#ncsen: Sean Haugh, “principled conservative” ???

mailYep.  That’s what THIS MAILER that showed up in a lot of North Carolina snail-mail boxes on Thursday says.  It tells you that Thom Tillis “has been very busy … Raising our taxes.”

There is no disclaimer IDing who paid for it.  It seems to insinuate that Libertarian candidate Sean Haugh paid for it.  But looking at his campaign finances, his past practices, and the fact it only attacks Tillis, really makes me doubt it. 

My first instinct is to believe this mailer is PAYBACK for the conservative-financed ad campaign  promoting Sean Haugh at the expense of Kay Hagan.

The mailer describes Haugh as “a principled conservative who believes in limited government. He won’t spend money we don’t have, and he’ll go to work each day for you, not the special interests.”

(As a side note, this is exactly the kind of ad one of Tillis’s SEVEN primary opponents SHOULD have sent out before the May vote. )

Why do this?, you ask. All of the polls indicate this race is close.  The shortened early-vote cycle ensures that more people will be waiting to vote closer to election day.  The left recognizes there is some conservative dissatisfaction with Tillis. Surely, the hope here is to influence low-information conservative-leaning voters who haven’t yet made it to the polls.  By reading this flier, you’d have no idea Kay Hagan was even running. SeanHaugh

Sure, it is illegal to send out a mailer without identifying its sponsors.  But it will take until well after the election is over to sort it out.

Sean Haugh has said some good things in reference to economics.  The pizza delivery guy seems to understand the free market better than the GOP standard-bearer.  But his stands on things like gay marriage, the military, and drugs would make him less than palatable to most Tea Party types.  

Some GOP establishment types are likely cursing the Libertarian Party for “costing” their candidates.  You have to ask these establishment types:  How potent would the Libertarian Party be if the GOP actually ran candidates who stuck to their guns — and the party platform — on limited government and lower taxes? 


9 thoughts on “#ncsen: Sean Haugh, “principled conservative” ???

  1. I got a push poll promoting Haugh yesterday. The interesting thing was the “pollster” kept slipping up and saying that Tillis was the “fiscal Conservative” and had to correct herself to say Haugh.

    If Tillis loses then it’s because the voters are tired of the cronyism, tired of Progressives calling themselves “conservative” Republicans, and tired of being told to hold their nose and vote for the candidate who sucks less.

    1. Now we have a Big Government Libertarian! Maybe he sniffed too many pizza fumes and thought it was the Liberal-tarian Party.

      And Haugh is already hard left on immigration.

  2. I am Sean’s campaign manager. We did NOT pay for this. We first heard about it from an angry conservative in the wee hours over night. Very concerned it does not say who paid for it. It should be reported.

    So now ALL THREE camps are giving you reasons to vote for Sean. I have to say this is highly amusing to us. But it really does bring home the point that a vote for Sean is a vote for Sean. It’s not a vote for Hagan or a vote for Tillis. He draws fairly equally from both. But they BOTH agree that the other is repugnant and Sean is the better choice!

    Seriously, you can vote for Sean if he is your top pick. Your vote is not wasted. You don’t need to wait for a less important race to finally stand by your principles. If not now, when? And besides, no matter what, Obama still has the veto pen until 2016. Give Sean a chance. And barring that, at least use your vote to indicate what you really want. 🙂

    1. If you want to send a message, then write in for John Rhodes.

      A vote for Haugh is a vote for open borders, which no true American wants.

  3. Correct, my campaign had absolutely nothing to do with this and I thank you for seeing right through it. As for the Weekly Standard article, that was a horrible, deliberate misrepresentation of my views.

  4. “…open borders, which no true American wants.” Generations of “true Americans,” including those who founded this nation, not to mention those who fought and died to create and defend it, wanted “open borders,” in the sense that they didn’t want armed representatives of the federal government standing by at ports and border crossings, deciding who would or would not get into the country, or tracking down “illegals” in the heartland, raiding homes and businesses, and in the process violating the rights and restricting the liberties of citizens and legal immigrants, in order to catch and deport “undocumented aliens.” Of course we have a border, so that, if we ever need to close it to criminals or invaders, we know where to draw the line. But without extremely good cause, we should make it very easy for peaceful, law-abiding people who are NOT citizens to come and go across the border, and to visit us, study, work, and even live here for as long as they wish, as long as they can pay their own way. What’s wrong with that? I have no problem with repelling invaders and defending the country, or deporting criminals. But the mere act of crossing the border should not need permission and it should not be a crime. I’m as much of a “True American” — and supporter of the Constitution and free-enterprise system — as anyone here.

Comments are closed.