To: Interested Parties
From: American Bridge 21st Century
RE: Richard Mourdock’s Extreme Record
Let’s be clear about one thing regarding Richard Mourdock’s win over Dick Lugar tonight in the Indiana Republican Senate primary: Richard Mourdock did not win; Dick Lugar lost. Assuredly, Lugar’s precipitous drop in the final weeks was propelled by his stumbles over the residency issue. But Lugar’s vulnerability stemmed from being identified as one of the Tea Party’s top targets of the 2012 election cycle. Lugar will have been felled by the same extreme fringe of the Republican Party that took down several pragmatic Republican candidates in 2010. These extremists found a mouthpiece in State Treasurer Richard Mourdock and are nominating a candidate who is well outside the mainstream of Indiana voters.
The Republican primary has been a referendum on Lugar, not an endorsement of Richard Mourdock. As Hoosiers across the state learn more about Mourdock, they will realize that his soft-spoken demeanor belies a fervent, extreme view of politics and governance that would hurt Indiana’s middle class families, students, veterans, women, seniors, and farmers.
BACKGROUND ON RICHARD MOURDOCK’S EXTREMISM
Mourdock Said Auto Bailout Was Illegal. According to a Mourdock Editorial in the South Bend Tribune, “By any traditional legal analysis, fundamental elements of the Obama administration’s Chrysler bankruptcy plan were illegal. It turned 200 years of U.S. bankruptcy law on its head by awarding more value to a select group of unsecured creditors than to secured creditors. Others are apparently willing to tolerate the violation of federal bankruptcy laws simply because they liked the result: It helped their friends. But most Americans, including the Hoosier retirees who had their property stolen away, see such picking and choosing by the federal government as fundamentally un-American.” [Mourdock Editorial, South Bend Tribune, 10/9/10]
Column: No State… Benefitted More Than Indiana From The Successful Effort To Save The American Auto Industry.”
According to South Bend Tribune communist Jack Colwell, “No state, other than Michigan and Ohio, benefited more than Indiana from the successful effort to save the American auto industry. Yet some Hoosier politicians, knowing better but shamelessly seeking to take advantage of voter dislike of anything termed ‘bailout,’ claim that the decisive, successful government effort to save General Motors and Chrysler was neither successful nor needed. Chrysler, rather than liquidating and sending the unemployment rate in the Kokomo area to higher than 20 percent, adds jobs and announces investments there. The still-too-high rate there is dropping, down from 12.6 percent a year ago to 11.7 percent, not much above Indiana’s statewide rate.” [South Bend Tribune, 10/3/10]
At CPAC Mourdock Said, “It Is Bipartisanship That Has Taken This Country To The Very Brink Of Bankruptcy,” And That Bipartisanship Was Wrong. According to The Dallas Morning News, ‘Those who want to call out for bipartisanship are wrong,’ Indiana treasurer and Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said. ‘It is bipartisanship that has taken this country to the very brink of bankruptcy.’” [The Dallas Morning News, 2/12/12]
Mourdock Believed That The United States Needed “More Partisanship.” According to the Evansville Courier & Press, “Mourdock cited the ‘lame duck’ session of Congress last December and Lugar’s role in successfully pushing for the START Treaty and unsuccessfully the Dream Act that triggered his decision to run. ‘I was amazed at the lame duck session,’ Mourdock told supporters at the Indianapolis Artsgarden. ‘He’s known for his bipartisanship.’ After the speech, Mourdock added, ‘I think there needs to be more partisanship and frankly it’s based on principle. Again, elections have consequences. We should have consequences. Each party should define itself on those principles.’” [Evansville Courier & Press, 2/27/11]
Video: Mourdock Refused to Name a Single Issue He Would Work With Democrats On. “Q: What kind of specific issues would you see yourself working with them on? Mourdock: Working with them . . . ? Q: With Democrats in the Senate if you were elected? Mourdock: Well here’s the way I would look to address all the issues and that is to make the argument as to why we are right on the issues. And when I say we I’m talking about the conservative point-of-view. I’m very frustrated with Republicans right now because there aren’t nearly enough Republicans that walk to a microphone and make the lucid argument as to why our position is correct, why small government, greater individual freedom, and greater individual responsibility is what we need to be moving toward. We seem to think the federal government can have this omnipotent purpose and always make life better for us. We’re better when we have limited government, not greater government and we need to be making that argument every day.” [ABC News 6, 2/26/12]
Mourdock said He Wanted Repeal of Direct Election Of Senators. “Repealing the 17th amendment. Do I think it will ever happen? No. Is it something that I would like to see? Yes it is. And I’ll tell you the trackers in the room, my Democrat tracker friends who are here as they always are probably seeing something that you’ll see in a tv commercial not too far from now. You know the issue of the 17th amendment is so troubling to me, our founding fathers, again those geniuses, made the point that the House of Representatives was there to represent the people. The Senate was there to represent the states. In other words the government of the states. I will tell you as someone who spends a lot of time in the statehouse obviously, and a lot of time in local government, one of the most frustrating things state government and local government deals with are called unfunded mandates. It’s where the federal government will say you must do this, and we’re not going to pay for it. You got to figure out a way to go get the money and you must do this. How many unfunded mandates do you think would be coming from the United States Congress, if those same Senators had to come back every two years to help those people get reelected so they would elect them. You know I think most senators if they had to come back every two years and by the way that would solve another problem. It would solve the idea that Senators move out of their state and never return. But it would cause those senators to have much greater contact with their states. You know just think of this. In today’s you see millions and millions of dollars spent on Senate campaigns. Two years ago, in 2010, Sharon Angle out in Nevada spent 31 million dollars, just herself. How much money would be spent in federal senate races if the state legislators were electing those people. You just took the money out of politics. Is that a bad thing?” [AB 21 Tracking Footage, 2/4/12]
Published: May 8, 2012