This race is NOT Mourdock vs. Lugar. As important as the Indiana race was, Mourdock is good but not as good as Cruz and Lugar was no good like Dewhurst but was at least 80 years old with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. What on earth does the Senate GOP need with another money-obsessive GOP elite greedhead being nominated like Dewhurst. Texas owes a lot more to the GOP and to America than plain boring vanilla moderate elitist like Dewhurst. Ted Cruz is a lot more.
Forty years ago, radicals coined the saying: If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Dewhurst is part of the problem. In Texas, Cruz is the solution in 2012.
Like so many of the posters who read through this thread, you have bought into the groundless assertions of the Cruz campaign who allege without evidence that Dewhurst is as you put it “no good like Lugar”.
Every time I ask them for specifics as to exactly what it is that Dewhurst has actually done that makes him not conservative - they have no answers. With Lugar, Mourdock had plenty of reasons he could give as to why Lugar was no conservative. Same with the Specter/Toomey, Rubio/Crist, and even the Castle/O’Donnell primaries. But there is nothing specific that these Cruz people will ever tell you that would back up their claims against Dewhurst.
So, if you want to build a political team and field a slate of “tea-party” office-holders to back you, or a certain candidate in the future, just say so.
And you are not fooling anyone by continuing with the line of Dewhurst as GOP elite. Dewhurst came from very modest means, public schools, state university, and made it in the private sector. Cruz went to private school, then Ivy League, and was appointed to government jobs. Not saying he didn’t merit any of that - just that he might be the elite candidate more than Dewhurst!