Richard Mourdock keeps digging a bigger hole on the subject of his indefensible approach to the Chrysler Bankruptcy. I’ve written on it many times before, so I’m just going to summarize: Mourdock invested Indiana money in junk Chrysler securities. Chrysler went under. The best deal on the table for secured creditors, like Indiana, was a government funded bankruptcy restructuring. The major creditors, with serious money on the table, agreed to the restructuring rather than the only alternative, liquidation.
Mourdock decided he was going to use Indiana’s position for a bit of political grandstanding: Obama is a socialist, unions suck. That kind of thing. So, he tried to torpedo the Chrysler deal. A deal that we see today had the result of keeping some good jobs in the Midwest. But, the unions were going to get something out of the deal, and President Obama was going to look like he was doing something. So Mourdock said to the courts, in effect, “kill the deal, I want a liquidation that will give Indiana less money but will give the unions nothing and be politically harmful to President Obama.” Now, today, he’ll say vaguely that maybe some private financing was available that would’ve yielded more. But there wasn’t. Chrysler had tried for years and, when the bankruptcy happened, credit markets were tighter than ever.
Flash forward to today. Why did Mourdock do this? Why, for the little people of course:
[T]elling the conservative political action committee that he fought the Chrysler bankruptcy to stop the bankruptcy court from taking the pensions of retired teachers and state troopers. “So that someone else can be given their assets,” he said. “It is the same tyrannical principle as in 1858.”
Got that? Obama saving Chrysler is just like slavery. Thank you, Richard Mourdock! Thank you for saving us from the tyranny of a somewhat less shitty return on a foolish investment.
In his speech, Mourdock was referencing this Lincoln quote:
“That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, ‘You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.’ No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.”
Called on the b.s. comparison, Mourdock said, (I paraphrase) “Oh, dear me no. How can someone hear that quote and think I was talking about slavery?” He’s simply talking about “government actions and taking property.”
And, a final note, Mourdock’s remarks were made at a Freedomworks (Tea Party) conference in Dallas, Texas. You can’t always get what you want, but my personal preference would be that Texans not have a damn thing to do with an Indiana election.
That any sane (i.e. non-tea party) Hoosier would even consider voting for this guy is incomprehensible.
+1
Now why would anyone be surprised about this? Like too many politicians, critical analysis is NOT a strong suit in his short deck of cards. Taking quotes out of context to try and make a point in a pandering speech to a group he’s looking to tap for money he obviously cannot get here just seems to be right out of the PAC playbook. As one of the “not the brightest bulb on the block” political crowd, it shouldn’t be too surprising that he caught out on it, even in Texas.
To Bill Groth, you know better. If it says “R” on the ballot, more often than not, the herd will just “pull the lever”, no matter what kind of person stands behind it.
I get what he was trying to say, and what all of the tea party people are trying to say about being forced to work and have the fruits of your work given to someone else.
They would be quite correct in calling it slavery, if both of the following were true:
-You were restricted by law from stopping working and then draw on public benefits
-You were restricted by law from leaving this country and choosing another one is that is more “winner take all”. There are plenty of them out there.
Since both of those choices are actually available to everyone in this country, then they are complaining about the free market. Our country provides a certain infrastructure, safety net, and protection of rights. If that is the best one to have a good business in, then stay and pay your fair share. If another country has the infrastructure, rules, and protection of rights that is better suited to you, go there. Free market at work! :)
Are there ever any blacks in his TV ads or does he campaign only
at convenience stores in back of the woods Corn Junction, Indiana?
Jesus, help this great state of ours. This kind of ignorance is just plain scary, especially since so many lap it up like a thirsty dog on a hot day in August. These are the same people who send back and forth those right-wing b.s. emails, as if they were “news”. WTF?
But wait, Mitt said that he saved the auto industry in the name of freedom and free markets or something.
The fact that this is not on a Donnelly ad everyday — how this man tried to disintegrate an Indiana city — is amazing to me.
Can’t we just let Texas have him. In Indiana we demand our representatives be corrupt and/or evil and/or stupid. It’s rare when you can combine all three (Dan Burton?); in Texas, it’s required