Anarchist?

Preston Bates, the head of the Libertarian Super PAC that spent tons of money to nominate a candidate in Kentucky's fourth congressional district, plead guilty to DUI this week but his claim to being an "anarchist" on the night of his arrest could give legs to an otherwise relatively minor criminal offense.

Democratic candidate Bill Adkins has called for his opponent to publicly disavow any connection with the group and refuse any further help from them.  Instead campaign chair Phil Moffett responded to Adkins with a "no comment".

Then democratic activist Paul Whalen, commenting on an article at NKy.com made it clear that it wasn't the DUI which could cause the GOP nominee problems, it was the "anarchist" comments.

The fact that biggest financial contributor to a candidate for the U.S.Congress, says he is an anarchist is the news in the story. The fact that Texas Tom Massie's primary financial contributor proclaims himself to be an anarchist should cause people and the press to ask whether Massie supports anarchy? It raises a lot of questions. This should lead the public to ask about Massie's beliefs on the issues of the day which impact the people of the 4th District. Massie has said that he supports the Ryan budget which would dismantle Medicare. Massie said in the KET debates that he does not think much of federal education programs including "Headstart". Massie indicates that he believes in many of the things that Rand and Ron Paul do. Rand Paul has indicated that the Federal Government should privatize National Parks. Does Tom Massie support our National Parks System? Or does he want to privatize Mamouth Cave and Gettysburg? Voters need to know.

For a candidate about whom voters know very little except that he lives in a handmade house, in the middle of a compound on family property, brags about living "off the grid", installed solar panels to provide electricity, ferments cow manure to make methane gas, brags about his collection of machine guns and is very much anti-government, Whalen's point is something Massie needs to address.

Maybe he figures that since he will be running under the GOP banner that he has this race in the bag and can safely stay out of the public eye.  But the "anarchist" comment coupled with what little is known about his lifestyle could provide the kind of fuel to give Adkins a better shot at the win than conventional wisdom might otherwise suggest.

There is just enough doubt about extremists in both parties trying to get a foot hold in Washington to make the Preston Bates comment the kind of Macaca moment to inspire a much closer scrutiny of the GOP nominee.  And his refusal to disavow any further connection with the Bates group raises more questions than it answers.

Was his campaign's response born out of an arrogance? (ie. "we've got this thing in the bag and don't need to comment")  Or was it an attempt to dodge further investigation of how his candidate actually feels about the dangerous call for revolution, and the kind of anarchy embraced by libertarian extremists?

Phil Moffett's "no comment" response just doesn't cut it in today's world. Dodging questions signals to some people that your candidate has something to hide.

Comments

[Learned Hand, J.]

Mr. Carey,

When do you say more "states" rights, what precisely do you mean. When I was in law school,and studying Separation of Powers under Sandra Day O'Connor, and prior to that in college studying under Clarence Thomas, we covered the fact that all governments only have and exercise powers: powers derived from the consent of the governed, but only powers delegated nonetheless. To be in favor of "more" state powers (or if you insist: "rights"), while refusing to acknowledge that in-fact, there is no logical stopping point in the federal expansion of its sphere if one abandons the limitation's enshrined in the enumerated powers delegated the federal congress in Article I and allows a more activist federal government (medicare---all your pet safety-net and patently unconstitutional programes), is to argue about how pregnant someone is... that is, it is established. The principle of power unshackled from the confines of the U.S. Constitution, once embraced, is by nature limitless and unrestrainable. "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the people do".

[Lisa Graas]

Facepalm.

[karmen]

Go marcus! Keepusinformed!

[Adam]

You and I both know that this isn't going to gain traction with anyone beyond the disgruntled old guard GOP activists opposed to the growing influx of libertarian and paleoconservative young people into the party. Most voters are on vacation and aren't paying the least bit of attention to politics right now, and won't be until mid to late October.

The bulk of "A" and "B" voters are going to walk into the voting booths and pull the straight-party-ticket lever like they always do. In this district, you know what that'll result in. If the Kentucky GOP refuses to campaign for Massie, he'll have his own pool of Campaign for Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty volunteers to knock on doors and make phone calls. If the party doesn't support him financially, that won't matter either, because Massie has a nationwide fundraising base to pull from, plus any additional help he'll need from the Super PAC. They'll bury Adkins with ads if necessary, but you know that in that district, he won't have to.

As you may know, the DNC will be held just a few miles from where I'm sitting in Charlotte, NC this fall. Last weekend, the National Federation of Young Republicans held an event called "Combat Charlotte". It was a nationwide call for Young Republicans to come to Charlotte to make phone calls, canvass, and prepare the ground to try to put a dent in the Democrats' organizing in the very city where they'll renominate Obama.

Less than 100 people showed.

4 years ago, I joined Young Republicans here in Charlotte in an effort to learn the ropes, get political experience, and network prior to striking out on my own as the Mecklenburg County coordinator for Campaign for Liberty. Aside from learning the importance of contact lists and targeted phone calls and canvassing, it was a total waste of time. The monthly meetings were sparsely attended, usually by 20 and 30-somethings in real estate or banking who were there primarily to knock back a couple of cocktails and scout for new clients. They never, ever showed to actual fundraisers or worked for Republican candidates.

Contrast that with the young libertarian Republicans flocking to organizations like Students for Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty. YAL in particular is only 4 years old, but already has 26,000 members statewide and provided boots-on-the-ground muscle in Rand Paul and Thomas Massie's campaigns.

Like it or not, that's where the GOP is going. The vast majority of newly-registering Republicans think like the Pauls, not Bachmann or Cain or Newt, and certainly not like Willard Romney. Hoping for some huge backlash that ejects thousands upon thousands of brand new activists from the party just because they read Mises or Bastiat is asking for the GOP to become finally, totally, and irrefutably politically irrelevant.

Is that really what you want?

[Marc's Reply: Thanks for the comment. Here is what I want. People to read and research for themselves. If the backbone of the new movement toward which people are rushing, based in a very liberal social agenda, "no government" libertarianism and an utter disregard for the conventions of American politics is what they want, then the process should give it to them. But I am a fan of a representative republic, strong national defense, smaller government and more states rights, but I don't support people who call themselves anarchists nor would I want to be associated with them. In my opinion this liberty movement is a fad and it will give way to something new in about 10 years.]