Would Senator Lugar be Obama’s Sec of State?
This question arose today on FriendFeed, and the comments are piling on. On the one hand appears to be Democrats suggesting him to make one last appeal that Obama is a moderate and would reach out to a Republican for his cabinet. On the other hand, I have asked why our senior Senator is so quiet these days, with almost nothing to say for John McCain.
Here’s the friendfeed conversation so far, love for some of you to jump in there or here:
Rick Powell posted a message
“Richard Lugar. Obama’s Secretary of State. Discuss.”
Who? - Roberto Bonini
Roberto: The Secretary of State is the cabinet level position that gives the Pres… Oh… you meant Dick Lugar. - tehEvil that is Kenny
Yeah. Never heard of him. - Roberto Bonini
haha. Obama’s favorite Republican. Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R… He’s the Republican leader of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. A press release where he basically, tactfully endorses Obama’s active diplomacy approach to foreign policy: http://lugar.senate.gov/press/… - Rick Powell
I predict a cabinet position and I would like to get credit for it if it happens. They are pals. When asked if he would ever run for Prez again, Lugar said - and this was a few years ago - “I will leave that to Barack.” - Rick Powell
Ah. Thanks for that info. Will read over it. - Roberto Bonini
(Read more after the leap)
Very smart, very popular senator from Indiana. Ran for president once, but was a little too calm and intelligent to get anywhere in the primaries. He is not happy with the Bush admin. Lugar truly is a foreign policy expert and Bush and friends totally dissed him. As it turns out, Lugar was right about many things and was ignored. - Cannibalistic Kate
I should note that I am from Indiana, so I can’t really speak to how he is seen from outside of the state. Although, a very far left friend once told me that he really respected and liked Lugar. I don’t think that’s uncommon. He respects others and (w/exception of Bush admin), they respect him. - Cannibalistic Kate
I voted for him myself (born in Beech Grove) and I was a lot more left back then. He understands the role of the Senate and has been a constant reminder to Bush when the executive over-reaches. Imagine! - Rick Powell
But of course to the wingnuts, he’s only a conservative in quotes. - Rick Powell
Lugar would make a nice pick. I think he would do very well in the administration. - Roberto Bonini
Which is hilarious, isn’t it Rick! Because, he really is a conservative - an old school one, but he is definitely a conservative. What I appreciate about him is that he actually listens to others - that respect thing. He is calm, sure of himself, and intelligent. Even when I disagree with him, I always respect him, Fwiw, I’m from Auburn (just north of Ft. Wayne). - Cannibalistic Kate
He and Obama are both conservative in temperament. - Rick Powell
Yeah, thats what I was trying to articulate Rick. Thanks - Roberto Bonini
Richard Lugar has done an average job for Indiana, and has been mainly out of the loop on major issues since his book “Letter to the Next President” … I would welcome such an appointment, giving Mitch Daniels the opportunity to put a solid conservative new leader in the Senate for us - daltonsbriefs
October 31st, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Dave Wilson (WIBC) just had a good line: “Obama is saying that he’ll have Republicans in his cabinet. Not to be outdone, McCain responded ‘So will I’”.
October 31st, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I have been on a dozen social media sites and the nutroots gangs are out there pitching guys like Lugar all over the place as way to shore up support as bi-partisan.
This is a concerted effort today, it is amazing if you step back, how well they are able to orchestrate these kinds of operations
October 31st, 2008 at 4:03 pm
It would be very nice if Lugar would come out this weekend and actually support “my friend” McCain. That is not his usual M.O., but when you are being bandied about so much in the media/rumor circuit connected to the Dems, it would be nice if he supported the Republicans a bit.
October 31st, 2008 at 4:43 pm
(Very old news…. Cognescenti have been discussing it for months… the New York Times went public with it last week in a very coy way… http://www.firstrepublicans.typepad.com/... enabling more public discussion by those previously constrained by their sources.)
October 31st, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Lugar, the RINO?
He needs to retire at the end of his term.
October 31st, 2008 at 8:19 pm
He certainly doesn’t think so.
http://lugar2012.com/
October 31st, 2008 at 11:40 pm
On the other hand, I have asked why our senior Senator is so quiet these days, with almost nothing to say for John McCain.
Possibly, it’s because of party loyalty. Possibly, it’s because he believes it would be impolite to denigrate a fellow Senator, and unnecessary as well, as the people have figured out why McCain is the most disliked Republican among other Republicans in the Senate. It’s McCain’s bad character.
Lugar is a real conservative, the kind that Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley defined. Chris Buckley recently wrote a piece in which he pointed out that in “Conscience of a Conservative”, his father began in the very first chapter to explain that first and foremost, being a conservative is all about our freedoms. Lugar wants to protect our freedoms as defined by the Bill of Rights.
Lugar is also about competence. Richard Nixon called Lugar his favorite mayor, when Lugar ran Indianapolis.
Dick has one of the highest IQs in the Senate, and he works hard to be on top of every issue he votes on.
Lugar is Obama’s favorite Republican, because they are fellow travelers: the Democrats are trying their best not to point out that Obama is a conservative as well, because the word has been sullied about in recent years by neo-cons, who aren’t conservatives at all. When the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment wasn’t just about state militias, but meant you had a constitutional right to have guns to protect your home, Obama didn’t blink, but immediately adjusted his position to support the newly defined interpretation of the constitution.
I don’t think Obama would choose Lugar would be his Secretary of State, primarily because of his age; there’s a lot of travel involved, and that’s rough, at any age. What’s more, I suspect Obama thinks the GOP will need leadership in the Senate, and Lugar would be a good man to let the GOP coalesce around.
OTOH, I have no doubt that Obama would continue to solicit his opinion on foreign policy matters.
November 1st, 2008 at 12:39 am
“Obama didn’t blink, but immediately adjusted his position to support the newly defined interpretation of the constitution.”
And you expect us to believe that malarkey? He’s already plotting which SCOTUS justices to replace and lining up ultra-lefties to replace them so rulings like DC v. Heller never come out on the side of the people ever again. These justices will make RBG look reasonable. Combined with a Harry Reid led bulletproof Senate, sitting justice impeachments of those That One doesn’t like will be a snap.
“Obama is a conservative”
Socialist is the new ‘conservative’? That is doubleplusgood doublespeak. Even Orwell never went that far.
November 1st, 2008 at 1:18 am
He’s already plotting which SCOTUS justices to replace
Yeah. Right. And you think he has the power to replace SCOTUS justices?
Tell you what. There’s a copy of the U. S. Constitution at http://www.law.cornell.edu. Spend a few minutes reading it. The president doesn’t decide which SCOTUS justices to replace. The justices themselves decide when they are to be replaced, and they have two ways to do this: by deciding to retire or by deciding to stop breathing.
Socialist is the new ‘conservative’?
No. I’m talking about real conservatives. It sounds like you have no idea what a real conservative is.
The progressive income tax is very much a conservative idea. It was instituted by Teddy Roosevelt. Eisenhower was for the progressive income tax, which charged 91% on incomes of $300,000 in the 1950s. Ronald Reagan thought the top rates were too high, and promoted a top rate of 40%, but he still thought the progressive income tax was a good idea. Obama is promoting a top income tax rate of 39% - which is lower than what Reagan proposed.
Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley would have approved of Obama. On the other hand, they both openly disapproved of the “neo-con” movement in general, and of John McCain in particular. Reagan disapproved of McCain, too.
November 1st, 2008 at 8:29 am
I’m playing a bit of catch-up on the news, but here’s my take on it. Yeah, I think Lugar would make an excellent Secretary of State. But I think Dems might have other motives we’re not considering. Indiana is unreasonably close this year thanks in no small part to John McAmnesty.
If the Democrats continue to run around unchecked in the state, they might be eying another Senate seat pick up in 2012… plus with Lugar in the Obama administration, it could help further gathering Obama support in this suddenly “swing” state.
But Lugar is uniquely qualified for the job and he’s nearing retirement age anyway… which may cause him to turn the job down if offered.
November 1st, 2008 at 5:33 pm
But then again, Harl’s definition of “conservative” is not changing. From a political standpoint, that is nowhere close. What Michael is talking about, Harl, is that Obama has no particular desire to worry about the Constitution in his actions. He seems to not care about it on other issues (e.g. guns), so why not ignore other parts?
Regarding Lugar’s conservative credentials: I’m not sure what measures you can use. He has voted for things like the “comprehensive immigration” reform measures, and for increased funding to the UN which don’t seem particularly conservative votes. He voted to expand the SCHIP program, which would have caused Goldwater to roll over in his grave. He voted for an Energy bill that dramatically increased Federal requirements in the energy industry. Those were just votes in this last year. No, Lugar is not a conservative by any political definition of the term.
To think that Goldwater and Buckley would “approve” of Obama is very close to derangement, Harl. Peruse Obama’s Health Care plan. The entirety of the plan is Federal government mandates on private industry and other interference in private industry. While not “socialist” (it is more accurately labeled fascist), no conservative of any persuasion in their right mind would ever sign onto such a plan–or one who thinks this is a good idea.
And one other note on conservatism: the progressive tax system is not a conservative thought. Using Teddy Roosevelt as a source is not particularly pointing to a “conservative”, but rather a “progressive”. The progressive income tax is a cornerstone of the socialist movement–mentioned specifically by Marx in the Communist Manifesto.
November 2nd, 2008 at 8:56 am
If you don’t get your kid immunized, Joel, and send him to school sick, he gets my wife sick, and she comes home and infects me. It would be reasonable, I suppose to charge your kid with battery, and charge you as an accessory, and send you both to the hoose-gow - but that doesn’t get me back the doctor’s bills, nor restore the income my wife loses because she can’t work.
It is small-c conservative to spend a little to save a lot, and that’s what insurance is about. And since the health of YOUR kids is important to MY financial well-being, I want your kids to be insured.
When your wife has a serious incurable illness, you’re a slave. You can’t switch jobs, or your wife dies. I know what it is like, because I’ve been in exactly that situation. When people are free to switch jobs so that their skills are better utilized, the economy is a little stronger, and we’re all a little richer. When people are free to start new businesses, the economy is a lot stronger, and we’re all a lot richer.
And that’s a BIG-C conservative issue. Slavery versus freedom.
Comprehensive immigration reform is a freedom issue. More than 99% of all illegal immigrants are people who came here to work, not to attack the country. They’ve complied with all the immigration requirements that America’s founding fathers complied with. But these folks are being denied the freedom to switch jobs, denied the freedom to buy homes, denied the freedom of establishing an earning record for purposes of Social Security. In many cases, they are denied safe working conditions. Again, this is a BIG-C Conservative issue: freedom.
You can twist words all you want, but you can’t change the facts. Teddy Roosevelt founded the conservative movement in America and the conservationist movement as well. He considered them part and parcel, because he thought that which was wild and free was the epitome of the American spirit. The pinch-penny attitudes of the neo-con, who think that it’s important to impose their religion on others, who have a Leona Helmsley-like attitude towards taxes, thinking they should have a free ride on the backs of others, who think it’s OK for other people’s kids to sacrifice their lives for their country, but don’t ask them to sacrifice a damned thing, is not what made America great.
I never read the Communist Manifesto before, but I just downloaded a copy. It mentions heavy income taxes. But Obama is asking for a 41% top rate. Reagan asked for and got a 50% top rate in 1981. Eisenhower changed the top rate in 1954 to 91%. If asking for a 41% tax rate is socialistic, was Reagan a Marxist and Eisenhower a Communist?
I note also that Marx and Engles talk about marriage vows and screwing around. I guess that since John McCain did that to Carol, that makes him a true Communist, huh?
Makes sense, I suppose. He spent his formative years as the guest of North Korean communists. He points out that he was offered the opportunity to return home, but chose to keep palling around with the commies. Then when he came home, he ended up giving a quarter million dollar grant to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers’ buddy, Rashid Khalidi, who was a PLO activist.
It all fits together.
November 2nd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
“Lugar is a real conservative, the kind that Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley defined.”
Bullsh**.
November 2nd, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I would have to agree with Nathan’s gruff assessment. Lugar’s conservatism is a thing of the past. Funny thing is, (and I know this is practically heretical in Indiana GOP politics but…) I didn’t vote for Lugar in 2006 when he was up for re-election. I actually wrote in his Constitution Party opponent. I wouldn’t go so far as to say “he’s left the party” so much as he’s evolved as the party has evolved. And I would say the party has evolved in the wrong direction especially in the last 5 or 6 years.
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Harl. Your idea of conservatism is so warped it is difficult to explain it. I will only deal with the Health Insurance issue because it is instructive.
Your contention is that government mandated health insurance coverage is conservative because it prevents an individual or family from becoming “slaves” to debt in the event of a catastrophic illness. Therefore it is promoting “freedom”. The problem is that in exchange for that potential freedom for a few, we are enslaving ALL by instituting these mandates which throw the idea of free markets out the window. And to once again be explicit–Goldwater and Reagan would be at the front of the line opposing this monstrosity.
November 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 pm
“The justices themselves decide when they are to be replaced, and they have two ways to do this: by deciding to retire or by deciding to stop breathing.”
Justices can be impeached also. With only 60 votes of the US Senate. Same number of Senators that can vote to impeach the President.
November 2nd, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Are you sure Supreme Court Justices can be impeached? I know judges can be. In fact, Florida congressman Alcee Hastings was, as a judge, impeached by the US House of Representatives, but I’m not sure of any Federal judges who have been impeached. Not saying it hasn’t happened though.
November 3rd, 2008 at 2:59 am
Michael Jexierski writes:
Justices can be impeached also. With only 60 votes of the US Senate. Same number of Senators that can vote to impeach the President.
Not true. The Senate CANNOT impeach anyone of anything, no matter how many votes they have. The House has the sole power to impeach, and the Senate has the sole power to try impeachments.
And if there’s only 60 votes to convict, the technical term for that is “an acquittal”. It takes 67 votes to remove someone from office, same as the president.
Joel writes:
I’m not sure of any Federal judges who have been impeached.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase (NOT the guy who used to sign dollar bills - that was SALMON Chase) was impeached in 1805. After the house impeached him, the Senate laughed and voted to acquit, because there was no evidence of wrongdoing, only of making unpopular decisions.
That’s the reason why Earl Warren was never impeached, despite all the signs the KKK posted demanding it. He wasn’t corrupt, as far as anyone could tell, he simply was able to read the constitution.
Amazing thing, the ability to read. You’d think more people would try it.
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:18 am
Your contention is that government mandated health insurance coverage is conservative because it prevents an individual or family from becoming “slaves” to debt in the event of a catastrophic illness. Therefore it is promoting “freedom”. The problem is that in exchange for that potential freedom for a few, we are enslaving ALL by instituting these mandates which throw the idea of free markets out the window. And to once again be explicit–Goldwater and Reagan would be at the front of the line opposing this monstrosity.
So if we’re going to get rid of mandates that impinge on the free market, we should get rid of compulsory polio vaccinations. After all, most of the kids I went to school with didn’t get polio, only Susie, who sat next to me in Latin I.
And we should get rid of air traffic controllers, and let airplanes fly where ever and however they choose. After all, few of us are aboard airplanes on any given day, and few of us would have airplanes fall on top of us.
We should get rid of the mandate for turn signals and seat belts, since they impinge on the free market.
And we should get rid of counterfeiting laws, since they impinge on the free market.
We should eliminate the FDA and USDA inspections of food, drugs, cosmetics, and meats, allowing businesses to sell whatever corrupt products they choose to sell.
Or maybe, Joel, just maybe you could recognize the fact that ALL laws impinge on the free market. That’s why we pass laws - because we WANT to impinge on the free market.
“The market is still the most efficient allocation system for putting resources to work. It satisfies what people want. On the other hand, the market is amoral, and tends to the worst: left to itself it will sell anything, from its grand daughter’s virtue to human flesh for stew.” - Jerry Pournelle.
Wanna buy some stew, Joel?
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:36 am
Yes Harl, all laws in some way impinge on freedom. So the question of government is what level of freedom are we to give up and why. A libertarian (which the individuals that you tend to label as “conservative” were) believes that very little freedom should be given up for the common good. For instance, even if there was not a constitutional argument, libertarians would argue against things like farm subsidies because through taxes you are impinging on the freedom of all for the theoretical benefit of a few.
To various degrees Conservatives and Liberals (e.g. Progressives) increase the liberties given up for the common good. But the point is that Obama’s proposal clearly is not a libertarian or Conservative proposal! That isn’t an argument for the proposal or against it–it just says to label it “Conservative” is idiotic!
No, not ALL laws impinge on the free market. They impinge on freedom, but not necessarily the free market.
On your USDA and FDA theoretical question: I have heard Libertarians make very reasonable arguments that these functions would be better served by the market via organizations like Underwriters Laboratory. I’m not necessarily saying that I would want that done, but I’m saying that when we get serious about freedom, there are many functions that we think can only be performed by the government that the market can actually perform. But to repeat myself: the more freedoms that you give up, the less Conservative you are. Obama is nothing related to a Conservative–he is at best a liberal and in my book a totalitarian socialist.
Pournelle is wrong. His logic is bad. He argues that the market is “amoral” and then argues that the market “tends to the worst”. If that was true, then the market would not be “amoral”, it would be “immoral”. But the reality is that the market reflects the morals of its society. The free market in the United States would never sell human flesh for stew because the market would not support it.
And I am thinking about making some chili this weekend. (I make mine with round steak, diced)
November 3rd, 2008 at 12:50 pm
The free market in the United States would never sell human flesh for stew because the market would not support it.
Yeah? The free market supports the sale of heroin. Do you know of ANYONE who thinks heroin is good?
The free market in China supports the sale of milk laced with melamine, that has killed thousands of babies. Know ANYONE who supports the poisoning of babies?
The free market in the US supports the sale of dog food laced with melamine that killed thousands of dogs. Have you EVER dealt with someone who thought you were abusing dogs?
What about women selling their children to drug dealers in exchange for drugs? Do you think people will stand for that kind of thing? Except IT HAPPENS.
Health insurance is one of those functions that can ONLY be performed effectively by government because YOUR health depends on the health care YOUR NEIGHBOR receives.
McCain wants to reinstitute the draft - a form of slavery. He supports the current system, a backdoor draft in which soldiers who have completed their service are called back. And you think having universal health care is totalitarian, but that isn’t?
Take a close look at that round steak, Joel. During the Reagan years, they caught a meat distributor in Fort Wayne selling kangaroo meat to supermarkets, although they thought they were getting beef. Are you SURE you are getting diced round steak, and not “long pig”?
November 3rd, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Harl! YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
OK. That’s over.
1. Yes, the free market (though it is not a free market) supports heroin. Is that human flesh?
2. No, the U.S. free market does not support the sale of dog food laced with melamine. There was huge public outcry and pet food suppliers had to pull products and figure out what was going on. This would have happened with or without government interference. There is nothing closer to people’s hearts than their pets. (I don’t understand that, but it is true)
3. The issue of women selling their children has nothing to do with the markets.
4. HAVE YOU NOT SEEN HOW CANADIAN AND OTHER SOCIALIZED HEALTH PLANS WORK! THEY DO NOT WORK BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS THE WORST PROVIDERS OF ANY FUNCTION! If you have any question of this, you can look at the VA Hospital system. This absolutely proves that you do not have a clue as to what conservatism is.
5. McCain does NOT want to reinstitute a draft. We have gone over this before and you are completely wrong. The backdoor draft is fulfilling your contractual obligations. You signed the contract–you live up to the obligations. Stop being stupid.
6. If I’m getting kangaroo, it tastes just fine. (And it tastes the same over a multi-year period).