Steve Benen makes a nice catch. He’s found proof-positive that the modern Republican Party is beyond redemption (at least, if you follow the criteria of former Republican senator and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Danforth of Missouri). Danforth said that Dick Lugar should not be challenged with a serious primary candidate because he’s so well-respected and such an authority on foreign policy matters. But Lugar is getting a challenge and his challenger has a lot more support among Indiana’s Republican establishment than Lugar enjoys.
Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock will launch his primary challenge to Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) on Tuesday with the support of a majority of both the state’s 92 Republican county chairmen and its state party executive committee, he told the Fix in a recent interview.
“I feel bad that he’s going to be humiliated by this list,” Mourdock said. […]
“The headline isn’t going to be, ‘Tea party candidate to take on Dick Lugar;’ it’s going to be, ‘GOP grassroots dumps Lugar,'” Mourdock said. “There is tremendous unrest and tremendous dissatisfaction, and that’s what got me in this race.”
If I am not mistaken, the Dems didn’t even bother to challenge Lugar in 2006, which was a good cycle for them. That wasn’t only because he was considered unbeatable, it was also a show of respect. Lugar can hold this seat for the Republicans for as long they want him to, but they want to make it a competitive race.
Now, Lugar could switch parties, but he wouldn’t feel very comfortable in the Democratic Party. I don’t think the Democratic Party would feel comfortable honoring his seniority and giving him an important committee to chair. It just doesn’t seem like a very good match. On the other hand, there is some value in flipping the allegiance of prominent politicians. It’s a constant back-and-forth between the value of clarity of message and party unity on the one hand, and expanding the tent to take in those who are sane on the other.
Having Lugar in the caucus would probably be marginally preferable to having a Tea Partier in the seat. But it’s a close call. The Democrats are supposed to stand for more than just sanity. But, hey, maybe in these times we ought to act as a refuge for the un-brain damaged. Less of a Big Tent than a Red Cross Tent.
I know this isn’t the choice, but I’d rather have Lugar in the Democratic caucus then Evan Bayh. What is sad though is that the Indiana Democratic Party will nominate someone barely to the left of Lugar, though given what just happened, maybe things are about to change for the better.
Why?
Bayh was better than Lugar on every issue there is.
Would that be the case if he weren’t in the Republican party? I’m not so sure, myself. It’s a question I don’t to which I don’t have an answer. I think it’s worth exploring and Calvin could be correct.
you are basing this on those stupid rankings that interest groups and think tanks put together based on analysis of thousands of votes. The key is understanding who’s on “our” side or “their” side is politics, not policy. Bayh in many times from 2000-2008 was useful in creating the bipartisan veneer of the Bush administration’s policies. If I recall correctly, he hinted at potentially filibustering a president from his own party in his signature piece of legislation if it didn’t adhere to his conservative policy preferences. Who knows all the various other ways Bayh put his own political ambitions and conservative policy preferences ahead of his party’s and president’s political goals?
Point is Bayh and Lugar are vastly different creatures. Bayh is a political animal who’s gambit was to move to the center and try to become president as a republican-lite. Lugar is a traditional conservative senator who doesn’t really fit in with a party that has evolved into a reactionary and parliamentary party.
I’d take Lugar on the condition that he not threaten to filibuster his own party. Otherwise, I’ll take my chances finding a candidate that will agree to that. Don’t think that’s a particularly unreasonable condition, but apparently it is.
I’m aware of Bayh’s tendency to be a dick, but Lugar wouldn’t even be being a dick. He’s a rock-solid conservative on pretty much every issue under the Sun. Of course he’d filibuster.
Agreed. But if you got the agreement to not filibuster in return for committee chairmanships, then that’s a deal worth making. I think lots of Dems were surprised that such a deal wasn’t struck with Lieberman.
And while this may sound like a liberal being realistic, can you point to times when the GOP filibustered or threatened to filibuster their own president? They either switch like Jeffords or get primaried (by the party establishment) like Bob Smith.
Its not crazy for a president to expect his party not to filibuster his agenda in the senate.
They could try to get him to agree. I doubt he would.
well then we should probably ask McConnell what the secret to party discipline is.
Recall that Lugar and Snowe didn’t break the filibuster to allow a vote on the 2011 budget. That was the biggie of the lame duck and they all held the line. Lugar and Snowe are conservatives and relatively disciplined Senators. Lugar is a stickler for the “water’s edge” approach on foreign policy- and for that he’s being teabagged. Other than that though, he’s a not just a conservative, but a loyal one at that.
i believe it lies somewhere in how each part assigns leadership positions.
could you elaborate? i always thought it was because McConnell controlled party funds.
I think he means that McConnell isn’t afraid of using money and committee assignments to keep GOPers in line … where the Democrats are(see HolyJoe). Elected Democrats never really played hardball with the opposition .. well .. until shit went down last week in Wisconsin
Bayh was? How about the war? Bayh used to stab us in the back all the time. Why do you think Mark Pryor is no where near as hated as Blanche Lincoln was? Or Ben Nelson and HolyJoe are now? Because he never said a damn word, at least that I am aware of. Is Lugar ever quoted on anything other than foreign policy? At least with Lugar, you know where he stands. He doesn’t seem like a piss-in-the-tent kind of guy, where as that’s what Bayh was. And it hurts doubly considering who Evan Bayh’s dad is.
I believe that Booman’s point is that if you look at Lugar’s voting record over the years and you compare it to Bayh’s voting record over the years, Bayh has the more liberal voting record hands down. And, without actually looking up the voting records, I believe that is probably the case. Bayh was an asshole, but he was still a Democrat and he was still going to be more sympathetic to certain Democratic constituencies than Dick Lugar ever would be.
Lugar is a great person to have as a member of the conservative opposition – he’s a principled conservative but he isn’t interested in ideological experimentation. He isn’t an outright racist, he isn’t a demagogue, and he doesn’t seem to hate gays much more than anyone else of his generation. He’s just conservative, and tends to believe that governments should move slowly and not spend much money except in the areas of defense – and even there they should watch what they’re spending.
He’d make a lousy Democrat – not a Joe Lieberman or Evan Bayh “run to Fox News to bitch about the Democrats lousy Democrat”, but his voting record wouldn’t shift – that’s not who he is – so he’d end up making Ben Nelson look like Karl Marx.
Best chance for Dems in Indiana is that Lugar stays on to get primaried and decides that having a Dem in office is better than having a Tea Partier in office so he goes nuclear on his primary opponent. But that’s not really who Dick Lugar is, so it’s more likely that he puts up a good fight against the ‘bagger, the ‘bagger wins and the Dems nominate someone who can’t beat the ‘bagger. because that’s how Indiana politics seems to roll these days.
Wasn’t it you that didn’t think Lugar would be primaried? It may have been my friend Shayan. Nonetheless, the Democrats should field a candidate now. Possibly whomever ran in 2010, like Ellsworth. Who’s better in terms of policy, Bayh or Ellsworth? I don’t like these pro-life Democrats, so it makes me wary of throwing support behind him. Not like we have a choice, though, so w/e. I think in 2012 Ellsworth could win if his challenger was someone as bad as Dan Coats. Yeah, he got his ass kicked, but it was the worst time for that race to happen.
Bayh sucked, but he was way better than Ellsworth. link.
when Lugar is too conservative for you…you’re fucking crazy
sorry…when Lugar it NOT conservative enough…you’re crazy
I think that the odds are against Lugar if he faces a teabagger primary.
And yes, like many, I have respect for Lugar; he’s the kind of conservative that this country needs. But the loonies are running wild, and sensible people are getting trampled.
So, what he Indiana Democrats need is a good, popular candidate to slap down the teabagger.
I suggest John Mellencamp.
At this point, we need to resurrect Eugene Debs.