Blame the libertarians for handing Romney his loss in 2012, not conservatives

Third parties bled away over 60% of the few votes Romney lost by in his failed eastern strategy in Election 2012.

Mitt Romney's bid to win the White House failed by 64 electoral college votes, all of which he narrowly lost in an eastern strategy in just four states by a total of only 429,522 popular votes:

Florida, lost by 74,309 votes, where third parties garnered an unbelievable 90,972 votes;

Virginia, lost by 149,298 votes, where third parties garnered 60,147 votes;

Ohio, lost by 166,272 votes, where third parties took a whopping 101,788 votes;

and New Hampshire, lost by 39,643 votes, where third parties took 11,493 votes.

That's a loss for Romney of 64 electoral college votes, enough to have taken him from 206 to 270 to take the presidency, losing 429,522 total popular votes in just four states where third parties all told took 264,400 votes, 61.5% of the total needed by Romney to win.

This isn't to say that those were all necessarily Republican votes which went third party, but fully 50.5% of the 264,400 were cast for the libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson of New Mexico, who had been a Republican candidate for president until late 2011 when he was excluded from the Republican debates. At that point he bolted to the Libertarian Party, and openly stated his intention to play a spoiler role:

“I hope that I would get labeled as a ‘spoiler’ from the standpoint of people actually focusing on what it is I am saying, and that this changes the way whoever wins governs,” Johnson told Sunshine State News in an exclusive interview Saturday at the 2012 Ron Paul Festival.

Combine the pique factor around that with the natural alienation felt by libertarians toward a Mormon candidate who was himself socially conservative in his habits and loathe to exercise himself on behalf of libertarians' usual limited government ideas and you can make a case that it was libertarians who cost Romney the election, by casting spoiler votes, staying away from the polls entirely, or even voting for Obama out of spite.

This is a better explanation for the Romney loss than some mythical 4 million conservatives staying away from the polls in 2012 as Rush Limbaugh keeps saying. The numbers themselves disprove that, as Romney garnered 1 million more votes in 2012 than McCain in 2008. It was a much closer election than the (mostly libertarian) punditocracy wants you to know.

Conservatives, most of whom are Christians, aren't put off by abstainers like Mitt Romney the way libertarians might be (many Christians are abstemious too), and Christians find it much more morally problematic to stay away from the polls, or to vote out of spite, in a way which libertarians would not. Christian voters are nothing if not preoccupied with their moral and social responsibility, but libertarians care little for that.

In fact, withdrawing from social responsibilities is elevated to the level of a moral principle by libertarians. Staying away from the polls is a John Galt tactic straight out of the playbook from Ayn Rand. It's an ongoing and adolescent fantasy of theirs. It's not a Christian tactic, which is to say it's not a conservative tactic. Conservatives love their country too much to let it go down the drain, and they actively admired Mitt Romney for his commitment to and long record of public service even if his religion and social policy positions bothered them.

It remains a question if Republicans can expect to succeed in future with a brood of vipers in their party such as the libertarians. Republicans should reconsider their tilt toward libertarianism and seriously ask themselves whether things might not go better for them if they more actively pursued the social conservative vote. From the Christians Republicans can expect forgiveness, but from the libertarians only vindictiveness. Isn't that how the Bushes got elected after turning their backs on the Reagan revolution? Isn't that the conceit of moderate Republican presidential aspirants still today?

Why isn't that an easy call? After all, the libertarian Ron Paul who bitterly lost to Romney in the Republican primaries never left the Republican Party, but he never endorsed Mitt Romney either: "I don’t fully endorse him for president,” he said, as late as August 2012, less than three months before the election. Message to libertarians: good ahead, stay home, see if I care.

Call it an ironic payback to Romney, whose moderate Republican father likewise wouldn't endorse the conservative Barry Goldwater after losing to him in 1964, but it's also another sign in a long list of signs that libertarians have more in common with liberals than with conservatives.

They're content if they too can defeat Republicans.

Conservatives are prisoners of the '3 million Republicans stayed home in 2012' meme

The meme began with Jeffrey Lord at The American Spectator, here, whose real motive was to beat up the party for nominating another moderate:

"On Tuesday night, it comes clear, as this is written using the latest Fox News figures, Mitt Romney lost to President Obama by 2,819,339 votes. And the news ekes out that Moderate Nominee Number 10 Romney received some 3 million Republican votes less than Moderate Nominee Number 9 -- John McCain in 2008."

Blurted out as it was on November 8, 2012, no one could possibly have known that to be true at the time or trust it, but it has been accepted and remains endlessly repeated as the truth, mostly by the likes of Rush Limbaugh who uses it to browbeat his audience whenever someone spills some lemonade on the still open wound of the Romney defeat. The Republican base was at fault for not showing up, we are told, and Rush is never going to let you forget it. He's as angry at the right as John McCain is, but the meme just reverberates down through the conservative food chain through every microphone until you just want to scream out loud because it simply isn't true.

This is demoralizing for everyone and needed to stop long ago. But why it hasn't stopped has more to do with conservatives' penchant for self-flagellation for their failure to find a new Reagan than with anything else. What they should be doing is trying to learn something from the episode so that they do win next time, but you get the feeling that they don't do that because they really don't believe that they can win next time. Republicans want a Saviour to do the job for them, instead of doing it themselves.

I know why this is, and so do you.

Conservatives have become prisoners of a utopian dream. They keep thinking that if the right guy or gal comes along in the mold of the Gipper, we'll finally, finally, be able to take over the government and show everybody how it's supposed to be done once again, and all will be right with the world.

This is crazy.

The fact is there were just eight states lost by Romney to Obama in 2012 where McCain did better. Here they are, showing how many more votes McCain got than Romney:

Ohio: 16,383

New Mexico: 11,044

California: 171,823

New Jersey: 134,458

New York: 262,275

Maine: 2,997

Vermont: 6,276

Rhode Island: 8,187

Total votes by which McCain did better than Romney, but still lost: 613,443 . . . nowhere near 3 million.

Keep in mind that Romney garnered a net 984,084 more votes nationwide than McCain did in 2008, despite that under-performance in eight states detailed above, and despite what Jeffrey Lord told you in the wake of the election and people like Rush Limbaugh have endlessly repeated ever since. On top of that net better performance, Romney also won North Carolina and Indiana, both of which McCain had lost in bitterly narrow outcomes in 2008. Romney ended up winning 24 states vs. only 22 for McCain. You don't do that with 3 million Republicans staying home in 2012 who didn't in 2008.

To think so now at this late date is a form of mental illness.

Romney's better performance than McCain overall was despite two important factors working against Romney: a lower turnout nationwide in 2012 by 1.6% overall compared to 2008 (2.2 million); and a suppressed voter turnout in New Jersey and New York because of Hurricane Sandy right before the election, which makes McCain's better performance than Romney in those two liberal states in 2008 look questionable, quite apart from being inconsequential.

In New Jersey and New York in 2012 5.9% and 7.3% fewer votes respectively were cast than in 2008, alone totaling a whopping 789,000 votes. Based on Romney's performance in those two states in 2012, as many as 288,000 of those votes could have been his but were not, due to weather related impacts on the election. But they hardly mattered except to show that McCain's so-called out-performance was nothing of the kind.

The only state of the above eight which really mattered for Romney in the 2012 calculus to win was Ohio, where Romney lost by 2.98 points, or 166,272 votes.

Turnout in Ohio was also down in 2012, by 2.3% or 131,000, a rate of no-showing almost 44% higher than in the country as a whole (Just where was Gov. John Kasich when we needed him, hm?). With third party voting in Ohio turning out the same percentage in 2012 as it had in 2008, you have to reckon with the fact that Ohio's 101,788 third party votes in 2012 had a greater impact on the outcome in the lower turnout environment of 2012, and they did.

49,493 of those third party votes in Ohio went to the self-described Republican spoiler from the Libertarian Party, the Republican Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico, who was just coming off being snubbed by the Republican Party in the presidential debates of late 2011. Another 33,722 votes in Ohio went to assorted libertarian and right of center fruits, nuts and flakes. Then add in the known 16,383 who voted for McCain in 2008 but not for Romney in 2012 and you're up to 99,598 of the 166,272 Romney lost by in Ohio in 2012. That leaves 66,674 additional votes Romney lost to account for, which as luck would have it is about 51% of the total reduced turnout, closely enough mirroring the 47.6% by which Romney ended up losing in Ohio to satisfy the equation's solution. The point is there was nothing terribly unusual about this outcome which couldn't have been remedied by a better boots on the ground operation than Romney fielded, outnumbered as it was by Obama by 10 to 1. Romney's failure in Ohio was remediable.

One gets the feeling from that that Romney too was looking for a Saviour when he should have been working harder. Only after the election was it confirmed by his family that he really didn't have the fire in the belly. We should have known. "ObamaCare's not worth getting angry about". "I'm not going to light my hair on fire".

Ohio, plus New Hampshire, Virginia and Florida in the east together would have given Romney the 270 electoral votes he needed instead of the 206 he actually received. Romney lost those four states, and the presidency, by just 429,522 votes.

Not.3.million.

Suddenly it's important news to ABC that Republican superfunder Koch Brother isn't a conservative

Here from George Stephanopoulos:

“I’m basically a libertarian, and I’m a conservative on economic matters, and I’m a social liberal,” [David] Koch told ABC News’ Barbara Walters during an interview for her special “The 10 Most Fascinating People of 2014″ that airs at 9 p.m. ET Sunday on ABC.

Koch, who supports abortion rights and gay marriage, said he isn’t concerned with candidates he supports who don’t share some of his views. He said his primary concern when choosing a candidate to support is their fiscal policies.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Koch's political affiliation before 1984 was Libertarian Party, according to his Wikipedia entry, which means he's a hard-boiled libertarian. The man is 2014's ninth wealthiest in the world.

In this sudden attention to Koch's liberalism I smell a new political effort afoot by the liberal media to highlight the differences between libertarianism and conservatism to split the right in the interests of Democrat liberalism in 2016.

Remember, it was also George Stephanopoulos who brought us the war on women in 2012. George is getting ready early this time.

It's a sign of self-perceived weakness in the Democrat camp that they are already thinking they must begin to divide the right to win in 2016.

Obsessed with Congress' flaws, Justin Amash finds himself alienated from Republicans as a libertarian crank

The Detroit News here highlights how in "Michigan GOP leaves Justin Amash to fend for himself", including this from Mike Rogers who evidently feels more free to speak because he's baggin' it:

Rogers has sparred with Amash on foreign policy intervention and fought off an Amash attempt last year to curb the National Security Agency phone surveillance program. Rogers points to Amash’s lack of support on Iran sanctions, a vote against a balanced budget amendment and the “embrace” of isolationism that’s “not consistent with what’s in the best interest of the future of the United States. I just worry you have somebody who’s more concerned about their brand than the substance of the issues,” Rogers said.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congress' flaws are legion, but their remedy is not libertarianism. Their remedy is in representation.

In his zeal for the constitution Justin Amash has little to say about representation, perhaps because he represents the libertarian interests of a few, not the broader interests of his constituents. Which is odd, since lack of representation was the key complaint of the founding era which wrote it.

Today we have a Congress which is an artifact of the 1920s, not of the founding era. Representation has ceased to grow with population since the 1920 Census, by an act of Congress itself, the effect of which has been to turn the Congress into a powerful oligarchy arrayed against the great masses of the unwashed taxpayers whose wallets are plundered by it.

The Tea Party would be more convincing if it actually believed in a more representative Congress, which means a far more numerous Congress than the 435 member one we have now. So far we haven't seen the Tea Party demonstrate passion for any such thing, even from its preeminent leaders like Justin Amash who claim to be inspired by everything constitutional, except for representation at the level of one per 30,000.

Americans hate their Congress in unprecedented numbers, and the reason is because their individual representatives don't speak for them.

If the Tea Party had any genuineness to it, it would make fixing that job #1. 

Godless Libertarian Triumph In MI-3: Justin Amash Is Pro-Gay All The Way, Just Like Brian Ellis His Challenger

There really is no choice for social conservatives between the two Republicans in the MI-3 primary in 2014.

Neither candidate can bring himself to support Republican Committeeman Dave Agema's lonely stand against moral and spiritual decadence in our society. In fact, both candidates attack Dave Agema. The only reason to vote for Ellis in the primary is to spoil the reelection of Amash who is a complete traitor to conservatism and never was a conservative to begin with. Of course this means a Democrat has a winning chance in MI-3. But arguably Republicans should vote for the Democrat in the general that the full measure of God's wrath may be felt here.

Michigan's 3rd Congressional District is hopelessly lost from the Judeo-Christian point of view in any case, for reasons which prevailed long before Brian Ellis and Justin Amash existed. Whatever power traditional Calvinism may have possessed in the area in the past is long since transmuted. At least Vern Ehlers gave the appearance of a Christian. This place is cursed, and deserves everything that's come to it, and is coming.

Justin Amash, Antiochian Orthodox, quoted here in January:

“Defending civil liberties is at the heart of the Republican Party and our Constitution. As I've demonstrated with my words and record, I am trying to grow a new generation of Republicans that includes more gays and lesbians, racial-ethnic minorities, women and young people," Amash said.

And Brian Ellis, an Episcopalian, in the same story:

"Dave Agema’s discriminatory rhetoric gets in the way of sharing our Republican solutions," Ellis said in his statement.

Well, look at it this way. If you are looking for a church to join, you now have two more to cross off your list.

Sink Sunk In FL 13 By Libertarian Spoiler In Low Turnout Special Election Where Fixing ObamaCare Got No Traction

Flashback to November 2010 when Eric Cantor already said he wanted to keep the good parts of ObamaCare and not repeal the thing outright. Eric Cantor never saw the Republican blowout in 2010 as a resounding verdict against ObamaCare, even though the Republican sweep of the House was history making. Newsmax reported Cantor's remarks here.

Today, repeal of ObamaCare is much more appealing than keeping it as is, by almost 2:1 in December polling by Gallup, here. Those who want to scale it back or expand it somehow to fix it are evenly divided in the polling data and together represent 40% of those polled. The polling overall, however, is negative on ObamaCare by 52% to 37%.

The narrowly won Florida 13 District seat this week by a Republican was a test of the Democrat strategy of running on a platform of fixing ObamaCare. It didn't work.

Politico reports here:

Democrats had hoped that defeating Jolly would show that they could beat the GOP’s anti-Obamacare offensive. Sink had embraced the national Democratic Party’s “fix it, don’t repeal it” mantra, which candidates across the country are expected to adopt this year.

Election results at 10 News WTSP here show that a libertarian spoiled the race for the Democrat Alex Sink. Usually libertarians ruin elections for Republicans, not Democrats. The libertarian strongly supported marriage equality and liberalization of marijuana laws.

Turnout was low in the narrowly Republican majority district where older voters weren't particularly engaged by ObamaCare, as reported separately, here.

Commenters At Libertarian National Center For Policy Analysis Sure Do Hate The Baby Boomers And Their Houses

See the comments to this story at the website of the organization run by frequent Forbes contributor John Goodman.

Libertarians Spoil Another One For Republicans In Virginia Gubernatorial Race

click to enlarge

When are Republicans going to wake up and get rid of their fifth column?

The 5.5% spread between the Democrat and the Republican represents just 55,000 votes and only 38% of the total garnered by the Libertarian whom Ron Paul basically denounced at the last minute.

But if Ron Paul really meant it, wouldn't he have said so a little earlier?

More here.

Looks Like A Libertarian Is About To Spoil Another Race For The Republicans

In the Virginia race for governor the Libertarian's support is the margin of difference between Cuccinelli and McAuliffe.

Colorado Democrat Faces Recall After Narrow Victory Courtesy Of Libertarian Spoiler

Ross Kaminsky has the story in The American Spectator, here:

Forty-five miles north, Senate President John Morse is in even bigger trouble. Although his senate district includes the quirky (and liberal) town of Manitou Springs, John Morse won his 2010 election by only 252 votes in a race in which a Libertarian candidate won five times that number. In other words, if not for the presence of a third party candidate, Mr. Morse would likely have lost; this is not a safe “blue” seat, despite redistricting since 2010 having made the district lean slightly more Democratic than its prior configuration. ... [P]erhaps most galling, even to Morse’s liberal constituents, were comments he made on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow show in which he proudly said (while claiming the mantle of Abraham Lincoln) that he counseled fellow Democrat senators to avoid reading e-mails from constituents. To be fair, Morse probably assumed that nobody was watching the show.

Sen. Rand Paul Forgets His Libertarian Father Was A Point-47-Percenter

There are losers like Mitt Romney, and then there are real losers like Ron Paul, who in his 1988 foray as the Libertarian Party candidate for president managed a laughable 0.47% of the popular vote.

Libertarianism doesn't stand a chance in 2016 either, except in the fictional polling world of Sen. Rand Paul's own mind, as here:

'His father, he pointed out, came out ahead of Obama in some presidential election polling: “He beat him with an interesting dynamic — loses a third of the Republican vote, gains a third of the Democratic vote and wins the independents. So it’s a sort of third way.”'

Republican primary voters didn't see it that way in 2012 in Rep. Ron Paul's last hurrah, who preferred Mitt Romney to the outgoing congressman by almost 5 to 1. And in the 2012 general election barely 1.3 million people voted for the Libertarian Party candidate for president, former Republican Gary Johnson, who eked out a paltry 0.99% compared to Mitt Romney's 47.18%.

One of the chief characteristics of the ideological mind is its disconnect from reality. Sen. Rand Paul should have his head examined.

Warning To Sen. Mitch McConnell: Watch Out For A Libertarian Spoiler

Incumbent Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader in the US Senate, should get ready to face both a Democrat and a libertarian spoiler in his reelection bid.

Libertarians spoiled the senate races for Mourdock in Indiana and for Rehberg in Montana in 2012. So-called Tea Party candidates, Mourdock and Rehberg lost by margins posted to the libertarians' columns in their races. In Montana the libertarian was actually funded by Democrats.

Republicans like Sen. Jim DeMint and Gov. Sarah Palin continue to think, incorrectly, that libertarians are on the Republicans' side. They are not. Gov. Palin in particular has said in the past that she believes it would be a political mistake to alienate libertarians. In saying that, she reveals that she believes Republicans cannot stand on their own. Senator DeMint has said recently that as the new head of the Heritage Foundation he believes it is time to reach out to libertarians to forge an alliance on those things about which Republicans and libertarians agree. It makes one wonder if their own minds aren't divided over whether they are conservatives or libertarians.

Politico reports on the possibility of a libertarian running against McConnell, buried on page 3 of this story about Democrats planning to back a Tea Party candidate:

Liberty for All, a super PAC that put cash behind [Rep. Thomas] Massie and other conservative Republicans, is signaling it’s prepared to spend money to boost a McConnell challenger. One of the group’s leaders, Preston Bates, is a former Democratic operative who worked for Jack Conway, the Democratic candidate who lost to Rand Paul in 2010.

Bates said he left the Democratic Party in 2010, adding that while he personally identifies more with his former party, his year-old group puts money behind viable small government and libertarian-minded conservatives.

“Generally, what we need is to stop electing Republicans that are out of touch with most general election voters,” Bates said.

Libertarians are indeed a subset of the Democrat Party, not a genuine third party. They view themselves as successful not when they stop Democrats from getting elected, but Republicans, as Bates openly states. Democrat money helped a libertarian spoil the race for a Republican challenger to Rep. Giffords in Arizona in 2010, after which she was shot by a deranged libertarian, and in 2012 the Libertarian Party viewed itself as successful because it stopped those Republican candidates for senate in Indiana and Montana.

Sen. McConnell should consider the Democrat threat to back a Tea Party candidate in the Republican primary as a fake to the right. I'd bet rather that the Democrats intend to go left and back a libertarian in the general if possible. That's been their m/o in the past, and likely will be again because it is the more natural for them. When push comes to shove, libertarians jettison economic conservatism for social liberalism, the latter's home being in the Democrat Party.

Libertarian "Principle" Means Republican Defeat!

Good results for libertarians = Democrat victories!

See for yourself, here.

Libertarian Spoils Race For Republican In NH-1, Bringing Back Shea-Porter

Here's another race in 2012 which the libertarians helped throw to the Democrats. Democrat Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, defeated in 2010 by a Republican, regained her seat thanks in part to a libertarian in the race in 2012 who bled enough votes from the Republican to put her back in the seat.

The case was nearly the same in NH-2 where the Democrat faced a Republican and a libertarian but won in her own right.

Libertarians view themselves as successful, as having an impact, when they deprive Republicans of their victories. Libertarians suffer from a kind of bipolar disorder which is distinguished by a predominating social liberalism which trumps their economic conservatism and thus manifests itself politically as alliance with Democrats, which is what they really are, if only they went to therapy.

We know whose side the libertarians are on, and it isn't ours.

Follow the label in the footer to see other races libertarians helped spoil for Republicans in 2012.

Republicans need to grow a quatrain and start attacking not just Democrats, but libertarians as well.

TAC Analysis Of Montana Senate Race Never Mentions Libertarian Spoiler

Michael Tracey for The American Conservative here spends zero time contemplating how the Libertarian Party candidate easily spoiled the race for the Republican by bleeding off his votes, thus electing the Democrat to the US Senate in Montana.

Criticizing libertarianism at TAC evidently conflicts with the program.

I Don't Call Sen. Jim DeMint "Demented" For Nothing

Here he is in all his confused glory:

"I think the new debate in the Republican Party needs to be between conservatives and libertarians. We have a common foundation of individual liberty and constitutionally limited government, and we can rationally debate some of the things we disagree on. I don’t think the government should impose my morals or anyone else’s on someone else, but at the same time I don’t want the government purging morals and religious values from our society. We can find a balance there. It really gets back to decentralization. The tolerance is going to come from decentralization and letting people make their own decisions, but we have to be able to put up with societal stigma of things we don’t like."

No, we don't have a common foundation.

Libertarians believe in freedom as license. Conservatives believe in ordered liberty, that there cannot be true freedom unless we respect the transcendent moral order. In recent times libertarians were easily allied with Democrats on social issues, and finally gave up on that and moved rightward on economic concerns. In doing so they demonstrated their unprincipled shape-shifting for what it is, and that Republicans have been too stupid to reject them. For example, I can't recall a single prominent Republican or so-called conservative descrying the many Republican victories spoiled by libertarians in either of the recent elections in 2010 and 2012. What is more we have idiot conservatives like Sarah Palin telling us we must make room for libertarians in the Republican Party while the Libertarian Party itself is encouraged by the races it has spoiled for Republicans by electing Democrats. This from the woman who vigorously supported John McCain and TARP.

Libertarians are not natural allies of conservatives, but they are of Republicans just as they are of Democrats, because the Republican Party has been liberalized beyond recognition. That a so-called conservative like Jim DeMint is friendly toward libertarianism tells you all you need to know about the state of conservatism in America. Conservatism in America is really and truly dead.

One of the favorite ideas of libertarians illustrates my point. The idea comes by analogy from Adam Smith's invisible hand at work in economics, namely, that the electorate always gets it right (Jude Wanniski). Is there a Republican who voted for Romney saying any such thing anywhere in the country now that Obama is re-elected? I doubt it. But that is the position of John Tamny and his ilk at Forbes Magazine. John Tamny, by the way, would like you to be a completely rootless person, with no house, no wife, no children, paying no property taxes for good schools and contributing no commitment to church and community but owning just two bags and a passport so that his beloved capitalist boss can send you wherever and whenever he needs you.

Good government, as the Scriptures teach, is a terror to bad behavior, not to good. That means there are moral absolutes, against which all libertarians do chafe, now more, now less, starting with "It is not good that the man should be alone."

To Demented Jim there are no such absolutes. He's a moral relativist who doesn't have the courage of his own moral convictions. "My morals" he says, as if they belong only to him and didn't come from the Author of Life. St. Paul, I remind you, ridiculed the Corinthian Christians for such an attitude, saying "What do you have that you did not receive?" Our faults are as ancient as the way of escape.

The Heritage Foundation had become reprehensible enough for having embraced Reagan liberalism, which contributed materially to what became the tyranny of the ObamaCare mandates. Now Heritage is to be headed up by the confused conservative DeMint, if he really isn't just a stealth libertarian. Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know about Heritage, that it remains to this day so intellectually confused about the meaning of conservatism that it welcomes a libertarian sleeper?

Conservatives should revolt against Heritage's choice of Sen. Jim DeMint, but don't count on it. I reckon there are only 500,000 of us in the whole country, and that's being generous. In the end, Sen. DeMint and Heritage will come to nothing, and the Republicans too if they are not careful.

"SAVE YOURSELVES FROM THIS CROOKED GENERATION!"

Tammy Bruce Needs To Have Her Head Examined, Again

Final Results Utah 4th Congressional District 2012

This morning Tammy Bruce is ranting and raving as guest host for Laura Ingraham about how a black Republican woman narrowly lost to the incumbent liberal white man, Democrat Rep. Jim Matheson in UT-4.

That's rich. A gay libertarian independent complaining about a Republican losing by 768 votes in a narrow race to a Democrat where the Libertarian Party candidate clearly played the spoiler by garnering eight times that margin.

Ideas have consequences.

Libertarians Help Elect Democrat Bisexual In Arizona

There's no mention in the various stories at Politico that the controversial and expensive race between the Democrat Sinema and the black Republican Parker was spoiled for the latter by a libertarian candidate whose platform included open voter suppression.

AZCentral reported here:

The spoiler in the race may turn out to be Libertarian candidate Powell Gammill, who garnered more than 10,000 votes, despite urging voters during an October televised debate to stay home on Election Day in protest of the political system.

Libertarian In UT 4th District Helps Dem. Incumbent Get Re-elected

Libertarians in Utah's 4th Congressional District narrowly helped keep the Democrat the incumbent in 2012. The rest of Utah is a sea of red.

Matheson was a key figure in the arithmetic to passage of ObamaCare in 2010, subsequently got re-elected in November 2010 and again now in 2012, thanks this time to a libertarian who spoiled the chance for the GOP candidate.

Libertarian Mish Is Happy Republican Mourdock Lost In Indiana

Mish is on the side of the Democrats, plain and simple, here, referencing a story at the Christian Science Monitor:

Yet this is what happens when views are too extreme. I am very pleased to report "'Red' Indiana sends Democrat to US Senate, as women fled Mourdock".

Of course Mish is happy the Democrat won in Indiana. Libertarians ran a spoiler candidate in that race to throw the race to the Democrat. When it comes down to it, social freedom is more important to libertarians than economic freedom. They cry "Freedom" all the while they mean only "License!"

Libertarians are not on the side of conservatives or Republicans. They are on the side of the Democrats, the party of death to the unborn, and soon the party of death to the elderly under ObamaCare, and eventually the party of death to the middle class, which will not long exist because of Obama.

The middle class stands in the way of the Alinskyites' real objective: the rich. Middle class people, after all, would like to be rich some day, too, not poor. So they must go first in order to get at the rich. If the middle class had any brains they'd understand that Obama's invective against the rich is primarily aimed at them because, compared to the poor, the middle class is rich. Unfortunately, they went to public schools. 

One thing at a time, making use of the useful idiots, the libertarians.