Tomorrow, Hoosiers will choose the GOP nominee for the next Senate election in Indiana. Because RINO Senator Dick Lugar (who doesn’t even LIVE in Indiana and is therefore totally ineligible to vote or run there; he sold his home in 1977 and moved to DC) is in danger of losing that primary and therefore his seat, the RINO establishment in Washington and its propaganda arm, the National RINO Review, are deadly afraid and are propagandizing for Lugar. Here, for example, is the garbage that NR writer Brian Bolduc, a well-known RINO and Lugar sympathizer, has written:
“At the dinner, Lugar makes his case in front of the 60 or so attendees. It consists of three strands: One, he’s cast a lot of votes — a lot of votes against President Obama. “I voted 42 times against every vestige of Obamacare,” he tells the crowd, referring to the endless procedural votes in the Senate. And Republican delaying tactics forced the Democrats to engage in 30 hours of debate on the legislation, another unsung contribution to the conservative cause, he argues.
Three, he talks up his efforts in behalf of nuclear disarmament. He tells the story of the Nunn-Lugar program and then notes, “At a time of instability in the Russian government, we had better be very active.” In other words, don’t change horses midstream.”
What utter garbage! Of course, it could’ve been published only by the NRO, the official press organ of the Republican Establishment. Nuclear disarmament is a completely misbegotten, irredeemably flawed, suicidal, cretinous policy which should not be pursued. It basically results in deep cuts in America’s nuclear arsenal while other countries increase THEIR arsenals and thus come closer and closer, every day, to achieving nuclear parity with, and eventually nuclear superiority over, the US. Nuclear disarmament only makes the US military much weaker and America much less safe. It has not resulted, and will never result, in any serious cuts in the nuclear arsenals of China, North Korea, or Pakistan, nor will the nuclear disarmament of the US secure Russian, Chinese, North Korean, or Pakistani nuclear weapons; America’s disarmament has, and will have, no effect with whether their weapons are secure or not.
All of Lugar’s nuclear disarmament initiatives have only made America much less secure and much weaker, while strengthening America’s enemies. Furthermore, the New START treaty that Lugar enthusiastically supported forces ONLY the US to make deep cuts in its nuclear arsenal, while Russia is permitted to increase its, because it was below New START ceilings when the treaty was signed. Furthermore, the treaty has such a weak, pathetic verification protocol that it will be hard to verify whether Russia is complying with the treaty at all or not. If that weren’t bad enough, the treaty, at Russia’s insistence, includes onerous limitations on missile defense systems. Yet, Lugar was the chief Republican supporter of this treasonous treaty.
Instability in Russia? That’s laughable, and only a totally ignorant person could say that. Since 2000, Russia has been continually ruled, in a one-person manner, by Vladimir Putin. He will remain Russia’s de facto tsar for decades to come – probably until he dies of old age.
Besides foreign affairs, it should be noted that Lugar only OCCASSIONALLY voted against Obama’s policies, and most of the times, he votes in a liberal way, as evidenced by his sordid ACU ratings. But even if he were to vote with Republicans 90% of the time, that would still prove nothing, because wolves in sheep’s clothing frequently pretend they agree with us conservatives on 90% of the issues to gain our trust on the other 10%. The 10% that counts.
Lugar has voted FOR Obama’s most important initiatives: New START and the nominations of Supreme Court appointees Sonia Sotomayor and (the entirely unqualified) Elena Kagan, both of whom are strident liberals who want to amend the Constitution by judicial fiat. And that, by itself, completely disqualifies Lugar.
Richard Mourdock needs to use these facts against Lugar.
“Mourdock is not a flamethrower, nor is he an extremist. He is probably nominally more conservative than Lugar who might be a pragmatist in seeking accomodation with Democrats, but the differences on issues between them are not large.
The primary attraction of Mourdock appears to be the fact that he is not Dick Lugar. After six terms, this may be understandable – as is the sad fact that there is no room any longer for pragmatism in either party.”
Actually, the differences between Mourdock and Lugar are huge and are underlined on Mourdock’s campaign website. The biggest one of them, however, which is not listed o that site, is that Mourdock is a traditional Republican conservative who wants to go to Washington to FIGHT for conservative principles, while Lugar is a strident liberal who wants to advance liberal policies across the board; in other words, Lugar is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and not a pragmatist. No, Mr Moran, the problem is not a lack of “room for pragmatism” in the GOP, the issue here is that Republicans are finally developing a ZERO TOLERANCE principle towards RINOs and are applying it to Lugar.
Thus, Fort Wayne mayor Paul Hanke lied when he claimed:
“”It would be a real loss for the state,” former Fort Wayne Mayor Paul Helmke said. “A loss for the state, a loss for the country and a loss for northeast Indiana.”
No, Mayor, it would not be a loss at all. It would be a blessing, a great victory. Lugar will not be missed by anyone but RINOs like you.
Good riddance, Dick!