Replies

How do you feel about the Lugar defeat in IN? Lugar was a lock to be reelected, which would help the GOP take over the Senate. Instead, during the primaries, a more conservative Rep, Richard Mourdock, was nominated. He will face a much more difficult election.

Using your logic, you would have advised the voters to go for Lugar, despite his RINO voting record and the fact he didn't even live in the state anymore.

As an aside, Lugar has proven to be a sore loser refusing to help Mourdock in his campaign. This is the problem with having politicians who have been feeding at the public trough most of their adult lives. They feel entitled to the position. You should walk the halls of Congress to see the trappings of power and the special interests standing at their door.

You criticize Ross Perot, but fail to understand why he had such traction among the voters. Third parties have a positive impact on the system. The two major parties start paying attention to third parties when their ideas gain traction among the public. Usually, the major parties adopt those ideas. Unfortunately, this time, movements like the Tea Party are being demonized instead of being embraced. The GOP does it as its peril.

As an aside, Lugar has proven to be a sore loser refusing to help Mourdock in his campaign.

It's a good thing, however, that Indiana has a "sore loser" law that disallows the losers of primaries from running as independents in the general.

It's a shame Alaska doesn't have the same kind of law.

However, I think this brings up an interesting question - why is it that if a conservative wins a primary, the GOP-E thinks that it is perfectly acceptable for the RINO who lost the race to undercut the nominee, slam them in the media, and even run against them in the general on a third ticket? But, if the RINO wins, it's completely unacceptable for the conservative not to do the same to the RINO?

Even if the RINO, as in the case of Mitt Romney, only won by running an exceedingly dirty campaign characterised by all sorts of character assassination and dirty tricks at the local level?

Why can they do it to Christine O'Donnell, Joe Miller, and Sharron Angle, but we can't do it to them?

As an aside, Lugar has proven to be a sore loser refusing to help Mourdock in his campaign.

It's a good thing, however, that Indiana has a "sore loser" law that disallows the losers of primaries from running as independents in the general.

It's a shame Alaska doesn't have the same kind of law.

However, I think this brings up an interesting question - why is it that if a conservative wins a primary, the GOP-E thinks that it is perfectly acceptable for the RINO who lost the race to undercut the nominee, slam them in the media, and even run against them in the general on a third ticket? But, if the RINO wins, it's completely unacceptable for the conservative to do the same to the RINO?

Even if the RINO, as in the case of Mitt Romney, only won by running an exceedingly dirty campaign characterised by all sorts of character assassination and dirty tricks at the local level?

Why can they do it to Christine O'Donnell, Joe Miller, and Sharron Angle, but we can't do it to them?

How do you feel about the Lugar defeat in IN? Lugar was a lock to be reelected, which would help the GOP take over the Senate. Instead, during the primaries, a more conservative Rep, Richard Mourdock, was nominated. He will face a much more difficult election. Using your logic, you would have advised the voters to go for Lugar, despite his RINO voting record and the fact he didn't even live in the state anymore. Your "logic" only works if you think Romney and Obama are exactly the same and that Goode or someone else can actually win. As an aside, Lugar has proven to be a sore loser refusing to help Mourdock in his campaign. This is the problem with having politicians who have been feeding at the public trough most of their adult lives. They feel entitled to the position. You should walk the halls of Congress to see the trappings of power and the special interests standing at their door. You criticize Ross Perot, but fail to understand why he had such traction among the voters. Third parties have a positive impact on the system. The two major parties start paying attention to third parties when their ideas gain traction among the public. Usually, the major parties adopt those ideas. Unfortunately, this time, movements like the Tea Party are being demonized instead of being embraced. The GOP does it as its peril. I understood Ross Perot's traction and would have gladly voted for him if he had a snowball's chance of being other than a spoiler. Many voted for Ross and look who we got. You want to do it all over again.

I see the Kool Aid is flowing freely at FR these days - Rush, Palin, Levin, and a host of other conservative paragons are being cast off as unclean because they see a clear difference between Obama and Romney. I guess lesser minds will philosophize and then bend to stronger personalities in order to validate themselves, but this is lunacy.