|
Thursday, 13 September 2012 08:23 |
|
by Brian Howey
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. – I've heard this story over and over again from relatives, friends, even the Sears salesman here who sold me a refrigerator and I’ve experienced it myself: Because of the polarized nature of today's politics, old friendships are ending.
Friends can no longer talk politics among those who have a difference of opinion. There is the point, counterpoint, and over 10 or 15 minutes it gets emotional, then heated. Often, one side shuts down: "I'm not going to talk about politics anymore."
People are getting angry when a Tea Party friend sends them birther or Sheriff Joe videos via email. The conservatives cannot fathom how anyone could be so stupid to support Barack Obama.
I watched the Democratic National Convention Tuesday night on Fox News. Somewhere between Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity I moved into another room to catch a Sox/Twins score, and the muffled rancor permeated through as if the Bickerson’s were next door.
It was a national quarrel.
We are a divided, sneering nation. Tolerance has been replaced by suspicion.
The Real Clear Politics composite on the presidential race stood at 46.8 percent for both Mitt Romney and President Obama on Wednesday, an absolute dead heat. The RCP Congressional generic stood at 44.2 percent for both Republicans and Democrats. I can't ever remember a time when a presidential race and the Congressional generic were absolutely tied at the same time. President Obama's job approval stood at 47.3 percent approve and 48.8 disapprove. The RCP Electoral College map stood at 221 for Obama and 191 for Romney with Indiana in the "leans Romney" lighter shade of red.
Romney isn't faring much better. Gallup reported he received no polling “bounce” after the convention. A Pew Research poll revealed 20 percent found Clint Eastwood's weird interview with an empty chair the "highlight" of the convention, compared to 17 percent who said Romney's acceptance speech was.
Look further into the battleground states and its pure splitsville: In Ohio, Obama is up 46.2 to 45.5 percent; in Virginia Obama leads 47.3 to 46.7; in Wisconsin the president is up 48.2 to 46.8; in Florida Obama has a 47.3 to 46.7 lead. Romney leads in North Carolina 47.3 to 45.7 and in Iowa, Obama is up 45 to 44.8, if you call that up.
The RCP national right/wrong track stood at 31.4 percent to 63. Congressional approval stood at 12 percent approve and 82 percent disapprove in an August NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.
In the year of the rubber match, this has been the summer of discontent. I hear this a lot from smart people: the propaganda is so thick from both sides they don’t know where to find the truth.
When Obama enthralled the nation in 2008, he campaigned on the simplistic notions of "hope and change." The nation had been through seven years of war, with the amount we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan very close to the trillion dollar budget deficit. There had been President George W. Bush's dramatic Medicare entitlement expansion, tax cuts that were also unpaid for, and a sense that this middle-aged empire was beginning to lose its way.
In 2010, Americans gyrated, voting like the flapping screen door in a squall line, returning the U.S. House to GOP control, and almost the U.S. Senate, had it not been for the failed, kooky candidacies of Sharron Angle, Joe Miller and Christine O'Donnell.
The masses were dividing themselves, watching only Fox News or MSNBC, depending on which one reinforced your political posture.
In their book "The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart" by Bill Bishop with Robert G. Cushing, they compared the presidential elections of 1976 and 2004. In 1976, barely 26 percent of us lived in counties that went in a landslide for one presidential candidate or another. In 1992, nearly 38 percent of us lived in a “landslide county.” By 2004, nearly 50 percent did.
In January 2009, surveying the colossal mess left behind by the Bush/Cheney presidency, I predicted that Barack Obama would likely not be reelected. He acknowledged as much on the “Today Show,” saying that if his stimulus package failed, "I'll be a one-term president."
Unlike the months following President Reagan's election, when dozens of Democrats joined Republicans in voting for the 1981 tax cuts, President Obama and the two Congresses that followed became equally polarized. Nothing big passed without straight, party line votes. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell neatly summed up the priority: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
It should have been: let’s lay down the swords for a year and get Americans back to work. Tragically, it didn’t happen.
Here in Indiana, Republican Senate nominee Richard Mourdock articulated the polarization by saying, "I get criticized for it but I often say it's bipartisanship that's taken us to the brink of bankruptcy and we don't need bipartisanship."
The two sides of the ship of state are rowing against each other, conversing about it only with those with which they agree. As the economy stagnates, neither of the dug-in sides will get things moving.
This is, sadly, the house divided . . . .
(The columnist publishes at www.howeypolitics.com. Find him on Twitter @hwypol.) by Brian Howey BLOOMINGTON, Ind. – I've heard this story over and over again from relatives, friends, even the Sears salesman here who sold me a refrigerator and I’ve experienced it myself: Because of the polarized nature of today's politics, old friendships are ending. Friends can no longer talk politics among those who have a difference of opinion. There is the point, counterpoint, and over 10 or 15 minutes it gets emotional, then heated. Often, one side shuts down: "I'm not going to talk about politics anymore." People are getting angry when a Tea Party friend sends them birther or Sheriff Joe videos via email. The conservatives cannot fathom how anyone could be so stupid to support Barack Obama. I watched the Democratic National Convention Tuesday night on Fox News. Somewhere between Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity I moved into another room to catch a Sox/Twins score, and the muffled rancor permeated through as if the Bickerson’s were next door. It was a national quarrel. We are a divided, sneering nation. Tolerance has been replaced by suspicion.
|
|
Wednesday, 05 September 2012 21:36 |
|
by Brian Howey
NASHVILLE, Ind. – We are witnessing perhaps the most vivid contrast between gubernatorial candidates Mike Pence and John Gregg coming with the politically explosive issue of Obamacare.
Knowing that he would not have to live with decisions made by November deadlines on establishing Essential Health Benefits and the Health Exchange the law calls for, Gov. Mitch Daniels asked for input from the candidates, saying he will follow the advice of the winner on Nov. 6.
The backdrop to this is that Obamacare is extremely unpopular in Indiana. A December 2011 Public Opinion Strategies Poll revealed that 57 percent oppose the law and only 35 percent support it. On a repeal question, 55 percent support and 35 percent are against.
Democrat Gregg acknowledged that dynamic when he said, "I want to make this clear, it does not matter whether you support the Affordable Care Act or not, whether you love it or hate it, it is the law of the land. My job as governor will be to protect the best interests of the people of this state and enforce the law in a way that will benefit all Hoosiers and make healthcare more affordable and more accessible for all Hoosiers."
He then laid out a position diametrically opposed to Republican nominee Pence. In doing so, we find the Democrat taking a pragmatic approach to the law, while Pence has adopted an ideological stance that will likely be more politically popular.
After meeting with Gov. Daniels, Pence explained, “First, the national debate over the Affordable Care Act is far from over."
Pence is a vociferous opponent of Obamacare, voting against it in March 2010 and on 33 other House votes to repeal. "While the Obama administration, its allies in Congress and the Supreme Court have had their say on this health care law, the American people will have their say in November,” he said. “With such political uncertainty surrounding the Affordable Care Act, it would not be prudent for the state to require Hoosiers to spend their time and hard-earned money on the implementation of a federal health care law that may be overturned in the next Congress."
Pence equated the initiation of the health exchanges to a tax increase, an area on which he has based much of his campaign. "With our unemployment rate at 8.2 percent and too many Hoosiers out of work, I will not support the implementation of an Indiana exchange when there is a chance that doing so would lead to a tax increase on Hoosier employers,” he said.
Pence made these other points: There is too much “regulatory uncertainty” surrounding the operation of exchanges; the federal government is still delinquent on complete guidance for exchanges; there is “fiscal uncertainty,” saying the cost to Hoosier taxpayers for setting up our own exchange could be at least $50 million per year and perhaps higher; and there is “legal uncertainty” as to whether the state-operated exchanges can mandate penalties on employers.
Gregg cited two points: "First, the federal government is very prescriptive as it relates to EHB plans and in order to assist states in the selection of minimum benefits for plans in the Exchange, the federal government has named four options, all of which must cover services in 10 different areas. I fully support the Healthy Indiana Plan benefit levels. However, the federal government requires maternity benefits and HIP does not pay for those services at this time. Accordingly, I support using Indiana's Healthy Indiana Plan as the basis for our EHB plan, with additional coverage as required by the federal government.
"Second, the federal government has offered several options to states in moving forward on an Exchange. States may choose a state-designed and controlled Exchange, and they can choose a hybrid system that allows for a partnership with the federal government but still allows for state control; or they can choose a regional partnership with other states.”
Gregg said he is leaning toward a hybrid system.
Gregg added, "Our belief is that the most responsible position for the governor to take is the one that Gov. Daniels has been pursuing all along – to meet deadlines and apply for grant monies available to keep all options open to us.” He said Daniels’ actions have brought $8 million to the state.
And for the first time in this campaign, Gregg and Pence exchanged shots. Gregg chided his opponent, saying, "Unfortunately, Congressman Pence has chosen to do nothing. In doing so, he makes the choice to abdicate his responsibility and throw Hoosiers under the federal bureaucracy bus, the same bureaucratic bus that he claims he so adamantly opposes."
Pence retorted, saying, "Hoosiers don't want their hard-earned money spent implementing the Obama Administration's deeply flawed health care bureaucracy. Hoosiers now have a clear choice in this election. I choose more freedom, more innovation and Hoosier solutions over Obamacare."
A critical question, then, is whether Obamacare will be repealed. That would take a Mitt Romney win, along with a Republican Senate majority, as well as some vigorous legislative maneuvering unless the GOP wins 60 seats.
The GOP Senate majority – once seen as likely – is in grave doubt as a number of Republican Tea Party candidates such as Missouri’s Todd Akin have floundered, just like they did in 2010.
(The columnist publishes at www.howeypolitics.com. Find him on Twitter @hwypol.) by Brian Howey NASHVILLE, Ind. – We are witnessing perhaps the most vivid contrast between gubernatorial candidates Mike Pence and John Gregg coming with the politically explosive issue of Obamacare. Knowing that he would not have to live with decisions made by November deadlines on establishing Essential Health Benefits and the Health Exchange the law calls for, Gov. Mitch Daniels asked for input from the candidates, saying he will follow the advice of the winner on Nov. 6. The backdrop to this is that Obamacare is extremely unpopular in Indiana. A December 2011 Public Opinion Strategies Poll revealed that 57 percent oppose the law and only 35 percent support it. On a repeal question, 55 percent support and 35 percent are against. Democrat Gregg acknowledged that dynamic when he said, "I want to make this clear, it does not matter whether you support the Affordable Care Act or not, whether you love it or hate it, it is the law of the land. My job as governor will be to protect the best interests of the people of this state and enforce the law in a way that will benefit all Hoosiers and make healthcare more affordable and more accessible for all Hoosiers." He then laid out a position diametrically opposed to Republican nominee Pence. In doing so, we find the Democrat taking a pragmatic approach to the law, while Pence has adopted an ideological stance that will likely be more politically popular.
|
|
Wednesday, 29 August 2012 22:15 |
|
by Brian Howey
INDIANAPOLIS - The increasingly competitive Indiana U.S. Senate race will see more national money pouring in. The Majority PAC, a Democratic super 527 group, made a $500,000 TV ad buy on behalf of Democratic nominee Joe Donnelly this week.
On Friday, Americans for Prosperity announced it would begin a $700,000 statewide TV ad buy on behalf of Republican nominee Richard Mourdock.
“Congressman Joe Donnelly’s votes for government-run health care has increased taxes and healthcare costs, takes money from Medicare, and gives bureaucrats the power over important personal health decisions,” stated Chase Downham, Indiana State Director of Americans for Prosperity.
With the meltdown of Missouri Senate Republican nominee Todd Akin after his nutty comments on rape last weekend, the prospects of more national money shifting to the deadlocked Indiana Senate race are likely to increase. Crossroads GPS and the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee have cancelled millions of dollars of TV ad buys in Missouri, once seen as a critical GOP pickup on its quest for a Senate majority. Akin is challenging U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill.
Howey Politics Indiana Columnist Mark Souder, the former Republican congressman, sees national Democratic spending for Donnelly “a more likely variable.” But he adds, “Ironically, now they have to spend in Missouri which they had surrendered. Republican money probably needs to come to Mourdock, but unless he – not others – makes a new mistake, Donnelly will start to fall and the focus will move to real battleground areas. If Mourdock is in doubt, it means the Senate will be Democratic.”
Barney Keller, spokesman for Club for Growth, which had invested close to $2 million in Mourdock’s candidacy in the primary, explained, “There hasn’t been much advertising in the race yet, so I’d avoid hyperventilating over summer poll numbers because you’ll look silly when Mourdock ends up winning. I would note that the DSCC hasn’t made any ad reservations in Indiana, while they have in places like North Dakota and Nevada. Usually, if the national party thinks a race is competitive, they put their money where their mouth is.”
The buy on Donnelly’s behalf comes after a Market Research Poll conducted on behalf of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce showed Mourdock leading 41- 39 percent. In addition to the 17 percent of respondents who are undecided, three percent support Libertarian candidate Andrew Horning.
Dr. Vern Kennedy of Market Research noted that “16 percent of Indiana voters who say they are completely independent will likely determine the outcome of the Senate race.” Kennedy added, “Mourdock has the advantage in the election because more of the 17 percent of undecided voters on this race identify themselves as Republicans than Democrats,” Kennedy explains. “For instance, among those voters undecided on the U.S. Senate race, 33 percent indicated their support for Pence for governor compared to six percent who support Gregg in that race.”
But the Market Research poll shows that among “completely independent voters,” Donnelly’s fav/unfavs stood at 14/4 percent. In Mourdock’s case, completely independent fav/unfavs stood at 11/24. Those voters might not react too well to comments Mourdock made before a Madison Tea Party group challenging them to find the words Medicare and Social Security in the U.S. Constitution (Evansville Courier & Press). “Nowhere is the word ‘entitlement’ present in the enumerated powers,” Mourdock says in a video captured by Democratic trackers.
That kind of data is one reason why Donnelly was campaigning with former senator and governor Evan Bayh this week. Bayh has a long history of attracting independent and Republican voters.
“I think the Democratic base is squarely in Joe Donnelly’s camp and we need to build on that and reach out to independents and Republicans because not only is that the politically sensible thing to do, it’s the only way we’re going to make progress in Washington,” Bayh said. “The two United States Senators who were from the same state but from different parties but had the voting record most alike were Dick Lugar and myself.”
Mourdock won a bitterly contested Republican primary against U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar. In that showdown, Mourdock played to his Tea Party supporters which helped him win a stunning 61-39 percent upset. But in doing so, Mourdock alienated himself from many of the independents he needs to win.
The Market Research poll has Mourdock’s GOP support at 80 percent, while Democrat support for Donnelly is at 84 percent. Both are fairly typical numbers.
Jeff Brantley of the Indiana Chamber noted that at this point, “Mourdock hasn’t closed the deal.”
But Brantley observed of the Market Research polling, Republican self-ID is up “in all state legislative districts” enough for him to believe that five or six swing districts have since been moved to “leans Republican.” That has Chamber analysts sensing a potential Republican wave developing in Indiana, which could give Mourdock a tailwind. While my Indiana House projections in July had the Republicans picking up 63 seats, a number Brantley wouldn’t quibble with, in a wave environment “there is a path to get to the magic” 67 seat super majority.
As for the nine percent drop off of Republican support in the Chamber poll between gubernatorial nominee Mike Pence (at 50 percent) and Mourdock at 41 percent– very similar to the Rasmussen Reports drop off between presidential nominee Mitt Romney and Mourdock – Brantley notes that the two candidates have “branded themselves differently.” Pence, he said, has stayed positive in his message and has maintained control of that message. Mourdock has branded himself as an ardent Tea Party revolutionary. “There’s real combat going on in the Senate race, but not in the governor’s race,” Brantley explained. “Any time you come out of a divisive primary, you’re going to have a harder time.”
(The columnist publishes at www.howeypolitics.com. Find him on Twitter @hwypol.) by Brian Howey INDIANAPOLIS - The increasingly competitive Indiana U.S. Senate race will see more national money pouring in. The Majority PAC, a Democratic super 527 group, made a $500,000 TV ad buy on behalf of Democratic nominee Joe Donnelly this week. On Friday, Americans for Prosperity announced it would begin a $700,000 statewide TV ad buy on behalf of Republican nominee Richard Mourdock. “Congressman Joe Donnelly’s votes for government-run health care has increased taxes and healthcare costs, takes money from Medicare, and gives bureaucrats the power over important personal health decisions,” stated Chase Downham, Indiana State Director of Americans for Prosperity. With the meltdown of Missouri Senate Republican nominee Todd Akin after his nutty comments on rape last weekend, the prospects of more national money shifting to the deadlocked Indiana Senate race are likely to increase. Crossroads GPS and the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee have cancelled millions of dollars of TV ad buys in Missouri, once seen as a critical GOP pickup on its quest for a Senate majority. Akin is challenging U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill. Howey Politics Indiana Columnist Mark Souder, the former Republican congressman, sees national Democratic spending for Donnelly “a more likely variable.” But he adds, “Ironically, now they have to spend in Missouri which they had surrendered. Republican money probably needs to come to Mourdock, but unless he – not others – makes a new mistake, Donnelly will start to fall and the focus will move to real battleground areas. If Mourdock is in doubt, it means the Senate will be Democratic.”
|
|
Wednesday, 22 August 2012 15:14 |
|
by Brian Howey
NASHVILLE, IND. – If you are an American – whether a Republican, Democrat or independent – Mitt Romney’s selection of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan to the ticket is the best thing that could have happened in this critical campaign.
Within hours of this selection, the tawdry presidential race shifted away from Bain Capital and President Obama’s birth certificate to what we should be talking about, which is the unsustainable entitlement train wreck.
In 2010, Chairman Ryan unveiled his “Roadmap for America’s Future” – using the iconic language of Gov. Mitch Daniels’ innovative 2004 gubernatorial campaign. It proposed to overhaul the sprawling entitlement programs that take about 40 percent of the federal budget, refashioning Medicare. It also made deep cuts into food stamps, Medicaid and other safety net programs, as well as proposing to overhaul the tax code.
Speaking at the Indiana Republican fall dinner last October, Ryan explained, “We believe in the safety net. But we don’t want to turn that safety net into a hammock. We don’t want to keep kicking the can down the road. It’s not too late to get this right.”
As Indiana Congressional Republicans like Mike Pence, Todd Rokita and Todd Young reacted to the Ryan selection, their language was steeped in Danielspeak, with “comebacks” and roadmaps.
If there was an outlier on the needed substance of the debate, it was Gov. Daniels. In a seven-month sequence in 2011 that straddled his own flirtation with a presidential bid, Daniels made a compelling case that the issues facing the nation are so dire that the 2012 debate must center on them.
There was his CPAC speech in February 2011 where he issued his warning. He called the massive debt “the new Red Menace, this time consisting of ink,” adding that it is not ideological, but “pure arthimetic”
“No enterprise, small or large, public or private, can remain self-governing, let alone successful, so deeply in hock to others as we are about to be,” he warned.
Daniels explained, “The creation of new Social Security and Medicare compacts with the young people who will pay for their elders and who deserve to have a backstop available to them in their own retirement. Medicare 2.0 should restore to the next generation the dignity of making their own decisions, by delivering its dollars directly to the individual.”
In September 2011, Daniels published his book “Keeping the Republic: Saving America by Trusting Americans.” Now four months after opting out of the presidential race, Daniels explained, “The coming debate is not really about something so mundane as tax policy or health care or energy choices. It is about things more fundamental: Who is in charge, the people or those who supposedly serve at their sufferance? What kind of people will we Americans be, free and proud citizens who control our own lives and decide for ourselves, or submissive subjects of the crown who meekly conclude that our benevolent betters know best?”
Then last January, when he responded to President Obama’s State of the Union address, Daniels said, “2012 must be the year we prove the doubters wrong; the year we strike out boldly not merely to avert national bankruptcy but to say to a new generation that America is still the world’s premier land of opportunity.”
By last Wednesday, the Medicare debate took front stage center. In Ohio, Ryan accused the president of trying to “raid” Medicare by cutting more than $716 billion from the program as part of his health care overhaul. “We want this debate. We need this debate. And we will win this debate,” Ryan said. The Associated Press reported that Ryan did not mention that his own congressional budget proposal includes the same savings.
In Iowa, President Obama joined the fray, saying, “They start making up all kinds of stuff about my plans. Their plan ends Medicare as we know it.”
When Daniels accepted the Purdue presidency job, he vowed to refrain from campaigning. I was able to talk about the Ryan selection in the context of his book. “I’m going to try to speak clinically,” the governor began. “I thought it was a wise choice because a particular number of Americans are about to be shafted in a very severe way. I do believe that he both understands and can communicate effectively about the immensity of the injustice that is about to be done.”
“You know how I feel about the need to both recreate conditions of growth and jobs in the country, and closely related to that, to be fair to younger people. And Ryan, as much as any member of either party understands all of those issues.”
Before Saturday, the governor was underwhelmed by the campaign. “To be honest, I don’t think either side - even Gov. Romney to this point - has been raising these questions. His choice of Ryan suggests that he’s prepared to. I hope that’s right.”
Daniels believes the issues go well beyond Medicare. “People should expect a real debate on these fundamental questions. Who is in charge? To what extent is the government going to make fundamental decisions for Americans versus entrusting and empowering them to make them for themselves. Will this debate on both sides stay clearly with the arithmetic? I hope people would give points for either side on which one refrains from mudslinging.”
We can only hope.
(The columnist publishes at www.howeypolitics.com. Find him on Twitter @hwypol.) by Brian Howey NASHVILLE, IND. – If you are an American – whether a Republican, Democrat or independent – Mitt Romney’s selection of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan to the ticket is the best thing that could have happened in this critical campaign. Within hours of this selection, the tawdry presidential race shifted away from Bain Capital and President Obama’s birth certificate to what we should be talking about, which is the unsustainable entitlement train wreck. In 2010, Chairman Ryan unveiled his “Roadmap for America’s Future” – using the iconic language of Gov. Mitch Daniels’ innovative 2004 gubernatorial campaign. It proposed to overhaul the sprawling entitlement programs that take about 40 percent of the federal budget, refashioning Medicare. It also made deep cuts into food stamps, Medicaid and other safety net programs, as well as proposing to overhaul the tax code. Speaking at the Indiana Republican fall dinner last October, Ryan explained, “We believe in the safety net. But we don’t want to turn that safety net into a hammock. We don’t want to keep kicking the can down the road. It’s not too late to get this right.” As Indiana Congressional Republicans like Mike Pence, Todd Rokita and Todd Young reacted to the Ryan selection, their language was steeped in Danielspeak, with “comebacks” and roadmaps.
|
|
Wednesday, 15 August 2012 21:51 |
|
by Brian Howey
ZIONSVILLE, Ind. – In my three decades of covering Indiana politics, I have never seen anything quite like Richard Mourdock’s U.S. Senate campaign.
To his credit, he aptly picked up on the brewing Tea Party unrest, articulated a case against U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar, and convinced three national groups – Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and the National Rifle Association – to pump more than $4 million on behalf of his campaign.
The result was a stunning 61-39 percent upset of Lugar, with Mourdock basing his candidacy on attacking the concept of “bipartisanship.”
The old Nixonian axiom of run to the right in the primary, run to the center in the general, seemed to be a cogent path for Mourdock. While my Howey/DePauw Indiana Battleground Poll in late March showed Lugar easily leading Democrat Joe Donnelly 50-29 percent, Mourdock and Donnelly were tied at 35 percent. If Mourdock moderated his pitch to a degree, he could position himself to pick up the needed independent and even moderate voters. He already has the Tea Party base in his pocket, but even in Indiana, you have to carry moderate Republicans and independents to win.
Mourdock views his victory as an ideological one, but Howey/DePauw polling revealed that only 15 percent voted for him based on the Tea Party agenda. Most believed that Lugar was too old and had been in Congress too long.
But in the days after the landslide over Lugar, Mourdock’s campaign sent a fundraising letter out to Hoosier Republicans that raised some eyebrows and had the heads of Lugarites shaking.
"Conservatives scored a tremendous victory in Indiana just a few weeks ago," the Mourdock letter read. "Against all odds and with the establishment working day and night to defeat me, we retired a 36-year entrenched incumbent senator, who routinely betrayed conservative voters to push through some of the most radical aspects of President Obama's agenda."
This notion of “betrayal” has a number of Lugarites fuming.
Mourdock had been critical of Lugar votes for President Obamas's Supreme Court nominees Kagan and Sotomayor and the START Treaty, something Lugar supported predating the Obama presidency. But as Lugar supporters note, he opposed all aspects of Obamacare, the stimulus, as well as the carbon tax proposals.
What is emerging in late summer is Mourdock is still playing to his Tea Party base and not making inroads with voters who don't buy into the parts of his candidacy that favored voting against the debt ceiling and allowing the U.S. to go into default, as well as attempting to derail the Chrysler-Fiat merger, once calling it his “Rosa Parks moment.”
Polling has consistently shown that Mourdock has ground to make up with independents (61 percent who favored the auto rescue in a March Howey/DePauw Poll) and with Lugarites. In my polling last spring, 57 percent of Lugar voters had a negative view of Mourdock, compared to 12 percent who viewed him positively. In a tight race with Donnelly, Mourdock needs every Republican voter he can get.
In the Rasmussen Reports Poll released last Sunday, Mourdock was in a dead heat with Donnelly, leading 42-40 percent, well within the five percent margin of error. And it was a Republican heavy sample at 45 percent. Among those who labeled themselves as "moderates," Donnelly led Mourdock 50 to 23 percent.
In the same survey set, Mitt Romney was leading President Obama 51-35 percent, so there is a huge drop off for Mourdock. That is a problem, because about $5 million had been spent on his behalf prior to the primary, and close to another $1 million since.
In a Washington Post interview, Mourdock was asked if he was worried about winning over the more moderate Lugar voters. "I worry about everything every day, so of course I do," Mourdock responded. "But the primary showed Indiana voters look past negative attacks. Lugar spent a lot on negative attacks and it didn't work."
Asked if he had been in touch with Lugar supporters, Mourdock responded, "Not directly, no. But in the end, he is a Republican."
And it's not as if Lugar hasn't tried to help. He introduced Mourdock to Senate Republicans in July. This came after he warned Mourdock on May 6 that the nominee should “revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. This is not conducive to problem solving and governance. And he will find that unless he modifies his approach, he will achieve little as a legislator."
As for his Tea Party speech in Dallas last month in which he equated his effort to derail the Chrysler/Fiat merger to the Civil War era issue of slavery, Mourdock said, "People will have to make their own judgment.”
A more vivid contrast even within the Tea Party realm came on “Fox News Sunday,” when Tea Party nominee Ted Cruz of Texas was asked if he would work with Democrats. "I am perfectly happy to compromise and work with anybody," Cruz said. "Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians. I'll work with Martians. If -- and the if is critical -- they're willing to cut spending and reduce the debt."
And that's Mourdock's problem with Lugarites. They view him as a bomb thrower who will simply make Capitol Hill even more polarized than it is. Mourdock's fundraising letter of May citing Lugar’s "betrayal" doesn't help his cause.
(The columnist publishes at www.howeypolitics.com. Find him on Twitter @hwypol.) by Brian Howey ZIONSVILLE, Ind. – In my three decades of covering Indiana politics, I have never seen anything quite like Richard Mourdock’s U.S. Senate campaign. To his credit, he aptly picked up on the brewing Tea Party unrest, articulated a case against U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar, and convinced three national groups – Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and the National Rifle Association – to pump more than $4 million on behalf of his campaign. The result was a stunning 61-39 percent upset of Lugar, with Mourdock basing his candidacy on attacking the concept of “bipartisanship.” The old Nixonian axiom of run to the right in the primary, run to the center in the general, seemed to be a cogent path for Mourdock. While my Howey/DePauw Indiana Battleground Poll in late March showed Lugar easily leading Democrat Joe Donnelly 50-29 percent, Mourdock and Donnelly were tied at 35 percent. If Mourdock moderated his pitch to a degree, he could position himself to pick up the needed independent and even moderate voters. He already has the Tea Party base in his pocket, but even in Indiana, you have to carry moderate Republicans and independents to win.
|
|
