How the Tea Party Libertarians Will Destroy the GOP this November



Perception is everything.  Because of the far right libertarian extreme populated by Michelle Malkin, Rand Paul, and the anti-immigration freaks, we’ve in danger of completely losing the Hispanic vote for several generations.  The GOP was finally making inroads with African American voters.  Now, opening his bigoted nasty mouth, Rand Paul destroys what we have been trying to create since Nixon.  The more conservatives attempt to defend their little libertarian darling, the worse mess they are creating.

From a Red State idiot:

“…From Nikki Haley to Mike Lee to Allen West, there are a number of amazing conservative candidates I’ve felt genuinely privileged to donate money and time to this cycle. But Rand Paul stands at the head of that list. So much of what passes for conservatism these days is really just a desperate attempt to defend what is left of our premises (liberty, private property, traditional  values) from the continual assault by liberal forces. We’re constantly playing football in the shadow of our own end zone, thrilled if we can somehow eke out a three or four yard gain against the left that gets us to our own 10 yard line.

But throughout this campaign, Rand Paul has been forcing the left to play on their side of the field. They aren’t used to it, and they will howl and scream and use every dirty trick in the book to avoid doing it. But we need to make them do it anyway. Because forcing *them* on defense and putting the ball on their side of the field is the only way conservatives can win the game in the long-term, rather than just attempt to lose by a narrower margin.

Stacy McCain has a wonderful defense of Rand Paul that everyone should read, pointing out that Rand Paul’s views are not some strange esoteric Libertarian theory, but part and parcel of our conservative tradition….”

The problem with Robert Stacy McCain is the fact that he is a racist.

“...A casualty of the housecleaning that occurred at the Times three years ago, McCain left the paper on his own accord after managing editor Fran Coombs, with whom he was close, was terminated (Coombs had his own connections to white supremacy).

Once identified as a member of the neo-Confederate hate group League of the South, McCain’s reporting while at the Times was always controversial. As editor of the “Culture Briefs” section of the paper, McCain used excerpts from racist publications including American Renaissance magazine and the anti-immigrant hate site In fact, McCain may be the only mainstream newspaper reporter to have covered four American Renaissance conferences. Twice, he offered no description at all of the group he was covering, which is devoted to race science. Once, he said it was “critical of liberal positions on race and immigration.” Only in 2004 did he note that some viewed it as racist….”

What Michael Steele has done with Paul is a recipe for disaster.

“...Steele – the first African-American party chairman in the Republicans’ history – said that courts litigated the rights of minorities with the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s. But he also accepted Paul’s clarification, which he gave this week, in which he said that he supports the Civil Rights Act.  But the chairman would not go as far as to condemn Paul in a later appearance on ABC’s “This Week.” Asked if he could condemn him, he said, “I can’t do that. You have a belief; I can’t debate [it].”  He said on Fox that what really matters is how he performs if he serves in Congress and reaffirmed that the GOP supports the Civil Rights Act, as does Paul….”


Is it possible that one of the great miscalculations being made in the GOP and the political season is the fact that one size does not fit all.  You can’t put a square peg in a round hole.  You can’t elect a South Carolina conservative in HawaiiYou run a Republican who can win in his/her state/ district. There are some districts and states where a TRUE Libertarian-Republican (Dave Nalle style) can do well.  Then again there are states where a Chuck DeVore is going to split the ticket to the point where the weaker GOP candidate may win.  This happens and we lose the perfect opportunity to take out an entrenched Dem.

Malia Nash has a great column about Charles Djou and Scott Brown.  They are not your standard Jim DeMint conservatives.


Listening to Sarah Palin’s painful attempt to defend Rand Paul, at first I was sickened, then I realized that she called libertarians “constitutional conservatives”.


Sam Tanenhaus wrote in the NYTimes:

“…But Mr. Paul’s position is complicated. He has emerged as the politician most closely identified with the Tea Party movement. Its adherents are drawn to him because he has come forward as a kind of libertarian originalist, unbending in his anti-government stance. The farther he retreats from ideological purity, the more he resembles other, less attractive politicians…But he stopped short of noting the obvious, that in such instances the white community’s “taste” had made it the enemy of individual African-Americans who were forbidden to sit at a luncheonette or take their children into a Woolworth’s rest room.

Mr. Paul has tangled himself up in a similar contradiction. His championing of private businesses, ignoring the rights of just about everyone else, places him on the wrong side of history, just like the first opponents of the Civil Rights Act. One fierce opponent of civil rights legislation, William F. Buckley Jr., admitted as much. “I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow,” Mr. Buckley said in 2004. “I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary.”.”

Last week someone mentioned that Sarah Palin is all over the map with her endorsements.  She is, and then again she isn’t.  With the endorsement of Nikki Haley in South Carolina and now Clint Didier in Washington state, it is clear she is endorsing candidates who don’t have a prayer of winning in November, and candidates who can do the most damage to the GOP.

The Pink Flamingo is now beginning to truly fear November.  Thanks to the efforts of the Tea Party IDIOTS, Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint, we are now snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  The worst possible candidates are being selected to run against people who have a serious opportunity to take out entrenched Democrats.

Where is the wisdom of this?

“...Rossi was never likely to be a Tea Party favorite (today he is speaking at the Mainstream Republicans annual conference in Setac, where tomorrow’s events include a panel titled “Tea Party or the Republican Party? How Ross Perot Elected Bill Clinton”).  Palin’s backing for another candidate makes the prospect that Rossi could win the support of tea party supporters in the primary even less likely.

In a year that has not been kind to establishment candidates, Mr. Rossi now must make a decision knowing that in order to win the GOP nomination, he will have to defeat a candidate supported by the same tea party machine that helped swing the Kentucky primary to Rand Paul and ended Bob Bennett’s renomination bid in Utah….”

This appears to be more a power play by both Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin than it does anything designed to help the country and lift us from Obama’s minions.  The Pink Flamingo once respected both individuals

“...A chief potential rival, Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, endorsed Mr. Paul but said he supported Mr. McConnell for leader. Even if Mr. DeMint were to have a change of heart, he would encounter some difficulty in taking on the incumbent, since he brazenly backed a challenger to Mr. Bennett — a clear violation of the unwritten rules of the clubby Senate. Some fellow Republicans would no doubt hold that against him.

In the wake of the uproar surrounding Mr. Paul’s view of civil rights laws, some in the Senate have suggested that they now understand why the Republican leader was in no hurry to get on the Paul bandwagon even if his own candidate was drubbed.

Few established politicians have not seen an endorsement backfire — both Senator John Kerry and the late Edward M. Kennedy aggressively endorsed Barack Obama in the presidential campaign only to watch him lose in the Massachusetts presidential primary to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Aides to Mr. McConnell noted that polls in Kentucky showed that Paul voters also overwhelmingly had a favorable view of Mr. McConnell…”

Today’s new version of “conservative” is hearkening back to Goldwater.  They have dumped Reagan, and that is where the problem is.  Only a fool does not follow the lessons of history.  Goldwater went down in ignoble defeat.

“…This is precisely the case Barry Goldwater, the leader of the Republicans’ conservative wing, made on the Senate floor just before the final vote on the Civil Rights Act. “I am unalterably opposed to discrimination of any sort,” Mr. Goldwater said, even as he attacked provisions of the bill that “would embark the Federal Government on a regulatory course of action with regard to private enterprise and in the area of so-called ‘public accommodations’ and in the area of employment.”

Public accommodations included gas station rest rooms, drinking fountains, lunch counters, hotels, movie houses and sports arenas. It is hard to imagine a candidate today making the case that discrimination in such places should be allowed. Indeed Mr. Paul has said he favors the “public accommodations” provision. But in advancing the autonomy of private businesses, he is reviving libertarian thought in its peak period. In his 1962 book “Capitalism and Freedom,” Milton Friedman, the right’s most influential economist, equated the Fair Employment Practices Commissions — created to prevent workplace discrimination — with “the Hitler Nuremberg laws.” But he also applied the comparison to “the Southern states imposing special disabilities upon Negroes.” In other words, he recognized that Jim Crow was itself a form of intrusive government, only enacted at the state level….”


Roger Simon pegged it:

“…So what caused this breakdown? Well, on one level it’s a demonstration of an extraordinary lack of media sophistication, in itself dangerous in a political candidate, especially in our instant information times. But I think it is something more. This is a prime example of the danger of extreme ideological beliefs. No matter what they are, they blind us.

Rand Paul perceives the world through a highly-orthodox brand of libertarianism that does not allow him to see the forest for the proverbial trees… make that tree, singular. When people have rigid ideologies, their minds leap first to the promulgation or defense of those ideologies before they even have a chance to judge, let alone examine, what is before their eyes….”

Jennifer Ruben wrote: (h/t Opinionated Catholic)

“...If Paul is going to survive — and it’s an open question whether he should — he can’t hide from the media or the voters. He’s going to have to articulate a non-wacky view of foreign and domestic policy that is in line with average Kentucky voters. And if he can’t do that, or if he doesn’t really feel comfortable with non-wacky views, then Kentucky Republicans made a big mistake in nominating him. Other Republicans, conservative activists, and bloggers should consider their nominees this year and in 2012 very carefully; otherwise they will lose a golden opportunity afforded by Obama to unify conservatives and attract independent voters. They might want to consider the Republicans who won high-profile races: Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell, and Scott Brown. Yes, they ran against big government and Obamaism, but they were all well-versed in policy and ideologically well within mainstream conservatism.

And if Republicans want an example of political suicide, they can take a look at the Democrats both in and outside of Connecticut. They collectively have failed the political sobriety test. Connecticut Democrats on Friday formally nominated Richard Blumenthal. With the Democrats painting Ron Paul as the GOP’s poster boy and Republicans doing the same with Blumenthal for the Democratic Party, voters may decide that sometimes it’s better to have a candidate with a bit of experience, who’s been vetted before the primary, and who doesn’t spend his time denying that he is a liar or an extremist….”