social Security fix, to compromising on landmark tax reform legislation in 1986, to advancing arms control agreements in his second term.
I don't remember a time when so many topics have become politically unmentionable in one party or the other. Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change. Republican members are now expected to take pledges against any tax increases. For two consecutive Presidential nomination cycles, GOP candidates competed with one another to express the most strident anti-immigration view, even at the risk of alienating a huge voting bloc. Similarly, most Democrats are constrained when talking about such issues as entitlement cuts, tort reform, and trade agreements. Our political system is losing its ability to even explore alternatives. If fealty to these pledges continues to expand, legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance. Voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than a leader."
|
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on May 9, 2012 13:35:46 GMT -5
I don't have any particular opinion of Lugar but I'm afraid the comments in that excerpt are all too true, in almost every regard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on May 9, 2012 13:50:25 GMT -5
*sigh*
I don't know the man. That statement is pretty damning. But that's from the loser (pouting?) Will the winner get elected? We shall see.
The local Tea party guy, Walsh, who got elected last go-around is up for re-election again, and now has some baggage of his own to cart around. It'll be interesting to see how that one runs.
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on May 9, 2012 13:50:28 GMT -5
Lot's that can be said. But if no mention is made of his age, not all has been said. He was 80. For at least some voters, isn't it enough to say enough is enough? What leads a person to such a sense of indispensability that they have to be carried out in a box as if there is no one else that can serve? A fine man and a fine senator, but there comes a time, there always does, and if you can't step off, you'll be pushed off.
Perhaps only a small part, but it was a part.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on May 9, 2012 13:51:46 GMT -5
I did hear he is old and doesn't even have a residence in Indiana.
Whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by omaha on May 9, 2012 13:57:21 GMT -5
"The cemeteries are filled with indespensible men."
|
|
|
|
Post by Shannon on May 9, 2012 14:03:04 GMT -5
You could tell he was an old politician because his opinions were sophisticated and expressed with both clarity and a modicum of style.
Too bad we don't see much of that any more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on May 9, 2012 14:04:31 GMT -5
You could tell he was an old politician because his opinions were sophisticated and expressed with both clarity and a modicum of style. Too bad we don't see much of that any more. +1 |
|
|
|
Post by omaha on May 9, 2012 14:06:05 GMT -5
The thing that did Lugar in is that the Tea Party was smart enough to not run a witch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on May 9, 2012 14:20:13 GMT -5
millring has often asked what it takes to get one of us commie pinko liberals to vote for a Republican. Well, I voted for Lugar several times, even crossing over in this primary. He did seem a bit old and not as sharp this time around, but I think he still had a lot to offer. I would have voted for him again in November. I will not vote for Mourdock.
|
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on May 9, 2012 14:31:10 GMT -5
millring has often asked what it takes to get one of us commie pinko liberals to vote for a Republican. Well, I voted for Lugar several times, even crossing over in this primary. He did seem a bit old and not as sharp this time around, but I think he still had a lot to offer. I would have voted for him again in November. I will not vote for Mourdock. Guess that pretty much explains why he lost right there. |
|
|
|
Post by omaha on May 9, 2012 14:50:33 GMT -5
I think the Senate, chummy as it is, is particularly prone to institutionalizing its members. One of Lugar's weaknesses was that he often talked in Senate short-hand. Voters don't connect with that. Its one of the problems John McCain had as well.
In the end, I think this election came down to his age (running for a six year term at age 80 is rather bold), his inability to connect with voters and the fact that what he stood for (presumably his next six years would be pretty much like the prior 35) is just not working.
Maybe the left is correct. Maybe the right is correct. But the mushy middle, as personified by Lugar, is what has gotten us to where we are. Does anyone think more of that is what we need?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on May 9, 2012 14:54:18 GMT -5
millring has often asked what it takes to get one of us commie pinko liberals to vote for a Republican. It was a trick question. The "test" was to see if Democrats would vote for Scott Brown, the MA Senator Bruce thinks is Scott Walker. But unlike their feelings for Walker, Republicans don't really like Brown. Brown's problem this time around is that he's running against Warren, a very formidable Democrat opponent. If Warren hadn't been part of the equation, if Brown had been running against a generic, generally unremarkable Democrat, Brown might have won in 2012 with more Democrat votes than Republican votes. It's sad to see Lugar go in Indiana. He's part of a dying, nearly extinct breed. I was watching Chris Matthews a couple weeks ago. He was talking about the Tea Party and asked what they've accomplished. He asked his guests to name a single piece of legislation that they've successfully pushed through Congress. Just one. But no one could name one. Matthews contended that they're not doing their job. They're not working with others to further their cause and or to benefit Americans. Instead, they're a protest movement. They tell the House Speaker of their demands, and then do their best to oppose anything that falls outside their strict ideals. They are the equivalent of a bunch of people doing nothing but sitting around with protest signs. I don't know if Matthews is right, that they have failed to pass a single piece of legislation, but he's at least pretty close to being right. And I do agree with his conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on May 9, 2012 14:55:59 GMT -5
Maybe the left is correct. Maybe the right is correct. But the mushy middle, as personified by Lugar, is what has gotten us to where we are. Does anyone think more of that is what we need? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on May 9, 2012 14:57:56 GMT -5
But the mushy middle, as personified by Lugar, is what has gotten us to where we are. Does anyone think more of that is what we need? Apparently I do. |
|
|
|
Post by omaha on May 9, 2012 14:59:52 GMT -5
See you at the cliff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on May 9, 2012 15:00:10 GMT -5
. . . , Maybe the left is correct. Maybe the right is correct. But the mushy middle, as personified by Lugar, is what has gotten us to where we are. Does anyone think more of that is what we need? I do. I prefer the mushy middle much more than either polarity. |
|
|
|
Post by omaha on May 9, 2012 15:05:34 GMT -5
millring has often asked what it takes to get one of us commie pinko liberals to vote for a Republican. I was watching Chris Matthews a couple weeks ago. He was talking about the Tea Party and asked what they've accomplished. He asked his guests to name a single piece of legislation that they've successfully pushed through Congress. Well, if you want to frame it that way, you've pre-destined the answer. Hugh Hewitt said it pretty well in today's column: "Whatever its name, there remains a potent anti-Beltway, anti-old-school energy in the grassroots that is looking for candidates who will go to D.C. to fight D.C., not join in its merry ways." Formally, there are 62 members of the Tea Party Caucus in the House and five in the Senate. That, in and of itself, is an accomplishment. |
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on May 9, 2012 15:08:19 GMT -5
"I do. I prefer the mushy middle much more than either polarity."
Me, too. Maybe we need to start a Mushy Middle Party.
|
|
