Quote:

---

I would like to comment on the Senate race just concluded and the direction of American politics and the Republican Party. I would reiterate from my earlier statement that I have no regrets about choosing to run for office. My health is excellent, I believe that I have been a very effective Senator for Hoosiers and for the country, and I know that the next six years would have been a time of great achievement. Further, I believed that vital national priorities, including job creation, deficit reduction, energy security, agriculture reform, and the Nunn-Lugar program, would benefit from my continued service as a Senator. These goals were worth the risk of an electoral defeat and the costs of a hard campaign.

Analysts will speculate about whether our campaign strategies were wise. Much of this will be based on conjecture by pundits who don’t fully appreciate the choices we had to make based on resource limits, polling data, and other factors. They also will speculate whether we were guilty of overconfidence.

The truth is that the headwinds in this race were abundantly apparent long before Richard Mourdock announced his candidacy. One does not highlight such headwinds publically when one is waging a campaign. But I knew that I would face an extremely strong anti-incumbent mood following a recession. I knew that my work with then-Senator Barack Obama would be used against me, even if our relationship were overhyped. I also knew from the races in 2010 that I was a likely target of Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and other Super Pacs dedicated to defeating at least one Republican as a purification exercise to enhance their influence over other Republican legislators.

We undertook this campaign soberly and we worked very hard in 2010, 2011, and 2012 to overcome these challenges. There never was a moment when my campaign took anything for granted. This is why we put so much effort into our get out the vote operations.

Ultimately, the re-election of an incumbent to Congress usually comes down to whether voters agree with the positions the incumbent has taken. I knew that I had cast recent votes that would be unpopular with some Republicans and that would be targeted by outside groups.

These included my votes for the TARP program, for government support of the auto industry, for the START Treaty, and for the confirmations of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. I also advanced several propositions that were considered heretical by some, including the thought that Congressional earmarks saved no money and turned spending power over to unelected bureaucrats and that the country should explore options for immigration reform.

It was apparent that these positions would be attacked in a Republican primary. But I believe that they were the right votes for the country, and I stand by them without regrets, as I have throughout the campaign.

From time to time during the last two years I heard from well-meaning individuals who suggested that I ought to consider running as an independent. My response was always the same: I am a Republican now and always have been. I have no desire to run as anything else. All my life, I have believed in the Republican principles of small government, low taxes, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and trade expansion. According to Congressional Quarterly vote studies, I supported President Reagan more often than any other Senator. I want to see a Republican elected President, and I want to see a Republican majority in the Congress. I hope my opponent wins in November to help give my friend Mitch McConnell a majority.

If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it.

This is not conducive to problem solving and governance. And he will find that unless he modifies his approach, he will achieve little as a legislator. Worse, he will help delay solutions that are totally beyond the capacity of partisan majorities to achieve. The most consequential of these is stabilizing and reversing the Federal debt in an era when millions of baby boomers are retiring. There is little likelihood that either party will be able to impose their favored budget solutions on the other without some degree of compromise.

Unfortunately, we have an increasing number of legislators in both parties who have adopted an unrelenting partisan viewpoint. This shows up in countless vote studies that find diminishing intersections between Democrat and Republican positions. Partisans at both ends of the political spectrum are dominating the political debate in our country. And partisan groups, including outside groups that spent millions against me in this race, are determined to see that this continues. They have worked to make it as difficult as possible for a legislator of either party to hold independent views or engage in constructive compromise. If that attitude prevails in American politics, our government will remain mired in the dysfunction we have witnessed during the last several years. And I believe that if this attitude expands in the Republican Party, we will be relegated to minority status. Parties don’t succeed for long if they stop appealing to voters who may disagree with them on some issues.

Legislators should have an ideological grounding and strong beliefs identifiable to their constituents. I believe I have offered that throughout my career. But ideology cannot be a substitute for a determination to think for yourself, for a willingness to study an issue objectively, and for the fortitude to sometimes disagree with your party or even your constituents. Like Edmund Burke, I believe leaders owe the people they represent their best judgment.

Too often bipartisanship is equated with centrism or deal cutting. Bipartisanship is not the opposite of principle. One can be very conservative or very liberal and still have a bipartisan mindset. Such a mindset acknowledges that the other party is also patriotic and may have some good ideas. It acknowledges that national unity is important, and that aggressive partisanship deepens cynicism, sharpens political vendettas, and depletes the national reserve of good will that is critical to our survival in hard times. Certainly this was understood by President Reagan, who worked with Democrats frequently and showed flexibility that would be ridiculed today — from assenting to tax increases in the 1983 Social Security fix, to compromising on landmark tax reform legislation in 1986, to advancing arms control agreements in his second term.

I don’t remember a time when so many topics have become politically unmentionable in one party or the other. Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change. Republican members are now expected to take pledges against any tax increases. For two consecutive Presidential nomination cycles, GOP candidates competed with one another to express the most strident anti-immigration view, even at the risk of alienating a huge voting bloc. Similarly, most Democrats are constrained when talking about such issues as entitlement cuts, tort reform, and trade agreements. Our political system is losing its ability to even explore alternatives. If fealty to these pledges continues to expand, legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance. Voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than a leader.

I hope that as a nation we aspire to more than that. I hope we will demand judgment from our leaders. I continue to believe that Hoosiers value constructive leadership. I would not have run for office if I did not believe that.

As someone who has seen much in the politics of our country and our state, I am able to take the long view. I have not lost my enthusiasm for the role played by the United States Senate. Nor has my belief in conservative principles been diminished. I expect great things from my party and my country. I hope all who participated in this election share in this optimism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Unfortunately, we have an increasing number of legislators in both parties who have adopted an unrelenting partisan viewpoint. This shows up in countless vote studies that find diminishing intersections between Democrat and Republican positions. Partisans at both ends of the political spectrum are dominating the political debate in our country. And partisan groups, including outside groups that spent millions against me in this race, are determined to see that this continues. They have worked to make it as difficult as possible for a legislator of either party to hold independent views or engage in constructive compromise. If that attitude prevails in American politics, our government will remain mired in the dysfunction we have witnessed during the last several years. And I believe that if this attitude expands in the Republican Party, we will be relegated to minority status. Parties don’t succeed for long if they stop appealing to voters who may disagree with them on some issues.

Legislators should have an ideological grounding and strong beliefs identifiable to their constituents. I believe I have offered that throughout my career. But ideology cannot be a substitute for a determination to think for yourself, for a willingness to study an issue objectively, and for the fortitude to sometimes disagree with your party or even your constituents. Like Edmund Burke, I believe leaders owe the people they represent their best judgment.

Too often bipartisanship is equated with centrism or deal cutting. Bipartisanship is not the opposite of principle. One can be very conservative or very liberal and still have a bipartisan mindset. Such a mindset acknowledges that the other party is also patriotic and may have some good ideas. It acknowledges that national unity is important, and that aggressive partisanship deepens cynicism, sharpens political vendettas, and depletes the national reserve of good will that is critical to our survival in hard times. Certainly this was understood by President Reagan, who worked with Democrats frequently and showed flexibility that would be ridiculed today — from assenting to tax increases in the 1983 Social Security fix, to compromising on landmark tax reform legislation in 1986, to advancing arms control agreements in his second term.

I don’t remember a time when so many topics have become politically unmentionable in one party or the other. Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change. Republican members are now expected to take pledges against any tax increases. For two consecutive Presidential nomination cycles, GOP candidates competed with one another to express the most strident anti-immigration view, even at the risk of alienating a huge voting bloc. Similarly, most Democrats are constrained when talking about such issues as entitlement cuts, tort reform, and trade agreements. Our political system is losing its ability to even explore alternatives. If fealty to these pledges continues to expand, legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance. Voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than a leader.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
I think most people recognize this. We just don't see them as equal, as you always, falsely and hilariously, do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
I think most people recognize this. We just don't see them as equal, as you always, falsely and hilariously, do.

---

Since everyone seems to consider you a troll, please get back under the bridge.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Since everyone seems to consider you a troll, please get back under the bridge.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
There's no way I think Story is a troll, period. I keep thinking you're female, Story; have you ever said?

---

Yes. We have had that conversation before. Here, maybe if I give you the "crazy eyes" you'll remember me:



(not the most flattering pic of me, but it always makes me chuckle)


"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I don't think story's a troll, but he is sometimes argumentative.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
There's no way I think Story is a troll, period. I keep thinking you're female, Story; have you ever said?

---

Yes. We have had that conversation before. Here, maybe if I give you the "crazy eyes" you'll remember me:



(not the most flattering pic of me, but it always makes me chuckle)


"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BLUEHANDEDMENACE:
Thanks for posting that, its extremely poignant and accurate.

Lugar's loss is one the country will feel, though it will never know it. He represents the old mindset: country first, constituents second, party third.

Sadly that breed is being hunted and exterminated in the halls of congress, and for that, regardless of party, we should all be remorseful.

---

Quote:

---

THANKFULLY, his type are being hunted down, and exterminated.

---

Quote:

---

It's good that Sen. Lugar recognizes that one side alone is not the problem. Too bad more folks don't recognize this.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

It's good that Sen. Lugar recognizes that one side alone is not the problem. Too bad more folks don't recognize this.

---

You know, it's almost obligatory when talking about the problem of partisanship, for people trying to be sensible and balanced (including the media), to lay the blame on both parties. But here is a case where it doesn't 'take two to tango'. It only takes one party to dig its heels in, and there is gridlock. It only takes one party to drift to extreme positions, and there is 'diminishing intersections between Democrat and Republican positions.'

Thus for me one side is predominantly (if not overwhelmingly) the problem. Show me instances of Democrats decrying and lamenting their own party's lurch to the left. Show me instances of moderate Democrat congressmen being 'cleansed' out of the party. If anything being a moderate 'blue dog' Democrat is pretty trendy. Being a moderate Republican means you're almost an endangered species.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

Okay, I gotta say it: GAWD you're cute!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

THANKFULLY, his type are being hunted down, and exterminated.

---

Good luck everyone, Auraptor's idea of purity is coming to a government near you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BLUEHANDEDMENACE: ...

Sadly that breed is being hunted and exterminated in the halls of congress,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
The loss of Luger is a reflection of what's happening, and it's scary. People are just so damned stupid...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2: He's just being a good soldier I guess...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Isn't he amazing? Toss out anything with a derrogtory noun, a derrogatory verb, and "Obama" or "left" or "Dem", then sit back and wait for the irate responses. Don't matter how far out left field it is or if it's true or has ANY relevance...oh, shit, of COURSE; that's the M.O. on the right these days, isn't it? He's just being a good soldier I guess...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
I think most people recognize this. We just don't see them as equal, as you always, falsely and hilariously, do.

---

Since everyone seems to consider you a troll, please get back under the bridge.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Well, I won't deny I like to win.

But for me - its more about holding up lies, and making the liars face their own words. So, still waiting, Geez...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Ive been off-topic when?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
And if inflamatory gets the label... well then, you've earned it yourself. Hello pot, my name's kettle.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
And that's not even touching on those who live up to every detail of your definition - but you don't call them troll, 'cause they're on your side. Hmmm. Funny, that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
But hey, lookit that - Geezer got one person to agree with him (even if he can't muster the cajones to stand up for his own claim). Now just a few other people to go before he gets "everyone".

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
And that's not even touching on those who live up to every detail of your definition - but you don't call them troll, 'cause they're on your side. Hmmm. Funny, that.

---

Not really. it's the same reason Kwicko will never call you on your grammar.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
BDN, is there any one part of the "troll" definition that you don't fit?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
By the way, Geezer's full of shit, as usual. Not *everyone* thinks Story's a troll. It only takes one person to not think that to prove him a liar. I'm that one person.

I do think you and Rappy are trolls, though. But by all means, carry on trolling.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
And that's not even touching on those who live up to every detail of your definition - but you don't call them troll, 'cause they're on your side. Hmmm. Funny, that.

---

Not really. it's the same reason Kwicko will never call you on your grammar.

---

And why's that? Same reason you'll never call Rappy on his?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

My grammer's just fine.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
And that's not even touching on those who live up to every detail of your definition - but you don't call them troll, 'cause they're on your side. Hmmm. Funny, that.

---

Not really. it's the same reason Kwicko will never call you on your grammar.

---

And why's that? Same reason you'll never call Rappy on his?

---

I'll make you a deal Kwicko. You find a post where I called anyone on their grammar, besides you, and I will admit that I give Auraptor a pass on his.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You just did. By saying that you ONLY call me on any such, you've admitted you give Rappy a pass.

Thank you for so eloquently and efficiently proving my point.

---