E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Darron Cummings / AP
Senate candidates running in the GOP primary, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.,and Richard Mourdock, left, participate in a debate Wednesday, April 11, 2012, in Indianapolis.
In the 2010 midterm elections, the GOP was jarred by an array of suddenly-potent Tea Party-backed challengers taking on the party establishment. The movement achieved mixed results overall, but resulted in a Republican Party heavily influenced by it.
History is repeating itself in Indiana where one of the Senate’s two longest-serving Republicans, Richard Lugar, 80, who was first elected in 1976, is facing a challenge in the May 8 primary from state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, who became famous in 2009 for opposing the auto industry bailout and the forced write-downs for Chrysler bond holders.
Mourdock is backed by Tea Party activists, the Club for Growth, the National Rifle Association, and old-line social conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly.
As Lugar struggles to fend off Mourdock’s challenge, Democrats hope their candidate, Rep. Joe Donnelly, will profit from the GOP schism and pick up the incumbent’s seat in November.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said Wednesday, “The race is very close now and it’ll be decided on May 8 and a number of factors could apply. Obviously turnout is important. Gov. (Mitch) Daniels’s ad supporting Sen. Lugar is a very positive development for him,” he said. “But our job is to hold the seat (in November) and we’ll support the nominee in the general election, but I think we will hold that seat regardless of what happens in the primary.”
A Lugar loss would end the political career of a man who was first elected in 1964 to the Indianapolis school board and who in the 1970s was known as “Richard Nixon’s favorite mayor” when he held that office in Indianapolis. Since taking his Senate seat in 1977, Lugar has become his party’s cerebral foreign policy expert.
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. who serves alongside Lugar on the Foreign Relations Committee, said “the knowledge that Sen. Lugar has – having worked on these issues for decades – has been invaluable ... Certainly he’s someone who’s very respected in the Senate and he’s listened to by both sides of the aisle.”
Recommended: As immigration case goes before high court, what it means for 2012
But no matter how deeply respected Lugar is on Capitol Hill, Mourdock’s charge is that Lugar isn’t conservative enough – although Lugar’s lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, based on dozens of roll call votes, is 77 out 100, putting him a long way from Senate GOP centrists such as Olympia Snowe of Maine, who has a 48.5 lifetime ACU rating.
Politico's Alex Burns explains why certain conservative groups are launching attack ads aimed at longtime GOP Sen. Dick Lugar criticizing his stance on gun rights, tax hikes and government bailouts.
Mourdock’s campaign ads regularly link Lugar with Democratic President Barack Obama. Early in Obama’s Senate stint, Lugar helped him establish his foreign policy credentials. In 2005 Obama accompanied Lugar on a trip to Russia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan to inspect weapons dumps and sites where smallpox and other pathogens were kept.
“When Dick Lugar moved to Washington, he left behind his conservative Hoosier values,” Mourdock says in one of his television spots. “How else to explain his support for amnesty, for Obama’s liberal Supreme Court choices, even his vote to bail out Greece?”
An ad the NRA has run against Lugar tells viewers that, “Some things shouldn’t change. Our Indiana values, stewardship of the land, and the protection of our Second Amendment and hunting rights. But over his 36 years in Washington, Dick Lugar has changed ... He’s become the only Republican candidate in Indiana with an “F” rating from the NRA.”
The NRA grievance against Lugar goes way back: he voted for Bill Clinton’s 1993 Brady handgun bill and for the ban on certain semiautomatic weapons, called “assault weapons” by gun control advocates.
Lugar, always avuncular and courteous, told reporters this week in Washington that his battle with Mourdock is “a very close contest (and) has been throughout.”
Asked about Mourdock’s view that he has changed in his years in Washington, Lugar chuckled amiably and said “I think it’s his view but we’re getting along fine with voters.”
Since last year, Democrats have accused Lugar of being detached from Indiana issues and denounced him for living in Virginia. They gained ammunition when he had to reimburse the Treasury for some hotel stays in Indiana that were charged to his Senate office account. On the residency issue, Lugar said Tuesday, “It was clearly somebody engaging in negative campaign research, trying to find some difficulty.”
Since this is his first primary challenge since 1976, is it difficult since he’s perhaps out of practice? “No,” Lugar replied, “I’ve been campaigning all over the country for the last 35 years and I’m campaigning vigorously again this time ... This is a very vigorous experience and we’re doing the best we can.”
The Republican fratricide in Senate races two years ago had at best mixed results for party leaders.
Darron Cummings / AP
Brent Gentry shows his support for Richard Mourdock before a U.S. Senate debate Wednesday, April 11, 2012, in Indianapolis. Mourdock is running against Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.
One of the GOP incumbents, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, ultimately survived after losing the Republican primary by running in November as a write-in candidate.
Establishment GOP candidates in Arizona, Indiana, New Hampshire, and Missouri defeated their conservative primary opponents and went on to win in November. The party favorite in Washington beat his conservative challenger in the primary, then lost in November.
Elsewhere, conservative challengers forced one GOP senator, Robert Bennett, into retirement in Utah and another, Arlen Specter, into switching parties in Pennsylvania.
Conservative favorites won four Senate seats (in Pennsylvania, Utah, Kentucky, and Florida), but lost to Democrats in four other Senate contests (Delaware, Connecticut, Nevada, and Colorado) – races which more mainstream Republican candidates might have won.
One of the Establishment GOP victims of the Tea Party surge in 2010, was former Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware, who lost to Christine O’Donnell – who then was defeated by Democrat Chris Coons in November.
Castle is now a partner with the DLA Piper law firm.
Reflecting on the parallels with his bitter loss to O’Donnell two years ago, Castle said if Lugar loses the primary, “it has the effect of making it more and more difficult for people who take middle-of-the-road positions, who try to work with both sides of the aisle to get things done ... .”
The Tea Party trend puts such pragmatism, Castle said, “at jeopardy in the Republican Party ... It moves the party not just further to the right, but to a much more conservative stance than it used to have. It’s going to ultimately lead to a minority status in the country.”
Pointing to the danger of Mourdock winning the primary but losing to Donnelly in November, Castle said that for Indiana Republicans, Lugar “may not be 100 percent what they might want, but the alternative is you may elect somebody from the other party.”
Castle’s campaign fund has given $1,000 to Lugar’s campaign.
Recommended: Social Security trustees see earlier fund depletion date
Seeing the race from a different angle, South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, whose Senate Conservatives PAC supported O’Donnell against Castle and Sharron Angle in Nevada in 2010, said, “Richard is a friend of mine – but of course, we’ve got two Richards in that race. Dick Lugar is a friend of mine, but I’d be honored to serve with Mourdock. He’s clearly someone who is in line with some of the things we’re trying to do,” but he added, “I’m not going to get involved” in the Lugar versus Mourdock primary. “I’m not involved in any incumbent races right now.”
Meanwhile Democrats are waiting to take on the survivor of the GOP primary. "While Joe Donnelly has been focused on jobs and the economy, both Richard Mourdock and Dick Lugar have spent the last year slinging mud, pandering to the Tea Party, and showing voters that they're both of touch with Indiana's middle class. Joe's candidacy gives us an excellent chance of winning in November regardless of who Republicans nominate," said Shripal Shah, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Despite the Democrats touting Donnelly's chances, there are echoes of Indiana’s 2010 Senate race when Democrats had hopes for former Rep. Brad Ellsworth, a centrist Democrat with a voting record much like Donnelly's.
Ellsworth ended up losing by 14 percentage points to Republican Dan Coats. Democrats say 2012 isn't 2010; turnout this year is going to be significantly higher and the economy is healthier now than it was in 2010.
But Donnelly voted for the Obama health care bill and for his stimulus plan, neither of which will help with conservative voters in Indiana. And his fund-raising has been less than stellar.
Democrats privately say that Donnelly runs stronger against Mourdock than against Lugar.
Tom Williams / Roll Call/Getty Images
Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., talks to a reporter before the Senate Republican Policy luncheon in the Capitol.
“Yeah, I understand that,” Cornyn said. “Sen. Lugar is a legend in Indiana. To show how quickly things change, six years ago, he was uncontested in the Republican primary and in the general election ... But it will probably make it more of a contest if Sen. Lugar is not the nominee, but I’m confident we’ll hold the seat.” Cornyn said the Indiana race “is not one of my worries.”
Leave a Comment:
That sentence alone negates the entire headline trying to show that Democrats have a chance!
Fact is the VAST MAJORITY want Obamacare eliminated and think the stimulus (all of them) did little compared to the financial fiasco they created.
Obama is sinking in the polls against Romney, as is his approval rating and his policies are being destroyed by the Supreme Court. Even the liberal appointees are going to uphold Arizona's immigration law!
Obama has shown his inexperience, and bias and America is sick of it! His arrogance has strengthened the GOP and done a great service to this nation. Now when he is out of the way come January, you will see an economic boom.........
First I'd like to ask what polls you're referring to. My next question is, although not related to this article is: why do we have to take money from women's health care services to pay to keep student loans lower? Why is Americans no longer subsidizing big oil a non-starter? The polling shows that the majority of Americans are against giving companies that make millions, if not, millions of dollars more of the money we do not have (listening to the Teapublicans). We CAN keep giving those companies more money, but we CANNOT keep student loan interests down. As for health care reform, people are learning more about what's in that law and liking it. Frankly, I believe Americans are getting sick and more than tired with the Teapublicans. There is a book out that states the night of Obama's inauguration, some Republicans were having dinner plotting how to take Obama down. Step one was to never, ever give him anything he asked for....never, ever. That's been their plan from the start and they haven't stop their assault yet! In the meantime, America and Americans have gotten the sh---ty end of the stick. If Romney is elected, sooner than later we will be in another war. We will have a health care mandate and the millionaires and billionaires will pocket another hundred grand in lower tax rates.
You make a good point. The Tea Party wants congress to pay for the programs. We really don't matter where the money comes from too much. Unfortunately, when asked to pay for things, the democrats number one answer is to increase taxes or cut taxes on a particular group of people/corporations. Why not just cut all corporate subsidies 1% to pay for it? Why should oil companies be singled out?
Old lady: yea lets save students interest on student loans but do all we can to RAISE THEIR FUEL PRICES.......
Why can't women pay for their own mammograms/pap smears? I don't see men begging taxpayers to cover their prostate exams......
WTF! Women's health care costs more than a man's, why? So on top of the extra costs, they have to beg for mammograms...the extra costs in premiums should take care of that, no? You still didn't address my question. How can the Teapublicans "find" money to keep subsidizing big oil, etc., but cannot find the money to keep student loans rate down? You act like a typical Republican, dances around the issue and try distraction....sad. Who said anything about oil prices? Everyone knows by now that the President has no control over that (exceptions being those who watch some "news" networks.
Raising the taxes on oil companies will have an impact on jobs. It will make it more appealing to oil companies to build in other places. You are right. We should have these talks, but why are you focusing on oil companies and not green energy companies. They are an even bigger rip off.
How come "green energy" subsidies are 20 TIMES that of "big oil"?
Are they not the same industry?
It's because without subsidies (taxpayer dollars) green energy is not sustainable!
We'll cut big oil's subsidies when you Dims cut green energy ones and stop forcing taxpayers to cover women's procedures and not men's.... You ladies wanted equal rights, well you got it, along with equal payment for health!
Now take your taxpayer funded Mydol and chill oldlady!
MWD,
You got to be kidding! And you wonder why people don't trust the Tea party anymore?
When you go for your annual physical it's OK that they do a PSA test on you because you are a "man". Extra cost's associated with that test.
But a woman should pay for a basic mammogram test because she wants equal rights.
What a stupid idea! Wait! Stupid is as Stupid does! Describes a Tea bagger pretty acutely I would say. Keep up dumb thoughts like that and people will realize just how you guys think!
You're going to have to suppress over a million votes and crank up the Diebold program. It's just simple math. If the Democats turn out-they win.
Turn Out in '12.
Have the super rich pay their fair share of taxes and Obama can fix all of our problems. Oh no, the teaparty wants to give billionaires another obscene tax cut.....because...the super rich are going to create jobs in America...duh, I think that is what george the draft dodger said. Quess what? the gnop destroyed jobs in America. Does Indiana really want to elect a teabagger phony?
You must be in serious deial if you think that having the rich pay their fair share of taxes and Obama can fix any of our problems, let alone all of them. Please learn the truth and quit believing lies.
The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI equal to or greater than $154,643), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.
What is the "fair share" again?
Fair share to ME is that EVERYONE pay 15% of every dollar earned, I don't care if you make $30K a yr or $30 Million, EVERYONE pays .15 of every dollar earned. NOW THAT IS FAIR!
THE TOP 5% FUNDING 58.7% OF OUR NATION IS NOT FAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is rather ridiculous to listen to anyone who wants more of the capital gains and top marginal income tax cuts. We have had the current reduced rates for more than a decade, and look at just how great the "job creators" are doing at creating jobs with those tax cuts. Now we are supposed to do more of that?
I think not.
You can't tax the rich enough to make any difference in the budget/defict. It's just a left wing talking point.
Fair share, top 5% this, 99% that, blah, blah, blah (stole that one from Boehner, lol).
None of that nonsense makes a bit of difference in anyone's financial well-being. What matters is that we have rates that get economic activity going, and the current rates are not working. History shows us that more progressive top marginal rates will result in everyone's incomes growing faster, including those at the top.
Who in their right mind would create a job without knowing the oncoming taxes/healthcare requirements of hiring that individual?
Why would I hire a worker only to learn that the following year my taxes/healthcare costs will eat up a vast majority of my income?
This administration is to blame for not hiring, not the "rich".........
Actually its from the Tax Foundation Wayne, and from the IRS website.....
Sorry the FACTS don't support your propaganda........
Perhaps if Warren Buffet weren't fighting the BILLIONS he already owes in BACK TAXES America might listen to the HYPOCRITE and his Odumbo puppet...
Blamo, the revenue collected is not the reason for the top rates needing to go up just a bit. the current rates create an incentive to chase paper profits over real investments, resulting economic stagnation and a casino economy poised for a crash - sound familiar?
MWD - the percentages may be correct, but that isn't what matters. The important part of this is WHAT WORKS FOR OUR ECONOMY! The current set of tax rates doesn't seem to be doing all the job creating it was supposed to.
Wayne...Well if the current set of rates doesn't work, then what makes you think that having the government take more of people's money is going to get them to invest? Maybe reforming the tax system is what is needed? History does not show us that. History shows that economies get going when tax rates are lowered. It worked for JFK, Reagan, and Bush. Raising taxes has been shown to slow down an economy. Please study more so that you are not deceived.
The economy did grow after the tax cuts, but the rate of growth was unremarkable, especially for jobs, and there’s little evidence that the Bush tax cuts caused large increases in output growth as promised. In fact, there’s little evidence that they had any effect at all.
There's no debate that Reagan dramatically reduced taxes in 1981, his first year in office. That $38-billion cut would equal $90 billion in today's dollars. At the time, it represented 1.91 percent of the gross domestic product, which is the total value of goods and services produced in the United States during a given year.
But the following year, Reagan raised taxes dramatically and other increases followed.
The 1982 hike alone, which applied to corporations and individuals, increased taxes by about $17 billion, according to a 2006 U.S. Treasury report. The increase represented 0.8 percent of the GDP. That's why it is sometimes billed as the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. That same year he also raised the gasoline tax.
In 1983, Reagan hiked taxes again. This time it was the passage of the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which increased payroll taxes to provide long-term funding for Medicare and Social Security. According to liberal economist Paul Krugman, in a June 8, 2004, commentary in The New York Times, "this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts" for many middle- and low-income families.
Reagan also significantly increased taxes through the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, the Tax Reform of 1986 and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987.
Kmadd.....Very true. Of course we also have to look at the massive growth from 1982 until the early 90's. It takes a while for tax rates to take effect in job growth and economic growth. It took a while in with the Bush tax cuts as well. It is difficult to discern the truth because there are many factors and variables. The world has changed since 2000, 1980 or 1950. We need to adapt and not over simplify things. Could the job growth being slower than expected for the Bush tax cuts be attributed to huge increases in technology that and political conditions overseas that allowed for jobs to be outsourced? Maybe the tax cuts prevented us from a further recession.
Most democrats make a huge error when they think about republicans. They think that we are against taxes. That is far from the truth. We are against big government. We don't mind funding necessary things in government, but when it is bloated and wasteful like it is now, we do mind. Remember that Clinton balanced the budget on tax cuts and spending cuts.
PAF,
I understand you are in debate with Kmadd. You have stated your arguments to back up your statements. What I don't understand is when your statements are rebutted with facts that don't favor your position you make up excuses that are totally different than your original/prior position.
Kmadd, more than answered your argument about raising taxes. Period! You may not like his facts, but they are facts nonetheless.
Also, your own Party leaders are the people claiming there will be "no" raise in taxes to pay for any program that might help Americans speed up our recovery. The Republican party leaders! Stated over and over. Even your candidate running for POTUS has stated that very fact many times. Misunderstood, I think not.
As for the tax cuts preventing us from a further recession, please provide the sources you rely on to make such a statement? As I doubt that would be a true from all I have read.
Lastly, you blame "big government" for all our woes. That's OK, if that is what you want to believe. Personally, I believe the lack of government and deregulation has brought us to were we are today. I'm sure I can counter with as many facts as you can, if we debated the matter.
So, who is right? My point being, we are two people with different viewpoints on how our country should be run. Ideally, there should be "middle ground" that we can agree to where each can gain something, and lose something. I don't believe your Tea Party will allow that to happen. Nor your Republican Party at the current time.
Does anyone else think Lugar's main problem just may be that he is 80 and has been in office for 36 years?
The guy has been in office MY entire lifetime........
That is insane!
King Tut's reign was shorter.......
If you used that terminology with blacks,spanish or women,you would ready for an "ist"! How come there was no democrap drumbeat to get Democrap Senator Robert Byrd out of the Senate when he ran at age of 92!
i'm sorry, did it say infighting or inbreeding?
Infighting, YOU'RE the only one on here lusting for their sibling......
One of these days, the gop will wake up and decide that that mr grover, the rushbo, & the nra have no place in a political party. No. No. These people are partisans. They have tunnel vision. They cannot see the forest from the trees. They cannot lead anybody, much less a country in the 21st century with the internet. And why cant' they lead. It's because whenever they try, they will fail big time.
It's like the bushman trying to boost the economy buy selling new houses to the unemployed. Sure it worked while they boosted the housing prices. But came down like a ton of bricks when the unemployed couldn't make monthly payments & the drop was amplified across the entire western financial system with loss of $16T in bad housing loan derivatives. Ideologues cannot be leaders. They have no place in govt.
And when will the Dims wake up and see that Maddow, Shultz, O'Donnel, Mathews, and other morons are black marks on their party?
The have more of a place than Rev. Al Sharpton.
HUUUUHHH!
allens....lol
Attention Morons let's look at the following questions:
You don't have to have passed Macro Economic 202 to know the answers, but being a moron isn't going to help.
Which of those two states finishes last in almost every quality of life category currently measured??
It's like Omaha Beach !!!!! LOL!!!
Ricky bob doing an infomercial for Tex-@ss... How cute...
Most of us are still praying, they'll secede...
Well I think that both are close to bankruptcy. I guess that is why the tea party is voting out liberal Republicans. What is the point of being a republican if you are not willing to be responsible and balance the budget. That is why people didn't like Bush as a leader.
A liberal without using logic, not a surprise. The point K1 is one State is in decline and the other is growing it's middle class by leaps and bounds. California works for the ultra rich, the poor and only for the middle class if they have gov. or union jobs. That's why they are leaving by the tens of thousands. But thanks for playing!
Ummm... yeah... "logic'
I cited a fact. Tex-@ss ranks at, or near the bottom of every quality of life category measured..
You cited subjective gibberish - unless of course you could provide first a definition of what Tex-@ss middle class is, and how it is currently growing "by leaps, and bounds"
Here - Enjoy !!!
http://www.theeagle.com/politics/Report-calls-quality-of-life-in-Texas--abysmal-
K1200.....Quality of life is an opinion and has different meaning to different people. From the look of the link, a huge portion of "quality of life" is given to how much the government spends, but I doubt that it includes tax rates as a positive.
We here prefer the new name...Mexifornia,a province of Mexico!In ten years we will need a passport to go to America!
High school graduation rates are an "opinion"?? Air quality measures are an "opinion", access to prenatal care by pregnant women, is an "opinion"?? Teenage birthrates, are an "opinion"?/
Basically, you're a waste of time....
Simple concepts are just beyond you... Amusingly..
You don't need Macro Economics. You need a Caputos degree-know the difference between an apple and an orange.
KL1200 ! You might be able to read but you don't understand! Mexifornia has great weather but shameless politicians! L.A. is surround by small independent citeis,all of which have mananged and manage to provide simple services like pothole repir,paving streets,utilities that work consistently and any of many ways! InLA ,you can't even rely on your power comimg on a hot day!Streets are never paved,potholes neve fixed.We have one of the highest tax rates in the country,city,county and state.But,we never have enough money because it all goes to union workers and theit bloated salaries,retiement and benefits! The Prison Guard Unions statr out at $72000 with overtime,many make $120,000 to $150,000 per year.They have 3/30 rule for retirement. They wrok 30 years and can retire as young as 50!3 % of their salary is set aside for retirement.Their retire is equal to 90% of their last year income .They are gicen 8 weeks per year in vacation.The unused vacation time can be tacked on to their last years income.They usually have "big" last years income due to overtime and vacation time added to their salary.It is not uncommon for Prison guards to retire with a retirement check of 120% to 150% of their actual paid income!They,along with teachers unions run this state.Nothing gets done without boths' approval! It's damn to populate ,it's all about us!Yes,wwe have a much better living environment!
M,
Didn't you guys just have a Republican governor? (An actor I believe) Republican Legislature? And still you have these problems? Amazing!
"Elliott" "We don't need the government to create more rules and laws, we want them to STOP"
Can you say that whole heartly for all the Anti-Women legislation per state? Small Government my *ss, Republicans want to rule the UTERUS! Look at what that party is up to by state, doesn't make your stomach turn?
KMadd, while the right is known to lean anti abortion, not every conservative is in lock-step with them. Just like not every Dem is in lockstep with being anti Canadian oil pipeline. Having said that, your logic about it being only your body would be akin to saying, if it's a woman's body she should be able to sell it? Might as well make prostitution legal too. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying that most the things the right/left fight about are difficult questions. As passionate as you are about your uterus, there are a great many Catholics that feel the Dem's are stomping on their rights as well. The key is we need a "HOPE AND CHANGE" Leader to work with both sides. Unfortunately we got a "PARTISAN POLITICS AS USUAL" leader in office.
Be well and have a good weekend. And God bless you and yoru uterus! :-)
The abortion issue is unique. Yes we want smaller government, but we believe that all life should be protected. The republicans also infringed on the rights of the slaveholders when they fought to free the slaves. The same thing is happening now. In order to protect the innocent they are taking away the "rights" of a mother to destroy a child.
Mr RPM,
That was a very poor example to equate to health care. Prostitution! Really! You are starting to sound like that Rush guy. What a lame debating point, IMHO!
Also, I didn't know that "Catholics" were the offical religion of the U.S.A. My point being, not all religions are against "contraception" whether for health reasons or whatever. Get over it!
Hope and Change. You can't work with both sides when one side doesn't want too. Sorry, a fact stated over and over by the Republican Parties leadership. I've have not heard the President ever say his number one priority was to make sure Republicans only serve one term. He might like it that way, but he never officially said so. I have never heard where he has refused to listen to all sides concerning governing.
Now you have a good night and God bless your small mind.
Wonderful. The country is in dire shape and these GOP elected candidates are acting like children and fighting about how anything will effect their pockets. With tons of lobbyists passing money under the table for votes, these GOP guys have actually lost the reason why they were elected and to work out the countries issues as responsible officials.
Who do you think got us in this situation in the first place... the personal interests the GOP know-not-all's in the banking/financial business' did it, then they gave the banks billions (because they failed so miserably) which went to bonus's, again for doing such a bad job... what a vicious circle of 1%'ers...
Vote em all out... but then again no one new would be able to do anything different due to the banks and financial institutions run this country - right Federal Reserve?
How is that Democratically fun state of Colorado doing today?
WOW! 7.8% and GROWING an average of 1,000 people each month......
Tell us again how the GOP are at fault, seeing as to the DIMs have had the MAJORITY IN CONGRESS the past 6 YEARS (dating back to the start of the recession, oddly enough)!
This all started with the Reagan/Bush campaigns... yeah, put your life savings in 401k's (didn't we lose a lot over the last 5 years), oil prices have gone up continually - isn't Bush in the oil business and have ties to the Bin Laden family wealth?
All elected officials are a sham - they have no idea as to what to do to fix things... and if you don't think they are lining their pockets and spending our hard earned money frivilously, then you are naive.
Trivia: Did you know that George H.W. Bush was in Dallas the day JFK was murdered and left that afternoon in a hurry. Then became CIA Director...
Pete.....and even with losing all that money, young people would be better of with their own optional account like Bush wanted. Of course that might make some people rich, so the democrats opposed it. Better to have everyone poor and dependent on the government instead of letting some people get rich while other don't.
You have the dimocraps confused with the republicans! Check your facts! I think you will find out that it was the dimocraps whgo gave 35 billion to GM.The demicraps gave away all the monies to the banks and other financial institutions! READ!
The people that idea makes rich are called brokers.
maso98-the bank bail out was all Bush-remember-both Senators McCain and Obama voted for it. Sec. of Treasury Paulson demanded no transparency-how dare the commoners know where their money went. Paulson was former CEO of Goldman Sachs one of the largest beneficiaries of the deal because AIG was also bailed out and they were into Goldman Sachs for major bucks. This deal showed that both parties cater to the banks and especially feared those "too big to Fail"
PAF,
Still selling that "privatzaion" of SS. It could have gone just the opposite, people could have lost everything in the market crash. Many did, 3-4 trillion dollars worth. That could have put some people on welfare, or worse. So I'm glad somebody opposed it. Could of had allot of people more dependent on government than currently.
As a Staunch Republican, as well as a Hoosier, I won't be voting in favor of either Mourdock OR Lugar, this time around. Mourdock's record in "serving the Public" has been abyssmal, and Lugar has has been flooding my Mailbox with expensive mailings trying to convince me of it (he would've been better served -not- trying to convince me of things I already know). I like Dick Lugar... always have. But I think the old guy is losing it. Pandering to the nutzoid Teabaggers isn't going to win Indiana this time around.
I'm going with Donneley. As the proverbial 'loose cannon', Romney will never get my Vote... as Conservative as I am, I pray for an Obama Landslide, come November. The GOP has, apparently, lost all touch with the Real World, and richly deserves to lose, given their kooky, radical-Right stance in this Election year.
Tell us again how "staunch" a Republican you are, the GOP candidate bashing, and hope of Obama's landslide states otherwise.......
TROLL!
The only one out of touch with the "real world" is the duffus in office and his wife that spends over $740,000 on a taxpayer funded vacation to Spain in 2010.........
That's the problem the republican party is facing. They have fractured the party, lost some of their old-time moderate base, and are trying to do too much too soon, so they accomplish nothing. I wonder how many long-term democrats will slide over to the republican party? In terms of party solidity, the democrats have it.
I am a conservative and I agree with bill. Just like democrats shouldn't resort to trumping up the costs the Bush wars, we shouldn't trump up Obama's vacation costs.
You are a staunch Dimocrap! There is no way a "staunch republican" would or could vote for Berrie! I've read your other comments on different threads and ,my man, you are not a republican,unless you are talking about "republican" as used by the Marxist 100 yerars ago1
Really mas whatever! Why, because he's not hateful like you. Doesn't name call like you. Maybe it's because he can think for himself, something it seems you lack the capability to do! LOL!
Whether Republican or Democrat, Lugar has fed too long at the public trough. We need term limitations. It's absurd that he's been an elected official since 1964.
Lugar should retire. 36 years is too long.
Thank you for your service. Now go enjoy your great-grandchildren before you croak.
Robert Byrd reelected at 92! Dimocrap!
Ever since the 2006 congressional elections when the Democrats took over both houses, the deficet has more then doubled. Social Security and Medicare are now bleeding money, More people on food stamps, and growing at alarming numbers. Obama had complete control of the Government for 2 years and made things worse. He could have passed anything he wanted with Both houses of Congress in Democratic control. People are worried about SS and MC, we will not have them as there will be no money in the system. As with Bonne Frank, and many others in congress that have been there for far too many years, they should let others serve. One thing if the Tea Party can get some financial responsibilty in Congress, then maybe SS and MC will still be around. Someone has to be the adult and learn to say "no" to all these public give-a-ways.
300Michael- when I went to school I was taught to look for connections and context. Not sure what they taught you but apparently not much.
Does it ever enter any of your heads that the Great Recession may be a factor in the deficit? Bush's deficit was all his own choice. Reagans deficit was his own choice.
Obama is reacting to the mess left behind when Bush left office.
And where did the money 6 Trillion Dollars Go, that Obama created? He is trying to stop all forms of Coal, Gas, Oil, productions in favor of Solar, Wind and Geothermal. Which can only supply less then 10% of our current (depression) needs. Even with the wars Bush deficet increased 3 trillion dollars (8 years). Obama has twice that in only 4 years (last years is projected) Obama took over a 7.8% unemployment, It hasn't been that low since the day he took over. Of couse if you omit the people who just quit looking for jobs, then we may see that number one day again.
Reagan's deficit was his own choice yet all the spending bills were written by democrats. The two worst years of Bush deficits were written by democrats. They had some choice. Obama had a choice as well. He didn't have to try to spend our future for short term gains. He could have been responsible and kept government at historical levels instead of the current record levels.
300 michael- please please please check some facts. Bush NEVER NEVER NEVER put the wars on the budget and medicare part d was off budget. So the Bush deficit is understated and Obama put the wars and the medicare part d on the budget so his deficit is higher then it should be.
Micheal300! I realize you are only in the 7th grade but your left wing teachers are doing you a disservice by not teaching you,at least, the truth!
let the civil war begin within the RepubliCON party and may it be another 30 year war
Obama/Biden 2012
Clinton/clinton 2016
Clinton/clinton 2020
Cuomo/biden Jr 2024
God Forbide! The Clintons are the ones that need to retire!
How can Romney be considerd right wing???? He is about a much of a Democrat as you can get and be allowed into the Republican side of the isle. If Obama wins we all (tax payers) loose. As this country can not afford 4 more years of his socialist government ideas. It is a sad day when the most Capitalist place is Hong Kong.
MR RPM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS NO BUISNESS telling women what they can and cannot do a RELIGIOUS organization has NO buisness getting involved in political issues at all. UNDER no circumstances should laws be made based on a religious point of view as religion has no buisness being involved in politics. I'm transgendered currently male wanting to get on hormones and such the conservatives and religious morons have no right trying to tell me how to live my life or that I'm wrong. I despise anyone that tries to tell someone else what to do with their body. For the record I do think prostitution should be made legal as long as they also have to get regular medical check ups pay taxes on their profits and such. But yes I have no sympathy for the catholic church they have no rights when it comes to politics and should have to pay for medicines and treatments just like any other employer their views are wrong and as far as I'm concerned evil, why evil because their views are anchient and do not hold women to the same value as men.
First, they have the same right of free speech that you are using to tell them that they are wrong. So they have every right to say that you are wrong. Part of religion is establishing right and wrong. The problem comes into play they they want to prevent you from living your life. If they are preventing you from doing what you want, then you have every right to gripe. If you are trying to force them to pay for something they don't want, then they have every right to gripe. You are essentially comdemning the church for forcing their beliefs on you, yet you seem to be advocating forcing your beliefs on them.
Study the Constitution. The Chirch has every right to get involved with politics. the Govenment has not right to get involved with Religious matters in the Chirch. The chirch has every right to not offer services that are aginst their beliefs. Just as the person has the right not to apply for that chirch job. I believe you have the right to do with your body, even if it is against chirch teachings. But you shouldn't expect the chirch to pay for you drugs, operationns, etc. As a note if a prostitute infects a client with a disease, who would pay for the crime? Since most diseases can have a lag time between being able to spread it, before it is detected. As for Women, they have the choice to say and do with their bodies, at least until another life is involved. Why would a person be charged with murder, if say he shoots a pregnet woman, killing the baby, and she recovers. (normally he would be arrestd for attempted murder). But she can go to Planned Parenthood (misnamed) and get an abortion with no crime charged. (from her perspective, if she wants the baby it is a crime commetted, if she doesn't want the baby no crime.).
Tiffany/Micheal! I want both of you to do just as I say! Stop what you are doing,check the wiring and tin foil in your caps,take your meds and lay down and take a nappy! I'll watch for the Amadrillians while you sleep! Nothong will happen while tyou sleep!
We will soon find out if 2010 has any staying power, or if it was just a fluke of low voter turnout. For me, any candidate endorsed by Palin is not a candidate I would want to vote for. That lady did more to hurt the republican party than any democrat in history. Why would they even take note of who she endorses, she is politically irrelevant.
For me, any candidate that is unwilling to attemp to deal with our problems and try to balanced the budget is one I would not vote for. At least Palin would have tried to do that. She would be better than half of what we have in there.
You really think so? In all honesty, don't you think she was a contributing factor to McCain's loss? I was undecided up until the last minute, and in the end I just couldn't get past her hair tosses and winks. I think the republicans brought her in to get the female vote and it backfired. McCain would have got my vote with any other vp candidate because I thought he was a class act.
Palin? Palin? The campaign personnel have leaked enough about her knowledge and personality to know we lucked out when she didn't win. Hollywood would be a good place for her. Attractive and a prima dona. We need more conservatives in hollywood and she could memorize the lines if they weren't too difficult or too long.
PAF,
Palin as POTUS? Really, Palin! You have definitely lost any credibility in your posts with me. I will not debate, comment or take any stock in what you say from this point on, except to criticize if needed. Have a good night.
Indiana needs to elect someone that will represent the middle class and the republican party has not been doing it.
And democrats sending jobs overseas and destroying medicare and Social Security is good for the middle class?
Really! Why has Luger been reelected for 35 years! I guess,all the people are just plain stupid!
No GM bailout would have been good for the middle class? It seems strange that you would be against the Ryan budget but i agree that it would destroy Social Security and Medicare.
Doesn't it do your heart good to see the Republicans rambling and scrambling here to try and save their a$$e$.To late,you stumbled and blundered from one day to the next for far to long.LMAO now, and will be LMFAO come November. You can spin it anyway you want, or come up with more lame arguments, but it won't help.
We always have the same lame argument and dmeocrats never seem to be able to overcome it. If they didn't resort to buying votes and distorting the truth, the democrats party would be extinct. Too bad most people are lazy and don't take the time or energy to think for themselves.
Rich ! Check out the latest polls! Yea,everyone is tired but they are tired of Berrie and his one follower,BIG UNIONS!He helped them at GM,he hleped them with nor signing the treatioes with Colombia three years ago,he helps them everyday by hiring over 200,000 new union backed federal employees;all Berrie cares about are the unions! He defied and usurped past federal laws and court ruling to put unions ahead of GM bond holders. The treaty with Colombia has been prepared for three years but Berrie has refused to sign the legislation until Colombia agreed to allow unions and thier developement in Colombia!He didn't care about Aerican when he refused to sign the bill that would have allowed the pipeline to run from Canada to Texas.He only cars about his Marxist friends in the union movement! Unions have always been close to and embraced by the communist movement! I cant' see any difference here!
Put-baby-it is the Republican party that goes lock step behind the nominee. How can you explain Romney-a Mormon corporate raider who talks down to his electorate and has a pro life liberal history-as a candidate. Really? Really? The fundamentalists christians are voting for a Mormon. The right to lifers are voting for an ex governor who is on record as pro life. Romney Care is the model for Obama Care and the Tea Party is voting for him? Too bad most Republicans are lazy and don't think for themselves.
The GOP/TEA/Dumb FUX NEWS party is a mess.
They can work with each other let alone the rest of the country.
Look at what has happened since they took back the House of Reps in 2010. nothing.
Better yet, look at what they did when enjoying complete control of all branches of Government from 2000 to 2006! Historians are calling it the "Lost Decade".
Face it folks, the only goal they set out to accomplish in the last 3 years was to, Make Obama a one-term President"
Now, they aren't even going to get that done...
Obama was doing that on his own. The republican years of 2000-2006 are far better than what we have now. Democrats have had control of a majority of government since then and it isn't pretty. If you care about kids you will vote for Anyone But Obama.
Well someting has happened, the Democrats have not been able to spend as freely as they have. That is why Obama has been issueing all those Excectuive orders, and appointing all those Czars. The House has written a budget (the first in 3 years,( the Democratic Senate hasn't done it since 08.). Obama may be able to do what the South failed to do, over 150 year ago.
Anyone but Obama...LOL, talk about a lost cause...
There a lot of uber left wing ,dimocrap party and big union folk on this thread today! I see you are one f them! Your mommy called and told me to telll you she isn't doing the laundry you threw on the kitchen floor! She's hoping OWS will start up again this spring,just to get you out of her house! How's that new ipad working out?You are just a OMMH jerk(OccupyMyMommysHouse)!
300-you're gonna rise again? Unlikely.
Newbook! They are calling the two years that the dimocraps controlled Congress ,between 2008 and 2010,as the lost century!
I personally believe that, both sides of the isle, when they hit 72, should take heed to that old song "hit the road Jack, and don't you come round no more". At 72, the lounge chairs get warn to fit their butts and cronyism replaces hard work and dedication. We need fresh faces and fresh ideas, especially now. Sadly these old timers can't seem to hear the fat lady singing.
That's a good idea. Mine is more like....two terms in government, and you're out. By that time, you're able to collect your lifetime of free special medical attention, pension (although the rest of us don't get that, anymore) and all their other bennies. So just GET OUT and let us start moving forward again, congress.
Not my state, but I see no problem with the old fa^rt being put to pasture and the new GOP candidate winning. Anybody who believes a democrat will win anything in November is drinking way too much kool aid.
Can someone explain to me why democrats are so stupid?
Yes I can.
There is no known cure for stupid and once infected, no hope but an early demise, LOL
Alive,
Limited cranium space, underdeveloped, over the last 100 years, from lack of use. This condition is counterbalanced, however, by their enlarged bleeding hearts.
Can you be more specific? Most democrats align themselves with the working party, not necessarily the stupid party. It's the good old blue collar work ethic. That hasn't changed much, but the republican party is reinventing itself, and not in a good way.
Funny posts from dumb FUX NEWS fans...
Why is George W Bush not helping your cause this election season???
I guess you'll be deciding who should be President this year by determining who you want to ahve a beer with, huh...and it ain't Romney...
Inbreds!
If you need someone to explain why someone is stupid........look in the mirror for stupid.
Yes, Alive1960. David Limbaugh can and does in his book Bankrupt. Check it out.
300 Michael I vehmenntly disagree with you we should have a very strong seperation of church and state. ANY church that starts talking politics should immedeatley lose it's tax exempt status and yes the church should have to pay for any medical procedure that any other private company should have to pay for for their employees there is no reason to treat them differently they need to change their archaic and idiotic views. The church may have the right of free speech but that does not give them the right to deny procedures to women who work for them. NO law should be based on religious views, nor should any canidate bring up their religious views any candidate who starts talking about religious values is in my mind an idiot who is not worth voting for as they clearly cannot think for themselves. Also I still say gay and lesbian marriage should not only be legal but any church that does not recognize it as legal should lose tax exempt status, but that's just me because I'm sick of social conservatives and persecution of different people being allowed simply because it's based on religion.
Tiffany1 says:
Tiffany1 will apparently NOT be voting for the Obama/Biden ticket this fall since VP Biden says:
Joe, I hate to tell you that your comments on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher just lost you Tiffany's Democratic vote.
And repukes are all religious wack jobs who want to cram their limited idea of morality on the rest of us
Jesus and Reagan wouldn't survive the scrutiny, narrow mindedness and anger of dumb FUX NEWS nation now...
At least the Ray-gun would have a fighting chance.
Jesus, unfortunately, "regulated", the "money changers" - which is strictly against teapublican doctrine..
Oh you are wrong ! Jesus was definately for a separation of state and government! Remember,at his trial! "that which belongs to Ceasar is Ceasars' and that which belongs to God,is gods'!"
mas-he also wanted to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison, the beatitudes -blessed are.....
He would definitely be labeled a socialist today by the right. Share the wealth? Help the homeless? Feed the hungry? sounds like a lefty.