Indiana GOP lines up behind Lugar's primary challenger

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

As someone who has a dog in this Indiana race, while I do honor the good he has done, supporting radical liberal supreme court justices (looking at you Sotomayor,Kagen, Ginsburg) is in my personal opinion worth firing him over. I endorsed John Hostettler In the 2010 primary. I will endorse the most conservative individual in the GOP 2012 Senate primary. My party Chairman is endorsing Murodock. It's possible that feeblepizza's and Tmth county chairman's have as well.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

As someone who has a dog in this Indiana race, while I do honor the good he has done, supporting radical liberal supreme court justices (looking at you Sotomayor,Kagen, Ginsburg) is in my personal opinion worth firing him over. I endorsed John Hostettler In the 2010 primary. I will endorse the most conservative individual in the GOP 2012 Senate primary. My party Chairman is endorsing Murodock. It's possible that feeblepizza's and Tmth county chairman's have as well.

1) There aren't any radical liberal (or for that matter any truly liberal) justices on the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court is dominated by the far right.  Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagen, and Stephen Breyer are center-left.  For that matter, has Kagen even been on the court during any significant rulings?  Kennedy is very conservative and is only perceived as a "swing-vote" because the other Republican justices are far more extreme and the media likes to lump things into hyper-simplified categories (also if they pretend there is a swing vote it makes things sound more up-in-the-air than they are).  Alito is a generic (albeit quiet) right-winger (different than conservative).  Thomas and Scalia are hyper-partisan right-wing extremists.  John Roberts is essentially another Scalia, except worse because his agreeable, calm, non-dickish public image creates the perception that he is less extreme than he actually is and probably makes him more effective at moving the court towards his positions.  

2) Lugar is clearly a conservative, his problem (and for that matter Hatch's and Corker's problem) is that he seems to view the other side as people who have a different view on policy (good people can disagree, and there can be common ground).  Much of of the Republican party (or at least the tea-baggers) view the Democrats as an enemy that must be crushed at any cost and will vote against any candidate who doesn't share this culture war mentality.  In other words people like Luger, Hatch, Corker, and Lindsey Graham are the loyal opposition.  People like Limbaugh, DeMint, Palin,  and Bachmann are the disloyal opposition.  The disloyal opposition would rather see Obama's policies fail than see them help the country (regardless of whether or not they think his policies are good or bad for the country).  Most of the Republican party is either dominated by or sucking up (cough John McCain cough) to the disloyal opposition.  That is why the loyal opposition within the Republican party are either disappearing (Voinovich, Lugar, Graham, Hagel, etc) or selling out (McCain, Grassley, Collins, etc)  

[Brittain33]

Joe Donnelly is talking about taking on Mourdock and running for Senate. Getting a rougher seat in redistricting is likely a good incentive, especially if Mourdock turns out to be the Ken Buck of Indiana in a more balanced year than 2010 was.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Joe Donnelly is talking about taking on Mourdock and running for Senate. Getting a rougher seat in redistricting is likely a good incentive, especially if Mourdock turns out to be the Ken Buck of Indiana in a more balanced year than 2010 was.

Surely future Republican candidates will learn from Buck's error and not alienate women with Neanderthal-like views on rape?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Joe Donnelly is talking about taking on Mourdock and running for Senate. Getting a rougher seat in redistricting is likely a good incentive, especially if Mourdock turns out to be the Ken Buck of Indiana in a more balanced year than 2010 was.

Surely future Republican candidates will learn from Buck's error and not alienate women with Neanderthal-like views on rape?

Never underestimate the stupidity of teabaggers.

[You kip if you want to...]

This guy can sit next to Senators Miller and O'Donnell!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As someone who has a dog in this Indiana race, while I do honor the good he has done, supporting radical liberal supreme court justices (looking at you Sotomayor,Kagen, Ginsburg) is in my personal opinion worth firing him over. I endorsed John Hostettler In the 2010 primary. I will endorse the most conservative individual in the GOP 2012 Senate primary. My party Chairman is endorsing Murodock. It's possible that feeblepizza's and Tmth county chairman's have as well.

1) There aren't any radical liberal (or for that matter any truly liberal) justices on the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court is dominated by the far right.  Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagen, and Stephen Breyer are center-left.  For that matter, has Kagen even been on the court during any significant rulings?  Kennedy is very conservative and is only perceived as a "swing-vote" because the other Republican justices are far more extreme and the media likes to lump things into hyper-simplified categories (also if they pretend there is a swing vote it makes things sound more up-in-the-air than they are).  Alito is a generic (albeit quiet) right-winger (different than conservative).  Thomas and Scalia are hyper-partisan right-wing extremists.  John Roberts is essentially another Scalia, except worse because his agreeable, calm, non-dickish public image creates the perception that he is less extreme than he actually is and probably makes him more effective at moving the court towards his positions. 

2) Lugar is clearly a conservative, his problem (and for that matter Hatch's and Corker's problem) is that he seems to view the other side as people who have a different view on policy (good people can disagree, and there can be common ground).  Much of of the Republican party (or at least the tea-baggers) view the Democrats as an enemy that must be crushed at any cost and will vote against any candidate who doesn't share this culture war mentality.  In other words people like Luger, Hatch, Corker, and Lindsey Graham are the loyal opposition.  People like Limbaugh, DeMint, Palin,  and Bachmann are the disloyal opposition.  The disloyal opposition would rather see Obama's policies fail than see them help the country (regardless of whether or not they think his policies are good or bad for the country).  Most of the Republican party is either dominated by or sucking up (cough John McCain cough) to the disloyal opposition.  That is why the loyal opposition within the Republican party are either disappearing (Voinovich, Lugar, Graham, Hagel, etc) or selling out (McCain, Grassley, Collins, etc) 

I find it laugable whenever someone on the left analyzes the various factions on the right. They have no appreciation for substantative differences nor do they have any consideration to do justice to the various factions. It is all about placing them on a linear plane and differentiating only the two Republicans between how far they are from them, then what and who they actually are.

Bottomline, ideological bias is clouding the analysis. The only way to accurately describe, analyze and appreciate the differences amongst people on one side of the isle whether right or left is to de-personalize, to not base the analysis in relation to oneself and to avoid entirely the setting of other arbitrary goal posts somewhere on that now relatively useless linear political spectrum.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

As someone who has a dog in this Indiana race, while I do honor the good he has done, supporting radical liberal supreme court justices (looking at you Sotomayor,Kagen, Ginsburg) is in my personal opinion worth firing him over. I endorsed John Hostettler In the 2010 primary. I will endorse the most conservative individual in the GOP 2012 Senate primary. My party Chairman is endorsing Murodock. It's possible that feeblepizza's and Tmth county chairman's have as well.

1) There aren't any radical liberal (or for that matter any truly liberal) justices on the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court is dominated by the far right.  Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagen, and Stephen Breyer are center-left.  For that matter, has Kagen even been on the court during any significant rulings?  Kennedy is very conservative and is only perceived as a "swing-vote" because the other Republican justices are far more extreme and the media likes to lump things into hyper-simplified categories (also if they pretend there is a swing vote it makes things sound more up-in-the-air than they are).  Alito is a generic (albeit quiet) right-winger (different than conservative).  Thomas and Scalia are hyper-partisan right-wing extremists.  John Roberts is essentially another Scalia, except worse because his agreeable, calm, non-dickish public image creates the perception that he is less extreme than he actually is and probably makes him more effective at moving the court towards his positions. 

2) Lugar is clearly a conservative, his problem (and for that matter Hatch's and Corker's problem) is that he seems to view the other side as people who have a different view on policy (good people can disagree, and there can be common ground).  Much of of the Republican party (or at least the tea-baggers) view the Democrats as an enemy that must be crushed at any cost and will vote against any candidate who doesn't share this culture war mentality.  In other words people like Luger, Hatch, Corker, and Lindsey Graham are the loyal opposition.  People like Limbaugh, DeMint, Palin,  and Bachmann are the disloyal opposition.  The disloyal opposition would rather see Obama's policies fail than see them help the country (regardless of whether or not they think his policies are good or bad for the country).  Most of the Republican party is either dominated by or sucking up (cough John McCain cough) to the disloyal opposition.  That is why the loyal opposition within the Republican party are either disappearing (Voinovich, Lugar, Graham, Hagel, etc) or selling out (McCain, Grassley, Collins, etc) 

I find it laugable whenever someone on the left analyzes the various factions on the right. They have no appreciation for substantative differences nor do they have any consideration to do justice to the various factions. It is all about placing them on a linear plane and differentiating only the two Republicans between how far they are from them, then what and who they actually are.

Bottomline, ideological bias is clouding the analysis. The only way to accurately describe, analyze and appreciate the differences amongst people on one side of the isle whether right or left is to de-personalize, to not base the analysis in relation to oneself and to avoid entirely the setting of other arbitrary goal posts somewhere on that now relatively useless linear political spectrum.

[SvenssonRS]

As someone who has a dog in this Indiana race, while I do honor the good he has done, supporting radical liberal supreme court justices (looking at you Sotomayor,Kagen, Ginsburg) is in my personal opinion worth firing him over. I endorsed John Hostettler In the 2010 primary. I will endorse the most conservative individual in the GOP 2012 Senate primary. My party Chairman is endorsing Murodock. It's possible that feeblepizza's and Tmth county chairman's have as well.

1) There aren't any radical liberal (or for that matter any truly liberal) justices on the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court is dominated by the far right.  Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagen, and Stephen Breyer are center-left.  For that matter, has Kagen even been on the court during any significant rulings?  Kennedy is very conservative and is only perceived as a "swing-vote" because the other Republican justices are far more extreme and the media likes to lump things into hyper-simplified categories (also if they pretend there is a swing vote it makes things sound more up-in-the-air than they are).  Alito is a generic (albeit quiet) right-winger (different than conservative).  Thomas and Scalia are hyper-partisan right-wing extremists.  John Roberts is essentially another Scalia, except worse because his agreeable, calm, non-dickish public image creates the perception that he is less extreme than he actually is and probably makes him more effective at moving the court towards his positions. 

2) Lugar is clearly a conservative, his problem (and for that matter Hatch's and Corker's problem) is that he seems to view the other side as people who have a different view on policy (good people can disagree, and there can be common ground).  Much of of the Republican party (or at least the tea-baggers) view the Democrats as an enemy that must be crushed at any cost and will vote against any candidate who doesn't share this culture war mentality.  In other words people like Luger, Hatch, Corker, and Lindsey Graham are the loyal opposition.  People like Limbaugh, DeMint, Palin,  and Bachmann are the disloyal opposition.  The disloyal opposition would rather see Obama's policies fail than see them help the country (regardless of whether or not they think his policies are good or bad for the country).  Most of the Republican party is either dominated by or sucking up (cough John McCain cough) to the disloyal opposition.  That is why the loyal opposition within the Republican party are either disappearing (Voinovich, Lugar, Graham, Hagel, etc) or selling out (McCain, Grassley, Collins, etc) 

I find it laugable whenever someone on the left analyzes the various factions on the right. They have no appreciation for substantative differences nor do they have any consideration to do justice to the various factions. It is all about placing them on a linear plane and differentiating only the two Republicans between how far they are from them, then what and who they actually are.

Bottomline, ideological bias is clouding the analysis. The only way to accurately describe, analyze and appreciate the differences amongst people on one side of the isle whether right or left is to de-personalize, to not base the analysis in relation to oneself and to avoid entirely the setting of other arbitrary goal posts somewhere on that now relatively useless linear political spectrum.

Gotta love that Libertas debating style.

[Torie]

I wonder if Lugar has said anything about the contretemps in Indiana.  If he has not, then he has no balls. Has he?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

As someone who has a dog in this Indiana race, while I do honor the good he has done, supporting radical liberal supreme court justices (looking at you Sotomayor,Kagen, Ginsburg) is in my personal opinion worth firing him over. I endorsed John Hostettler In the 2010 primary. I will endorse the most conservative individual in the GOP 2012 Senate primary. My party Chairman is endorsing Murodock. It's possible that feeblepizza's and Tmth county chairman's have as well.

1) There aren't any radical liberal (or for that matter any truly liberal) justices on the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court is dominated by the far right.  Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagen, and Stephen Breyer are center-left.  For that matter, has Kagen even been on the court during any significant rulings?  Kennedy is very conservative and is only perceived as a "swing-vote" because the other Republican justices are far more extreme and the media likes to lump things into hyper-simplified categories (also if they pretend there is a swing vote it makes things sound more up-in-the-air than they are).  Alito is a generic (albeit quiet) right-winger (different than conservative).  Thomas and Scalia are hyper-partisan right-wing extremists.  John Roberts is essentially another Scalia, except worse because his agreeable, calm, non-dickish public image creates the perception that he is less extreme than he actually is and probably makes him more effective at moving the court towards his positions.  

2) Lugar is clearly a conservative, his problem (and for that matter Hatch's and Corker's problem) is that he seems to view the other side as people who have a different view on policy (good people can disagree, and there can be common ground).  Much of of the Republican party (or at least the tea-baggers) view the Democrats as an enemy that must be crushed at any cost and will vote against any candidate who doesn't share this culture war mentality.  In other words people like Luger, Hatch, Corker, and Lindsey Graham are the loyal opposition.  People like Limbaugh, DeMint, Palin,  and Bachmann are the disloyal opposition.  The disloyal opposition would rather see Obama's policies fail than see them help the country (regardless of whether or not they think his policies are good or bad for the country).  Most of the Republican party is either dominated by or sucking up (cough John McCain cough) to the disloyal opposition.  That is why the loyal opposition within the Republican party are either disappearing (Voinovich, Lugar, Graham, Hagel, etc) or selling out (McCain, Grassley, Collins, etc)  

I find it laugable whenever someone on the left analyzes the various factions on the right. They have no appreciation for substantative differences nor do they have any consideration to do justice to the various factions. It is all about placing them on a linear plane and differentiating only the two Republicans between how far they are from them, then what and who they actually are.

Bottomline, ideological bias is clouding the analysis. The only way to accurately describe, analyze and appreciate the differences amongst people on one side of the isle whether right or left is to de-personalize, to not base the analysis in relation to oneself and to avoid entirely the setting of other arbitrary goal posts somewhere on that now relatively useless linear political spectrum.

Gotta love that Libertas debating style.

Here is my full response to North Carolina Yankee's response to my original post and my reasoning for originally responding with just a

1) North Carolina Yankee's response to my second point was essentially to say that I am on the left, therefore I automatically don't know what I'm talking about when I talk about political disputes on the right.  He then claimed that I was comparing Republicans to my personal views to determine their ideology/  I wasn't doing this, but if anyone wants to argue that Hagel, Luger, Hatch, Corker, etc are not conservatives, I'd be happy to have that debate.  He also essentially said that I was letting by ideological bias cloud my analysis.  It wasn't, I just think you're wrong.  Additionally, his whole response was a bit of a straw man logical fallacy, as I never said it is not about Luger not being conservative enough, it is about a broad conflict between factions of the Republican party (one which has very little to do with ideology), North Carolina Yankee ignored this (along with the rest of what I said on the subject) and criticized me for making it a comparison simply between two Republicans (not that I ever did that in my post).  

2) Given that North Carolina Yankee seemed to have absolutely no intention whatsoever of actually responding to any of what I posted and didn't seem interested in having a serious discussion/debate, I figured that attempting to have a productive discussion with him was likely a lost cause. I was also annoyed that he didn't respond to anything I actually said.  He was clearly not interested in a productive discussion, so I didn't see the point of responding to him with a long, detailed, thought-out post.  Hence the (though I guess I could've just ignored him)  EDIT: this seems not to have been the case, so this part was more my fault, I guess.

3) Please don't ever compare me to Libertas again, thanks (although in fairness, I see how it looked like something he'd do from SvenssonRS' perspective).  

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As someone who has a dog in this Indiana race, while I do honor the good he has done, supporting radical liberal supreme court justices (looking at you Sotomayor,Kagen, Ginsburg) is in my personal opinion worth firing him over. I endorsed John Hostettler In the 2010 primary. I will endorse the most conservative individual in the GOP 2012 Senate primary. My party Chairman is endorsing Murodock. It's possible that feeblepizza's and Tmth county chairman's have as well.

1) There aren't any radical liberal (or for that matter any truly liberal) justices on the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court is dominated by the far right.  Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagen, and Stephen Breyer are center-left.  For that matter, has Kagen even been on the court during any significant rulings?  Kennedy is very conservative and is only perceived as a "swing-vote" because the other Republican justices are far more extreme and the media likes to lump things into hyper-simplified categories (also if they pretend there is a swing vote it makes things sound more up-in-the-air than they are).  Alito is a generic (albeit quiet) right-winger (different than conservative).  Thomas and Scalia are hyper-partisan right-wing extremists.  John Roberts is essentially another Scalia, except worse because his agreeable, calm, non-dickish public image creates the perception that he is less extreme than he actually is and probably makes him more effective at moving the court towards his positions.  

2) Lugar is clearly a conservative, his problem (and for that matter Hatch's and Corker's problem) is that he seems to view the other side as people who have a different view on policy (good people can disagree, and there can be common ground).  Much of of the Republican party (or at least the tea-baggers) view the Democrats as an enemy that must be crushed at any cost and will vote against any candidate who doesn't share this culture war mentality.  In other words people like Luger, Hatch, Corker, and Lindsey Graham are the loyal opposition.  People like Limbaugh, DeMint, Palin,  and Bachmann are the disloyal opposition.  The disloyal opposition would rather see Obama's policies fail than see them help the country (regardless of whether or not they think his policies are good or bad for the country).  Most of the Republican party is either dominated by or sucking up (cough John McCain cough) to the disloyal opposition.  That is why the loyal opposition within the Republican party are either disappearing (Voinovich, Lugar, Graham, Hagel, etc) or selling out (McCain, Grassley, Collins, etc)  

I find it laugable whenever someone on the left analyzes the various factions on the right. They have no appreciation for substantative differences nor do they have any consideration to do justice to the various factions. It is all about placing them on a linear plane and differentiating only the two Republicans between how far they are from them, then what and who they actually are.

Bottomline, ideological bias is clouding the analysis. The only way to accurately describe, analyze and appreciate the differences amongst people on one side of the isle whether right or left is to de-personalize, to not base the analysis in relation to oneself and to avoid entirely the setting of other arbitrary goal posts somewhere on that now relatively useless linear political spectrum.

Gotta love that Libertas debating style.

Here is my full response to JohanusCalvinusLibertas' response to my original post and my reasoning for originally responding with just a  

1) Rather than explain why he thought what I said about the Supreme Court was wrong, JohanusCalvinusLibertas simply ignored it entirely and made no attempt to dispute my argument or its accuracy on that subject.

2) His response to my second point was essentially to say that I am on the left, therefore I automatically don't know what I'm talking about when I talk about political disputes on the right.  He then claimed that I was comparing Republicans to my personal views to determine their ideology/  I wasn't doing this, but if anyone wants to argue that Hagel, Luger, Hatch, Corker, etc are not conservatives, I'd be happy to have that debate.  He also essentially said that I was letting by ideological bias cloud my analysis.  It wasn't, I just think you're wrong, but if it was my response to JohanusCalvinusLibertas would be "pot meet kettle."  Additionally, his whole response was a bit of a straw man logical fallacy, as I never said it is not about Luger not being conservative enough, it is about a broad conflict between factions of the Republican party (one which has very little to do with ideology), JohanusCalvinusLibertas ignored this (along with the rest of what I said on the subject) and criticized me for making it a comparison simply between two Republicans (not that I ever did that in my post).  

3) Given that JohanusCalvinusLibertas seemed to have absolutely no intention whatsoever of actually responding to any of what I posted and didn't seem interested in having a serious discussion/debate, I figured that attempting to have a productive discussion with him was likely a lost cause. I was also annoyed that he didn't respond to anything I actually said.  He was clearly not interested in a productive discussion, so I didn't see the point of responding to him with a long, detailed, thought-out post.  Hence the (though I guess I could've just ignored him)

4) Please don't ever compare me to Libertas again, thanks (although in fairness, I see how it looked like something he'd do from SvenssonRS' perspective).  

I have bad news for you and that is that you didn't respond to JCL with that smiley, you responded me. I am not JCL, and I don't give a damn what JCL said here or what you respnded to him with. He can defend what he wants to defend on his own time. My concern is that you extrapolated a british concept into America in an arbitrary and biased fashion to insinuate that certain conservatives were "disloyal".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And please tell me how the hell you confused me with JohannusCalvinusLibertas? Do you not even bother to check display names? Does JCL even post like that?


Once you get your facts straightened out and put in the proper order, you can rephrase your critique of my response so that it firsts acts not as if it conflates my thoughts with someone elses.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

And please tell me how the hell you confused me with JohannusCalvinusLibertas? Do you not even bother to check display names? Does JCL even post like that?


Once you get your facts straightened out and put in the proper order, you can rephrase your critique of my response so that it firsts acts not as if it conflates my thoughts with someone elses.

Ack, egg on my face.  Well I sure feel like an a-hole now  My sincerest apologies!  I assumed he had responded, that was dumb on my part.  I own up to that.  btw, fixed the post (didn't know that you were criticizing the term, btw).  I still think it was appropriate.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

As someone who has a dog in this Indiana race, while I do honor the good he has done, supporting radical liberal supreme court justices (looking at you Sotomayor,Kagen, Ginsburg) is in my personal opinion worth firing him over. I endorsed John Hostettler In the 2010 primary. I will endorse the most conservative individual in the GOP 2012 Senate primary. My party Chairman is endorsing Murodock. It's possible that feeblepizza's and Tmth county chairman's have as well.

1) There aren't any radical liberal (or for that matter any truly liberal) justices on the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court is dominated by the far right.  Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagen, and Stephen Breyer are center-left.  For that matter, has Kagen even been on the court during any significant rulings?  Kennedy is very conservative and is only perceived as a "swing-vote" because the other Republican justices are far more extreme and the media likes to lump things into hyper-simplified categories (also if they pretend there is a swing vote it makes things sound more up-in-the-air than they are).  Alito is a generic (albeit quiet) right-winger (different than conservative).  Thomas and Scalia are hyper-partisan right-wing extremists.  John Roberts is essentially another Scalia, except worse because his agreeable, calm, non-dickish public image creates the perception that he is less extreme than he actually is and probably makes him more effective at moving the court towards his positions.  

2) Lugar is clearly a conservative, his problem (and for that matter Hatch's and Corker's problem) is that he seems to view the other side as people who have a different view on policy (good people can disagree, and there can be common ground).  Much of of the Republican party (or at least the tea-baggers) view the Democrats as an enemy that must be crushed at any cost and will vote against any candidate who doesn't share this culture war mentality.  In other words people like Luger, Hatch, Corker, and Lindsey Graham are the loyal opposition.  People like Limbaugh, DeMint, Palin,  and Bachmann are the disloyal opposition.  The disloyal opposition would rather see Obama's policies fail than see them help the country (regardless of whether or not they think his policies are good or bad for the country).  Most of the Republican party is either dominated by or sucking up (cough John McCain cough) to the disloyal opposition.  That is why the loyal opposition within the Republican party are either disappearing (Voinovich, Lugar, Graham, Hagel, etc) or selling out (McCain, Grassley, Collins, etc)  

I find it laugable whenever someone on the left analyzes the various factions on the right. They have no appreciation for substantative differences nor do they have any consideration to do justice to the various factions. It is all about placing them on a linear plane and differentiating only the two Republicans between how far they are from them, then what and who they actually are.

Bottomline, ideological bias is clouding the analysis. The only way to accurately describe, analyze and appreciate the differences amongst people on one side of the isle whether right or left is to de-personalize, to not base the analysis in relation to oneself and to avoid entirely the setting of other arbitrary goal posts somewhere on that now relatively useless linear political spectrum.

Gotta love that Libertas debating style.

Here is my full response to JohanusCalvinusLibertas' response to my original post and my reasoning for originally responding with just a

1) Rather than explain why he thought what I said about the Supreme Court was wrong, JohanusCalvinusLibertas simply ignored it entirely and made no attempt to dispute my argument or its accuracy on that subject.

2) His response to my second point was essentially to say that I am on the left, therefore I automatically don't know what I'm talking about when I talk about political disputes on the right.  He then claimed that I was comparing Republicans to my personal views to determine their ideology/  I wasn't doing this, but if anyone wants to argue that Hagel, Luger, Hatch, Corker, etc are not conservatives, I'd be happy to have that debate.  He also essentially said that I was letting by ideological bias cloud my analysis.  It wasn't, I just think you're wrong, but if it was my response to JohanusCalvinusLibertas would be "pot meet kettle."  Additionally, his whole response was a bit of a straw man logical fallacy, as I never said it is not about Luger not being conservative enough, it is about a broad conflict between factions of the Republican party (one which has very little to do with ideology), JohanusCalvinusLibertas ignored this (along with the rest of what I said on the subject) and criticized me for making it a comparison simply between two Republicans (not that I ever did that in my post).  

3) Given that JohanusCalvinusLibertas seemed to have absolutely no intention whatsoever of actually responding to any of what I posted and didn't seem interested in having a serious discussion/debate, I figured that attempting to have a productive discussion with him was likely a lost cause. I was also annoyed that he didn't respond to anything I actually said.  He was clearly not interested in a productive discussion, so I didn't see the point of responding to him with a long, detailed, thought-out post.  Hence the (though I guess I could've just ignored him)

4) Please don't ever compare me to Libertas again, thanks (although in fairness, I see how it looked like something he'd do from SvenssonRS' perspective).  

I have bad news for you and that is that you didn't respond to JCL with that smiley, you responded me. I am not JCL, and I don't give a damn what JCL said here or what you respnded to him with. He can defend what he wants to defend on his own time. My concern is that you extrapolated a british concept into America in an arbitrary and biased fashion to insinuate that certain conservatives were "disloyal".

There was nothing biased about it, although I'll admit that the wording could cause the discussion to become more emotionally charged than I intended.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Finally, National Journal has released its ratings for Lugar,

In their schema he as a conservative rating of 63.7, with almost all Republican Senators having higher ratings.

Waiting on Americans for Democratic Action to get their act together.

[Bacon King]

Finally, National Journal has released its ratings for Lugar,

In their schema he as a conservative rating of 63.7, with almost all Republican Senators having higher ratings.

Waiting on Americans for Democratic Action to get their act together.

But if you look at the breakdown, you'll see that pretty much the only reason he appears to be so moderate is his stance on foreign policy issues. He's to the right of the party center on economic issues and slightly to the left of it on social issues. Pretty conservative for a Republican in an Obama state, no?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Yes Obama won Indiana. However he only won 7 or so counties. All in either the first or seventh districts. The first being Gary. The seventh bring Indy.  Indiana will not be in the Obama column in 2012.
We are not the prototypical Obama state. We are the most conservative of the states he won.  Also recognize the Tea Party is strong here.

Lugar is simply not conservative enough.

[tmthforu94]

Yes Obama won Indiana. However he only won 7 or so counties. All in either the first or seventh districts. The first being Gary. The seventh bring Indy.  Indiana will not be in the Obama column in 2012.
We are not the prototypical Obama state. We are the most conservative of the states he won.  Also recognize the Tea Party is strong here.

Lugar is simply not conservative enough.

He also won Vigo and Monroe for sure, possibly a couple others. That brings the 8th and 9th in as well.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Finally, National Journal has released its ratings for Lugar,

In their schema he as a conservative rating of 63.7, with almost all Republican Senators having higher ratings.

Waiting on Americans for Democratic Action to get their act together.

But if you look at the breakdown, you'll see that pretty much the only reason he appears to be so moderate is his stance on foreign policy issues. He's to the right of the party center on economic issues and slightly to the left of it on social issues. Pretty conservative for a Republican in an Obama state, no?

Please check again.

On Foreign Policy, Lugar is indeed an idiot leftist.

On Social Policy, he's more than "slightly to the left." 

On Economic Policy, he's near (not to the right of) center of the Republican party.

Finally, when you add to it his abrasive personality, he's toast.

[Brittain33]

On Foreign Policy, Lugar is indeed an idiot leftist.

No one considers Lugar an "idiot" on foreign policy.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I realize that one of the problems with those on the left is that they find it inconceivable that anyone would dare disagree with the,

Perhaps you will next assert that "no one opposes socialism" ?

[Brittain33]

I realize that one of the problems with those on the left is that they find it inconceivable that anyone would dare disagree with the,

Perhaps you will next assert that "no one opposes socialism" ?

Plenty of people oppose socialism.

But even people who disagree with Lugar's views, don't consider him stupid or ill-informed. Similarly, people don't generally call Sarah Palin hideous or George W. Bush short. They won't call him stupid unless they're trying to throw everything and the kitchen sink at him because they are so consumed with rage that they don't care if their charge is correct. Or all they know about him is that he disagrees with the Tea Party on some treaty, so therefore he must be "stupid."

[CARLHAYDEN]

I realize that one of the problems with those on the left is that they find it inconceivable that anyone would dare disagree with the,

Perhaps you will next assert that "no one opposes socialism" ?

Plenty of people oppose socialism.

But even people who disagree with Lugar's views, don't consider him stupid or ill-informed. Similarly, people don't generally call Sarah Palin hideous or George W. Bush short. They won't call him stupid unless they're trying to throw everything and the kitchen sink at him because they are so consumed with rage that they don't care if their charge is correct. Or all they know about him is that he disagrees with the Tea Party on some treaty, so therefore he must be "stupid."

Apparently you do not grasp my point.

Like Neville Chamberlain, Lugar has a childlike belief in treaties.

Such a belief is idiotic when viewed in the light of experience.

So, yes, on foreign policy Lugar is an idiotic leftiest.

[ag]

Perhaps you will next assert that "no one opposes socialism" ?

Most active supporters of the Democratic Party, including every notable member of current administration wholeheartedly and passionately oppose socialism. "Socialism" is not a factor in American politics - everybody, except for a few fairly marginal characters, views it as a strange foreign concept.

As for foreign policy, I would be shocked if more than, say, a dosen of Republican Senators would consider Lugar an "idiot leftist". In fact, your stated points of view seem to be far further away from the Republican mainstream view, than his. People who have seriously thought about foreign policy, irrespective of their overall political views, would not consider Lugar and idiot leftist but, surely, would not be particularly complimentary about the mental capacity of those who call him thus.