[u2ZQGC6b]

Who cares if he was one of the great foreign policy minds of our century?

Huh?

[Uojeyak]

I always wonder how many people that post in the national threads actually live in Philadelphia. I mean I know it's "national" and all, but I have these suspicions that NicktheCage, jdhill, geoffrobinson and Sailaway* are all typing away on computers in a bunker under the Cato Institute.

*less so

Nah, I'm in my bunker in a Philly burb. One thing, the food sux here so I hit philly often

[pharmablogger]

Dick said it best himself.

Sen. Lugar's frustration surfaces after Indiana defeat - chicagotribune.com

"I don't remember a time when so many topics have become politically unmentionable in one party or the other," the 80-year-old senator wrote. "Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change. 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."

He saved the sharpest criticism for Mourdock, slamming the state treasurer for embracing "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," Lugar said. "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."

The comments underscored the frustration for the longtime face of Indiana politics who built a career on his willingness to compromise and broker deals, only to see those traits become a liability for Indiana's conservative electorate.

Purity!!!! Laff at this cats ego but I acted surprised. This hack loses a primary and he thinks it reflects something deeper other than he did not properly represent the wishes of his constituents. Spoken like a true tyrant.

[arindiruppyr]

Spoken like a true tyrant.

What the hell does that even mean?

[Spalax]

What the hell does that even mean?

Read the Lugar quotes especially the first paragraph. He feels that an individuals property belongs to the state and only the state can fix the problems we have.

[sbrthrds]

... Purity!!!!

"Purity", above everything else as a rallying cry historically leads to an extinguishing of it's own movement by well meaning fanatics purging all that is impure (like the average citizen). Eventually the purists will seek individuals to lead them that have never taken a sh*t. But they will be replaced by the ultra purists who seek those that don't even know what sh*t is. Then ignorance will rule, but the ultimate purists will then seek those that don't know what ignorance is. Igna whaaa?

[expomeHattePe]

I find it more than a little hypocritical that the liberals/Democrats here b!tch about "purity" when they've pretty much "purified" the moderate and conservative Democrats out of their party in favor of the radical element.

Oh, wait, yet again, reliably as ever, it's okay for the Dems to do it, but not the Republicans.

[Pipindula]

Your link is broken though the URL say somethng about Blue Dog Dems. I seem to remember a lot of local Dems voicing support for Patrick Murphy quite recently.

[hernkingAnank]

[quote]I find it more than a little hypocritical that the liberals/Democrats here b!tch about "purity" when they've pretty much

[Ekrbcbvh]

The two races in the link were redistricting setups, not true primary challenges. Regardless, I doubt there are any Blue Dogs with a 77% 'liberal' rating. Altmire and Holden were 188th and 185th most liberal in the House per National Journal.. there are 190 Dems in the House. Olympia Snowe might be the analogue here, certainly not Richard Lugar.

And what was called out as "purity" was your claim that 77% is not conservative enough. No one is arguing that a party doesn't have the right to nominate whoever they want.

Um...are you serious here...Altmire had a 22% "conservative" rating - it would have been pretty easy for you to check that. So, yes, his "liberal" rating is almost exactly the same as Lugar's "conservative" rating.

And, again, nobody said the parties don't have a right to "purify" their ranks: It's you who started whining about the GOP's "purity" when the Dems have been "purifying" their ranks for quite some time now, and failing to call them on that.

[ptmQqoxw]

ETA2: There's also the giant counter-example of President Obama, a moderate Democrat (you and Nick can bleat all you want about how 'leftist' he is, it doesn't change the facts)

Obama is far from a moderate Democrat - he is quite radical, as evidenced by his administration - and he swung further to the left just *yesterday*. You can bleat all you want that he is not, it doesn't change the facts.

[Khurlxgq]

Altmire's 22% conservative rating is not relevant by itself, and that number does not imply a 78% liberal rating. You'd have to compare the 22% to other Democrats, which is what the NJ numbers do. The point (which was secondary to the fact that this wasn't a true primary challenge) was that they are not 'moderate' Democrats.

The only thing I'm "whining" about is your purity and disconnection from reality. You are the one insisting that 77% is not conservative enough for the Republican Party.

[NeroASERCH]

Actually it does, quite well in fact. Among the problems with the NJ numbers you cite is that they don't even list Lugar as a comparison! That's a pretty serious failure on your part.

Having bad figures and suppositions to back up your hypocritical claims of "purity" don't do you any service. Once again, we see hypocrites like you pointing out/complaining about the GOP purifying it's ranks, but ignoring the fact that the Democrats are just as guilty (if not moreso) of the same. In other words, the usual liberal ideology.

(Although at least we agree, if people are to believe you, that it's okay for the parties to purify their ranks. It's just that you failed to call out the Democrats for doing the same as the GOP has done, and instead are throwing up ridiculous red herrings about the actual rankings so as to distort the issue.)

[dAy2EWlg]

Actually it does, quite well in fact. Among the problems with the NJ numbers you cite is that they don't even list Lugar as a comparison! That's a pretty serious failure on your part.

Having bad figures and suppositions to back up your hypocritical claims of "purity" don't do you any service. Once again, we see hypocrites like you pointing out/complaining about the GOP purifying it's ranks, but ignoring the fact that the Democrats are just as guilty (if not moreso) of the same. In other words, the usual liberal ideology.

(Although at least we agree, if people are to believe you, that it's okay for the parties to purify their ranks. It's just that you failed to call out the Democrats for doing the same as the GOP has done, and instead are throwing up ridiculous red herrings about the actual rankings so as to distort the issue.)

Vote Ratings 2011 - NationalJournal.com for Senate.. derp. The point of putting the ratings wasn't to compare with Lugar. You are obviously not understanding my argument.

But I'm not at all surprised to see a right-winger that can't recognize the differences between two situations.

[Misespimb]

well I could say that about Obama. Anyone thinks he is in the center. It shows how far left and off the deep end the democratic liberal movement has gone.

True, but I'd say this was a much smarter bet for the Tea Party than what they did in Delaware with O'Donnell v. Castle.

What gets me is that anyone could consider Lugar to not be conservative. It shows how far off the deep-end the GOP/conservative movement has gone.

[gundas]

and luckily you are a SMALL minority.

You caught me. I'm a Saul Alinsky-loving, Mexican Muslim gay socialist liberal atheist who believes in everything un-American like public schools and recycling. But here's the scary part: I'm not alone!

[educationonlines]

Obama is by policy pretty much a DLC-alligned centerist Democrat. If you had a linear diagram with Dennis Kucinich and pre-scandal Jon Edwards and Bill Clinton on it, on a variety of policy issues Obama would land closest to Bill Clinton.

[lollypop]

The two races in the link were redistricting setups, not true primary challenges. Regardless, I doubt there are any Blue Dogs with a 77% 'liberal' rating. Altmire and Holden were 188th and 185th most liberal in the House per National Journal.. there are 190 Dems in the House. Olympia Snowe might be the analogue here, certainly not Richard Lugar.

And what was called out as "purity" was your claim that 77% is not conservative enough. No one is arguing that a party doesn't have the right to nominate whoever they want.

ETA: National Journal link House Ratings - - NationalJournal.com (fun fact, Arizona has both the most conservative and most liberal members..)

ETA2: There's also the giant counter-example of President Obama, a moderate Democrat (you and Nick can bleat all you want about how 'leftist' he is, it doesn't change the facts)

Considering that you rely on all these organizations, their studies and ratings, and linked the National Journal; Obama was ranked to the left (& most liberal Senator) of the Socialist Senator Sanders from Vt., by that very ‘influential’ publication.

Pretty radical, no?

[SHaEFU0i]

citation needed.

[st01en_lox]

The two races in the link were...
ETA: National Journal link House Ratings - - NationalJournal.com (fun fact, Arizona has both the most conservative and most liberal members..)

The link you provided was for the House, moron. Gee, a liberal get their facts wrong...the earth must be rotating...

Oddly enough, even if one were to use the NJ rankings you cited in your most recent post instead of the bad ones, the NJ rankings suggest Lugar is considerably more liberal than even the ACU claims at 67% versus the 77% the ACU gave him...thanks for disproving your very own point.

While I'd love love love to rub your face in all this, the original point was that all this is a red herring and is really immaterial, and that the original issue was the typical left-wing double-standard that is basically synonymous with liberalism and the Democratic party, that Republicans will be called out (or worse) for an act, but given a free pass if similar is committed by a liberal/Democrat.