Takeover (33 page)

What’s more, the blunders of Akin and Mourdock had nothing to do with the Tea Party’s limited government, constitutional conservative agenda—they each put their foot in their mouths dealing with the Democrats’ “war on women” campaign gambit—a line of attack that Republicans still have not realized can be countered by attacking the extreme liberal positions of the Democrats on partial-birth abortion, taxpayer funded abortions, and the Democrats’ opposition to “born alive” laws.

In the course of a radio interview, Todd Akin, a good and decent man known for his effective advocacy of the right to life, came forth with the astonishing claim:

Well you know, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, well how do you, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.
¹

Akin immediately apologized and clarified what he characterized as a “misstatement,” but that wasn’t enough for Reince Preibus, Karl Rove, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee—they wanted Akin out of the race, to be replaced by the candidate of their choosing, or they would pull all funding from Akin’s campaign.

When Todd Akin stumbled, the establishment GOP power brokers immediately caved in to Democrat-driven liberal media
pressure and demanded that Akin relinquish the Republican senate nomination he had just won in a hard-fought Republican primary—a primary, we might add, that he won in large measure because he ran as a principled, pro-life candidate, in opposition to a Chamber of Commerce–type, Big Government establishment Republican.

Akin refused to quit and doggedly worked and campaigned his way to make it a real horse race with McCaskill, despite being outspent by millions of dollars in liberal interest group and union money.

The GOP power brokers pulled all support for Akin’s campaign, worked to discourage other donors from helping him, and attacked him relentlessly—even though his Democratic opponent, Senator Claire McCaskill, remained extremely unpopular, and Akin, despite the heavy handicap of establishment GOP opposition, remained competitive to the very end.

A month out from Election Day, Akin was in a statistical tie with McCaskill, yet Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus and the barons of the establishment GOP announced that they would not give a penny to their Missouri GOP Senate candidate, even if he were
tied
in the polls.

That’s right; the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus, said, “He [Akin] could be tied. We’re not going to send him a penny.”

Senator John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said that the group did not plan to help Todd Akin.

Karl Rove even said, “We should sink Todd Akin. If he’s found mysteriously murdered, don’t look for my whereabouts!”

Their stated reason: political correctness–driven paranoia about Akin’s foot-in-mouth comments on abortion.

One would think that after Todd Akin’s difficulties the Republican National Senatorial Committee would have had an “all hands” to help Republican candidates navigate the Democrats’ “war on women” campaign and polish their answers to the inevitable questions about abortion as it relates to rape.

Apparently not. In Richard Mourdock’s case, the actions—or inaction—of the Republican national leadership, was even more egregious.

Mourdock—Indiana’s GOP Senate candidate—was presented with a pivotal question from a reporter during a “debate.” The question set up the Democratic “war on women” line of attack by asking about his stance that abortions should be illegal in all instances, except those where the mother’s life is in danger. Here’s what Mourdock said: “I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
²

Mourdock’s Democratic opponent Congressman Tom Donnelly was behind at that point in the campaign and was quick to pounce on Mourdock’s apparent misstep. “I think rape is a heinous and violent crime in every instance. The God I believe in and the God I know most Hoosiers believe in, does not intend for rape to happen—ever. What Mr. Mourdock said is shocking, and it is stunning that he would be so disrespectful to survivors of rape.”
³

Mourdock quickly clarified his remarks, saying: “God creates life, and that was my point. God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that he does. Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is absurd and sick.”

But the comments were already going viral and played straight into the Democrats’ “war on women” narrative, which, of course, was exactly what the reporter asking the question intended.
⁴

Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz quickly got into the act with a statement saying:

Richard Mourdock’s rape comments are outrageous and demeaning to women. Unfortunately, they’ve become part and parcel of the modern Republican Party’s platform toward women’s health, as Congressional Republicans like Paul Ryan have worked to outlaw all abortions and even narrow the definition
of rape. As Mourdock’s most prominent booster and the star of Mourdock’s current campaign ads, Mitt Romney should immediately denounce these comments.
⁵

The Romney campaign promptly obliged Ms. Wasserman Schultz through a statement issued by campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul, stating, “Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock’s comments, and they do not reflect his views.” Saul did not respond when asked whether Romney still supported Mourdock.

Notice a pattern here?

When conservatives put their foot in their mouth, establishment Republicans run for the hills, or worse yet, join the Democrats in attacking them. In this case Mourdock was fatally wounded, perhaps as much by Romney’s prompt disavowal as by his own inartful words.

Yet, when George Allen made his race-tinged comments referring to a heckler of Indian heritage as a “Macaca,” or monkey, in 2006, no one tried to drum him out of the Republican Party—the GOP establishment demanded conservatives close ranks with the damaged candidate. In 2012, far from disavowing the damaged Allen, the establishment showered him with money and buried the other contenders in the Virginia Republican Senate primary in a mountain of cash.

Why the double standard?

Establishment Republicans are consumed with being accepted by the establishment elite. They don’t want to be seen as right-wingers or social conservatives; they want to get invited to all the nice parties in Georgetown more than they wanted to win the majority in the Senate.

And frankly, they wanted to teach conservatives a lesson. They want us to do what we are told, rather than to do whatever it took to win the Missouri and Indiana Senate seats.

Had the shoe been on the other foot, as it was when establishment Republican senator George Allen made a racially charged
comment that sank his 2006 campaign, had Mourdock or Akin been the establishment’s first choice, the inside-the-Beltway Republican leadership would have been all over conservatives to shore up their faltering candidate.

So the two conservatives, both decent and honorable men, who put their foot in their mouths, were quickly abandoned by the leaders of the national Republican establishment and lost two winnable Senate seats.

If the Republican Party’s failure to capture the Senate majority rests on the failure of Akin and Mourdock, that must mean that most of the Republican establishment’s favored Senate candidates all won.

So, how did all the candidates that were handpicked by the Republican National Senatorial Committee, the Republican National Committee, and Karl Rove’s American Crossroads PAC fare?

First Lady of the conservative movement Phyllis Schlafly summed up the results nicely in a post-election column:

Of the 31 races in which Rove aired TV ads, Republicans won only 9, so his donors got little return on their investment. … Rove’s Establishment losers included Rick Berg who lost in North Dakota and Denny Rehberg who lost in Montana, even while Romney was carrying both those states. Other Establishment losers were George Allen in Virginia, Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, Connie Mack in Florida and Heather Wilson in New Mexico.
⁶

Phyllis Schlafly also made this point: “There are two reasons why Rove and his rich donors don’t like grass-roots Republicans and Tea Partiers. The Establishment can’t order them how to vote, and the Establishment wants candidates to talk only about economic issues, never about social, moral, or national-security issues.”

Club for Growth president Chris Chocola had it pretty well right when he told
NewsMax
: “The question isn’t why Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock lost—we know why they lost,” said Chocola. “The question is really why did Heather Wilson in New Mexico,
Rick Berg in North Dakota, Denny Rehberg in Montana, Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, George Allen in Virginia and Linda Lingle in Hawaii—why did they lose?”
⁷

Or perhaps more precisely, why did establishment Republican Senate candidates lose—even in several states Mitt Romney won—while Ted Cruz bucked the establishment through a hard-fought primary where he was outspent, and seemingly outgunned, to win the primary runoff and the general election?

Throughout 2011 and 2012 I said repeatedly that the battle to be the Texas GOP Senate nominee was the most important Senate election of 2012.

Through a grassroots campaign based on the clear and unafraid advocacy of limited-government constitutional conservative principles, Tea Party–backed Texas Senate candidate Ted Cruz overcame long odds and forced establishment favorite Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst into a runoff in the race for the open Texas US Senate seat.

“Dewhurst failed to get a majority because he failed to fight for conservative principles. His false attacks backfired,” Senator Jim DeMint, a Cruz supporter, tweeted the night of the first primary.

According to the
Dallas Morning News
, Dewhurst, who spent more than $20 million in personal funds to get elected lieutenant governor in 2002, had already spent $10 million from his own pocket on the Senate primary.

Third-place-finisher former Dallas mayor Tom Leppert endorsed Dewhurst in the runoff, even after his campaign lashed out at Dewhurst, calling him “a career politician who is willing to lie in order to win at any cost.”

Cruz, who was endorsed by the Tea Party Express, FreedomWorks, the Club for Growth, the Constitutional Conservatives Fund, the Senate Conservatives Fund, Sarah Palin, and others connected to the Tea Party, was one of three key US Senate candidates to advance with backing from the Tea Party movement.

As a Hispanic, limited-government constitutional lawyer, Ted Cruz was seen as a game changer for conservatives—and he hasn’t
disappointed. Cruz’s youthful energy, intellect, and constitutional scholarship have been like adding an entire division to the small, but rapidly growing army of conservatives in the US Senate.

Cruz was exactly the kind of conservative “boat rocker” conservatives want to send the Senate to change how Washington works.

On the other hand, to borrow a phrase from David Grant, the
Christian Science Monitor
’s congressional correspondent, Dewhurt’s endorsement page “read more like the RSVPs for an A-list Austin lobbying shindig.”

“What we need in the Senate is a fighter,” Cruz told town hall meetings around Texas. “We don’t need another establishment, career politician that’s going to put his arm around the Democrats and keep compromising in growing the size and spending and power of the federal government.”

While Cruz and his supporters were entitled to a night to celebrate and a morning to recuperate after forcing the runoff with Dewhurst, Cruz’s path to the nomination was by no means clear.

As Rachel Rose Hartman of ABC News observed, Dewhurst remained “experienced, personally wealthy, well-connected and will continue to enjoy support from Gov. Rick Perry and other prominent politicians.”

Once Cruz forced Dewhurst into a runoff, the real campaign began. Dewhurst, the establishment candidate, appeared ready to spend whatever he thought it would take to win. Ted Cruz could only win the run off if Tea Partiers and grassroots conservatives kept the momentum going and got to work to match Dewhurst’s money and inside connections with grassroots enthusiasm and organization.

Dewhurst had the money, including his own wealth, but what he lacked was the grassroots support that Cruz was solidifying, and Dewhurst ran a typical establishment Republican consultant-driven campaign: one negative ad after another.

As one reporter noted, Dewhurst’s campaign only succeeded in raising name recognition for Cruz. According to Texas GOP Vote:

[I]n the original primary, both men received nearly equal percentage of Tea Party members, but this changed in the runoff as Cruz captured three quarters of Tea Party voters. Dewhurst’s negative ads not only backfired and gave Cruz a lifeline, it also showed that Dewhurst had little to offer the voters. You would have figured that the Lt. Governor of a job-creating state would be able to give the voters positive reasons to vote for him. He didn’t.
⁸

Dewhurst actually lost votes from the first primary to the runoff election. In the end it was really no contest; Cruz won the runoff with 57 percent of the vote, while Dewhurst collected 43 percent. More than 1 million Texans voted in the runoff, a surprisingly strong turnout for balloting that came during the dog days of summer.

Even though Dewhurst outspent Cruz 3–1, and blasted him with negative television ads—they apparently did not stick.
⁹

How did Cruz do it?

According to Frisco Texas Tea Party leader Lorie Medina, one of the key Tea Party organizers for Cruz, it was because local grassroots conservatives out organized, out hustled, and out worked the establishment candidate.