Dick Lugar's Republican Manifesto of Doom

 By Wayne Bertsch on Nuvo 
Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana just lost a Republican Primary race against Richard Mourdock, a member of the Tea Party. Lugar is - was -  an elder statesman of his party in the Senate, a member since the mid-1970s. He served on and sometimes led the Foreign Relations Committee, and was well-known for working on bipartisan efforts to dismantle weapons systems around the world. When he worked with Senator Sam Nunn (D-Georgia) on such a project they were nominated for a Nobel Prize.

So why don't the Republicans want him anymore? For one thing, in the past he sometimes tried to work with Obama instead of against him. *horrors* For another, he was critical of the Tea Party and their influence on Republicanism as a whole. But basically, he just wasn't conservative enough for the right wing, although no one would have called him a true centrist until now.


After his concession speech to Mourdock, Lugar wrote a manifesto of sorts about why he thinks he lost - over 1,000 words of it! He also sternly took Mourdock to task for his partisan and obstructionist views, and prophecied that if elected the new candidate would get nothing done as a Senator.
Here's an excerpt from CNN

The truth is that the headwinds in this race were abundantly apparent long before Richard Mourdock announced his candidacy. One does not highlight such headwinds publically when one is waging a campaign. But I knew that I would face an extremely strong anti-incumbent mood following a recession. I knew that my work with then-Senator Barack Obama would be used against me, even if our relationship were overhyped. I also knew from the races in 2010 that I was a likely target of Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and other Super Pacs dedicated to defeating at least one Republican as a purification exercise to enhance their influence over other Republican legislators.

. . . If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it. This is not conducive to problem solving and governance. And he will find that unless he modifies his approach, he will achieve little as a legislator. Worse, he will help delay solutions that are totally beyond the capacity of partisan majorities to achieve.

. . . Republican members are now expected to take pledges against any tax increases. For two consecutive Presidential nomination cycles, GOP candidates competed with one another to express the most strident anti-immigration view, even at the risk of alienating a huge voting bloc. Similarly, most Democrats are constrained when talking about such issues as entitlement cuts, tort reform, and trade agreements. Our political system is losing its ability to even explore alternatives. If fealty to these pledges continues to expand, legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance. Voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than a leader.

Ironically, while Mourdock explains that his opponent was "out of touch" with Indiana and the rest of the country, Lugar's message actually echoes the thoughts of a majority of Americans that things are too divided, too negative, and basically caught in political gridlock, especially in Washington. Most people want Senators and Congressmen to work together for the common good instead of being purists and didactic theocrats.

So how did Mourdock answer Lugar's Manifesto? He proved him correct by making a ridiculous statement about how everyone should just agree with Republicans because they are always right. I think Lugar knew his opponent and the Tea Party mindset quite well. No middle ground, no compromise. The Tea Party counters Lugar's verbosity with its own one-word manifesto - NO.

"I certainly think bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats
coming to the Republican point of view."
~ Richard Mourdock of Indiana ( Miss the Point Much? )

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Goodbye, Newt

Newt Gingrich is finally leaving what the Guardian UK calls his Awe-Inspiring Presidential Campaign.

For someone so boastful, surreally ambitious, condescending, compulsively philandering and just generally preposterous, it's always been oddly hard to truly dislike Newt Gingrich. If I had to guess the reason, I'd say it has something to do with the boastfulness, the surreal ambition, the condecension, the compulsive philandering and the general preposterousness.

I think about the only people who will miss Newt are the cartoonists, comedians and pundits.

I gathered up some of the Moon Madness about his farewell speech and posted them on my political quotes blog Snark Amendment

Rumor has it that Romney is gaining Newt's endorsement by paying off his huge primary campaign debt. Yeah, there's nothing like buying a good endorsement, or paying off a huge mountain of debt created by a fellow-Republican who complained for the past year about Obama and the Democrats wasting money.

I think Newt and Mitt prove one important fact: all the money in the world probably can't buy the Republicans this election. Yes, they can close the gap with Obama before November, but look at how much they've wasted in the primary just to try and defeat Santorum. And that guy would still be in the race if he hadn't sabotaged himself by opening his mouth once too often. So what did they prove? Obviously that talk is cheap, and they are hypocrites and narcissists willing to spend anything to buy the White House, while telling underprivileged children to become baby janitors so the good white wealthy children (like Newt's grandchildren) will fly to the moon.

Newt reminded us all that the moon is the root of the word "lunatic."







From Comedy Central's Indecision 2012