Overthrow a Sign of Tea-Party Clout

Republican officials sought to unify the party after Saturday's tea-party driven ouster of three-term Utah Republican Senator Robert Bennett.

Mr. Bennett became the year's first victim of the anti-incumbent fervor sweeping through the Republican Party when he lost his bid for his party's nomination at a state GOP convention here. GOP activists blasted him as a Washington insider who had lost touch with Utah's conservative ideals and will instead nominate a tea party-backed populist candidate who promises adherence to conservative principles.

The GOP candidate hasn't yet been chosen, but it will be one of Mr. Bennett's two challengers, businessman Tim Bridgewater and lawyer Mike Lee, both favored by the tea party and who will face off in a June 22 primary. The winner will be favored to win the general election in this heavily Republican state.

Mr. Bennett has missed the filing deadline to run as an independent contestant, but he can run as a write-in candidate.

Mr. Bennett has missed the filing deadline to run as an independent contestant, but he can run as a write-in candidate. In congratulating his two opponents he appeared not to be favoring that option, and a Bennett spokeswoman on Sunday said a write-in campaign was unlikely.

Anybody who wants smaller, less intrusive government -- as Palin does -- is demonstrably not a "populist".

No, I read up on populism before I posted. Populism is tapping into a popular movement of the people, and can be pro-government or anti-government. IMHO, Palin is tapping into the anti-big-government sentiments of broad group[s of the people, and is populist. Buchanon was populist... REAGAN was populist.

And on the left we had people like Huey Long, Lester Maddox, George Wallace.

Huey - A chicken in every pot. Maddox and Wallace were racists running under the cause of “states rights”. Nothing wrong with being for state’s rights but their underlying agenda was racist.

The only thing that was really “left” about Wallace might have been his union support. Wallace was supporting the chief conservative issue in his state at the time and so his combination of moderate-to-left economic policies combined with his conservative social policies endeared him to a lot of Alabamians, and scores of Alabama politicians still try to walk his tightrope.

And Wallace was not a racist. I personally knew Wallace. My father supported every campaign of his from ‘58 onward (and it ‘58 he was painted as a red, which motivated his shift on segregation). I personally voted for Wallace in both the primary and the general in 1982 and would have done so again in 1986, partly due to daddy’s business connections and partly because in 1986 I could only consciously remember 2 governors, Wallace and James and James was regarded by everyone at the time as a collosal failure.

Wallace took up the cause he did because it was what the public expected at the time and he wanted to be a politician.

People also woefully misunderstand what Maddox was about. Maddox ended up being more racially tolerant in policy than the guys who wanted to keep him out. Maddox simply really believed that a private property owner had the right to dictate who could be on their property and as a business decision wanted to keep his restaraunt as it was because that’s what he believed his customer base wanted. A lot of his political activity was a business decision to try and kep working class Atlantans coming into his establishment

In UTAH? Yeah, right, sure, Uh Huh...

Looked to buy a house in Park City. First question was what Ward I belonged to. Suddenly the price went up...

If you want to pretend that the center of the world in the state isn't Temple Square, and the Elders, go ahead. However, for the rest of us Gentiles, that propaganda is not valid. Try and sell it to some 23 year old girl with 5 kids...

But, that's how they like it, and the Church is not holding a gun to their heads. Deseret Industries does a better job of social services that the feds do.

Palin...is populist. Buchanon was populist... REAGAN was populist.

Then, you are using a very loose definition of populism -- which asks that the government take an activist role on the side of the "little people" against the "corporations".

In his later iterations, Buchanan was indeed a populist. He wanted the government to take an activist role in protecting American industry and jobs -- no matter how inefficient they might be.

Reagan never opined that more government was the solution. Quite the contrary. Palin, similarly.

Your definition of populism is a popular misconception. Actually, it is very specific -- tracing to the era of William Jennings Bryant and the conflict between the Great Plains farmers and the railroads and the millers.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.