Six is Enough

Some on this site have mentioned the demise of the tea party over past months. Today the “dead” tea party helped defeat a 6 term Republican senator in the Indiana primary. State Treasurer Richard Mourdock easily defeated Richard Lugar who has been in office since Carter was President.

This is relevant as it shows the tea party has been in hibernation since the last election cycle. I forget who the Democrats’ faux tea party, the occupiers, have helped elect.


  1. Yes, “some” have.

    And no one is happier to see the Tea Party functioning in one state than I.

    My most secret desire (ok, not so secret anymore) is to see a few someones take out a few old cronies of our own in Wisconsin.


  2. Won’t happen. The “Tea Party” in Wisconsin is really just the Wisconsin GOP.

  3. The Lorax says:

    Richard Mourdock just handed democrats a favor. Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Ken Buck – all failed tea party upsets. Mourdock will soon join their ranks. And now The Obama campaign has more reason to pour more money into Indiana and Republicans have to spend more defending there and not on, say, defeating Heidi Heitkamp.

  4. I wouldn’t be so sure, Lorax. Indiana in 2008 was a once-in-less-than-a-generation event. It was probably time for Lugar to go. There are more important things than winning control of a house of Congress (I know that’s tough for power-hungry liberals like Mike Tomasky of the Daily Beast – who now has to eat his words about how Obama was a “genius” for being non-committal on same-sex marriage). Mourdock has a decent chance of winning, and I would guess he’s still the favorite. But if not, so what?

  5. The Lorax says:

    “There are more important things than winning control of a house of Congress”

    I’m not sure what that means. First, we’re talking about the Senate, not the House. Secondly, having control of the Senate is paramount for President Obama’s success in a 2nd term. If both chambers fall to Republican control, he’s hamstringed.

    So yes, it is important. Not sure how you can’t see that. This is the same reason Obama is investing heavily in voter turnout in Arizona right now – Democrats think that’s a sleeper Senate seat we can poach. Obama won’t really need Arizona electoral votes in the end.

    This has nothing to do with being power-hungry. It has everything to do with having control of the Senate which will dictate whether or not Democrats have a say in the legislative process.

    Also, don’t be so short-sighted. There’s a looming supreme court nomination when Ruth Bader Ginsburg steps down (which she will do in the next 4 years) and Democrats want to control the senate to get a nominee through.

    Mourdock is definitely still the favorite, but this is now a Senate seat that is in play, and not one that is a lock for Republicans, meaning they will need to invest resources in Indiana and play defense. That’s how you win control of a chamber. The Tea Party nominees that have knocked out incumbents in the primary have been wholly a failure. Other Tea Party candidates, of course, have been successful, but when you knock out someone like Dick Lugar for someone more far to the right, that makes it a race.

    P.S. Obama and Lugar are good friends. Maybe Obama will help avenge the Lugar death 😉

  6. How is Obama not “hamstrung” by the current Republican House control? Dude’s not getting Jack done anyway as far as I can tell. Oh, and Obama’s budget offerings have always been popular in the Senate.

    Lorax, sometimes I wonder if you are paying attention at all or if you just want it to be so badly that’s the only version you see.

  7. @Lorax, the Senate IS a house of Congress. The House of Representatives is the other house of Congress. Maybe they don’t teach that anymore in school.

  8. The Lorax says:

    Cindy, you usually respond with saying i’m out of touch rather than offering your own analysis. So that’s par for the course.

    The Senate blocks a ton of House legislation, and prevents a ton of stuff that would force very public vetoes. So yes, having control of the Senate is crucial. You also ignored my point about confirmations of Supreme Court justices. His cabinet will have to be confirmed too.

    Step back from the rhetoric for just a second and admit that control of the Senate has importance.

    KPOM, no. The Senate is the upper chamber, or the upper house. I’ve never heard anyone refer to it as “a house” of congress. That’s why I was confused.

    As for what is taught in school, whatever. This is a semantic argument and since you want to play semantics, i’ll argue that I am more technically right. You put forth a confusing term, but thanks for “correcting” me.

  9. Lorax, Obama could simply veto anything he didn’t want. There’s no super majority in the House that would hold. The Senate, if it’s a majority, would be tenuous.

    I think Republican control of the Senate would be great. 😉 Of course it’s important. But, it’s not imperative.

    Clinton was president with a R House and Senate and if I remember correctly, those were some awesome years for my piggy bank. It can be done.

  10. @Lorax, what are you talking about? The Senate is the upper house of Congress, so by definition it is “a house” of Congress. We have two houses of Congress. Since they both vote on the same legislation (the Senate also votes on confirmations and treaties), I am just as correct as you in referring to it as such.

    Anyway, you missed my point entirely. There are things more important than winning “control.” Sticking to principles is one such thing. If you sell out your principles to win control, what’s the point?

  11. The Lorax says:

    Because it’s not black and white. Lugar towed the party line on the vast majority of issues. Purists like yourself can’t seem to understand that your Senator can’t be with you 100% of the time.