Saturday, May 5, 2012

Of Mice and Milbanks

Dana Milbank chose to chime in on Indiana's GOP Senate primary yesterday and the argument presented is as logically unsound as I've seen in quite some time. Clearly Milbank is distraught over the prospect of incumbent Dick Lugar losing his primary to challenger Richard Murdock. That's not too surprising, Milbank is a liberal and Lugar is an old school moderate Republlican while Murdock is a tea party backed, fiscally conservative state treasurer. It's such an ill-argued perspective that it needs to broken down a bit, argument by argument.

1. Voting for Mourdock in Unpatriotic
Milbank's biggest argument is that Lugar has worked for years to end nuclear proliferation, recently working with president Obama to update his signature Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Act which uses American money to pay for the removal of nuclear weapons agreed to in other treaties, like all the SALT treaties. The problem with this is twofold. First of all, the idea that supporting nuclear nonproliferation means you should go unopposed for your life is asinine. I'm sure Mourdock is against other nations nuking up as well, perhaps just by other methods. The second problem is that Lugar is working to enforce Obama's ludicrous nuclear policies. The President has made it a point to cut defense spending an unilaterally slashing our own nuclear stockpiles while the Russians do nothing. He is also allowing Iran to arm up and doing nothing to help solve the issue of potentially rouge nuclear weapons in failing states in Pakistan and North Korea. Lugar is simply enabling Obama to score public relations points for a horribly flawed foreign policy. Did Lugar receive anything for working with the President? Tougher stances on Russia, Korea or Iran? Less cuts to our own stockpile? Nope.

2. Dick Lugar is a Conservative. No! He really, Really IS!
No sir, he is not. The 77% conservative rating from the American Conservative Union that Milbank touts as proof is really not very good. Combine that with Lugar's approval of the START Treaty, the assault weapons ban and the Dream Act show that Lugar is not opposed in any way to a big spending, massive federal government. Milbank also cites Lugar's opposition to Obama's massive stimulus programs as proof of his conservatism but he fails to mention Lugar's support for President Bush's massive failure of a stimulus program the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. This shows Lugar to be more of a political opportunist than a principled politician who sticks to his guns. If Milbank wants to make the argument that Lugar should stay because moderates are good then that's a different argument. He should not be making the patently false argument that Lugar is a conservative while Mourdock is a nut. Mourdock is a conservative while Lugar is a moderate.

3. Mourdocks is Playing Dirty Politics While Lugar Is Pure as Fresh Snow
Give me a break. Politics is a rough business and Lugar knows that full well in his three decades in office. Milbank dislikes Mourdock ads which shows Obama praising Lugar because it cuts off the end where it says that the praise was for the Nunn-Lugar Act. This is irrelevant. Being Obama's favorite Republican senator is bad under any context. The President's policies have been so detrimental to the economy that no Republican senator should work with him on anything until some of the more pressing issues are addressed. To leave off the end isn't a lie or dirty in any way. if Lugar doesn't want things like this showing up in commercials then he shouldn't take photo ops with a deeply unpopular president that he is enabling. Milbank goes further down the rabbit hole by using a Lugar press release bragging about the Nunn-Lugar act as proof that Lugar is committed to substance while Mourdock's support from Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Grover Norquist is proof that he isn't. Right. Using Lugar's own words against him and accepting support from popular conservatives is shady business indeed. What Milbank does unintentionally is show why Lugar needs to go. Lugar is such an entrenched, D.C. establishment Republican that he hasn't even lived in Indiana for over 30 years. Yet during all that time in the Senate all Milbank or Lugar can tout is the Nunn-Lugar Act from 1992 and revised in 2006. In this long and convoluted argument Milbank points to no other legislation or action that would give a person reason to vote for Lugar. Lugar himself seems not to be able to produce anything other than that as well. In a political season where the number one issue is undoubtedly the economy, a person would think that a seasoned politician like Lugar would be bringing out the long list of his accomplishment that stimulated the economy instead of his "protecting the world from nukes" portfolio. I suspect the reason for this is that Lugar doesn't really have a pro-growth platform to show off.

I would personally argue that the fact that a vacuous, vapid thinker like Milbank came to Lugar's defense is proof positive that Lugar needs to go. It's not dirty politics or even particularly sad. President Obama, supported by people like Milbank, has taken the country in such a radically left direction that the people are revolting and going further right in response. This creates a climate where people like Dick Lugar,Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett can no longer pretend to be conservative while voting like a liberal. You see the same thing in the Democratic party where Nancy Pelosi has done her best to drum out all the Blue Dog Democrats in favor of far left candidates. All of this is simple politics and nothing else. Milbank is just a simple mind who sees the tides changing against his team and is lashing out.
Stumble
Delicious
Technorati
Twitter
Facebook