Skip to comments.Lugar defeat underscores vanishing U.S. political middle
Posted on 05/09/2012 4:24:22 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The landslide defeat of U.S. Senator Richard Lugar in Indiana sent an ominous message to Washington: unprecedented partisan gridlock in Congress likely will worsen next year and make difficult efforts to cut the record U.S. debt even tougher.
Tuesday's vote also delivered a punch to the gut of the Senate's "old guard," which for years has sought to restore the chamber's reputation as "the world's most deliberative body."
Widely hailed as an elder statesman, Lugar lost the Republican primary in his home state to a Tea Party-backed challenger, largely because he was seen as not conservative enough and too willing to compromise.
While politics has been long defined as the art of compromise, victor Richard Mourdock, who ridiculed Lugar's willingness to cut deals, made a prediction about next year.
"I don't think there's going to be a lot of successful compromise," Mourdock told CNN on Wednesday after beating Lugar, a 36-year veteran of the Senate, by double digits. Bipartisanship, Mourdock added, means Democrats voting for Republican initiatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
“Compromise,” to these leftist jerks, means that Republicans should do whatever the Democrats want.
Socialists are now the middle according to the media.
That's total BS. It is democrats and "compromising" republicans that refuse to make the tough calls and cut spending. When republicans get back to hard core fiscal conservatism, and quit "compromising", the debt problem will begin to get solved.
They’ve moderated the GOP into a coma, maybe they’ll go try to moderate the party that actually needs it.
“Middle” of what? Statism?
That’s no political center!
In 2010, when Russ Feingold lost, it was stupid voters.
Notice the disappearance of non-radical Dems. The party is almost entirely purged.
Mediocrity is for losers. Leaders LEAD.
I was impressed at the margin of victory for Mourdock.
Tremendous enthusiasm on the part of voters here in Indiana.
And to those Dems who think he’s an easier candidate to beat in November, Mourdock got 63% in his Nov 2010 election vs. a Dem for State treasurer.
NO more political “compromising” !
“The landslide defeat of U.S. Senator Richard Lugar in Indiana sent an ominous message to Washington.”
I sure hope so. I hope they are quaking in their boots. The conservatives are coming for you. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Funny, I didn’t hear that when Al Franken was elected!!
In between there's an empty plain of "independents' ~ who don't participate, and "moderates" who don't exist in the numbers some believe, and otherwise it's just a fringe of political thought ~ more like a desert than something tangible.
Given the math of winning in this country each large party pretty much divides up the voters ~ which makes, on the average, all races tight ~ 50/50 almost.
That gives small groups of highly motivated partisans the opportunity to switch the vote to either large coalition party.
The way you win an election is to hold your base (even if they don't like you), and try to peel off a faction from the other large party sufficient to get 50%+1 vote.
This year we have a special situation ~ the current ruling party is so disliked that they will probably lose more seats than in their history since the Civil War. Their candidate will receive far fewer votes this time than last time, and if West Virginia is a bellweather to this, Obama should drop nearly 20%, since this isn't getting better.
The Republican candidate, good old what's his name, is not terribly popular with the Republican base ~ he could easily come in 20% under normal vote total and the professionals (we call them Establishment-e) would not detect that happening since they have their gaze FIXED on the relative difference between the two coalition party nominees.
I doubt the Establishment-e prognosticators can think about the election dynamics this year sufficiently to recognize the disaster that may befall chunks of the Republican party in this election. The Democrat eqivalent know what's coming but they try to avoid talking about it ~ which is why they want to talk about gay sex, gay marriage, sex change operations, condoms for college girls, and other items of that sort.
A rational person might ask why we end up with both major parties popping up with candidates who are in so much electoral trouble that no one knows if either can win?
An answer would take more time than I care to take and some here would call it "whining", but the fact is we have a RACE TO THE BOTTOM and the pros are not able to call it since this is literally unprecedented.
So, what to do? Where can our small faction within a faction put its limited resources to make sure WE get what we want in the end, and we also get rid of Obama.
First, the only way Romney can get our support is he has to crawl on broken glass and go to Jim Robinson and apologize for being pro-gay and engaging in actions that make abortion easier to get and for having run off to Massachusetts. Second, he needs to commit to getting Jim an appointment to the Cabinet, or maybe a subcabinet position.
Third, I get a job too ~ as do a number of others here.
America can only prosper from the insertion of real Conservatives in the government's top echelon ~
Anything short of that and I don't think we can help him.
Donate to Mourdock:
This is only good news.
Less moderates to hold conservatives hostage by being the lone one or two votes the rest have to cajole and bribe or dictate watered down bills.
Richard Mourdock is another signpost that we’re taking back America from squishy RINOs and Nazi democrats. Prepare for it, poodleboys. We’re coming over the hill loaded for bear, and we’re not smiling.
The election of Obama showed the disappearance of the middle; people were given a choice between a comatose man devoid of ideas and a radical Bolshevik (who only got through the primaries with the aid of the media working 100% for him).