I've stopped following US politics closely, since it's an insane affair that is resoundingly depressing, but this is a gem from soon-to-be-unemployed Senator Lugar from Indiana.

Since this is a prepared statement from the Senator, not a news story, I'm going to copy the whole letter.

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.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11605668-lugars-goodbye?lite

Watching US politics has become like watching a very very slow train that's already on a runaway course. This is why the tea party scares me. It's not bringing guns to rallies or their political stances: it's the uncompromising approach to politics. The all-or nothing. The Grover Norquest tax pledge... that's ruinous.

So adieu, Senator Lugar. I might not agree with you on much, but I can respect that you were at least willing to work with Democrats. I'm sorry you lost your job over that.

Another one of the best the Republican party had to offer gone. More and more opposing Republicans as a group is what needs to be done.

I still can't believe Lugar lost. He was so popular in 2006 that the Democrats didn't even bother running a candidate against him, despite the fact that it was a Democratic-leaning year. Ah well, I wish him a good retirement - he's 80 after all.

Wonder if this will be another case of the Tea Party nominee losing a seat the GOP moderate would have won like what happened in two or three Senate races in 2010.

American politics are becoming a joke, openly saying you will refuse to work with the other side gets you a win. Country is doomed if that keeps going on.

I still can't believe Lugar lost. He was so popular in 2006 that the Democrats didn't even bother running a candidate against him, despite the fact that it was a Democratic-leaning year. Ah well, I wish him a good retirement - he's 80 after all.

This is what amazed me the most about the loss.

Wonder if this will be another case of the Tea Party nominee losing a seat the GOP moderate would have won like what happened in two or three Senate races in 2010.

Or Lugar pulling a LM and running as an independent. He's fairly old, though, so he might not run for re-election and instead take the early retirement.

American politics are becoming a joke, openly saying you will refuse to work with the other side gets you a win. Country is doomed if that keeps going on.
A win in the primary. Not so much come November.

Well we will see if Indiana is practical, but arent they a little more right leaning?

Well we will see if Indiana is practical, but arent they a little more right leaning?
Indiana went narrowly for Obama in 2008 - it will likely go for Romney in 2012, so there may be a shot for a Dem against a Tea Partier.

Wonder if this will be another case of the Tea Party nominee losing a seat the GOP moderate would have won like what happened in two or three Senate races in 2010.


Not all that much. I've heard that this means the Democrat won't get automatically blown out of the water. But the odds of a win are slim.

They don't have any good choices in that race. It's either a far-right nutjob or a blue dog Democrat that could care less about protecting the environment or helping the poor.

They don't have any good choices in that race. It's either a far-right nutjob or a blue dog Democrat that could care less about protecting the environment or helping the poor.

Blue dog Democrats are very much populists when it comes to helping the poor. They're like the anti libertarian particle.

Blue dog Democrats are very much populists when it comes to helping the poor. They're like the anti libertarian particle.

They mostly think of it in the same terms as moderate Republicans. That is they mainly care about jobs numbers (whatever the environmental costs) and don't care about how much the jobs pay or if they offer good working conditions. To them, a job is a job.

The bolded in the OP really is the poison. Too many times I've seen ideas misrepresented and then mocked due to partisan bias. It's the rampant misrepresentation that's the problem. If people could fight tooth-and-nail when they strenuously objected, that's one thing. Fighting good ideas because they're not yours is what' causing the damage.

The Democratic Party and Cutlass - take note.

The Democratic Party and Cutlass - take note.

Take note of what, exactly? :crazyeye:

I think the final bolded part applies perfectly :D

Then you haven't been paying attention.

See how quickly you turned a nice debate into a gridlocked, partisan struggle?

Except that I haven't. :crazyeye: I'm sitting here trying to figure out what the hell you are talking about, and you aren't explaining.

Watching US politics has become like watching a very very slow train that's already on a runaway course. This is why the tea party scares me. It's not bringing guns to rallies or their political stances: it's the uncompromising approach to politics. The all-or nothing. The Grover Norquest tax pledge... that's ruinous.

So adieu, Senator Lugar. I might not agree with you on much, but I can respect that you were at least willing to work with Democrats. I'm sorry you lost your job over that.

US politics is not really as partisan as some would have you believe. The way they get those ridiculous partisan voiting record numbers is by looking only at the votes for things. If you look at who votes against things, it is almost always a bipartisan affair.

That being said, we could use some more bipartisan votes for things, but not just for the sake of it, there has to be legislation worth that effort.

It's highly partisan where it matters: issues that are important to both parties (not their individual "special interests"). The inability to come to a compromise on debt reduction, threatening to kick in drastic defence cuts and drastic social security cuts comes to mind. They found working together to be worse than hurting themselves.

What are these drastic social security cuts you speak of? There is no such threat, those cuts are part what is being caught in the gridlock.

What are these drastic social security cuts you speak of? There is no such threat, those cuts are part what is being caught in the gridlock.

Social Security was exempt from the cuts. My mistake. It's 50/50 defence and domestic spending, exempting SS / medicaide / low-income social spending.

Point still stands. Both parties would rather hurt their own interests than work with the other's.

Republican congressmen voting as a block on most major issues under the threat of being no longer supported by their party, while substantially increasing the amount of cloture in the Senate in recent history isn't "partisan" at all.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/cloture-stats-chart2.jpg

Congress has clearly become more and more polarized ever since the Clinton administration. Childish loyalty oaths have no place in politics in a free and open democratic society.

From what I've read about Murdock he is a lot like Ron Johnson out of Wisconsin. He definitely has a shot. He is not like the Tea party candidate who ran in Nevada.

I don't know why "partisan" is such a scare-word in the United States. Your problem isn't partisanship, it's that you've only got two parties and they're both awful.


My suspicion is that its just part of how American political discourse is structured these days, namely, as constant struggle to present yourself as lacking in actual politics or theory of any kind, but merely channelling a poorly-understood pagan deity known to its followers as "Common Sense". It's the notion of "post-ideology" given teeth, because any disagreement becomes just as much an insult to the contending parties as taking the wrong line on the People's Republic of Howayatoday among the most fractious Trotskyite sectlet. After all, you're just Stating The Facts, and they're getting their slimy opinions all over the place!

If you learned to be a bit more overtly ideological, you'd probably get a lot more done.

I don't know why "partisan" is such a scare-word there. Your problem isn't partisanship, it's that you've only got two parties and they're both awful.

My suspicion is that its just part of how American political discourse is structured these days, namely, as constant struggle to present yourself as lacking in any actual politics or theory of any kind, but merely channelling a poorly-understood pagan deity known to its followers as "Common Sense". It's the notion of "post-ideology" given fangs, because any disagreement becomes just as much an insult to the contending parties as taking the wrong line on the People's Republic of Howayatoday among the most fractious Trotskyite sectlet. After all, you're just Stating The Facts, and they're getting their slimy opinions all over the place. If you learned to be a bit more overtly ideological, you'd probably get a lot more done.


That's not really it. Granted most of the time the 2 parties really weren't all that different. But most of the time people went to Congress and they spent years there and they got to know people. People of both parties. Congress worked not on the basis of parties, but on the basis of personal relationships. Party hardly mattered at all much of the time.

What changed is the money now needed to be competitive in Congressional elections. Members of Congress spend as much of their time raising money as they do at their job. And because of that the time that they used to spend forging the personal relationships that made Congress worked are gone. It's easy to attack someone you never speak to face to face, like many Congresspeople do now. It's much harder to attack someone you golf with, drink with, smoke with, play poker with, have lunch and dinner with, which is what members spent much of their time doing in the past.

They mostly think of it in the same terms as moderate Republicans. That is they mainly care about jobs numbers (whatever the environmental costs) and don't care about how much the jobs pay or if they offer good working conditions. To them, a job is a job.

I personally know Donnelly very well. I was a campaign staffer for him in 2010, and we have written a few times since then. I will likely spend a weekend this summer driving to Gary and making phone calls for him.

It would be a mistake to say he is indifferent to the calls of the poor. Joe's base of support primarily came from some of the poorest areas north of Indy, and he was one of the only voices for Indiana's organized labor and working class.

I know Lugar and Murdock as well. Murdock is actually crazypants. He will likely win, but Joe is the best choice the Dems have, especially since Donnelly's district got redrawn to make it impossible for a Dem to win this year.

BTW, Rasmussen has this race tied at 42% right now.

I have been reading an interesting explanation to why the conservatives are against compromise. They feel that the democrats want bigger government and they want no growth to government. When there is a compromise it never is less government. It is compromising for a smaller win for the Democrats who can come back later to try to get more.

This is partially why for many of the conservatives like the tea party group the Bush era is such a difficult pill to swallow because it was no longer compromising but all out growth of government. It was a lot of ground lost for small government people (Not NO GOVERNMENT, SMALL GOVERNMENT).

I have been reading an interesting explanation to why the conservatives are against compromise. They feel that the democrats want bigger government and they want no growth to government. When there is a compromise it never is less government. It is compromising for a smaller win for the Democrats who can come back later to try to get more.

This is partially why for many of the conservatives like the tea party group the Bush era is such a difficult pill to swallow because it was no longer compromising but all out growth of government. It was a lot of ground lost for small government people (Not NO GOVERNMENT, SMALL GOVERNMENT).

Except the republicans DONT want smaller government, this is a grand lie they roll out there to the huddled masses. They want bigger government just in the security and military sectors instead of the social sectors. You already have republicans trying to roll back the defense cuts that were part of the debt ceiling deal.

And also, the argument boils down to "see, the Republicans don't want to compromise because that would mean compromises!".

Except the republicans DONT want smaller government, this is a grand lie they roll out there to the huddled masses. They want bigger government just in the security and military sectors instead of the social sectors. You already have republicans trying to roll back the defense cuts that were part of the debt ceiling deal.


The thing to always keep in mind is that the Republican voter does not vote for small government politicians. In fact, has routinely voted for the biggest government of big government political leaders, like Nixon, Reagan, and GW Bush, all of whom they not only elected, but once those presidents proved their big government cred, they reelected.

Even the Tea Partiers are not legitimately small government. Few of them have made real efforts to cut the size and scope of government. Only taxes, and then leave the hard work to others.

And all democrats want are abortions.

I don't know if it is just my point of view skewing but I keep hearing about politicians and conservative media that would like to cut government. Not taxes but government. I don't hear people like John Stossel saying that we need to cut taxes. I hear him saying we need to cut the red tape.

Now for the politicians well there is that Ron Paul fellow who *GASP* wants to cut the government. He has a fairly large and growing following. He may have some ideas that are bad but guess what... he wants small government.

"Cut government" is not a political goal, it's a talking point. What do they want to cut specifically?

They don't have any good choices in that race. It's either a far-right nutjob or a blue dog Democrat that could care less about protecting the environment or helping the poor.

This actually made me a little sad. In a thread lamenting the ability of politicians to compromise you lumped the moderate Democrats in with the Tea Party. :(

Ron Paul was also a highly ineffective legislative leader. Not many of things Paul actually espoused got done.

Gridlock is exactly what a lot of the GOP leadership wants...but it isn't something that benefits the voters of Indiana.

And all democrats want are abortions.

I don't know if it is just my point of view skewing but I keep hearing about politicians and conservative media that would like to cut government. Not taxes but government. I don't hear people like John Stossel saying that we need to cut taxes. I hear him saying we need to cut the red tape.

Now for the politicians well there is that Ron Paul fellow who *GASP* wants to cut the government. He has a fairly large and growing following. He may have some ideas that are bad but guess what... he wants small government.


But what, specifically, do they want to cut? What, specifically, do they want to do they act to cut? What, specifically, do they actually work at cutting? The answer is "taxes", not spending. "Cutting government" is rhetoric. "Cutting red tape" is rhetoric. "Across the board cuts" is rhetoric. "Freeze or rollback spending" are rhetoric. When it comes to doing the actual hard work of ending or reforming programs, where are they? Not doing the hard work, that's for certain.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/0518/Has-the-tea-party-sold-out-House-freshmen-aren-t-who-they-seem

It's easy to make blanket pronouncements. It's hard to actually govern. And it's even harder to get reelected when you actually tell your constituents that they have to settle for less because of what you worked for after they sent you to Congress.

This actually made me a little sad. In a thread lamenting the ability of politicians to compromise you lumped the moderate Democrats in with the Tea Party. :(

My apologies. I guess at the time I was frustrated and didn't realize it was lumping them together. The biggest obvious difference between moderate Democrats and Tea Party Republicans is that the Democrats are much better at compromise. If the compromise still leads us down a dangerous path then both of them do us are stilling doing us a disservice. For instance, our current lack of action on climate change is a very dangerous course. So far, I've yet to see a moderate Democrat that sees it as an high priority issue. Some even are in the denialist camp.

Well good thing we've gotten rid of almost all of those moderate Democrats along with the moderate Republicans. Now we can take our gridlock clean and simple. :lol:

Well good thing we've gotten rid of almost all of those moderate Democrats along with the moderate Republicans. Now we can take our gridlock clean and simple. :lol:

It would less bad to have more moderates than far-right nutjobs but if they don't do something about climate change, it's all for nothing anyway. Even if they could create enough jobs to drop unemployment to acceptable levels by stripping away all regulations and approving everything that industry wants, it wouldn't matter in the long term. In a few decades from now, living for most people, would mean a hellish nightmare. Some people are already resorting to virtual worlds to escape their real-life misery. I'd rather that we do enough to improve things in the real world so that people don't need to escape reality.

Some people do intentionally vote for gridlock. I've never said they don't have reasons!

He was the worst Republican in Congress on the issue of Illegal Immigration. He never met an amnesty he didnt like. That is one reason he isnt a member any longer.

Some people are already resorting to virtual worlds to escape their real-life misery.
Right, those despicable people who like to pretend they rule a civilization from the dawn of time. They should get out of here and set up a board for those who like that sort of thing :mischief:

Right, those despicable people who like to pretend they rule a civilization from the dawn of time. They should get out of here and set up a board for those who like that sort of thing :mischief:

:lol: Civers are nothing compared to dedicated MMO players. I know of people who spend most of their waking hours playing those games. Some have made a job out of building a virtual 2nd life online.