“Only Ron Paul can defeat Barack Obama. Hence you are told the opposite.”

It’s precisely because he was Gates and not Hatch that he did no such thing. Not to put Gates or other entrepreneurs on a pedestal, but most people don’t have the inflated ego, sense of entitlement, vainglorious hubris and desire to harm others that politicians do.

But when government is less powerful and less influential, there’s less interest in buying it off. No one is going to pay money to lobby, bribe, or buy an election if the position or official they’re buying isn’t powerful enough to give them a return on their investment.

If government were getting progressively smaller and less powerful, do you think we would still be shattering campaign spending records each election cycle?

Well, no. It’s unlikely that the Tea Party would oppose Hatch specifically for comments he made 12 years ago. It’s more about the culture those comments represent, as reflected in Hatch’s support for TARP, bailouts, etc.

@14 – So even minor reductions in the size/scope of gov’t = Somalia?

I’ll make you a deal – you quit talking crazy about Somalia and I’ll refrain from telling you to move to your statist utopia of North Korea.

@16 – It’s statists like yourself that make crazy arguments about new soviet man. Libertarianism recognizes the shortcomings in man’s nature and advocates limited government and decentralized power because of those shortcomings.

The fact of matter is that if the federal government had less power, less money would be spent in an attempt to influence it.

In the old days you had the king and his noble courtiers. Today its Washington politicians and corporate lobbyists. The nobles had power, but it was entirely dependent on the strength of the king. Their continued power relied upon being in the kings favor, and making sure the king himself was powerful. This natural reciprocity of power and influence hasn’t really changed much in human history, we just have different players and titles than older cultures. It’s funny to hear people argue about the evilness of corporations and how they “corrupt” government. It’s akin to someone in the middle ages arguing about all those evil nobles and how the king, despite empowering, sanctioning, and ordering the nobles around, is really just such a nice guy without their “corrupting” influence.

Too many people, on both ends of the political spectrum, worship government power. When they see government power doing things they don’t like, they can either honestly admit that government itself is dangerous and largely unaccountable, or deflect the problem entirely to some hated group. Corporations, religions, unions, and special interests are constantly demonized for soliciting government power. The fact that government power is always for sale is glossed over by these critics who assume that with the right rules, or the right people in charge, all that power will just do what they want it to.

It’s this naively selfish notion that the government should be powerful enough to do whatever you want, but should ignore the equally valid requests of everyone you disagree with. If you are upset with government action you have to limit the government. If you agree with one set of bailouts, legal exceptions, or special rights, you don’t get to be upset when everyone else gets them too. You want the government to ban cigarettes, well now someone wants them to ban soda. You want the government to pay for education, well now its paying for retirement and health care too. You got the government you wanted and so did everyone else. The fact that you all disagree is your own problem.

If you only agree with government action on a very narrow range of situations, and disagree with that action everywhere else, then don’t foolishly give your government the power to act in those situations. Libertarians understand that getting one thing you want out of government generally precipitates getting a bunch of things you don’t want. That’s why they strive for minimal government. No amount of bashing the nobles is going to change the powers given to the king.

But I don’t see any evidence for the spin added here that that’s what motivates Tea Party opposition to Hatch. For example, FreedomWorks has posted a 36-page booklet on reasons to reject Hatch. (FreedomWorks: Founded by Koch brothers; “has done more than any other organization to build the Tea Party movement.” per NY Times.)

Their top reasons are his support for Medicare, TARP, health insurance, education, bailouts, and debt ceiling. Nowhere in the 36-page booklet are his comments on Gates are Microsoft mentioned. His support of increased lobbying is not mentioned as an issue.

http://www.freedomworksforamerica.org/candidate/orrin-hatch

No, Seth! Don’t you see??!! When we remove the power of government it will be the dawn of the age of the New Libertarian Man. NLM will never rent seek. Corporations run by NLM will volunteer to internalize the costs they had previously lobbied to externalize and will negotiate in good faith with their laborers. NLM will always elect leaders eager to preserve liberty for all instead of supporting the narrow interests of their consituency or their benefactors.

And Seth, are you 13?

Sadly, this illustrates the fundamental misconception of how the world really works that lies at the heart of Libertarianism and why it will never amount to more than a starry-eyed affectation for comfortable middle-class white boys. Politics will ALWAYS be worth buying. Even in states as minimal as warlord-run Somalia political power is sought and bought. You don’t even need to have a government to have politics. Even in locales with the minimal government of a rural New England town, you see can find cases of skulduggery from time to time as local factions wrestle over power. For crying out loud, I swear to God that none of you have ever been to a ZBA hearing.

I think we have different definitions of handout.

To put that another way, if John McCain wins in 2008, do you think those same protestors are taking to the streets to protest?