Well, This is Confusing: “Tea Party” Candidate to Challenge… Vitter?
According to an Associated Press article published today, a Lafayette businessman has decided to file for candidacy for the U.S. Senate race. Mike Spears, co-owner of Firefly Digital, Inc., a website design company, will challenge incumbent Senator David Vitter (R-LA) and Congressman Charlie Melancon (D-LA 3) for the seat. As a platform plank, Spears claims that he will represent a “Tea Party” perspective in Congress in efforts to “take back our country.”
Undoubtedly, Democrats will attempt to use Spears’ candidacy to further exaggerate a GOP v. Tea Party schism that hardly exists, if it does at all. While progressives across the U.S. pray for divisiveness among American conservatives poised for pickups during the midterm elections of 2010, they will ignore the absence of viability of his candidacy in exchange for foaming at the mouth of the drama that could arise.
While there is merit in taking on the “Establishment” politicians who have driven this country off a cliff, classifying Senator Vitter as one of those politicians is intellectually dishonest, if not altogether reckless.
Aside from the sheer numbers, those numbers being Senator Vitter’s unparalleled fundraising and polling results, it is a bit odd that Mike Spears would take on such a stalwart conservative. Indeed, one would be hard-pressed to find a member of the U.S. Senate who is more conservative, and thus, more aligned with Tea Party values than our own junior senator.
In fact, Senator Vitter has enjoyed impeccable ratings from some of the most important voices of the center-right movement. Here are just a few:
- Family Research Council- 100%
- National Right to Life- 100%
- American Conservative Union- 100%
- U.S. Border Control- 100%
- Americans for Tax Reform- 100%
- U.S. Chamber of Commerce- 88%
- Club for Growth- 90%
- Center for Security Policy- 100%
- Gunowners of America- A+
- Numbers USA- A+
These are just some of the few rankings available for Louisiana’s junior senator. Since sometimes the best way to judge a man is by what his enemies think of him, it’s also important is how liberal groups rank him. One of the largest labor unions, AFL-CIO; NARAL, a pro-choice advocacy group; and the ACLU all give Senator Vitter low rankings.
Furthermore, Senator Vitter has been embraced by every Tea Party in the state of Louisiana, most recently at a town hall in Baton Rouge, La., where every local group came to support him, and a tele-town hall he held on April 15 after Tax Day rallies that hosted, according to his Twitter account, 4,327 activists.
At the very least, Mike Spears will face significant difficulty refuting claims that he is a misguided opportunist, regardless of his good intentions. While this post is in no way meant to discourage Mike Spears or others from being involved in the democratic process, a sympathetic observer would agree that his efforts would be better spent shaking things up in another race, especially on a more local level where corruption and waste go almost always unnoticed. Here, a leader with Tea Party principles could be of tremendous benefit to us all.
Senator Vitter doesn’t need the Hayride to defend him, make a case for his job assurance or even parade his platform about the Internet. No one is arguing for lockstep loyalty to the GOP. We are simply uniquely poised to hold on to and gain seats this year and Louisiana shouldn’t be left out. Bloodying up another good Republican is no way to do that.
We need a conservative in the United States Senate. Luckily, we already have one there. And his name is David Vitter.
I don't disagree that he should be "allowed" to run. Obviously, I (nor Vitter nor the state) have the ability to deny him his right. James, what I worry about is that it exacerbates the claims that the Tea Party is anti-conservative and anti-GOP. Just today on Cavuto, one commentator was arguing that if Sarah Palin ran as a "Tea Party" candidate, it would be all over for the GOP.
The point is, the Tea Party is rooted in things that the GOP used to stand for and, thankfully, some conservatives like Senator Vitter still do. He is a BRAVE voice for us in Washington and frankly, I couldn't think of anyone better, especially coming from Louisiana, to speak for me in Congress.
I don't disagree with this gentleman and frankly, I don't know anything about him. He probably is an extraordinary person and would be a great leader. The problem is that when we're dealing with matters of unprecedented scope (health care, cap and trade, card check, etc.), why would ANYONE want to bloody up (or take votes away from) a solid conservative and allow for Melancon to swoop in, win and go ahead and vote 85% in-line with Reid instead of Pelosi now?
To me, the country is enduring too much to risk it!
I don't disagree that he should be "allowed" to run. Obviously, I (nor Vitter nor the state) have the ability to deny him his right. James, what I worry about is that it exacerbates the claims that the Tea Party is anti-conservative and anti-GOP. Just today on Cavuto, one commentator was arguing that if Sarah Palin ran as a "Tea Party" candidate, it would be all over for the GOP.
The point is, the Tea Party is rooted in things that the GOP used to stand for and, thankfully, some conservatives like Senator Vitter still do. He is a BRAVE voice for us in Washington and frankly, I couldn't think of anyone better, especially coming from Louisiana, to speak for me in Congress.
I don't disagree with this gentleman and frankly, I don't know anything about him. He probably is an extraordinary person and would be a great leader. The problem is that when we're dealing with matters of unprecedented scope (health care, cap and trade, card check, etc.), why would ANYONE want to bloody up (or take votes away from) a solid conservative and allow for Melancon to swoop in, win and go ahead and vote 85% in-line with Reid instead of Pelosi now?
To me, the country is enduring too much to risk it!
The time to have these sorts of debates is in the primary. All of these folks (this guy is not the only one) that think the TEA Party movement is a 3rd party movement will be sadly mistaken in November. We may be newcomers to the arena but we are politically savvy enough to know that the left would love nothing more than to divide and conquer.
I encourage a good primary fight but lets leave it there and then all get behind a strong conservative candidate.
Dwight,
Thank you for your post. You have certainly been a very sage, outspoken voice within the TEA Party (sorry for the misprint in both the article and the comments) movement. I'm not saying this guy shouldn't be active. I just wonder why this race, is all.
I admire this man's enthusiasm to get involved. I just worry that it could hurt a solid conservative seat if Democrats give him money/ influence to sabotage Vitter.
The time to have these sorts of debates is in the primary. All of these folks (this guy is not the only one) that think the TEA Party movement is a 3rd party movement will be sadly mistaken in November. We may be newcomers to the arena but we are politically savvy enough to know that the left would love nothing more than to divide and conquer.
I encourage a good primary fight but lets leave it there and then all get behind a strong conservative candidate.
Dwight,
Thank you for your post. You have certainly been a very sage, outspoken voice within the TEA Party (sorry for the misprint in both the article and the comments) movement. I'm not saying this guy shouldn't be active. I just wonder why this race, is all.
I admire this man's enthusiasm to get involved. I just worry that it could hurt a solid conservative seat if Democrats give him money/ influence to sabotage Vitter.
The other thing to worry about is what affect it will have on fundraising for Melancon. When candidates are able to show that they are viable (and now Melancon may be if the votes are split) donors are more inclined to give.
The other thing to worry about is what affect it will have on fundraising for Melancon. When candidates are able to show that they are viable (and now Melancon may be if the votes are split) donors are more inclined to give.
If he wants to run, I'm OK with it. But run as a Republican, so that the race can be decided in the primary. A third-party candidacy, if it has any traction, could increase the threat of Charlie Melancon winning when that is currently impossible.
If he wants to run, I'm OK with it. But run as a Republican, so that the race can be decided in the primary. A third-party candidacy, if it has any traction, could increase the threat of Charlie Melancon winning when that is currently impossible.
I don't know Mike Spears, but it would be interesting to know his past party affiliation. I don't have access to a voter file anymore, so I can't look it up.
Exactly…
Wouldn't it be interesting if he turned out to have been affiliated with…oh, I don't know…some far left organization that was funded by…say, maybe…Soros?
Just sayin'. Mac, you're really good at digging up poop that's buried under rockpiles, so maybe you should be checking. Just in case.
Bet and Mike:
I looked yesterday on OpenSecrets for any federal donations made by Mike Spears. None, nada, zip showed up.
The guy was on a local radio show this afternoon, and I believe he is genuine. Might he spit votes? Who knows, depends how much money he raises.
But you know what, it's time to move past all the R and D mess. The Tea Parties were supposed to be separate from the political parties. Let's not forget, it was those Ron Paul "libertarian nuts" who actually started the tea party rallies.
That's not the point. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. Or a Tea Partier for that matter. I'm a Constitutionalist. I don't share any of these people's politics. But I do support what their doing and they should consider that there may be democrats running as Tea Party candidates.
What would they have to lose by doing that? Nothing. If they win the seat, they vote with the Democrat party. If they split the vote, the Democrat wins. So there is no reason why they wouldn't play this card. As you said: none, nada, zip.
I'm a researcher and analyst. Don't tell me to move past my instincts and better judgement. That's how people get run over. They don't look before they cross the street.
I don't know Mike Spears, but it would be interesting to know his past party affiliation. I don't have access to a voter file anymore, so I can't look it up.
Exactly…
Wouldn't it be interesting if he turned out to have been affiliated with…oh, I don't know…some far left organization that was funded by…say, maybe…Soros?
Just sayin'. Mac, you're really good at digging up poop that's buried under rockpiles, so maybe you should be checking. Just in case.
Bet and Mike:
I looked yesterday on OpenSecrets for any federal donations made by Mike Spears. None, nada, zip showed up.
The guy was on a local radio show this afternoon, and I believe he is genuine. Might he spit votes? Who knows, depends how much money he raises.
But you know what, it's time to move past all the R and D mess. The Tea Parties were supposed to be separate from the political parties. Let's not forget, it was those Ron Paul "libertarian nuts" who actually started the tea party rallies.
That's not the point. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. Or a Tea Partier for that matter. I'm a Constitutionalist. I don't share any of these people's politics. But I do support what their doing and they should consider that there may be democrats running as Tea Party candidates.
What would they have to lose by doing that? Nothing. If they win the seat, they vote with the Democrat party. If they split the vote, the Democrat wins. So there is no reason why they wouldn't play this card. As you said: none, nada, zip.
I'm a researcher and analyst. Don't tell me to move past my instincts and better judgement. That's how people get run over. They don't look before they cross the street.
Ellen, Sen. Vitter has been a good conservative in the Senate on social issues. But I thought the TEA Party was also supposed to be against too much government spending.
According to the Taxpayers for Common Sense, Vitter was in the Top 10 of Senators voting for pork/earmarks in the 2009 Omnibus bill. He has left much to be desired from a fiscal standpoint.
Ellen, Sen. Vitter has been a good conservative in the Senate on social issues. But I thought the TEA Party was also supposed to be against too much government spending.
According to the Taxpayers for Common Sense, Vitter was in the Top 10 of Senators voting for pork/earmarks in the 2009 Omnibus bill. He has left much to be desired from a fiscal standpoint.
I have not problem considering a fiscal conservative candidate for my vote against Sen. Vitter. Last August during his 'townhall' meeting in Port Allen, I personally asked Sen. Vitter what vote has he cast, bill he supported, or bill he proposed that abolished any federal agency, or program, and/or reduced the federal deficit? His answer was that he voted against budget bills that would increase spending. I firmly stated that didn't answer my question – I didn't ask about not increasing spending, I wanted to know what he has done to REDUCE spending. He would not, and could not, answer.
If Don Quixote wants to run for office in any electoral subdivision that I vote in, I'll vote for him even if he is tilting at windmills with efforts to cut government spending that have no chance of garnering enough votes. HOWEVER, when we get enough of the good Dons in office, the votes – and cuts – will come.
Colonel, I'm sure you recall all of the budget cuts that President Clinton made. Surely you don't want to revisit those days. We need to be careful about WHAT we are cutting. Lest we forget or forsake that the USA is (and should continue to be) the leading world super power. It's time for hand-outs to stop.
I have not problem considering a fiscal conservative candidate for my vote against Sen. Vitter. Last August during his 'townhall' meeting in Port Allen, I personally asked Sen. Vitter what vote has he cast, bill he supported, or bill he proposed that abolished any federal agency, or program, and/or reduced the federal deficit? His answer was that he voted against budget bills that would increase spending. I firmly stated that didn't answer my question – I didn't ask about not increasing spending, I wanted to know what he has done to REDUCE spending. He would not, and could not, answer.
If Don Quixote wants to run for office in any electoral subdivision that I vote in, I'll vote for him even if he is tilting at windmills with efforts to cut government spending that have no chance of garnering enough votes. HOWEVER, when we get enough of the good Dons in office, the votes – and cuts – will come.
Colonel, I'm sure you recall all of the budget cuts that President Clinton made. Surely you don't want to revisit those days. We need to be careful about WHAT we are cutting. Lest we forget or forsake that the USA is (and should continue to be) the leading world super power. It's time for hand-outs to stop.
This is a great conversation. Not easy to hear, in some parts, but nonetheless important. Please see response athttp://thehayride.com/2010/04/splitting-the-conse…
This is a great conversation. Not easy to hear, in some parts, but nonetheless important. Please see response athttp://thehayride.com/2010/04/splitting-the-conse…