Mourdock v Lugar, Poop v Shinola?

[edeevee]

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?

[BigDeel]

More information here:
http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/53292/
Is there some information missing at the link provided? Looking at that page his voting record is not too far off of what a conservative would want.
Here is his thoughts on the Tea Party.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1450333.html

And two more links.
http://www.hoosiersforconservativese...Dick_Lugar.pdf

http://www.nrapvf.org/defeatlugar?ut...aign=NRATarget

[edeevee]

More information here:
http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/53292/
Is there some information missing at the link provided? Looking at that page his voting record is not too far off of what a conservative would want.
Here is his thoughts on the Tea Party.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1450333.html

And two more links.
http://www.hoosiersforconservativese...Dick_Lugar.pdf

http://www.nrapvf.org/defeatlugar?ut...aign=NRATarget

Hmmm. His record as a whole is decidedly conservative. We'll have to be po-ta-to/po-tah-to on the 2nd Amendment issues because, while I support a citizen's right to bear arms, I also believe in reasonable oversight and control of those rights. The information, especially the illegal alien stuff mentioned in the hoosiers for conservative senate flyer is misleading at best and probably boldly false at worst. As example, saying that Lugar voted to give criminal illegal aliens Social Security benefits just because he voted to table an amendment to a large and complex immigration bill that ultimately passed with solid Republican support -- uh, that's a pretty big stretch. And they don't even have the date of the bill right, so, like I said ... hmmm.

Like Helen asks, what is the advantage to electing Mourdock if you are not a single issue, you'll pry my guns out of my dead hands, voter? I still don't see it.

You got anything else?

[Mr Douglas]

Lugar's voting record doesn't support the Constitution.....The Patriot Act, NDAA are traitorous to his oath of office. Nevermind his NRA "grade card", which stinks too. A vote for either of these guys invites business as usual.

[blue adept]

Lugar's voting record doesn't support the Constitution.....The Patriot Act, NDAA are traitorous to his oath of office. Nevermind his NRA "grade card", which stinks too. A vote for either of these guys invites business as usual.

I agree Oliver, but I will have to choose the devil we know rather than the devil we don't.

[Mr Douglas]

I agree Oliver, but I will have to choose the devil we know rather than the devil we don't.

Well, we get whatever they offer.....At least they make it easier by downplaying, omitting, or otherwise minimizing their actual differences.
(I can't wait to see what they cook up for a Romney/Obama "Debate" )

[HoosierHelen]

After observing the discussion between these 2 men, I could not grasp the difference between them, except for the additional years of experience Lugar has over Mourdock? If someone in our area is able to set my attention in the direction of additional strengths Mourdock is capable of bringing to serving our community, I am willing to read what you think? At this point, I am not yet grasping what advantages he is offering us?

[Mr Douglas]

After observing the discussion between these 2 men, I could not grasp the difference between them, except for the additional years of experience Lugar has over Mourdock? If someone in our area is able to set my attention in the direction of additional strengths Mourdock is capable of bringing to serving our community, I am willing to read what you think? At this point, I am not yet grasping what advantages he is offering us?

I'll bow out of this thread as I don't like either one, but one has a crappy (IMO) voting record, the other has rhetoric, and little else. Doesn't make one better than the other... MAYBE, just the opposite. Probably no different.

[edeevee]

Mr D, I don't want to come off as the biggest Lugar fan ever, I'm not. But I do think that if you take his record as a whole he has shown himself to be a man of integrity with the wisdom and ability to work with others. When compared to his opponent, and, actually, the majority of politicians these days, that places him head and shoulders above the throng.

[edeevee]

Lugar leaves us with a few words of wisdom.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...go-quietly.php

Then Mourdock confirms he doesn't know the definition of bipartisanship:

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...of-dems-coming

This is the guy you wanted?

[armyda]

Nobody I wanted.

[Mr Douglas]

Condescending Wonka 2012!
GW.jpg

[edeevee]

All those yard signs and it's just about gun control? Really? C'mon you guys, give me something solid or I'll be forced to *gasp* go looking on my own.

[Mr Douglas]

Nobody I wanted.

[HoosierHelen]

Nobody I wanted.

Nobody I wanted either.

[edeevee]

Uh oh ... http://somosrepublicans.com/2012/04/...iness-filings/

[blue adept]

Uh oh ... http://somosrepublicans.com/2012/04/...iness-filings/

This guy is just a bozo!

[edeevee]

This guy is just a bozo!

A bozo that is about to unseat a respected senior senator.

Try as I might, I can't help but be interested in politics. I also like to figure out puzzles and what motivates people to do the things they do. For all those reasons, this whole Mourdock/Lugar thing is irresistible to me. Lugar is the second most senior member of the Senate. As such, he holds considerable power. That works in Indiana's favor. So, unless he's done something despicable, I don't understand why anyone in this state would want to remove him in favor of a newbie. I particularly don't understand why Republicans want to do it. Lugar commands the respect of a whole lot of independents. There is no guarantee that they will go with Mourdock in a general election. If I am an indicator of how that works out -- they probably won't, and Republicans will lose a Senate seat that would have been all but guaranteed them otherwise. It doesn't make sense.

Unless the new guy was just so freaking stellar that no one could pass up the opportunity to vote for him. Mourdock is not that guy. Think of it like this: The Colts parted ways with Peyton Manning, a QB that was super respected, mostly because this was the year they could get Andrew Luck. Is Richard Mourdock the Andrew Luck of politics? I don't think so. His policies, except for gun control do not differ significantly from Lugar's. In six short years in politics he's already piled up a half dozen legal, ethical, and financial judgment questions.

And then there's this -- why does this guy even want to do this? As a geologist for coal and oil companies, and then the manager of a company that constructs power plants and slurry fields, he was making some pretty good scratch. Enough to pay for his Indianapolis condo with CASH a few days after he was elected treasurer (something like $268,000). He gave that up, and threw in $17,000 of his own money to get a job that pays $66,000 a year? I don't think so.

What I DO think is that Mr. Mourdock is in the pocket of the coal industry, that he is counting on reaping the rewards of this as soon as he has a bigger platform - as Senator of Indiana. It is the only thing that makes sense to me. The contributions to his treasurer campaign from Duke Energy and the like only make my suspicions stronger. As do his already extensive holdings of energy stocks. And the support of supply siders like Club For Growth and Freedomworks (Koch Industries).

So.

On the one hand you've got a guy who has been perfectly conservative enough for Indiana for 36 years. A guy who is still worth less than $1,000,000. A guy who is the epitome of a public servant. A guy who has never been engulfed in scandal. A guy who is in no one's pocket.

And on the other hand you've got Mourdock -- who is a steaming, perfumed pile of poo waiting to be uncovered.

Indiana Republicans are idiots if they choose that guy. And I won't hesitate to say I told you so.

[blue adept]

A bozo that is about to unseat a respected senior senator.

Try as I might, I can't help but be interested in politics. I also like to figure out puzzles and what motivates people to do the things they do. For all those reasons, this whole Mourdock/Lugar thing is irresistible to me. Lugar is the second most senior member of the Senate. As such, he holds considerable power. That works in Indiana's favor. So, unless he's done something despicable, I don't understand why anyone in this state would want to remove him in favor of a newbie. I particularly don't understand why Republicans want to do it. Lugar commands the respect of a whole lot of independents. There is no guarantee that they will go with Mourdock in a general election. If I am an indicator of how that works out -- they probably won't, and Republicans will lose a Senate seat that would have been all but guaranteed them otherwise. It doesn't make sense.

Unless the new guy was just so freaking stellar that no one could pass up the opportunity to vote for him. Mourdock is not that guy. Think of it like this: The Colts parted ways with Peyton Manning, a QB that was super respected, mostly because this was the year they could get Andrew Luck. Is Richard Mourdock the Andrew Luck of politics? I don't think so. His policies, except for gun control do not differ significantly from Lugar's. In six short years in politics he's already piled up a half dozen legal, ethical, and financial judgment questions.

And then there's this -- why does this guy even want to do this? As a geologist for coal and oil companies, and then the manager of a company that constructs power plants and slurry fields, he was making some pretty good scratch. Enough to pay for his Indianapolis condo with CASH a few days after he was elected treasurer (something like $268,000). He gave that up, and threw in $17,000 of his own money to get a job that pays $66,000 a year? I don't think so.

What I DO think is that Mr. Mourdock is in the pocket of the coal industry, that he is counting on reaping the rewards of this as soon as he has a bigger platform - as Senator of Indiana. It is the only thing that makes sense to me. The contributions to his treasurer campaign from Duke Energy and the like only make my suspicions stronger. As do his already extensive holdings of energy stocks. And the support of supply siders like Club For Growth and Freedomworks (Koch Industries).

So.

On the one hand you've got a guy who has been perfectly conservative enough for Indiana for 36 years. A guy who is still worth less than $1,000,000. A guy who is the epitome of a public servant. A guy who has never been engulfed in scandal. A guy who is in no one's pocket.

And on the other hand you've got Mourdock -- who is a steaming, perfumed pile of poo waiting to be uncovered.

Indiana Republicans are idiots if they choose that guy. And I won't hesitate to say I told you so.

I was all ready to vote against lugar, and then I started to read about his opponent. I will vote for Lugar.

[nathandiehl]

Here's a link to Real Clear Politics' poll coverage of this race:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nate_race.html