TEA Party Going After Luger

[Hotdoger]

Not really. We got Coats because the half a dozen other candidates that were more conservative split the conservative vote amongst them instead of unifying behind one or two that would have pummeled Coats. Stutzman and Hostetler combined got over 50% of the vote, while Coats couldn't even get 40%. It was quite clear that most Hoosiers DIDN'T want the Republican RINO candidate.





Not sure it's evolution if it never changes. But, yeah, we do tend to get screwed by the party machines, don't we?

Problem is cross overs from the democrats in the primaries. They usually pick up Republican ballotts and vote for the RINOS.
Plenty of counties in Indiana have very few Democrats on the ballott, like Hamilton and Boone.

I am for closed primaries.

 

[Expat]

Sorry, we're not allowed to vote in the primaries. A vote in the primaries is a promise to vote for a majority of that party in the general and most of us aren't going to do that. You republicans are on your own. It's your house, clean it up.

Oh, now come on Expat. You know it's much more fun to throw stones than attempt to engage in the governing process. If they were actually attempt to get rid of the Dickster and failed then they would not have Republicans to kick around. If they were successful they would have to take ownership of their choice. Who wants to do that?



If you won't do anything to rectify the situation than why stir the pot?

You know, given the quote above yours, it does make one wonder if they would rather complain about life than do something about it. I guess they would rather continue to vote for someone that gets excited with 5% of the vote so they can maintain their mantle of philosophical purity than actually try to make a difference. It seems like getting Lugar out would be a priority for most gun loving Hoosiers.

 

[mrjarrell]

Problem is cross overs from the democrats in the primaries. They usually pick up Republican ballotts and vote for the RINOS.
Plenty of counties in Indiana have very few Democrats on the ballott, like Hamilton and Boone.

I am for closed primaries.

And they should be closed. The primaries are strictly party business. In a better world we wouldn't even have primaries. The candidates would be chosen in convention by the members of the parties and it wouldn't cost the tax payers a penny. Let the parties pick up all the costs of renting out the Convention Center or the Field House for their convention.

 

[mrjarrell]

You know, given the quote above yours, it does make one wonder if they would rather complain about life than do something about it. I guess they would rather continue to vote for someone that gets excited with 5% of the vote so they can maintain their mantle of philosophical purity than actually try to make a difference. It seems like getting Lugar out would be a priority for most gun loving Hoosiers.

Getting him out is of interest to libertarians, but the primaries are your party business. We'll likely run our own candidate against him (chosen in convention, not funded by tax payers) and we'll likely vote for that candidate, not your gop candidate.

 

[Expat]

And they should be closed. The primaries are strictly party business. In a better world we wouldn't even have primaries. The candidates would be chosen in convention by the members of the parties and it wouldn't cost the tax payers a penny. Let the parties pick up all the costs of renting out the Convention Center or the Field House for their convention.

I would support that. But it doesn't seem likely. The sheep find this very democratic and they love anything that has the democracy thing going on...

Getting him out is of interest to libertarians, but the primaries are your party business. We'll likely run our own candidate against him (chosen in convention, not funded by tax payers) and we'll likely vote for that candidate, not your gop candidate.

But once again you want to talk about the way things should be. You have to play the cards that you get dealt in life. We have a completely open primary that allows all kinds of shenanigans. We all need to deal with that reality and do the best we can to get a good result.

 

[mrjarrell]

I would support that. But it doesn't seem likely. The sheep find this very democratic and they love anything that has the democracy thing going on...



But once again you want to talk about the way things should be. You have to play the cards that you get dealt in life. We have a completely open primary that allows all kinds of shenanigans. We all need to deal with that reality and do the best we can to get a good result.

The reality is that there will be a 3rd party candidate on the ballot and I, (along with other libertarians) don't have to participate in another parties business. That's the hand that gets dealt in Indiana and that's the one I'll choose to play. Not yours or anyone else's. I'm not hoping for a "good" result. I'm shooting for the best result, a libertarian.
It would be unethical, as well as mostly illegal, for me and other libertarians to vote in your primary. We could be called out for it and have our ballots declared invalid. Not worth it. You guys take care of things from your end and we'll take care of things from our side.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The reality is that there will be a 3rd party candidate on the ballot and I, (along with other libertarians) don't have to participate in another parties business. That's the hand that gets dealt in Indiana and that's the one I'll choose to play. Not yours or anyone else's. I'm not hoping for a "good" result. I'm shooting for the best result, a libertarian.
It would be unethical, as well as mostly illegal, for me and other libertarians to vote in your primary. We could be called out for it and have our ballots declared invalid. Not worth it. You guys take care of things from your end and we'll take care of things from our side.

What exactly is "mostly illegal"? Is that like "slightly pregnant" or "partially impaired"? Seriously, goofy.

According to Indiana statute, party affiliation is not registered. You can vote for whatever party you choose in the primary, regardless of who you may or may not choose to vote for in the general election.

IN.gov: Home

So if you want to it's mostly legal to get in the game. Just show up on primary day and check a box that doesn't have Dick in it. It's fun. Or you can just sit back and complain on the Interzweb. But just admit you don't want to try to be part of the solution. It's OK.

 

[CarmelHP]

He has good intentions and honestly wants to help people and make things better. If you ever met him, and spoke to him in person, he's very likeable.

He's just goes about it all wrong. I completely disagree with him on just about every issue, but he's not an evil person or dishonest.

I've met him many times. He's just like B. Evans, sweet as pie and smiling all the time. I disagree that he's not dishonest, he pretends to be pro-gun and conservative when in Indiana and is demonstrably not when he's voting in D.C. People have to get over this "likeable" thing. I've spoken to the late Ted Kennedy at reception and such while I worked in D.C. and he's very "likeable" too, but he was also a damn menace to guns and freedom when he was sitting in the Senate. Lugar and Jimmy Carter and Teddy and Barack might make fine next door neighbors, but I don't want any of them running the country.

 

[mrjarrell]

IC is pretty clear. No-one wants to perjure themselves.

IC 3-10-1-6 Eligible voters Sec. 6. A voter may vote at a primary election: (1) if the voter, at the last general election, voted for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election; or (2) if the voter did not vote at the last general election, but intends to vote at the next general election for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election; as long as the voter was registered as a voter at the last general election or has registered since then. and
IC 3-10-1-9
Challenging voter
Sec. 9. A voter in a precinct may challenge a voter or person who offers to vote at a primary election. The challenged person may not vote unless the challenged person:
(1) is registered;
(2) makes:
(A) an oral or a written affirmation under IC 3-10-12; or
(B) an affidavit:
(i) that the challenged person is a voter of the precinct; or
(ii) required under IC 3-10-11 if the voter declares that the voter is entitled to vote under IC 3-10-11; and
(3) either:
(A) at the last general election voted for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party for whose candidates the challenged person proposes to vote in the primary election and intends to vote for the regular nominees of the political party at the next general election; or
(B) if the challenged person did not vote at the last general election, intends to vote at the next general election for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election.

Indiana Code 3-10-1

 

[88GT]

Sorry, we're not allowed to vote in the primaries. A vote in the primaries is a promise to vote for a majority of that party in the general and most of us aren't going to do that. You republicans are on your own. It's your house, clean it up.

Correction: you choose not to. Why is a matter of debate. But as Expat has mentioned, your (and others) continual contradictory behavior of *****ing and whining about how it is while simultaneously doing nothing of practical value to change it makes one wonder whether you'd rather maintain the status quo for your own perverse pleasure of bashing the "not as perfect as Libertarian" conservatives/Republicans. I've stated multiple times on this forum that if the Libertarian Party really wanted to make a difference in the representation and type of people we send to the state house and Washington, they'd work within the system rather than thumbing their nose at it. Their repeated refusal to do so smacks of self-righteous superiority complex and a monstrous lack of concern for anything beyond their own adherence to party line.

You can spin it however you want. You can sit sit on your couch at the end of the election day, smugly gloating over how pure and perfect your were in your exercise of the right of franchise. You can cast disparaging glances at others who just aren't quite smart enough to see the world as you do. But at the end of that day, where has it left you? Your candidate still hasn't won, and by splitting the vote between those who vote on the right, you and others have basically ensured exactly the opposite of what you claim to strive so strongly.

I'll never, ever condemn a man for voting his conscience. But I have no patience for hypocrisy and holier-than-thou arrogance disguised as "voting my conscience." You do what you want. But have the strength of personal integrity to recognize that others might see the solution to the problem a little differently.

The irony is that I would love to see more libertarian-leaning candidates on the ballots and making victory speeches. But history has proven time and again that if they run under their own label, it will never happen.

Problem is cross overs from the democrats in the primaries. They usually pick up Republican ballotts and vote for the RINOS.
Plenty of counties in Indiana have very few Democrats on the ballott, like Hamilton and Boone.

I am for closed primaries.

Yes, that's a problem too. But not in the Coats election. If the state Republican organization hadn't had a vested interested in running Coats we could have had a conservative candidate. But the good ol' boys club that political party machines are generally makes it an up hill battle at best.

My only problem to closed primaries is that we can't return the favor. I can't recall an election in which I had more fun that the primary of '08 when I voted for Hillary.

 

[88GT]

IC is pretty clear. No-one wants to perjure themselves.

Indiana Code 3-10-1

"Your honor, I saw the light and change my mind....again."

ETA: if they want to control who can and cannot vote in the party primaries, just close the damn things.

 

[mrjarrell]

Correction: you choose not to.

If you don't like the law the way it's written then take it up with your legislators, but don't go around bad mouthing people who choose not to perjure themselves or break election laws. Maybe you're the type of person who sees nothing wrong with being a liar, but there are many of us out here who see a problem with it. I make no bones about being a partisan libertarian voter, so I (and almost every libertarian I know) are ineligible to vote in another parties primary. Add into that that it's also unethical to interfere in what should be another parties internal business and you add another dimension to it.

I choose to not break the law, you can do as you wish.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

If you don't like the law the way it's written then take it up with your legislators, but don't go around bad mouthing people who choose not to perjure themselves or break election laws. Maybe you're the type of person who sees nothing wrong with being a liar, but there are many of us out here who see a problem with it. I make no bones about being a partisan libertarian voter, so I (and almost every libertarian I know) are ineligible to vote in another parties primary. Add into that that it's also unethical to interfere in what should be another parties internal business and you add another dimension to it.

I choose to not break the law, you can do as you wish.

baha baha baha baha

I remember a thread not long ago where you adamently stood on the side of stealing other people's intellectual property. You regularly badmouth our system of government and justice. But given an opportunity to actually participate positively in the political process rather than sit on the sidelines and ***** and moan you claim to steadfastly follow the law. Priceless.

 

[edporch]

I predict the same people who voted for phony conservative Dan Coats, will nominate and re-elect Dick Lugar.

I'm NOT saying don't try to get Lugar out, I'm saying the election of Dan Coats shows the mentality of the majority of those who vote for the Republican candidate.
Too many people are blindly loyal to a political party and would vote for a bucket of s**t if that's who the party insiders decided should be the candidate.

Secondly, as somebody who learned the stupidity of being loyal to a political party at the age of 20, I find it interesting that anybody who says the government should follow the law (i.e. the US Constitution) is automatically said to be a Tea Party member.
Like somehow, I'm (and others) too dumb to be an independent thinking person without having some political party TELL me what I'm supposed to think.

 

[jdmack79]

I don't know if he will be the tea party candidate or not, but our Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock is presumed to be running against Luger.
Richard Mourdock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Richard Mourdock for State Treasurer of Indiana

 

[9mm Bill]

Send him packing.

 

[Tactical Dave]

If he sends me a petition or anything requestion a response maybe I will send him a bag of tea???? An empty one of course so nobody can think I sent some sort of suspicous substance.

 

[irishfan]

Somebody just needs to take Lugar's geritol and genko biloba to cure us of that turd for a senator.

 

[gvbcraig]

If Republican capture 2012 Senate Lugar becomes chairman Foreign Relations Committe

Richard Lugar has become the leader of the rampaging RINOs. Ever since the November electoral repudiation of liberalism, Lugar has voted for the FDA farm takeover, Amnesty for illegals, and co-sponsored the child nutrition law. Lugar also opposed the moratorium on earmarks. He has also been the chief architect of the near confirmation of the START, unilateral disarmament treaty in the Senate. In fact, he is so incorrigible in his quest to carry water for America’s enemies that he even voted against the McCain amendment to the treaty.

It is important to note that on the likelihood that Republicans capture the Senate in 2012, Lugar would become chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Throughout his tenure on the committee, Lugar has given cover for Kerry and the radical left in their support for all of America’s enemies, including Russia, China, North Korea, Syria, Chavez, and the Palestinians. There is a reason why the Latin American thugs recently named several House Republicans on the foreign relations panel whom they view as threats, but mentioned nothing of Dick Lugar. They know that he is in their court. Lugar despises the notion of American exceptionalism, and embraces every precept of moral relativism and globalism. He has nothing in common with Middle America and his Indiana constituents. Dick Lugar is a Kerry Republican who must be defeated in 2012.

 

[ol' trucker]

LUGAR =FAIL!!!