Mourdock debating Lugar tomorrow 4-11

[buckstopshere]

FYI....the only televised debate will be on CBS tomorrow at 7p.

 

[Hoosierdood]

I'm going to be at church from 7:00-8:00. Can someone put it on youtube and provide the link for me after it's done? I'd really like to see this.

 

[JettaKnight]

Are there transcripts or re-runs of the past debates?

 

[MACHINEGUN]

I'd say Richard Mourdock is winning this debate so far!

I'd vote for him before I would Dick Lugar (personal reason).. he's been in Washington DC way too long!

 

[Panama]

I had planned on voting for Mourdock, but now after watching the "debate", I CAN'T FREAKIN' WAIT FOR MAY 8TH TO GET RID OF LUGAR!

 

[SnoopLoggyDog]

Richard Mourdock won that debate. His answers were original and common sense. Not the usual political boilerplate that Lugar was spouting off.

 

[dleeharrison]

I agree - Lugar's answers were halting and dottery - he needs to retire or be forced to retire by Mourdock.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Was Lugar phoning it in . . . from a condo in D.C.???

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I support Mourdock. However, I thought he had his ass handed to him.

Luger was cogent and his answers lucid. He had good command over what was going on in Indiana. Mourdock spent his time agreeing with Lugar, except on two answers, one of which was over fungable funds, a questionable strategy given that probably 95% of the viewers don't know what fungable means, can't use it in a sentence, and won't go look it up in a dictionary.

Mourdock had an opportunity to hammer Luger for his votes, positions, and lack of touch to Indiana and chose not to exploit those obvious weaknesses. The old folks that watched will have no reason not to support Luger.

Mourdock came off as a policy wonk running against Obama, not Luger. Luger came off as folksie and knowledgable about Hoosier issues. While I would call it a tie, Mourdock had to cream him. In that he failed.

 

[pinshooter45]

I support Mourdock. However, I thought he had his ass handed to him.

Luger was cogent and his answers lucid. He had good command over what was going on in Indiana. Mourdock spent his time agreeing with Lugar, except on two answers, one of which was over fungable funds, a questionable strategy given that probably 95% of the viewers don't know what fungable means, can't use it in a sentence, and won't go look it up in a dictionary.

Mourdock had an opportunity to hammer Luger for his votes, positions, and lack of touch to Indiana and chose not to exploit those obvious weaknesses. The old folks that watched will have no reason not to support Luger.

Mourdock came off as a policy wonk running against Obama, not Luger. Luger came off as folksie and knowledgable about Hoosier issues. While I would call it a tie, Mourdock had to cream him. In that he failed.

While I hate to disagree with a former Marine I would have to say Mourdock won that debate. Lugar relied on his past while Mourdock presented a future. And while I may be slightly slanted toward Mr Mourdock since I've done some volunteer work for his campaign, I will also say I wish he had done a little better in a few areas. But you never know exactly what your going to be asked until your there. One particular area he could have pounded more was on gas prices. He touched on the refinery issue and put down the alcohol. Lugar may have won on that point because he kept talking about Indiana farmers and jobs that Ethanol creates. The real problem is the EPA and the fact that we have not built a new refinery in this country since 1979! I think he should have hit that harder. While Lugar held his own his age was defiantly showing (something that will happen to all of us). While I don't think it was a Slam Dunk for Mr Mourdock it was clearly a win.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

While I hate to disagree with a former Marine I would have to say Mourdock won that debate. Lugar relied on his past while Mourdock presented a future. And while I may be slightly slanted toward Mr Mourdock since I've done some volunteer work for his campaign, I will also say I wish he had done a little better in a few areas. But you never know exactly what your going to be asked until your there. One particular area he could have pounded more was on gas prices. He touched on the refinery issue and put down the alcohol. Lugar may have won on that point because he kept talking about Indiana farmers and jobs that Ethanol creates. The real problem is the EPA and the fact that we have not built a new refinery in this country since 1979! I think he should have hit that harder. While Lugar held his own his age was defiantly showing (something that will happen to all of us). While I don't think it was a Slam Dunk for Mr Mourdock it was clearly a win.

You're free to disagree but the point remains this - Mourdock needed a clear and convincing win. He absolutely failed to differentiate himself from Luger on a single point, other than a half-hearted attempt to draw a distinction on fungable funds to Russia and a bald assertion that Luger supported giving Medicare funds to illegal aliens with no information to back it up. He was weak and timid and spent the night agreeing with Luger, and Luger with him. His failure to differentiate himself from Luger and further failure to paint Luger as a Washington insider and Indiana outsider will not convince anyone to change their vote to Mourdock.

The question that I think cost Mourdock a win in the primary election was how do you define conservative. My response would have been not the guy who hasn't lived in Indiana for 35 years. Not the guy who is known as Obama's favorite Republican. Not the guy who supports the Dream Act, nor the guy with an F rating from the NRA, nor the guy who voted for TARP.

I still intend to vote for Mourdock but he clearly lost this debate.

 

[jgreiner]

I agree - Lugar's answers were halting and dottery - he needs to retire or be forced to retire by Mourdock.

either Lugar is approaching senility, or he was drunk. His answers were AWFUL.

 

[jgreiner]

I support Mourdock. However, I thought he had his ass handed to him.

Luger was cogent and his answers lucid. He had good command over what was going on in Indiana. Mourdock spent his time agreeing with Lugar, except on two answers, one of which was over fungable funds, a questionable strategy given that probably 95% of the viewers don't know what fungable means, can't use it in a sentence, and won't go look it up in a dictionary.

Mourdock had an opportunity to hammer Luger for his votes, positions, and lack of touch to Indiana and chose not to exploit those obvious weaknesses. The old folks that watched will have no reason not to support Luger.

Mourdock came off as a policy wonk running against Obama, not Luger. Luger came off as folksie and knowledgable about Hoosier issues. While I would call it a tie, Mourdock had to cream him. In that he failed.

I caught the last 15 minutes. I thought Lugar looked and sounded drunk. Or senile.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I caught the last 15 minutes. I thought Lugar looked and sounded drunk. Or senile.

He talked like an 80 year old man. His answers were thoughtful and he had command of his facts. Had you seen the first two questions you would have seen him whipping out facts, statistics, locations, names, and presenting it in a way that was pretty impressive.

I think only someone that despises everything about Luger can say that his performance was anything short of very good.

 

[Dogman]

I just wish Lugar had stood still instead of hopping back and forth like someone that had to take a ****.

Not really a debate and more a Q & A session.

 

[Jake46184]

I still intend to vote for Mourdock but he clearly lost this debate.

It depends on how you define "lost." Mourdock entered this lone debate with the only chance he was going to get to explain to the average Hoosier out there, who has never heard of him, why he is different, and clearly better for them, than Lugar. If you are saying he did not do that, and thus lost the debate, you are probably correct. However, as far as being credible and seemingly lucid, it was clear to any unbiased, casual observer that Lugar was struggling to form clear, reasoned responses. If you are saying that Mourdock lost the debate in that realm, you are mistaken. Mourdock did nothing to hurt himself in this debate, and Lugar did nothing to help himself, but that may not have been enough. Mourdock needed to at least knock Lugar down a couple of times. He did not do so.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

It depends on how you define "lost." Mourdock entered this lone debate with the only chance he was going to get to explain to the average Hoosier out there, who has never heard of him, why he is different, and clearly better for them, than Lugar. If you are saying he did not do that, and thus lost the debate, you are probably correct. However, as far as being credible and seemingly lucid, it was clear to any unbiased, casual observer that Lugar was struggling to form clear, reasoned responses. If you are saying that Mourdock lost the debate in that realm, you are mistaken. Mourdock did nothing to hurt himself in this debate, and Lugar did nothing to help himself, but that may not have been enough. Mourdock needed to at least knock Lugar down a couple of times. He did not do so.

I define lost as already 8 points behind in all polls and doing absolutely nothing that will make those 8 points up. Mourdock did nothing to differentiate himself or explain why Luger is not the best choice.

I absolutely disagree with your unbiased, casual observer statement. I am biased. I don't want Luger reelected. Period. But he was in command of his game and prepared at a level that Mourdock was not. When Luger answered the question about Ethonol throwing out stats and impact on Hoosier farmers Mourdock froze. Mourdock could have drawn a distinction that government subsidies of Ethonol were wrong to begin with and that Luger supports them. He could have said that Luger didn't really know what Hoosier farmers want since he only comes back here 3 - 4 times a year, and doesn't live here. Instead Mourdock was milktoast, a theme that repeated itself throughout the hour.

Even if you call it a tie it's a loss for Mourdock.

 

[pinshooter45]

Mourdock may be 8 points down but Lugar is under 50% clear evidence that people are ready for a change. Plus he was able to match Lugar in funds. Plus just as a side note Mourdock won't move to Washington like Lugar, His wife refuses to move there. I guess he'll rent an apartment.

 

[findingZzero]

Yeah, Lugar has been around forever and lives in DC. One of the few sensible conservatives left! Throw the bum out and put in one more inflexible dogmatic Senator who believes that 'compromise' is a dirty word. Nothing like a little more polarity in the capitol. After a couple of months here I find a definite libertarian streak. I admire the original American impulse of freedom and independence and limited gum'int. F'ckin' revenooers. Even the founding fathers realized we needed to band together to get things done or we'd be a nation of mountain men. As attractive as that sounds (I wanted to be Jeremiah Johnson...well maybe Robert Redford) had we remained pioneers, someone other than the Feds would own us now. We have to find a way to work together. This means getting out of your comfort zone. Like me being here..... . Even liberals drink beer (Sam Adams-Patriot,Brewer). What scares me is that our society is breaking apart into haves and have nots, separate classes that never interact (see Charles Murray "Coming Apart").
Take a clue from evolution (Creationists stop reading). The first creatures were probably single celled animals and/or plants. They interacted directly with the environment. feeding and excreting. Somehow evolution figured out that this was inefficent and organized cells into tissues which no longer interacted directly with the environment to survive, but became specialized organs like brain, teeth, bladders and butts. This specialization gave up some independence for the greater good of the organism. Wait, this is starting to sound like socialism. Nevermind. I feel better though.

 

[jgreiner]

He talked like an 80 year old man. His answers were thoughtful and he had command of his facts. Had you seen the first two questions you would have seen him whipping out facts, statistics, locations, names, and presenting it in a way that was pretty impressive.

I think only someone that despises everything about Luger can say that his performance was anything short of very good.

No, his answers were befuddled, halting, and either convoluted, or sheer pandering. My GREAT grandmother talked more coherently when she was 105.