The plusses and minuses of Sen. Lugar's loss in Indiana

As with most anything, there are, in fact, positives and negatives in Indiana Senator Richard Lugar's loss last night.

There's so much shock about this, too, that it's surprising.

The shock is that this never used to happen.

It never used to be that a long-sitting Senator would be unseated. As long as they had breath and wanted their seat, they could have it. It was virtually always so.

But now, with the emergence of the Tea Party, at least, and the really awful economic situation of the country--the worst in 80 years, since the Great Depression--things have changed. People have changed. We, the people want and need solutions and people who will take us to those solutions.

The fact is, Richard Lugar had been in office for 7 terms, for starters. Worse, really, was that he hadn't lived in Indiana for some time, either. At one point, it had been ruled he wasn't even a member of his own constituent area. He hadn't lived in Indiana since 1977, at one point.

The fact that he was a moderate should have, historically, been in his favor and it would have been in normal times.

But these are anything but normal times.

So on the one hand, the time had come for Senator Lugar to perhaps be replaced. He'd been in the Senate for a long time. He was, after all, 80 years old.

On the other hand, he will, quite possibly, be replaced by an extremely Right Wing Tea Party member.

New ideas and new people should be good for the Senate and the people represented. But if they're represented by extremists of either or any side, it's likely not a positive step forward. We need balance.

So let me be clear on this--I think the extreme wings of either political party--no matter the party--is unhealthy for the people and nation. It's only when you have consensus from the middle, the masses, for the entire nation, will we get progress for the entire nation--for all of us.

Link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-05-08/lugar-indiana-senate-mourdock/54844834/1