Long time Virginia resident Richard Lugar is about to lose his GOP primary race for an unimaginable 7th term as Indiana's U.S. Senator.
Certainly, the usual suspects will howl and wail about the unwashed rabble chasing Very Serious People out of government. If the Lieberman, Bennet, Specter, and Murkowski overthrows are any indication, these "centrist" pundits will probably say something along the lines of "the voters were mean to Dick Lugar by voting him out of office."
While I'm no teabagging Mourdock supporter, I find a sense of electoral entitlement to be one of the most detestable traits a public figure can exhibit. Senate seats are not life peerages in the House of Lords. Senators are democratically accountable, much as "centrists" might hate that. Lugar is not entitled to the seat just because he's kept it warm since 1977. And he's certainly not entitled to it just because elite newspaper columnists fawn over him.
Political parties are collective organizations of people who share common values and want to see specific policies enacted that advance those values. It's entirely reasonable for Indiana's Republicans to not want as their standard bearer a Virginia resident who occasionally sides with the president. I disagree with their underlying values and policy objectives, but I think it's entirely appropriate for them to nominate someone who more closely shares their beliefs.
Lugar is essentially complaining that his party does not want him anymore. Unfortunately for Lugar, voters get to decide who represents them.
I don't like the prospect of another teabagger in the Senate. I like even less having to listen to pundits cry about mean voters robbing Dick Lugar of a Senate Seat as if it was Lugar's personal property. To make such an assertion is to basically admit one hates democracy and prefers aristocracy. Though, considering the crowd I'm talking about, this is entirely possible.