Posted on 05/09/2012 4:35:33 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana lost his party’s nomination tonight because he had lost touch with the party’s grassroots.
Since his election to the Senate in 1976, Lugar had cut a profile as a moderate Republican: He had supported the ethanol mandate, backed the Brady Bill, and opposed the Iraq surge. In previous cycles, Republicans had forgiven Lugar his ideological transgressions, but in recent years, he had become more brazen. Not only did Lugar support the DREAM Act; he cosponsored it. Not only did he vote for New START, he spoke forcefully in its favor. True, Lugar wasn’t Arlen Specter — he opposed the stimulus and Obamacare — but his voting record was moderate enough to make him suspect.
And a combination of a poorly run campaign, a credible opponent, and a small, energized electorate sealed his fate.
1. Lugar ran a nasty and ineffective campaign. Senator Orrin Hatch faces many of the same challenges Lugar did, yet he’s in a stronger position going into Utah’s primary. Why? Because Hatch has recognized the threat to his candidacy and tried to meet it with full force. Lugar seemingly ignored the Tea Party — even insulted it, at times.
He should have known better. On the campaign trail, Lugar said he knew he would face a challenge as early as October 2010. That month, a group of tea partiers confronted Lugar and warned him he was their next target. They were angry that Dan Coats, who had previously served in the Senate and retired, had captured the Senate nomination because conservatives were divided among a number of candidates in the primary. Next time, they vowed, they would be united.
Although Lugar raised over $4 million for his campaign, he didn’t hit the campaign trail until the fall of 2011. His opponent, state treasurer Richard Mourdock, however, announced his candidacy in February 2011. Lugar met some success in courting conservatives: Leaders of the Hamilton County Tea Party, for instance, decided to back him after hearing him out. But Lugar’s reappearance on the campaign trail also reminded the rank and file that they hadn’t seen him at their Lincoln Day Dinners and their party conventions for decades.
And Lugar wasn’t the most effective speaker, either. When he took the stump, he made a reasonable argument — that, with his seniority, he was an effective advocate for his state’s interests — and he illustrated it with three points: He voted against Obamacare, he wrote a farm bill that would cut $40 billion, and his efforts on behalf of nuclear disarmament were important. Unfortunately, his message was out of tune with the times. And, accustomed to speaking with other pols, Lugar littered his speeches with Washington anecdotes — what Harry Reid had said to him the other day, or how Republicans had delayed Democratic bills with hours of debate. These anecdotes only reinforced Lugar’s image as an out-of-touch politician.
It also didn’t help that he had once told his more conservative opponents on New START to “get real.”
Furthermore, Lugar’s attacks on Mourdock simply weren’t creditable. Because Mourdock lacked a voting record to attack, Lugar’s camp tried to attack his character. Their targets were questionable: a tax deduction Mourdock erroneously received, a number of meetings Mourdock hadn’t attended, a group of junk bonds in which Mourdock had invested state funds. These weren’t signs of an untrustworthy character, but of a person who had made honest mistakes. And voters noticed.
The negative campaign tarnished Lugar’s statesman image. When Howey/DePauw asked voters in their last poll of the campaign whether, over the past few weeks, their opinion of Lugar had became less favorable, 32 percent said yes, while 12 percent said no.
2. Mourdock was a credible opponent.
Unlike Christine O’Donnell or Sharron Angle, Mourdock committed almost no gaffes on the campaign trail. The only major gaffe was committed by his campaign manager, Jim Holden, who in an e-mail leaked to the press compared scouring the state party’s e-mail list to pillaging a monastery. The controversy quickly blew over.
Unlike the Tea Party’s less successful candidates, Mourdock was an experienced pol. He ran for Congress in the early Nineties as well as for the party’s nomination for secretary of state. And he had just come off winning two statewide elections as state treasurer. Soft-spoken and understated, Mourdock also put in a strong performance against Lugar in their lone debate in April: He knocked Lugar on his support of New START and his backing of ethanol, and, in so doing, showed his own competence. Once Mourdock showed he was a credible opponent, he started rising in the polls.
3. Turnout was low and concentrated among Mourdock’s motivated supporters.
When Rick Santorum pulled out of the presidential race last month, Mourdock told Politico that it was the best possible timing for his campaign. Because Mitt Romney had sewn up the GOP nomination, there would be less interest among casual voters in Indiana. As a result, Mourdock predicted, it would be his more ideologically committed supporters who would turn out — and they did.
In the closing days of the campaign, Lugar was left to plead for the assistance of independents and Democrats to save his candidacy. That tactic — along with his refusal to say whether he would support Mourdock if he won the primary — only heightened Republicans’ suspicions of him. Lugar’s mistakes compounded each other, and now the 36-year incumbent, who once seemed invincible in the Hoosier State, has gone down to defeat.
— Brian Bolduc is an editorial associate for National Review.
By that logic, wouldn't he have also lost in '06? ... '00, '94, '88 ........
Agreed, these people should not make “careers” out of politics. Couple terms and back to the real world. Oh, and no jobs afterwards with “companies” who have lobbied D.C.; none, for any former congresscritter.
80 years old and in office for how long? He must’ve had lots of TV money for commercials. What’s wrong with US voters.....
Crist and Specter immediately come to mind, along with Murkowski.
Crist and Specter immediately come to mind, along with Murkowski.
All of these midwestern politicians loved the ethanol subsidy because Archer Daniels Midland gave them contributions to vote for it. It made ADM and a lot of corn farmers more profit. The consumer paid for it in the form of higher fuel & groceries. He is a typical piece of SH*T politician that was doing what was best for him to get reelected.
The answer to all of these problems is TERM LIMITS for Senators and Congressmen. Two for a Senator , 3-4 for a Congressmen. All of these people who spend 20+ years inside the beltway become corrupted no matter how idealistic they start.
I would extend term limits to the unelected bureacrats.
No rule maker in the epa should be in there for more than 8 years.
I o not know Indiana Politics (keeping m fingers crossed)
He extolled the RINO Lugar to the high heavens yesterday, and as is his usual wont, called Lugar's conservative opponent, Mourdock, a goodly number of nasty names.
I'll be watching the show today with a tremendous amount of schadenfreude. For those of you from Rio Linda "schadenfreude" means "gloating with malicious satisfaction".
Woo Hoo! That'll be moi !
Leni
The answer to all of these problems is TERM LIMITS for Senators and Congressmen. Two for a Senator , 3-4 for a Congressmen. All of these people who spend 20+ years inside the beltway become corrupted no matter how idealistic they start.
Great idea. Throw in they can’t keep campaign contributions, or earn anymore than the actual salary for their position.
That would remove the I’ll get rich, and work beyond normal retirement as many of them do.
lugar’s after election comments ripping the tea party and saying Murdock would be ineffective only demonstrate how lugar was in a mental block in senate country club.
From the article ....
Mourdock was a credible opponent.
Unlike Christine O’Donnell or Sharron Angle, Mourdock committed almost no gaffes on the campaign trail.
Unlike the Tea Party’s less successful candidates, Mourdock was an experienced pol. He ran for Congress in the early Nineties as well as for the party’s nomination for secretary of state. And he had just come off winning two statewide elections as state treasurer.
Theorem of Occam’s Razor. Generally the simplest explanation is the correct one.
Lugar is 80 years old. He has been in the Senate since 1976.
The voters decided that was long enough and effectively they term-limited him.
By now the electorate has seen what happens when you leave guys like Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond and Arlen Specter in there until they start going senile.
Kids in their twenties visited last night. They (and their friends) are tuned in to what's happening....They're working hard to take the country back. Want their dreams fulfilled....Tea Party may be a bunch of white haired ol fogies, but the youth is too busy working two jobs to attend any gatherings....Doesn't mean they are not with the program.
A lot of events came together to allow us to beat Lugar. A lot of conservatives in Indiana had been irritated with Lugar for a long time, but there was no real alternative, and that was principally because there was no money.
The Tea Party helped galvanize conservative support around one candidate.
Citizens United allowed Super PACs to fund Mourdock's campaign--without that war chest, it's very unlikely he could have won.
With a credible candidate that had some money, people starting looking more closely at Lugar, something no one had ever done before. No one knew that he didn't have a home in Indiana until this year. Think about that: the guy had been living in DC for 36 years, and no one knew that he didn't have a house in Indiana. Remarkable.
The Citizens United decision was a BFD. Incumbents always had a huge money and name recognition advantage. Super PACs level the playing field. It will be much more difficult for incumbents to win in the future.
Term limits will never happen....it was ruled unconsitutional several years ago....
The best term limits are what happened to Luger...
People getting involved
In a way term limits is a terrible idea as the people will get lazy about bad politicans since they know they will eventually be put out of office...
Thanks for the post. Some great detail and background. Congratulations!
that statement is a paradox
“People getting involved”
“In a way term limits is a terrible idea as the people will get lazy about bad politicans since they know they will eventually be put out of office...”
(b)... People will get lazy...... and(c)
(c) its just about too late for (a) to happen.
(d) opinions vary!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.