Richard Lugar 'took brunt' of voter anger, says GOP campaign chief

Voter anger led to the defeat of Sen. Richard Lugar (R) of Indiana in a GOP primary, says Rep. Pete Sessions, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. He sees tea party activism as 'good for our party.'

Michael Bonfigli /The Christian Science Monitor
NRCC Chairmen Pete Sessions (R) of Texas, right, and Chairman Greg Walden (R) of Oregon spoke at a Monitor-hosted breakfast for reporters on Wednesday in Washington D.C.

Voter anger about Washington is “on the ground all across the country,” and “Senator [Richard] Lugar took the brunt of that” in Indiana's GOP primary on Tuesday, when he was ousted by a tea party-backed candidate, says Rep. Pete Sessions, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC)

“Whether you are in Indiana, North Carolina, and any number of other places across the country, it is ground zero for discontent,” said Representative Sessions, who is charged with keeping Republican control of the House in the 2012 election, at a Monitor-hosted breakfast for reporters on Wednesday. Voters want "Washington to recognize they have gotten in the way and made matters worse," he said.

One measure of voter discontent is that 59.5 percent of Americans say the country is on the wrong track, according to the average of national polls compiled by the Real Clear Politics website. By contrast, 32.7 percent say it is on the right track. Sessions attributed much of the voter discontent to unhappiness with President Obama's policies.

Sessions played down any disruptive effect that may come from tea party challenges to Republican incumbents for not being conservative enough. “A number of my colleagues do have these challenges from within our own party,” Sessions said. “I am seeing not just a resurgence but a continued support from tea party people who are becoming involved in the system, are actively pushing each and every one of us, and I consider it not only healthy but good for our party.”

In an interview Wednesday with Fox News, Indiana state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, who defeated Senator Lugar, credited the tea party for making his victory possible. He said “thousands” of tea party volunteers worked on his campaign and “got us to the finish line successfully.”

Tea party activists were quick to hail their influence. “Lugar’s defeat should wake up Washington,” Jenny Beth Martin, cofounder and national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots, said in a statement. “The tea party movement continues to be the most influential force this election year.”

Asked about Ms. Martin’s claim of influence, Sessions said, “It is a statement that is backed up with a lot of people who are angry and energized, and I see them from California to Florida. If you look at what is happening in Republican conventions across the country, they are energized. And the message is really the same – that is, big government is a problem, spending is a problem.”

One benefit of tea party activity is that “they are holding those seeking office and those in office accountable to a level they have never been held before,” says Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon, NRCC deputy chairman, who also spoke at the Monitor breakfast.

Representative Walden says the tea party's influence, now being felt in Republican primaries, will help Republicans in November when the group’s energies are focused on President Obama.

“They are going to have that same energy double when it comes to the fall. If you think they are holding us accountable, wait until they get a choice between Democrats following President Obama’s agenda versus Republicans and what we are trying to do to make government smaller, more contained, less in their lives, less costly,” he said.

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

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.