Skip to comments.Lugar to Tea Party: "Get real" (RINO attacks Tea Party over START, his support for Obama)
Posted on 02/11/2011 7:26:26 PM PST by rabscuttle385
Among other criticisms, Tea Party activists have taken Lugar to task for supporting the new START nuclear arms treaty with Russia, claiming the U.S. is giving up too much and Russia is not giving up enough.
"I've been working systematically for 20 years going to Russia trying to help direct a situation in which we're taking warheads off of missiles every day, destroying missiles that were aimed at us; destroying submarines that carried misslies up and down our coast," said Lugar. "I've got to say 'Get real'. I hear Tea Party or other people talking about they were against START. I said 'Well, now, hang on here.'"
Lugar continued, "If you want to get into START, let's talk about it, but realistically as Americans, not as some Republican renegade. [I'm] trying to take warheads of Russia [out of circulation] so they won't hit Indiana."
The senator was also ready with a retort for those who've laid into him for confirming President Obama's Supreme Court nominees. Lugar said he looks at a nominee's character and professional qualifications in order to avoid creating a polarizing atmosphere.
"I hope people sort of understand that because otherwise we polarize the Supreme Court business to a point that conservative justices offered by a conservative Republican president-who'll be elected at some point-are going to have trouble," said Lugar.
Make no mistake: the signatures and millions of dollars Lugar has reportedly raised are intended as counter-publicity to the Tea Party's loud calls for his ouster.
But what if his expected primary opposition does prevail? Would Lugar fight on with an independent candidacy? He said he has no idea and hasn't even thought about it.
"I'm going to make judgments carefully, of course," said Lugar.
(Excerpt) Read more at wane.com ...
Lugar has become the Mark Hatfield of the GOP, a weak sister with delusions of enemies who can be trusted.
The START Treaty disarmed us, not so much in regards to Russia, but in terms of Red China, the greater rising threat in the nuclear arena.
He cannot be trusted and must go.
You didn't read or fully understand the treaty. We, the great unwashed, understood its implications more than you. Also, in other areas, you are quite past it; ‘tis time for the knacker’s yard (metaphorically speaking). Sod off, you delusional git.
I believe he owns some “carbon sequestration” property too.
That’s property he gets paid for letting trees grow on.
ROCKLOBSTER to Lugar:
Wait until 2012, rumpswab... We will give you a “real” dose of “reality” ... a cup of steaming hot TEA, poured rightly down your arrogant self-serving pie-hole.
Dear Mr. Lugar:
The Tea Party has not even hit its stride yet. The TP will get VERY real in the not too distant future, rest assured.
This has been RINO needs to retire and shut the hell up. Enjoy your retirement a$$hat.
He’s changed and he doesn’t even see it...
LUGAR must GO!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me about the New START Treaty, which was approved by the United States Senate on December 22, 2010.
This Treaty received the strong support of the United States military. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen-both originally appointed by President George W. Bush-testified that they have no doubts that the New START Treaty benefits our national security. All members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff backed the treaty, as well as STRATCOM commander, General Kevin Chilton, who is in charge of our strategic nuclear forces. General Chilton's support was echoed by 7 former commanders of STRATCOM.
The military was supported in this view by the top national security officials from past administrations. Every Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense who expressed a public opinion about the New START Treaty supported its ratification. This included ten Republicans and five Democrats.
The START process was begun by President Ronald Reagan. His team coined the term “START,” standing for Strategic Arms Reduction Talks. On May 8, 1982, President Reagan made the first START proposal during a speech at Eureka College in Illinois, calling for a one-third reduction in nuclear warheads.
President Reagan engaged the Russians on numerous arms control proposals that reduced weaponry and established tough verification measures to prevent cheating. President Reagan met personally with Russian leaders at five summits. He produced the INF treaty, signed in 1988, which greatly reduced nuclear weapons in Europe. His efforts also led to the original START Treaty, which was signed during the first President Bush's term in 1991. All five living Americans who served Ronald Reagan as Defense Secretary, Secretary of State, or Chief of Staff have endorsed the New START Treaty.
If we did not ratify the Treaty, we would have lost what Ronald Reagan believed was the most important element of arms control-verification. Under START, between 1994 and 2009, we had American inspectors on the ground in Russia examining its nuclear forces. Because of these inspectors, we have not had to guess about Russia's weapons. Human inspections in Russia also have helped us shift the focus of our spy satellites toward global terrorist threats.
But on December 5, 2009, the START Treaty expired. American inspectors had to leave Russia for the first time in 15 years. The only way to get our arms experts back into Russia was through the New START Treaty.
Ratifying the New START Treaty was also important to containing defense costs. The United States is contending with a weak economy, unchecked budget deficits, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. During the last 15 years, the START Treaty has saved us billions of dollars that might have been spent to counter uncertainties about Russian nuclear weaponry. Without New START, the process of gathering intelligence in Russia and countering potential Russian weapons advances would have cost much more.
Additionally, rejecting New START would have weakened our leverage against rogue states. A U.S. Senate vote against New START would have been greeted with delight in unfriendly nations like Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Burma. These nations want to be able to acquire sensitive weapons technologies without outside scrutiny. Rogue nations fear any nuclear cooperation between the United States and Russia because they know that it limits their options. Rejecting START also could have created obstacles in the UN Security Council, where Russia has a veto, and reduced Russia's cooperation in providing supply routes for our troops in Afghanistan.
Under the New START Treaty, the United States can and will deploy missile defenses to protect itself, its allies, and its troops. General Patrick O’Reilly, who is in charge of our missile defenses, endorsed the treaty, saying flatly that it “does not constrain our plans to execute the U.S. missile defense program.”
Both current and former U.S. military leaders have said that New START allows our country to retain ample numbers of nuclear weapons to defend the United States. We will retain up to 420 land-based missiles, an additional 240 submarine-based missiles, and significant numbers of nuclear bombs and other weapons that can be carried on bombers.
Furthermore, during the 8-month treaty review process, which included approximately 20 hearings in three different Committees, the Senate gave bipartisan backing to the modernization of our nuclear forces and the implementation of our missile defense plans. These actions, which I support, will complement the New START Treaty and contribute to our overall national security.
I supported the Treaty because it will help constrain expensive arms competition with Russia; it will guarantee transparency and confidence-building procedures that contribute to our fundamental national security; it will help frustrate rogue nations, who would prefer as much distance as possible between the United States and Russia on nuclear questions; and it will strike a blow against nuclear proliferation that deeply threatens American citizens and our interests in the world.
Thank you, again, for contacting me regarding this important issue.
Richard G. Lugar
United States Senator
Note how he uses Regan.
Lugar will pull a Jeffords.
Regan corrected Reagan (sorry misspell)
The name Dick fits him perfect. He’s been selling us out for years. I wish republicans would stop supporting weaklings who kiss the oppositions ass. Dick is always ready to pucker up.
This treaty does not recognize that China is conducting a massive arms build-up and has named us as their main enemy.
Obama shelved a missile defense system for Poland even though Iran is working on a longer range missile at this time. He did this without consideration to the START II Treaty. Why didn’t you demand payback?
Lugar: Did the people you relied upon and listed in your CYA letter explain to you their takes on my above mentioned points or did you not address them entirely? And if they did why didn’t you challenge them instead of going along to get along?
Lugar seems to be right up there with Lindsey Graham as Supreme RINO of the US Senate. Anyone else in the running for this honor? (Besides McCain, on his more conservative days?)
I think I read on another Lugar-related thread that in IN, if you lose the primary you’re out.
Lugar may think he’s intimidating and clever in his defiance of TEA Partiers, but he’s saying exactly the right things to keep them focused on and ticked off at him. And that’s a good thing.
Also, last I saw he had a little over $2 million to campaign on. That isn’t much considering that McCain had to blow around $25 million to defend his seat. And O’Donnell raked in millions with a money bomb in just a few days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.