That’s the name of a Twitter account which has been active throughout the Indiana primary, and it certainly hit the mark:
Lots of telephone calls were flying between politicians on election night.
Treasurer Richard Mourdock said he has received numerous calls congratulating him on his win in the Republican primary election over Sen. Richard Lugar.
Among them was former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the party’s presumptive presidential nominee.
Mourdock said he missed Romney’s Tuesday night call, tried to call him back Wednesday and had to settle for Romney’s voice mail.
Also calling were former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and businessman Herman Cain, both former GOP presidential candidates; former Vice President Dan Quayle; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and a slew of other senators.
One senator, though, had not called as of late Thursday: Lugar.
During his victory speech, Mourdock went out of his way to lead the crowd in a round of applause for Lugar’s years of public service.
And I have no doubt that Mourdock will continue to unify the Indiana Republican Party.
But Lugar’s conduct post-defeat is demonstrating the wisdom of the voters in retiring him.
Meanwhile, Mourdock’s money bomb is going well, but more is needed to close the gap with Democratic candidate Joe Donnelly. Contribute here.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Again, Lugar makes a perfect…and irrefutable…argument for term limits.
We were never intended to have professional, career pols who thought of their position as a sinecure for life.
There are MILLIONS of Americans of great ability, experience in life, and heart to serve ACCORDING to the Constitution.
This case is actually on the side of an argument against term limits, because Lugar lost in a normal primary.
I don’t disagree with term limits, but this is not the case for their supporters to highlight.
You’re making the mistake of reasoning from results.
Which, statistically, were an ANOMALY here.
The argument is that there should NEVER be a question about turning out a long-tenured incumbent, and having to face the kind of arrogance and power exhibited here.
It should be part of the fabric of politics that NOBODY will stay long enough to get THIS out of touch.
No, I’m just pointing out that the results don’t support your ‘irrefutable’ argument. In fact they provide ammunition to the other side.
“Again, Lugar makes a perfect…and irrefutable…argument for term limits.”
See…???
LUGAR makes the argument.
NOT the election results.
Goodness…!!!
But did Mourdock call Sarah Palin? That is the million dollar question. Did he call and thank Sarah Palin for a 17 point bump? This enquiring mind wants to know.
That is an important question. Was this a bottom up victory for the Tea Party or yet another example of an establishment Republican using the Tea Party only to victory and then flipping once elected?
Now I have to go back to work while unemployed full time troll Raggie slimes me again.
yes, this is coming up more and more. Renee Elmers has some ‘splaining to do.
http://www.moccasincreekminutemen.com/2011/04/renee-elmers-dissapoints-again/
Mourdock is not part of the establishment. The only office he has held is Treasurer.
Or call the professor? I’m sure this blog alone constituted a 1%, perhaps 2% shift. If not, it certainly accounted for some of the funds raised by Mourdock.
It doesn’t matter that much to me, if he feels he has to behave a certain way to win the general and actually implement these conservative policies, more power to him.
We will be watching though. He had better never forget who brought him to the dance.
That is the big question in my mind. We have seen candidates court us, and then leave the dance with someone else.
Mr. Mourdock, you got help from across the country because of Sarah-if you want it to hang out with you to November, treat her nice!
I’m an Indiana Mourdock contributor and I can tell you that Mourdock’s been pretty principled so far. From the very beginning he says that his Republicanism predates the Tea Party and that he was a principled conservative before and the addition of the Tea Party to the party mix doesn’t change what he believes in. He says he respects it and wants to work with it to accomplish a limited government within the confines of the Constitution.
If that’s establishment, let’s have more of it.
Sara Palin knew what she was doing when she endorsed this guy.
Well, he’s been on Mark Levin’s show a number of times. Levin is, if anything, even more anti-establishment than Palin.
He did give thanks to Sarah on the Levin show. He may of called but Sarah don’t need that call…she got a pound of RINO flesh. Most of the all, the conservative base in Indiana knows!
How do you know he didn’t? And it sounds like everyone was calling Mourdock, Did Palin? Love her to pieces but I bet she doesn’t give a damn if he called her or not. He told her when she endorsed him that he was grateful. He doesn’t need to grovel.
Read down in that Indystar Op/Ed. They are full of scorn and condescension towards the voters who ejected the worthless Lugar.
I guess Rush was correct when he said that the newspaper industry was the only business who continually told it’s customers that they’re ‘wrong’.
Just as bad as people unwilling to work, feeling they are entitled to nanny-state benefits for life paid by their working fellow citizens, are those politicians who feel they are entitled to their elected position for life.
The arrogance, in both cases, is just breathtaking.
I’m sure Mr. Mourdock didn’t hear from John McCain and Eric Cantor either. But, the bonus phone call was from Governor Romney.
Kudos again, to the Tea Party, for their hard work.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/14/poll-puts-walker-up-nine-in-recall-fight/
I think maybe we do best when we support Conservatives…where we find them.
I think we also have a duty to help them remember who they are.
The meat grinder that is DC works very efficiently, but it obeys the rules that control power. We have to know by now that it WILL corrupt even very good people. So, we also know they NEED our continuing ACTIVISM, and our in-put.
We also should repeal the 17th Amendment and let the governors appoint the Senators-they should work for the State and not for themselves.
The Senate should not be a sinecure.
Agreed. The 17th was a big mistake.
Jonah Goldberg had some very on-point things to say about giving the yuts the vote, as well.
Repealing the 17th wouldn’t let governors appoint senators; they didn’t do that before the 17th was passed. Now if you’re proposing replacing the 17th with a brand new system, rather than going back to the broken system that prevailed before, I’d support that. What I’d actually like to see is the Senate being replaced with a body made up of the state governors themselves; since they’re too busy to do the work themselves they could appoint proxies, but those proxies would serve at the pleasure of their respective governors, and would vote as they’re told, much like countries’ representatives to the UN do.
I’m not surprised at Lugar’s behavior, and if Hatch loses, he’ll be just as nasty.
I used to think they were classy gentlemen; now I’m not so sure that they ever had any.
Arlen Spector said the “cannibals” are out to get them.
I guess now, The Tea Party, is the bad guys.
Senator Specter needs to be at the retirement home in a big way. Maybe Lugar and Hatch can join him.
I always say you really get to know a persons true character when you divorce them.
[…] Sore Lugar: “Lugar’s conduct post-defeat is demonstrating the wisdom of the voters in retiring […]
We all just know Lugar’s going to make a third party run and totally give this seat to the Democrats, right? The man is unconscionable
Indiana Code 3-8-1-5.5 Candidates defeated in primary or nomination process; ineligibility
Sec. 5.5. (a) Except as provided in IC 3-13-1-19 and IC 3-13-2-10 for filling a vacancy on a ticket, a person who:
(1) is defeated in a primary election;
(2) appears as a candidate for nomination at a convention and is defeated;
(3) files a declaration of candidacy for nomination by a county, city, or town convention and is defeated; or
(4) files a declaration of candidacy for nomination by a caucus conducted under IC 3-13-1 or IC 3-13-2 and is defeated;
is not eligible to become a candidate for the same office in the next general or municipal election.
Based upon which, Lugar cannot run against Mourdock this fall, period.
[…] As a friend, I say this to you: Direct your money and energies to battleground Senate races (e.g., Richard Mourdock in Indiana). This in not a battle worth fighting, given the field that is being […]
Thanks for keeping us updated on true conservatives running for office across the country, Professor. It helps me, at least, know where to send my meager campaign dollars.
Hit Mourdock’s donation site yesterday.
THREE CHEERS FOR INDIANA’S SORE LOSER LAW!!!
Lugar had all the makings of a Murkowski or Crist, but had no option to run as an independent thanks to IN’s “sore loser” law.
We should be pushing for similar laws in AK, FL and every other state that doesn’t have one.
If you run in a primary, and lose, you should NOT have the option to run in the general election on another Party line, or as an independent, or even as a write in candidate.
Murkowski owes her re-election more to Democrats than she does to Republicans. Conservative R’s voted for Miller, ousting Murkowski in the primary. She the ran as an independent write in and won with only 39% of the vote to Miller’s 35%, the Democrat in the race pulled only 23%. In other words: she won re-election by winning the RINO vote and the Democrat crossover voter, while the Conservatives voted for Miller.
Good riddance. Hoosiers voted smart this year.