Can someone from the Tea Party explain this one to me? I really don't get it.
You've got Lugar, a guy who:
Votes for your side 90% of the time and has for the past 30 years
Is so squeaky clean that the only things you can dig up on him (after 30 years in politics) are that he lives in DC (where you voted to send him) and he may/may not have been improperly reimbursed once or twice for returning to Indiana
Has built up a position of power based not just on number of years in service, but also on respect for the guy's ability to get things done
And you want to vote him out for a guy who:
SAYS he's going to vote on your side 100% of the time
Has only been in politics six years but already has had to answer questions about:
Fraud on his property taxes (And yeah, I understand that it wasn't his fault originally but I'm not buying the whole -after noticing I had the improper tax deduction in 2007 I didn't think to check if it was still on there until 2011. And I've seen where he repaid the amounts for 2009 and 2010 and is not legally obligated to pay 2008, isn't he morally obligated though?)
Missing excessive meetings due to campaigning
Investing state money in a company that filed bankruptcy one year later then throwing another 2 million at a frivolous (and politically motivated) lawsuit against the company
And btw, when a guy's job is to be "responsible for the safekeeping and investment of moneys and securities paid into the state treasury" how does it not touch him when the state misplaces a half billion dollars during his tenure?
You want to dump Lugar, who is the position to do a lot for Indiana and who has routinely collected votes not only from Republicans but from independents like me too ... for that guy?
I could understand it a little better if there were substantial disagreements in policy between the two of them but I watched the debates -- there are none.
So what is this really all about?