Both the charming Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal (The Case for . . .) and Dana Milbank of the flagging Washington Post (Taking out . . . .) make strong arguments for returning the honorable gentleman, Dick Lugar, to the Senate.

Following similar themes both focus attention on Lugar’s many years as a leading authority on limiting nuclear proliferation among other adult pursuits. He has indeed served honorably for 36 years, but, in many respects, therein lies the problem.

Noonan and Milbank are motivated differently of course, Noonan sincere in her admiration, Milbank sincere in his fear.

On the one hand Noonan embraces the civility of the Senate past and yearns for the days when comity was common.  She appreciates that Lugar, who abandoned his residence in Indiana, while cultivating bipartisanship in Washington, has lost the confidence of his constituents. They think he’s gone “native” as happens so often. Washington is intoxicating, but he didn’t even keep a home, back home.

Milbank, ignores Lugar’s detachment from his home, gratuitously smears the “Tea Party” that supports Lugar’s opponent, Richard Mourdock, and signals fear, fear that a conservative will represent Indiana.

The only hope “Progressives” enjoy in pursuing their utopian dreams – since they can’t take ground intellectually – is to pick off the occasional Republican for whom the approbation of The New York Times and even The Washington Post is dear.

Dick Lugar is an honorable man, for a different time. Bipartisanship, sadly, is what got us here. The Democrats would see a problem, real or perceived, or even of their own making, and argue that “a billion dollars will fix it.” The Republicans would counter, “no, nine hundred million is as much as ‘we’ can afford.” “That’s a deal,” would be the compromise, “nine hundred fifty million! Shake on it.”

And, they would . . . shake us down, the taxpayers.