Aha, I'll partially withdraw my use of the word 'courageous'. Is Obama trying to have his cake and eat it - appealing to his natural supporters in the hope of getting more money from them, while not offending some independents / conservatives too much (as he surely would by introducing national legislation on gay marriage).

It's hard to be really sure what he's thinking. Some are saying Biden's comments forced him into it, and that he waited until the day after the election rather than risk looking bad by endorsing a lost cause. I don't know if he has a real opinion of his own. At that level of politics, "personal viewpoints" are just commodities to be traded around.

But you know, I find myself sympathizing with the politicians a bit. The reason they're so disingenuous is because so many people fall for it hook, line and sinker. The way I found out about this, an actor friend on Facebook posted that Obama said he would legalize gay marriage! He was euphoric, and so were other people who posted. So, I checked out Obama's comments, and found that he not only didn't make that promise, he didn't make any other promise either. But when he said he supported it, that's what they heard! Amazing stuff.

Lugar got what he deserved. He gave up his home in Indiana and kept running for office. What a dope.

On the other hand, the Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot again. Lugar was a shoo-in for reelection. Now they could lose that seat.

What we need is a third party.

I think Obama did this to disinfect the issue. He knows he doesn't need any more enemies, and by making this statement in May he's hoping it won't come up in October. It's a worthwhile gamble on his part. Besides, there's not much the president can do about the decisions of the states--Abraham Lincoln excepted.

Anyone want to comment on the French and Greek elections? It looks like the euro is doomed.

We've got one: The Tea Party. It's the Tea Party that went after Lugar, not "the Republicans". The Republican Establishment was quite happy with Lugar, and ONLY cares about holding the seat, no matter which warm body is in it (and in Lugar's case even that much was borderline). The Tea Party went after him because they seem to see big spending Republicans as no better than big spending Democrats.

I think that the people that you're saying SHOULD have been more partisan were in fact every bit as partisan as you want them to be. It's the public that was not-so-much-so, and after all, how does it benefit them to be partisan if both parties are doing them wrong?

The Tea Party isn't exactly a party; it's more of a Republican faction. Non-tea partiers didn't turn out in sufficient numbers to save Lugar; besides, the Partiers seem to have no concept of allies and enemies. There's just us and them.

It would have been tactically wise for the Tea Party to support Lugar. They didn't. They are repeating the same mistakes they made with Christine O'Donnell, Linda McMahon and Sherryn Angle. Purist parties never survive.

Let me amplify the third party remark. This ought to get Kevin's interest.

What we need is something akin to the LibDems, only sane. For a long time the three parties in Britain were divided on two issues: who owns the means of production? and how should goods and services be distributed. Labour held that the answer to both should be "the state" while the Conservatives held it should be "the private sector". The Liberals (before they got polluted by the Social Democrats) held that the means of production should be privately owned, most goods provided by the private sector, and some goods provided by the state, paid for by taxation. This way each party needed integrity to be a valid party.

We don't have a third party in the U.S. that represents any third point of view. If we did it would make the two major parties stick to their integrity.

I doubt Lugar sees it that way.


That presupposes that all they want is to elect Republicans come hell or high water. That might be what you want, but I don't think it's what they want. I think we all agree on the factual question, that if all one wants is to elect a "Republican", that Lugar was the best choice. If that's your goal, then voting for Lugar would have been the right choice for [b]you[b]. But it's not my goal, so why would a Lugar vote have been the right choice for me? If it's not the Tea Party's goal, then whey is it the right choice for them?

You were asking for a third party, now you're complaining because the third party isn't acting like a wing of the Republicans. If they were, they wouldn't be a third party at all, just Republicans in disguise.

And this rather neatly sums up the UK Liberal Democrats' current woes, I believe. Pre-2010 they were seen as a socially liberal alternative to the Labour party, and as something of a protest vote. Thanks to going into coalition with the Conservatives, the Lib Dems have thoroughly alienated many people who (it seems to me) viewed them just as an alternative to Labour.