Lugar is out. Crazy is in.

[rubato]

The hard right have driven the stake deeper into the corpse
Of the former republican party.

Well it gives the Democrat a chance.

[dgs49]

Lugar is out of touch with his party, out of touch with his state, out of touch with reality (running for re-election at age 80).

This was overdue.

The general election won't even be close. Another R for the Senate.

[Jarlaxle]

Wasnt he the one that didn't even LIVE in his alleged home state?

[dgs49]

He hadn't lived in Indiana for decades.

He is not "the one" in that situation; that is the norm, for those who were not independently wealthy when they got to the Senate.

How the hell are you supposed to maintain a household in D.C., and one in your home state on less than $200k?

House members should keep a residence in their home state. They are only there for 2 years (don't you wish), but there is nothing wrong with a Senator shifting his life to Washington. It's six years, after all.

[Scooter]

Of course, that's the fake justification you need to invent in order to prevent Santorum from being hoisted on his own petard.

Perhaps the two of you should explore your common fascination with man-on-dog sex together.

[Scooter]

And btw, the average senator pulls in more than $3 million in allowances in addition to his/her salary. He/she can find the money for his/her DC residence in there if he/she is feeling strapped on a six figure income.

[Econoline]

Actually, Lugar did still own a family farm in Indiana; he just never bothered to change the address on his voter's registration to that location.

Yeah, he was 80 years old and running for his 7th 6-year term; those factors certainly figured into the results. But more important to the tea-partiers who went after him was the fact that he occasionally (gasp!) talked to--and even (*SHUDDER*) worked with his colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That is Just Not Done, anymore.

Too bad. He was a Republican I could respect even when I disagreed with him, a true statesman, one of the most knowledgeable and experienced people on the planet when it came to nuclear proliferation issues. He ran for President at least once that I can recall, and he probably would've made a good one.

[Andrew D]

And what was Lugar's most signhificant work across the aisle? This:

Faced with inaction by the first Bush Administration, Lugar and his Democratic colleague, Senator Sam Nunn, stepped forward with a big, bold idea. They refused to stand by and let stuff happen. Instead, they invented the most significant national security initiative in the post-Cold War era. Nunn-Lugar legislation established and funded a program that gave US Defense Department officials a direct role in shaping the post-Soviet nuclear future.

Over the past two decades, with strong bipartisan support, $20 billion American taxpayers’ dollars have been invested in the most cost-effective expenditure in the defense budget. More than 3,000 long-range missiles, mostly aimed at American cities, have been removed from Soviet successor states in the greatest nonproliferation success in history. Thanks to significant help from Nunn-Lugar programs, 14,000 shorter-range nuclear weapons, many of a size well suited for terrorists, have been secured.

Two decades after Cheney’s forecast, how many nuclear weapons from the former Soviet superpower arsenal have proliferated? Not the 250 Cheney predicted. Not 25. Miracle of miracles, not a single nuclear weapon has been discovered outside the control of Russia’s nuclear custodians.

But according to the lunatics that form the Republican party's core, das ist verboten!

[Guinevere]

This is excellent, and worthy of copying and pasting wholesale (although I'm not sure I agree with his last comments regarding optimism about his party):

After losing a GOP primary against a Tea Party-backed candidate on Tuesday, veteran senator Richard Lugar released this statement decrying intense partisanship in Washington:

I would like to comment on the Senate race just concluded and the direction of American politics and the Republican Party. I would reiterate from my earlier statement that I have no regrets about choosing to run for office. My health is excellent, I believe that I have been a very effective Senator for Hoosiers and for the country, and I know that the next six years would have been a time of great achievement. Further, I believed that vital national priorities, including job creation, deficit reduction, energy security, agriculture reform, and the Nunn-Lugar program, would benefit from my continued service as a Senator. These goals were worth the risk of an electoral defeat and the costs of a hard campaign.

Analysts will speculate about whether our campaign strategies were wise. Much of this will be based on conjecture by pundits who don't fully appreciate the choices we had to make based on resource limits, polling data, and other factors. They also will speculate whether we were guilty of overconfidence.

The truth is that the headwinds in this race were abundantly apparent long before Richard Mourdock announced his candidacy. One does not highlight such headwinds publically when one is waging a campaign. But I knew that I would face an extremely strong anti-incumbent mood following a recession. 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.

We undertook this campaign soberly and we worked very hard in 2010, 2011, and 2012 to overcome these challenges. There never was a moment when my campaign took anything for granted. This is why we put so much effort into our get out the vote operations.

Ultimately, the re-election of an incumbent to Congress usually comes down to whether voters agree with the positions the incumbent has taken. 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.

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. 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.

Legislators should have an ideological grounding and strong beliefs identifiable to their constituents. I believe I have offered that throughout my career. But ideology cannot be a substitute for a determination to think for yourself, for a willingness to study an issue objectively, and for the fortitude to sometimes disagree with your party or even your constituents. Like Edmund Burke, I believe leaders owe the people they represent their best judgment.

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.

I hope that as a nation we aspire to more than that. I hope we will demand judgment from our leaders. I continue to believe that Hoosiers value constructive leadership. I would not have run for office if I did not believe that.

As someone who has seen much in the politics of our country and our state, I am able to take the long view. I have not lost my enthusiasm for the role played by the United States Senate. Nor has my belief in conservative principles been diminished. I expect great things from my party and my country. I hope all who participated in this election share in this optimism.

Bravo!

Link here:http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/edito ... mailed4_HP

[Jarlaxle]

He's a RINO, he got bounced.

Those sour grapes smell pretty bad, Senator.

[Guinevere]

Jarl, your post is *exactly* the kind of crap Lugar is talking about -- and why the Republican party will get smaller and smaller if it continues on the path it is on.

Don't for a minute think I'm excepting the Democrats from some of their ridiculousness either. NO ONE governs (and look up what governance means, if you disagree with me) successfully by taking a narrow view of the world and holding on for dear life.

[Scooter]

A RINO? Really? Based on what? Voting for the Bush tax cuts? Voting against the Obama stimulus? Voting in favour of a Federal Marriage Amendment? Voting against Obamacare? Voting agains the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

Someone isn't a "real" Republican unless they have their tongue planted firmly up Michele Bachmann's ass?

[Sue U]

Someone isn't a "real" Republican unless they have their tongue planted firmly up Michele Bachmann's Charles Koch's ass?

/fixed.

[dgs49]

"...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."

These are not minor votes. Indeed his characterization of the "auto industry" vote reflects a total disconnect from the issues as viewed by his party. The vote was a multi-billion dollar bailout/payoff to the UAW, nothing more. The U.S. auto industry, based in Ohio, South Carolina, Indiana and elsewhere has been doing fine, thank you very much, and the remnants of GM and Chrysler would be doing fine sans UAW, had Congress not acted as they did.

He was truly a better Republican than Arlen Specter. It was time to retire.

[Lord Jim]

When an incumbent of long standing is defeated for re-nomination by the kind of margin Lugar lost by, and there's no major scandal involved, the reasons are always going to be numerous....

My understanding is that while the "not conservative enough' refrain played a small part, the much larger issue was the idea that he had lost touch with the folks back home, (and the extremely inartful way Lugar handled the charge)

He also ran a very lackluster and half-hearted campaign; almost as though he didn't really care whether he won or lost, and that probably turned off voters as well. (And Mourdock put together a superb get-out-the-vote operation.)

That having been said, the loss of Dick Lugar is a great loss both for the Senate and the country. The Senate will most certainly be a poorer place for his departure.


WARNING RANTING DIGRESSION AHEAD:


I am really getting sick and tired of these clowns, whether on the left or the right, who run on a platform of, "Elect me and I will refuse to compromise!". In my personal opinion the more of these dolts who so fundamentally misunderstand how a legislative body works that are elected to the House and the Senate, the more dysfunctional our government will become and the further downhill our republic will slide.

Earth to morons:

"You live in deeply, and nearly evenly, divided country. If you want to accomplish anything at all, you will HAVE TO COMPROMISE. There is no way around it. The process of legislating is the process of compromise. Period. End of story."

We are seeing a situation where more and more the folks willing to compromise on both sides are vanishing from both the House and the Senate. And this is creating a terrible situation.

This really is more about approach to governance than it is about ideology. (though obviously, a higher percentage of hardcore ideologues are likely to embrace the "I'll never compromise" credo) You couldn't get any more Liberal than Ted Kennedy, but even he knew how to cut a deal. Hell, even Jesse Helms knew when it was time to compromise...

But the number of folks on the Republican side willing to compromise have been declining gradually over a period of years, and in the last election cycle the Congressional Democrats willing to make a deal to get things done were nearly completely wiped out at a single stroke....

If this trend continues, eventually we will have nothing left in either house of Congress on either side of aisle, but a bunch of howling baboons thumping their chests, baring their teeth, and throwing their feces at each other....

There's really only one way out of this gloomy state of affairs, and frankly, I don't hold out much hope for it...

The answer rests with the voters; both in primaries and general elections....

They must simply grow up, and stop rewarding these "my way or the highway" types with their votes. They must come to understand the great damage that putting these know-nothings in office does to them and their families.

The day needs to come when a candidate who stands up and says, "Vote for me and I'll never compromise" gets the same treatment from the electorate as a candidate who would stand up and say, "Vote for me and I'll vote to abolish Christmas"....

We need to reach a point where these jokers who are poisoning our political process are treated with scorn and contempt by the public; not rewarded with votes....

Then and only then, will this crap come to an end.

Thank you. I feel much better now...

[Econoline]

[oldr_n_wsr]

very well said LordJim

[Guinevere]

Agreed LJ. I'll contribute to your Senate campaign, if you will contribute to mine!

Say whatt you will about Bill Clinton, he also knew how and WHEN to cut a deal. HRC has those same skills, and it was one of the significant reasons I supported her above her junior colleague in the Senate. I was concerned he wouldn't know how to get that done, and he has proved me correct. Sadly.

[Long Run]

Totally agree with Jim. As Peg Noonan said last week, it is too bad we have lost another grown-up in D.C.

[Lord Jim]

It's a shame we don't have the same kind of commonsense among people across the political spectrum in Congress that we have on this board...