« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Another Act of Treachery By Senator Dick Lugar, And the Political Imbalance in the Senate

Richard Lugar has become the leader of the rampaging RINOs.  Ever since the November electoral repudiation of liberalism, Lugar has voted for the FDA farm takeover, Amnesty for illegals, and co-sponsored the child nutrition law.  Lugar also opposed the moratorium on earmarks.  He has also been the chief architect of the near confirmation of the START, unilateral disarmament treaty in the Senate.  In fact, he is so incorrigible in his quest to carry water for America’s enemies that he even voted against the McCain amendment to the treaty.

The McCain amendment would have clarified the language of the treaty to exclude missile defense from the reduction of offensive arms.  The language of the treaty clearly interconnects the two.  For any Senator, much less a Republican, to vote against this amendment, is stupefying.  Richard Lugar is so focused on undermining this country’s security and screwing fellow Republicans that he is willing to oppose a common sense amendment that would still allow the treaty to be ratified.  Lugar, Bennett, and Voinovich joined every Democrat (except Joe Lieberman) to defeat McCain’s amendment.


It is important to note that on the likelihood that Republicans capture the Senate in 2012, Lugar would become chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.  Throughout his tenure on the committee, Lugar has given cover for Kerry and the radical left in their support for all of America’s enemies, including Russia, China, North Korea, Syria, Chavez, and the Palestinians.  There is a reason why the Latin American thugs recently named several House Republicans on the foreign relations panel whom they view as threats, but mentioned nothing of Dick Lugar.  They know that he is in their court.  Lugar despises the notion of American exceptionalism, and embraces every precept of moral relativism and globalism.  He has nothing in common with Middle America and his Indiana constituents.  Dick Lugar is a Kerry Republican who must be defeated in 2012.

Unfortunately, Lugar is not our only red state RINO.  4 other Republicans voted along with Lugar and every Democrat to defeat the Risch amendment to the START.  They were Alexander, Bennett, Corker, and Gregg.

This amendment was a mere attempt “to amend the preamble to the treaty to acknowledge the interrelationship between no strategic and strategic offensive arms”.  Yet, for Lugar and his band of RINOs, this clarification was too much of an affront to Obama and Putin.

Notice that some red state Republicans opposed these commonsense revisions even while the blue state RINOs (Snowe, Collins, Brown) voted with conservatives.  Also, not a single Democrat crossed party lines to strengthen this flawed treaty.

There has clearly been an imbalance of power between the two parties in the Senate for many years.  Even Democrats who represent solid red states tend to support the left on almost every issue.  It’s frankly astounding how even after suffering a shellacking in November; the Democrats have been able to shove through a far left agenda in the lame duck session that affects every aspect of policy; foreign, social, and fiscal.  For most of the radical agenda, including START and DADT, the Democrats have been able to retain almost every red state DEM vote, despite their vulnerability in 2012.

Contrast that to the dismal showing from Republicans, in which they not only face dissent from blue state RINOs (Snowe, Collins, Brown), but even from those who represent friendly constituencies.  We have Bennett, Corker, Alexander, Murkowski, and Lugar, who represent solid red states, yet have dissented on almost every major issue in the lame duck session. Even when they joined with conservatives to filibuster the omnibus bill, they vacillated until they couldn’t find 9 Republicans to break the opposition. Another striking aspect of the omnibus battle was that McCain said it was “the first time since I’ve been here, we stood up and said ‘enough.’” I’m not sure if that was a Freudian slip, but he was sure on to something there.
People often focus too exclusively on the blue state RINOs, and ignore the plethora of red state ones.  We have had fifth columnists from Utah, for goodness sakes!  Imagine if the Democrats would tolerate the election of a social conservative from Vermont!

The 112th congress will undoubtedly improve slightly as we will be rid of Bennett, Voinovich, Gregg, Lemieux, and Bond.  All of these Senators have undermined our position in recent months and we will be happy to see them go.  However, the imbalance will still be quite pronounced.  While the Democrats can count on red state, vulnerable Dems like Manchin and Webb to do their bidding time and again, we will have plenty of red state, safe Republicans who vote against conservatives.  We will still have to contend with Murkowski, Lugar, Alexander, Corker, Hutchinson, Grassley, McCain, Graham, Cochran, and many more red state R’s who have a tendency to stab us in the back.  If we add to that list those who supported the FDA takeover and the DADT repeal, we would be down to single digits.

The reality is that although grassroots conservatives did a great job in challenging some coronated RINOs this past cycle, we still have a monumental job left.  Results from last cycle have shown that had we gotten involved in some primaries at an earlier date, we would have been more successful.  We need to challenge every one of the following Senators:

Kyl
Lugar
Snowe
Wicker
Ensign
Corker
Hutchinson
Hatch

Some observers on our side would recoil at this list and at the notion that these Senators should be challenged.  But, they would be missing the point.  Incumbents don’t own Senate seats until they die or commit a crime.  Their term of office expires after six years.  Once they are up for reelection, they should have no more of an entitlement to that seat than anyone else.  They must stand before conservative primary voters and articulate why the past six years shows that they have served as a proper counterweight against the liberal assault on this country.  There are only a few brave souls like Jim DeMint whom we can affirmatively say yes.  Most others are lackluster at best and downright contemptible at worst.  Unfortunately, we will be forced to suffer through six more years of backstabbing from Lisa Murkowski.  Let’s get to work now, so we won’t be saying the same thing two years from now concerning Lugar and his gang.

Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • froster

    The point you kind of skip around here is that we should have conservatives in red states, and moderate-conservatives in blue states. In other words, someone has to be in sync with the voters of their state.

    We shouldn’t primary Snowe unless we’d like to lose the seat. And I understand the whole thing about how she’s an embarrassment to the Republican name, but you replace her with a liberal (and Maine would elect a liberal Dem, not a Ben Nelson Democrat) and you replace Collins and Brown with a liberal, and you get class warfare, public option, some carbon “scheme,” no tax cuts for job creators, The Dream, other amnesty, more big spending, anti-gun legislation and more. Come 2012, and we have a chance to take back the Senate, replacing Snowe with a Tea Party Republican who probably won’t win means not having McConnell in charge of the floor agenda. Yes, McConnell is not a perfect Republican, but what do you want being debated on the floor? The Reid Socialism Agenda? Or incrementally better legislation under McConnell?

    Now on the other hand, we should primary Lugar, Ensign (who will lose in the primary to Dean Heller, who’s a moderate), Hatch, Hutchinson (what’s a pro-choicer doing in Texas?), and Kyl. (who supposedly is retiring)

    • avgjo

      Snowe helped Obamacare get out of committee. And I saw a poll from Maine showing she’d lose to a more conservative candidate.

      Mike Castle, who was going to give us the majority voted for illegal amnesty.

      Dick Lugar voted for amnesty and now is compromising our security with START.

      I could go on.

      When you have ‘Republicans’ voting with their Democrat ‘friends’, what’s the use?

      Can we be sure for instance, that such people would vote to repeal Obamacare?

      These folks haven’t shown themselves to be fiscal conservatives (Snowe and the Obamacare committee vote). They haven’t shown themselves to be small government conservatives (Brown and the financial ‘reform’ bill). And certainly, they don’t show themselves to be social conservatives.

      Forget conservative, they all too often show themselves to be liberal on these issues.

      Something I respect about dems (and I can’t stand those people) is that they all band together on key votes, regardless if they are dems from red states. We can rarely expect the same loyalty from RINOs.

      • Scope

        it should have died a horrible death with Castle. It’s unfortunate that we still have some on our side that would still go for anything, and I mean anything with an R after their name. Right about now, I have no use for any Senator except DeMint. In this lame duck, I’ve watched bad bill after bad bill pass, all because they were helped by Republicans. I pray there are good conservatives willing to throw their hats in the ring and primary everyone on the list above in 2012. Too bad McConnell isn’t up in 2012. Hopefully a new incoming crop of conservatives will not vote for him as Senate Leader, and sit him in the corner for the rest of his pathetic term.

        • acat

          Nothing says Snowe or Collins (or Brown) can’t win a challenge from the Republican Right either …

          And then we get a glimpse at their true mettle – do they recognize that their state wants them to be further right, or do they go all petulant and become Dems in all but name?

          I’ll take an honest, principled Senator who I disagree with 50% of the time over a lying sack of weasel crap like Dick Durbin (D, scumbag) any day….

          acat

          • AceInTX

            There’s a report on townhall about the open way the Nev liberals in the Republican establishment actively worked against Angle and helped Re Elect Ried and there was an article on politico from before the election showing RINO officers in the Republican Party openly campaigning for Ried against Angle…

            We all know what happened to Christine O’Donnell and the Republicans in leadership sabotaging her and before her Doug Hoffman and the establishment pushing a candidate over him who wound up endorsing the Democrat. Colorado just voted to remove executive officers of the CO GOP who went rogue in the elections supporting Democrats over Republican Nominees…

            Alaska’s laws allowed Murkowski to do what she did…and a write in campaign in Main is unlikely to be successful

            Are you suggesting we should tolerate rogue Senators actively supporting liberal laws and backing Democrat candidates lest they win a primary and act more treacherous than they already do?

            It’s high time the Republican Caucus on the Senate act to strip leadership positions and chairmanships from these people…it’s the only way we’re going to get their attention and enforce some semblance of discipline…turning a blind eye to the treachery and rewarding it with support in primary elections sends the wrong message

          • froster

            Her lifetime ACU rating is a little over 49.

          • AceInTX

            she’s consistently below 50%…

            seriously…I don’t get the insistence of some in the Republican Party in defending center left Senators and Congressmen in a center left party and country…

            We’ll keep turning a blind eye to them…they’ll keep helping Dems pas Dem legislation…and Americans will blame Republicans for passing leftist legislation…

            happened from 2004 to 2008…and look at the result!

            But by all means…let’s do it all again!

          • AceInTX

            seriously?I don?t get the insistence of some in the Republican Party in defending center left Senators and Congressmen in a center RIGHT party and country?

        • avgjo

          consider that he has no worries about reelection. He told the RINOs that he would not help primary challenges against them. He backed off forcing a reading of the START treaty. Sunday night, he apparently gave his consent to s-510, which needed unanimous consent after a constitutional SNAFU by Reid, and which got it that night.

          The Senate is a serious problem for us. We need to figure out how to deal with them.

          • itrytobenice

            They rank comity higher than representation.

            As EPU stated eloquently in another diary today, these guys should be ashamed to be voting on *anything.* They have been rejected as a representative body and if they had a lick of honor or shame, they’d apologize for their failure and go back home.

            Instead, they make a last power grab, with the complicity of other legislators who were not rejected. Shameful.

          • avgjo

            would it be possible to, perhaps through Rand Paul, arrange a meeting with our ‘representatives’ in the Senate, A ‘Tea Party delegation’ if you will? We could make our displeasure with the crap that went on here clear, tell them that we’re sick of being sold out to the dems and corrupt special interests, and that they’d better get in line.

            To those that say there is not a dime’s worth the difference between the parties, I have countered many times there is: at the end of the day, the GOP listens,

            This lame duck has shown in some ways that I may have been wrong.
            I think the jerks are acting like we need them. ‘Well, you know this Obama guy is dangerous, and we’re the only thing standing between you and him. You should be thankful we’re here.’ Now sure, their rhetoric reflects the exact opposite, but look at their actions. Scott Brown knows that many conservatives from around the country supported him. And yet he has voted for things that many many conservatives abhor, like the financial ‘reform’ and ‘DADT’. He always talks about being ‘independent’ – I always took this as a finger in the eye of social and even fiscal conservatives who helped his sorry backside out in that special election ( I was one of them). We ‘need’ him as the 41st vote against Obamacare, remember?

            This all brings into question whether my premise is right. about the GOP listening. They seem to have been infected with ‘elititis’.

            I think we should test the premise that they listen.

            When we did the townhalls in ’09, when we called, faxed, etc. the democrats, we slowed the passage of Obamacare for A YEAR AND HALF.

            Perhaps the Republicans need the same treatment. If as I and many have asserted, it is true that the GOP listens, then we can start getting what we want. Otherwise, we’ll find out if the Republicans are truly just as bad as the Dems.

        • avgjo

          I heard that he is getting ready to explain himself. He or Demint or any one of these guys could probably have killed it.

          They didn’t.

          This is getting ridiculous.

        • froster

          and we go for the most conservative in conservative states. That means keep Snowe, Collins, Kirk, and Brown. Get rid of Wicker, Lugar, Portman (depending on how he votes), Coats etc.

          • AceInTX

            My idea is we go for the best we can do in liberal states (that’s electable)

          • aesthete

            Clearly, Ted Stevens was better than the Dem who replaced him (ditto virtually every swap of a moderate or squishy-con for a true-blue liberal).

          • AceInTX

            Robert F. Bennett
            George V. Voinovich
            Scott Brown
            Susan Collins
            Lindsey Graham
            Richard G. Lugar
            John McCain
            Lisa Murkowski
            Olympia J. Snowe

            On DADT:

            Richard Burr
            Mark Kirk
            John Ensign
            Scott Brown
            George Voinovich
            Lisa Murkowski
            Olympia Snowe
            Susan Collins

            Let’s try Nevada Republican Party officials actively campaigning against Sharon Angle FOR Harry Ried. Try Republicans officials recently stripped of their offices in leadership in CO for actively campaigning against the party’s nominees, try Charlie Crist, and DeDe Scozzafava endorsing the Dem in NY…try Establishment Republicans actively trashing the party’s nominee in DE, CT, and AK . Try Republican officials in AK actively campaigning to elect a write in candidate against the official Republican Nominee.

            I could go on and on….

            when are you going to stop apologizing for these people?….is there a line you won’t cross for someone who calls themselves a Republican? do you stand for anything?

          • froster

            His approvals are/were atrocious, and that campaign has nobody to fault besides Angle. (and maybe her campaign manager)

            So let me get this straight … you approve of the hack Barney Frank nationalizing banks, giving us single payer, and voting to ban guns (because at least he stands for something!), rather than Scott Brown, who’s stopping full on socialist legislation by holding that liberal state’s seat even if he’s not giving us free market legislation? If that is so, then we would probably have 30 Republicans, and our government would be government or union run everything. If Scott Brown is the most anti-government candidate we can get there (and that’s probably true, and he’s also not much of anti-government), then that’s what I want. And if we get liberal/moderate Republicans in states like Massachusetts, they can build up party infrastructure to turn it into a red state.

          • avgjo

            The governor-elect of Nevada is a good Republican, from what I know. He is also Hispanic. And he won by a comfortable margin. At the same time, Reid gets elected. How do you explain this discrepancy? Well, the MSM was touting how many hispanics came out in support of Reid; Angle peeved them off because of her anti-illegal ad. I’d be willing to bet big bucks that if the GOP had run a Hispanic candidate, that person would have won.

            And warning to any race-baiters out there: don’t even dream of accusing me of racism. I’m half Mexican.

          • wonkish1

            I know of and folks can draw their own conclusions.

            In the rural counties of Nevada she was supposed to take about 70%+ of the vote. I think she averaged in the high 50s.

            She lost her home county that surrounds Reno with only 45% of the vote. She was expected to take around 60 – 65% of the vote in that county.

            In the county surrounding Las Vegas she obviously lost by a reasonable margin.

            Now for those that assumed that her loss was entirely due to unions and potential fraud around Las Vegas. While it is very possible that could have been a large contributing factor, the data show’s that couldn’t have been the biggest factor because of her performance in rural Nevada and around Reno.

            What is the most likely answer is people just didn’t like her. That would explain her sub par performance in rural Nevada and around Reno. That doesn’t mean say anything about conservatism in Nevada(as you pointed out Sandoval won handedly).

            Clearly, people just didn’t like her or something she was doing.

            So two realities. One you go to war with the army you have. And in that case it was her(so I definitely dislike any Republican that sided against her). And during the campaign, I refrained from saying anything bad about her(not that I had any difference, I don’t even live in Nevada).

            The second reality is that you actually have to nominate candidates people like. So, in the future lets try to avoid a repeat of a similar candidate in any state(in regards to style not substance).

          • AceInTX

            as for your comment about Barney Frank vs Scott Borwn…did you read that before you posted it?

            Scott Brown VOTED FOR the financial services reform bill Harry Ried wrote…

            Again…I reiterate the challenge…name one piece of legislation Brown has voted on where he voted differently than Ted Kennedy would have voted? I’ll acknowledge he would have voted to stop Obama Care had Ried and Nancy Pelosi not managed their unconstitutional maneuvers to deem and pass it….but since then…can you come up with any vote that has differed from what we’d have gotten from Teddy?

            and I’ve posted the list of RINOS whole worked with the Dems on bringing START and DADT to the floor…what did we accomplish having these fools representing us

          • earlgrey

            I am very interested in knowing if there are any grassroots tea partiers looking to uproot these vergetables and purge them from party leadership. Have you heard anything about that.

            I have to admit Brown has been a huge diasappointment. He was elected to stop Obamacare, and when that failed he just went along with whatever the democrats wanted. He owed the tea partiers who worked so hard for him some support. I would have expected him to go against the financial services bill. That bill (among all the other garbage) regulates hiring based on minority status. I made a big stink about it when he voted for it, by suggesitng that they (Senate) come up with some professions that are acceptable for white men. I am getting really tired of all these quotas (I am not a man, but I am raising one).

          • froster

            And let me ask you this question, AceInTX …

            As conservatives, did we not get a better product with Brown than Kennedy? Wall Street would have an 100% tax (well maybe not that) but something far worse if it was Kennedy. We didn’t get a good bill at all. In fact, financial reform was a disaster. But you cannot deny the presence of Brown makes legislation more moderate.

          • AceInTX

            aside from his promised vote against Obama care…

            he has voted for everything Ried has brought forward for the most part….so what’s your point?

          • froster

            But the SUBSTANCE of the legislation would have been a lot worse with Frank/Kennedy. (a lot more liberal) Brown’s vote came at a price of much watered down socialism.

            That, in it of itself, is good.

          • aesthete

            Brown has been a weak facilitator of portions of Dem legislation (though since he hasn’t been a deciding vote, even that statement is not quite true).

            Kennedy was an originator of quite a bit of what is wrong in this country.

          • wonkish1

            Brown didn’t back a lot of legislation that died.

            He was never a supporter of the omnibus and we can’t even be sure of that with Kit Bond.

            And on top of that, Brown was more vocal in his dislike of the Omnibus that 90% of the GOP caucus. He slammed the legislation hard.

            Collins, Snowe, Murkowski, etc. didn’t even make a public statement(that I know of) showing their no vote they chose to give that quietly to the Senate leaders. Actually most of the Senate kept their mouth shut, but Brown went out and stuck a dagger into the legislation just like Demint and McConnell.

          • AceInTX

            But hardly reasons to push to keep Brown…or recruit more like him…

            let alone tolerate the establishment actively fighting to elect Democrats over Conservatives like Rubio, O’Donnell, Angle, Buck and others as was done this last cycle.

            Everyone was so excited about Kirk taking Bambi’s seat…and he’s already caved on several lame duck items like DADT and

          • wonkish1

            Not push to elect more of folks even close to Brown nor tolerate those that push establishment candidates like in Florida, Delaware, etc.

            I mean ultimately if he has screwed up in Massachusetts on one side or the other it largely doesn’t matter what I think, he’ll lose anyway.

            The point still is that while the twins have a lot of freedom to vote the way they please(and actively do screw us over) without that much of a threat from the left. He is in a worse spot.

            All I can say is that I wouldn’t want to be in his position, I appreciate that unlike many others he keeps his mouth shut on a lot of things, and is vocal when he sides with us. Other than that, I’ll let bigons be bigons in his seat(he wins or not), I’m just not going to be one that calls for his head until I feel he is doing more damage than good(and that will come when I start hearing Dems say, “Maybe, the GOP should be reasonable like Brown,” on a piece of legislation. That happens and he has to go, and I think that can only happen if he starts vocally going at us.

          • gekster

            It was most conservative in the primary,
            Republican in the general.
            Say what you want to about Scott Brown, he is who the people of MA picked.
            May not be your pick, but he was thiers.

            Disclaimer, not saying this to anyone in particular.

          • froster

            in conservative states. I am in states like the Northeast, where electing a conservative is not practical.

          • AceInTX

            If he voted as Kennedy would have…how in hell’s half acre does it track that the same votes would have been “a lot more liberal” than if Kennedy were there?

            If he’s voted for nearly everything Ried has proposed…how exactly has he made it less liberal?…what exactly has he gotten in exchange for those votes?

            You can make an argument that Repubs benefit in having him because his vote for majority leader would make the difference in who controls the Senate…(I was expecting you to make that argument….but since you didn’t …I’ll make it for you…it’s the strongest argument for having Brown), but in all other senses…Brown is a disaster for us as are the other blue state Republicans who insist un undercutting us at every turn because it makes it harder to convince voters Republicans are any different than the Demcorats because we can’t stage the fights we need to have in order to show the difference because these worms cave before the fight is even begun!

            I mean..>DADT was withdrawn and DEAD untill Collins had a fit about Ried backing out of her deal…with him and pushed to bring it back up…thanks to her…score one for the Dems and the anti military left!

            but by all means…let’s go out of our way to get more Republicans just like her in the Senate…sounds like a winning strategy to me…

            {/sarkasm}

          • froster

            The elimination of the bank tax in financial reform.

            I can think of more things .. but that’s the first one that comes to mind.

          • The_Rebel

            With his latest vote with the Dems to repeal DADT, and now with his bucking of the GOP Senate leadership in support of the New Start Treaty, he is misreading the tea (no pun intended) leaves for re-election in 2012. MA voters will vote for the real liberal every time, not a fake one who thinks he can finesse his way to victory again.

            His problem is that with his every vote he is further offending the very core constituency that got him elected in the first place. Those people will not be there in force the next time. Yes, Brown is probably the best we can get here in MA, but on key issues he is as bad or worse than the Maine twins. He just doesn’t get it.

          • wonkish1

            He casts a deciding vote against us on a major piece of legislation, I’m not going to throw him under the bus. I don’t believe he is ideologically moderate. My guess he is ideologically reasonably conservative, but feels his hand is forced in a state like Mass. on a few things. This differs with practically every other RINO (Chafee, Spector, McCain, Graham, Collins, and Snowe) listed because I think that those people actually are ideologically moderate or liberal republican.

            Watch I bet you are going to see Brown willing to go along with the GOP on any hard line stance on the budget when it comes up. I bet any major piece of legislation that comes out of the GOP this next year, I bet that he wont run. I can’t say the same thing about Collins and Snowe, but my guess is that its START and DADT that Brown is throwing his symbolic votes for and he’s gearing up to be with the GOP on all the major battles.

            We’ll see though. If he does screw us on anything big, I’ll be the first to say “chuck him.”

          • wonkish1

            When Scott Brown was campaigning against the healthcare bill. He really, really looked like he enjoyed hammering the bill. I mean you can tell someone is enjoying an argument from one that feels like they have to make that argument. My guess is that he actually hates making political calculations like he did on DADT. I think he would much rather feel free to just go at like every other Republican.

            In comparison, if you look at the RINO twins its almost like they take pleasure from “being different than everyone else” when they vote to their own tune. Like it somehow makes them better than everybody who casts party line votes.

            That is why I very much dislike them and are willing to give Brown a pass. One group likes voting with the other side and the other feels like he sometimes has to.

            Now, I could be wrong. I’ll admit I haven’t seen much of Brown to know this for sure. I guess I’m curious if I’m alone in seeing this difference between him and the others.

          • The_Rebel

            but I still think that he is alienating those voters who helped elect him, and that many of them won’t be there in 2012 if he keeps this up. You know the unions and the other Dem constituencies will be out in force in 2012. He can’t afford to lose those tea party voters, especially since they are not a major force here in MA.

          • wonkish1

            But we all realize that his job isn’t an easy one.

            Also, I doubt he will ever cross the party on anything the tea party cares about. I mean he didn’t even think about voting for the omnibus bill.

            He is playing a balancing act to the best of his abilities. I could sit here and arm chair quarterback him all I want to, but to be quite honest with you. I could never say definitively that one move was smart or one wasn’t. One of the reasons why I would never run for political office is because I don’t ever want to feel like I need to make a call like that. I prefer my ideological purity.

          • froster

            Moderates and liberals combine for 80% of the electorate! You don’t win statewide in MA by voting like DeMInt.

          • wonkish1

            Lindsay Graham is target #1. He is way to liberal for a state that has seems to be a factory for awesome conservative politicians. Actually, he is practically the one exception to an all but unblemished conservative political powerhouse in South Carolina.

            That said the only person I’m willing to grant a pass to from the top of your list is Scott Brown. I think everybody feels for him because no conservative in the country would want to hold his seat, and I think he is trying to do everything in his power to side with the GOP and still hold a shot at winning in Mass. Also, he keeps his mouth shut when he casts a symbolic(non-deciding) vote against the GOP.

          • AceInTX
          • ladyimpactohio

            Woman tweep from OH who claims to work in some capacity for Gop and says she is “in the know” says Voinovich is still going to be “around” and he’ll be making an announcement soon.

            Can’t wait for this one.

            She told me “no worries! he’s still gonna be here!” at which time I lost it. We had a nice little “chat” on twitter.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            in Ohio?

    • AceInTX

      but they regularly vote for all of the above anyway so does it really matter?

      Everyone went into orgasmic fits of ecstasy when Scott Brown won in MA…and what did that get us?

      Can you point to one vote he’s made that Ted Kennedy wouldn’t have made since hes been sworn in?

      What to they add in all this?

      We simply HAVE to have some standard for what it means to be a Republican if we’re ever going to build trust with voters…and these vermin make that impossible

      • froster

        If a liberal Democrat existed instead of Olympia Snowe in Maine (and the same for Collins & Brown & Voinovich), what would the healthcare package look like? financial reform? cap and trade?

        Yes, you are right, they have voted for socialist legislation. But it was watered down legislation. In other words, they have stopped the Democrats from going full Marxist. That’s the truth. But consider what we would have gotten without them and people like Barney Frank, Mike Michaud, Chellie Pingree, Lee Fisher etc…

        Now, as I described above, if you are from a conservative state (and your electorate is not in favor of the Obama agenda), then don’t vote for it. That’s why Lugar, Corker, Wicker etc. should have a primary.

        • AceInTX

        • d_lamar

          I totally disagree. It’s the old analogy of the frog in the pot. If you raise the temperature of the water slowly, you can cook him. If you throw him into boiling water, he hops out of the pot.

          It’s the same way with marxism. In my opinion, in the long run, creeping socialism, with the assistance of moderate legislators, is much more damaging to the country, than if the marxists got their way from the start. People would quickly rebel, and not accept the legislation.

          But the past forty years, we have been subjected to this “watered down” socialist programs, and now we’re paying the price. These programs include medicare, the nationalization of education, epa, and other programs which will all fail, and bring this country to bankruptcy in the process.

          • wonkish1

            On the watered down, aspect of things. If you’re going to do that then just vote against the thing.

            But that isn’t what the deal is with Brown. Brown hated Obamacare, hated Cap and Trade, hated the Omnibus, etc. There was a ton of legislation that never was even tried in the Senate after he got elected because they knew he wasn’t going to vote for it.

            That is the nature of congress, the bills you would vote against never even get brought up in the first place. All I can say is that he does not appear to be the same as the other RINO’s. He doesn’t appear to get any enjoyment for casting symbolic votes whatsoever. And when he feels like he can kill a piece of legislation he is out there ramming the thing like its nobodies business.

            Again could be wrong. I don’t know who this for sure. But I have a hunch that he is personally ideologically to the right of Lindsay Graham,. We are still fleshing out where he feels he has to be politically though.

          • runner12

            I am so tired of this old argument that we have to be “happy” about a Brown, Snowe, or Collins because they are better than a Democrat and they live in blue states. Please tell me on what piece of legislation any of these individuals have stood on principle and won? Chirp, Chirp, Do you hear the crickets? The answer is NONE. They talk about being principled, but they don’t do anything. Where have they helped our cause or helped further conservative thought? Are they fiscally conservative or for limited government? Absolutely not. They and their kind should be purged from Republican ranks. Also, you cannot tell me that a principled person who ran on fiscal responsibility and refused to participate in a liberal social agenda could not win in MA or Maine.

            This is an old and flawed argument and one that is trotted out way too often. We are not playing not to lose, we are playing to win and we can’t afford these weak players on our team.

          • runner12

            to d_lamar. Sorry wonkish, can’t agree with you on Brown.

  • earlgrey

    He’s on their side! I don’t know why Hoosiers are so committed to Lugar. I just don’t think many of them are paying attention to what he does, but they know they like him.

    Nothing emboldens politicians like blind devotion. I hope the tea party groups and other conservatives can start publicizing Lugar’s actions better, but they need to watch the tone or else risk alienating potential voters. Lugar is loved in IN, but that does not mean he is best for IN.

  • Scope

    mentioned as possible challengers to Lugar?

    http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/nov/14/tea-party-hopefuls-eye-lugar-seat/

    I’m sure if Mitch Daniels runs against Lugar for the Senate seat he would do well.

    • froster

      The Murdock guy seems interesting.

      • avgjo

        Yes, he DOES seem interesting!

        • earlgrey

          that he felt like he was the only one left to fight what the administration was doing. I don’t know about his other conservative creds, but he seems to have the basics of standing up for the rule of law. PLUS he has something many of our Senators don’t have — COURAGE.

          I think Lugar is counting on more than I chellenger so he can pull it off with less than 50%.

  • itrytobenice

    The citizen legislature was designed to keep them from building little fiefdoms of power. The citizens, unfortunately, have taken the habit of treating them like permanent fixtures barring indictment or retirement.

    Our legislators will perform better if they constantly feel the heat of democracy breathing down their throats. I’d like to force them to spend their war chests on every single election and still have to court us like the desirable, demanding lovers we are. ;-)

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ dhorowitz3

      These people serve at the pleasure of the electorate. We should not be intimidated into this notion of “how dare you challenged Senator so and so! What’s the matter, he is not conservative enough for you?

  • E Pluribus Unum

    America spoke on Nov 2. Rather loudly. And what they did NOT say was “let’s make a deal with the Democrats”.

    If you are a Republican, even in a blue state, then thatname on the front of your shirt better mean a hell of alot more than the name on the back (to quote from Miracle). If you don’t want to be on the team, then screw you, get off the team or we will remove you from the team.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    America spoke on Nov 2. Rather loudly. And what they did NOT say was “let’s make a deal with the Democrats”.

    If you are a Republican, even in a blue state, then thatname on the front of your shirt better mean a hell of alot more than the name on the back (to quote from Miracle). If you don’t want to be on the team, then screw you, get off the team or we will remove you from the team.

  • ashland_avenue

    I, too, was sorely disappointed on hearing about passage of the New START treaty. That disappointment was tempered, however, on reading comments distributed by George Friedman, publisher of www.stratfor.com Stratfor Reports.

    His emailed memo is in the form of Q&A interview with one of the firm’s employees, and begins as follows:

    ====================================================

    Colin: The United States Senate approves the much-debated nuclear treaty with Russia. But is it really a new start? In the end, many Republicans decided to back the treaty and it achieved the required two-thirds majority with a vote of 71 for, 26 against.

    Colin: Welcome to Agenda, today with George Friedman. George, in terms of global geopolitics, how important is this Senate vote?

    Dr. Friedman: From the point of view of this particular treaty, it’s not very significant at all. The reduction in warheads really doesn’t affect the balance of terror, apart from everything else because there is no balance of terror. This is an issue from 30 years ago. That’s when it mattered. Now, it really doesn’t. However, it did matter from the standpoint of the ability of President Obama to conduct foreign policy.

    If he couldn’t take this fairly innocuous treaty and get it through the Senate, it would have indicated that really his foreign policy capabilities were crippled. At the same time, as Republicans pointed out, it left open a bunch of questions that weren’t properly part of this treaty but really mattered, such as the Russian relationship to ballistic missile defense, the status of tactical nuclear weapons, and more importantly the general relationship between the United States and Russia.

    =============================================

    Friedman’s conclusion is that a) the treaty doesn’t meaningfully change the dynamic between Russia and ourselves, and b) the near loss of ratification by the Senate shows the world, and Russia in particular, just how weak this President is.

    “What you really did see was the extent to which rather an uncontroversial treaty — endorsed by Republicans and Democrats, the secretary of state, and all sides and so on, and the shows that Obama put on how — close it came to not passing. I mean I think that’s the most important thing. Obama is back against the wall in making foreign policy and what this entire incident shows is just how weak he is. This should not have been a debate,” Friedman notes.

    Having just returned from a research trrp along Russia’s periphery with the West, from the Baltic down to Turkey, Friedman sees a resurgent and troubling competitor in Moscow, an emergent and not always friendly government in Bonn, and a sense throughout the region that America’s influence is not what it was.

    He concludes, ” I think we will see the Russians testing the Americans around the periphery, in places like Georgia, Moldova and the Baltics. They will be trying to test how strong or weak Obama is, how resolute he is. I think what they come away with from this entire affair is the old Russian understanding that where there’s weakness, move. And I think they’re smelling a great deal of weakness.”

    It’s worth a stop at www.stratfor.com for a more complete analysis.

    • bobmontgomery

      ….but I don’;t understand the logic in giving an advantage to the Russians so that they wouldn’t take advantage of a the weak Obama. Why prop the man up so he can conduct foreign policy? In the first place he CAN’T conduct foreign policy – he doesn’t know how. If the situation in foreign policy and national security is so dire that this incompetent community organizer has to be propped up for two more years to keep the country from collapsing, then some of these think tanks and conservative outlets had better start shouting fire instead of whispering about the pros and cons of a specific treaty.

    • kestrel

      You don’t even deal with the issue the McCain Amendment tried to address, other than to quote an apparent mischaracterization of the Republican position by Dr. George Friedman, whoever he is. I went to the website you linked and can’t make heads nor tails of that either. The “about” paragraph seems like the kind of frothy marketing prose that Dilbert’s employer would produce, and which Dilbert would recommend for inducing vomitting:

      “STRATFOR?s global team of intelligence professionals provides an audience of decision-makers and sophisticated news consumers in the U.S. and around the world with unique insights into political, economic, and military developments. The company uses human intelligence and other sources combined with powerful analysis based on geopolitics to produce penetrating explanations of world events. This independent, non-ideological content enables users not only to better understand international events, but also to reduce risks and identify opportunities in every region of the globe.”

      Help me out here. I guess I’m just not one of those “sophisticated news consumers” who appreciates “powerful analysis based on geopolitics” & etc.