Tuesday’s political round-up

Wow, the Lugar poll seems more likely (and I would not be unhappy to see him win, we need more people, not less, in the Senate with real gravitas on foreign affairs/national security). Langevin being beaten would be a definite blow. Hopefully Dem voters in that tiny townstate will realize that Langevin is a great politician and great asset to the party even if he is pro-life (which really matters very liberal as long as he casts his vote for Speaker of the House correctly).

I think that Lugar poll is too high for Lugar, and a bit too low for Roemer (but not much) — just as I figured that Roemer’s poll was the opposite, too high for Roemer and too low for Lugar.

I never felt it was likely that Tim Roemer, who I feel is a very attractive candidate given his considerable credentials in the fields of foreign policy and intelligence (as a member of the (9/11 Commission and as the former Ranking Minority Member of the House Intelligence Committee), would be able to defeat Richard Lugar; nor do I think anyone else in Indiana can defeat Richard Lugar, who is the classic Senator-for-Life. I still hope Roemer challenges Sen. Lugar, and I hope in so doing he stresses his knowledge and expertise (and, one might say, gravitas) on terrorism, foreign policy, and intelligence, because we need Democrats running for office to make this case on a consistent basis, to show the public that the party is not devoid of ideas on this front.

Further, even though I never gave Roemer a shot at unseating Lugar, this poll for other reasons still doesn’t sway me from my belief that he should make the strongest possible run. Roemer, in challenging the institutionalist landmark Richard Lugar, would seem to be in a position very similar to other candidates in the past who’ve made such challenges — we need to recall that in politics, losing isn’t always everything. Mark Warner took on John Warner in Virginia, even though he had little shot, and he was then able to parlay that run into a successful campaign for governor. Mitt Romney’s 1994 campaign against Ted Kennedy was absolutely an instrumental component of his much late run for governor (as, with Warner, a successful one). And Brian Schweitzer’s good race and close showing against Conrad Burns were pivotal in his success winning the governor’s office in Montana. Now, take a look at New York — Jeanne Pirro is considered something of an up-and-comer in Republican circles, and yet she’s challenging Hillary Clinton, who outpolls her by something on the margin of twenty points. Does anyone really think Pirro is making some sort of kamikaze run? No, of course not: she views, and rightly so, a challenge to Clinton as an important step in establishing herself as a top contender for a future office.

Roemer should be wise enough to see this, too, and he should recognize not only the benefits of challenging a popular, institutional figure, but also the benefits of making a strong national security case for the Democratic Party in a state like Indiana. And he should run against Lugar, do as well as possible, and in gracious loss then go on and try and achieve another, later victory — perhaps in taking on Governor Mitch Daniels, or in vying to replace Senator Bayh when that seat is vacated.

As to Missouri: fantastic. Anything that helps push Claire McCaskill closer towards this race is grade-a in my book. She’s an excellent candidate, and has the potential to be a real star for the party. I’m sure she’d rather hold her cards for a few years and then do a rematch against Blunt, but I really hope she goes for Sen. Talent instead. She could make an incredibly good race in Missouri.