Ignoring the candidate’s personal failures, I had commented in this media forum that near-certain US
Senate wins in 2012 were compromised by a compromised national standard-bearer,
Willard Mitt Romney. A centrist Republican in deep-blue Massachusetts, Romney
helped no Republicans gain traction in Beacon Hill. Furthermore, he sponsored
the state-mandate health insurance plan RomneyCare, the blue print for the
disastrous, gargantuan federal mandate ObamaCare (which incidentally enough, is
forcing Massachusetts’ recipients off of their state-run plan as I write this
column). He was a the best candidate out of a bad bunch, but not a good
candidate to begin with.
Looking over the 2012 election fallouts in Missouri, as well
as Indiana, North Dakota and Montana, this judgment against Romney seemed all
the more justified. When considering Swarens’ take on Mourdock’s loss, however,
including a measure consideration of in-state statistics and Republican gains
across the Hoosier State, Mourdock’s loss revealed more complex sources.
Swarens claimed that Mourdock ran an arrogant, disorganized
campaign.
Granted, state treasurer Mourdock, who had fought to protect
the pension funds of Indiana’s retired teachers and police officers during the
Housing Crisis, described true bipartisanship as “Democrats coming over to the
Republicans’ point of view.” Putting aside partisan vigor and fiscal restraint,
such an argument is both disingenuous and incredulous. Not content with winning
his own Senate seat, Mourdock was contemplating a grand sweep of Republicans
over the next two cycles to end the defict-spending and national debt explosion
in Washington. Couting the hen house before the eggs were hatched, one could
argue that Mourdock’s expectations had outpaced his more present need to win
his own seat first.
Diminishing the national debt and reining in federal
spending are all worthy causes, yet every candidate has to make his case to the
voters, and Mourdock did not do this well. Even the conservative-leaning
Rasmussen Reports polling firm acknowledged that Mourdock was maintaining a
mere five point advantage of his Democratic opponent Joe Donnelly up to
October, 2012.
Then came Mourdock’s disastrous comment about rape and God’s
will.
“I don’t care what people may think,” Mourdock proudly
announced, then pronounced his affirmative support for every unborn child,
acknowledged that he supported abortion only if the life of the mother was endangered,
then shared that the child conceived in rape was “God’s will.” Liberal media
outlets pounced. Reconsidering these misplaced statements and columnist Ann
Coulter’s unrepentant venom toward Mourdock and Missouri’s Todd Akin, I understand
her frustration. The perceived arrogance of “I don’t care what people may think”
simply has no place in a debate for federal office. For the record, Mourdock’s
stance, minus the rhetorical flap, did not doom his campaign. Keep in mind that
Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain also opposed abortion except in
the cases of the life of the mother, and he had admitted this view on the uber-feminist
daytime program “The View”. Cain’s proper phrasing of the issue, without spending
significant time on the subject, prevented the issue from derailing his
campaign.
So, reviewing Swarens’ indictment of Richard Mourdock
further, one can conclude that Mourdock’s many mistakes, besides the rape
comment, did undermine his candidacy. The Republican results throughout
Indiana, aside from the US Senate loss, affirm that conservatives, not just
Republicans, actually did very well and turned out for their own. Congressman
and former Presidential candidate Mike Pence won the governor’s office, bringing
in his victory wake Republican supermajorities into the Indiana state
legislature. Seven out of nine Congressional seats went to conservative
Republicans, as well, so obviously the fiscal and social conservative message was
not a turn-off for Indiana voters.
Entering 2014, Republican and Tea Party operatives must
respect each other’s interest by supporting well-financed and disciplined
candidates, not just ideological partisans with unbending political convictions.
Will future conservative US Senate candidates learn from
Mourdock’s mistakes? One can only hope.