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.

What A Shock. Senator Elect "Independent" Angus King Of Maine To Caucus With Dems

The Boston Globe has the story here about the two-term former Governor's victory:

Republican-aligned groups spent $3.7 million in a losing attempt to defeat King. The National Republican Senatorial Committee dumped $1.3 million, while Crossroads GPS spent about $1 million.

The Democrat in the race for Senate in Maine, Cynthia Dill, who thought she was running against Todd Akin of Missouri, came in a very distant third with 13% of the vote behind the Republican in distant second with about 31% of the vote to King's 53%.

King's enthusiasms appear to be fingerprinting and windmills.

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.

Libertarian Party Boasts Of Stopping Republican Senate Hopefuls In IN and MT

A reader points out that the Libertarian Party is actually boasting here about how well two of its Senate candidates performed in the elections a week ago, one in Montana and one in Indiana, because they threw the races to the Democrats. By doing so they prevented Republicans from winning precious seats needed in the contest against the Obama agenda.

He's right. I quote from the post:

"[T]hese are exceptionally good results:

Dan Cox (MT) 31,476 votes - 6.5% - high impact: more than margin of victory for Democrat over Republican ...

Andrew Horning (IN) 143,790 votes - 5.8% - high impact: more than margin of victory for Democrat over Republican"

It's obvious from this that Libertarians view themselves as spoilers who count Republican defeats as victories for themselves, which tells you everything you need to know about whose side the Libertarian Party is on.

Of course there is no reflection on the libertarians' bad faith in this election in the media in general, nor from conservative talk radio in particular which boasts self-professed libertarian sympathizers in people like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. 

h/t Housman2000

Gov. Mitch Daniels Denies Mourdock Is Tea Party Phenomenon

lefty makes a point

The former Lugar associate might be expected to say something like this, but the fact is, and Rush Limbaugh is right, Sen. Lugar of Indiana represents the Republican establishment, and Mourdock beat him with the help of the Tea Party.

This is also why Mitch Daniels went nowhere this cycle as a possible presidential candidate. Mitch is also the Republican establishment. He might as well be Senator John McCain.

Rush has the full story, and here's Daniel's denial:

DANIELS:  It would be a complete misunderstanding to label this a Tea Party phenomenon when in fact the winner had a very strong majority with rank-and-file Republicans who felt they knew him, have seen a lot of him, he's been elected twice statewide in just the last six years, so he's a Republican regular himself, and that was the decisive factor.

Mourdock Creams Lugar in Indiana, But is he a Conservative?

Murdock once supported the Fairness Doctrine, of all things, way back in 1992, according to this story. The source cited is National Review.

And he's supposedly soft on sanctions against employers who employ illegals. No source named.

We'll see. He'll have to defeat Democrat Joe Donnelly first though.

Anyway, that squish Lugar is history.