Skip to footer

Six US Senate races where the tea party counts

After playing kingmaker in the 2010 election cycle, the tea party movement is having a less prominent role in 2012. But its support or opposition could swing some key races and even determine whether Republicans win control of the Senate. Here are six US Senate contests where the tea party could make a difference.

2. Indiana: Tea party fells a 'RINO'

AJ MAST/AP PHOTO
Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock speaks to supporters in Indianapolis on May 8, after he defeated six-term Sen. Richard Lugar (R) of Indiana in the GOP primary.

In a stunning upset, tea party-backed Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock defeated six-term US Sen. Richard Lugar on May 8, winning the GOP primary by more than 20 percentage points.

Respected as a statesman in the Senate, Senator Lugar was a top target for tea party activists, angered by his votes to raise the national debt limit, open college scholarships to the children of illegal immigrants, and confirm President Obama’s US Supreme Court nominees. Lugar also ran into trouble for no longer maintaining a residence in his home state.

National tea party groups backed Mr. Mourdock with endorsements, a get-out-the-vote effort, and ad campaigns that described Lugar as a Republican in Name Only (RINO), out of touch with the state.

"Richard Mourdock's victory truly sends a message to the liberals in the Republican Party," said Chris Chocola, president of the Club for Growth, an antitax group that, along with affiliates, spent more than $2 million in the Indiana primary. "Voters are rejecting the policies that led to record debt and diminished economic freedom, and they will continue to be rejected in elections throughout America."

Mourdock now faces Rep. Joe Donnelly (D) in a general election that Democrats say they are better positioned to win with a tea-party hardliner in the race. Throughout the campaign, Mourdock criticized Lugar's record of working with Democrats. In an interview with Fox News after the vote, Mourdock said Republicans need to take back a majority in the Senate. Then, he added, "bipartisanship becomes having Democrats come our way."

2 of 6
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.