Payne: Mourdock, scourge of Lugar. . . and Obama’s Auto Task Force
Posted by hpayne on May 9, 2012
Who is Richard Mourdock?
He is the bold Indiana state treasurer who brought suit against Chrysler in 2009 to try and protect state teacher and firefighter pensioners from the Obama Auto Task Force’s illegal grab of their investments to benefit the UAW. Mourdock’s ultimately futile suit was the last line of defense against a thuggish White House that had threatened New York bondholders into taking the White House’s ruthless, 29-cents-on-the-dollar deal to benefit its labor cronies.
But you wouldn’t know that from Wednesday’s MSM coverage of tea party favorite Mourdock’s upset win over Senate fixture Richard Lugar. The New York Times, for example, only mentions Mourdock’s Chrysler fight in the 16th graph of a sidebar story – headline “Many Pursuits, but Bipartisanship Isn’t One of Them.” As that loaded headline suggests, the Times’ coverage is decidedly anti-Mourdock (the story doesn’t even mention Mourdock’s flesh-and-blood plaintiffs ” dismissing them as “state funds”).
If the establishment press lived its credo of watching out for the little guy, then Mourdock’s David-like defense of pensioners in the face of the Goliath-like armies of Big Labor, Big Auto, and Big Government should have made him a national hero. Instead, his is but a footnote in Washington’s troubling Chapter 363 bankruptcies that stripped first-in-line secured credit holders of their rights to favor politically-favored Big Labor. An accurate portrait of Mourdock would clash with the MSM’s caricature of conservative upstarts as tea party extremists.
“As fiduciaries, we can’t allow our retired police officers and teachers to be ripped off by the federal government,” said Mourdock in U.S. district court on May 26, 2009. “The Indiana state funds suffered losses when the Obama administration overturned more than 100 years of established law by redefining ‘secured creditors’ to mean something less.”
“It’s improper, because creditors are not getting the legal procedure allowed to them by Congress,” UCLA Law Professor Lynn LoPucki told CFO magazine in June, 2009.
But Mourdock’s fight was a footnote in the MSM in 2009. Its coverage of White House kneecapping of New York investors? Non-existent. They were inconvenient speed bump in Obama Washington’s rush to save the UAW.
In his campaign against Lugar, Mourdock once again played David against a six-term incumbent Goliath. But The Times sniffs at the underdog for dislodging “a collegial moderate who personified a gentler political era.” Presumably a pre-tea party era when pols collegially ignored sky-rocketing debt and the trampling of the rule of law.
Now the electoral beast has been awakened. By the UAW bailouts. By trillion-dollar deficits. By Obamacare and the fear that America is following Europe over a debt cliff.
Does he regret sanding up for Indiana pensioners in 2009, the Times demands at the end of its article? “Absolutely not, replies Mourdock. “The law matters. And the fact was out retirees and teachers had their property stolen.”
Those crazy conservatives. They care about such things.