As a follow-up to my post on the defeat of Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah, check out the thoughts of Brad of The Crossed Pond. Brad raises an interesting point, that one could very well look at this situation and argue that it’s a sign of the viability of libertarian politics within the GOP.

But what strikes me about this is in part the ideology, but in part the empowerment. The situation is a bit weird with UT-03—Cannon is perennially unpopular for reasons I’m not going to do the research to find out, but in short the Utah GOP will send a warm body out to dispense with him if they could (and, they do). As to the issues, the hardline immigration seems like it was what hit, but the rest of his wedge issues are almost straight-ticket Ron Paulian. That’s a heckuva libertarian conservative right there, when he’s even going so far as to say the federal government ought to be out of education entirely, and blasting the incumbent for voting for the Republican authored and sponsored budget resolution.

Anti-NCLB. Anti-Medicare Part D. Anti-Earmarks. Anti-Budget Deficits. And . . . . Anti-Immigrant.

Is that the recipe for success for the Ron Paul Revolution of the future?

Before you pass judgment, think of the other Republican incumbent who was defeated in 2008: Rep. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland. In that situation, his opponent Andrew Harris was given the big bucks through the Club for Growth. Gilchrest, although anti-Iraq War, also displayed a moderate voting record more in line with Lincoln Chafee than, say, the rest of the GOP.

There’s been discussion floating for some time both here at AoTP and over at Freedom Democrats that the combination of the Ron Paul grassroots with the money and infrastructure of the Club for Growth would be the only way to hold off a complete and total takeover of the Republican Party by big government conservatives represented by Tim Pawlenty and Mike Huckabee. If libertarian Republicans don’t learn from Harris and Chaffetz, they are going to be locked out of the GOP for generations to come.