This Tea Party Candidate Can Not Be Supported

Matt Bevin is running for the Republican nomination in Kentucky for the senate seat currently held by senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell.
Mr. Bevin is being supported by the Tea Party.
But two reasons come to the surface that make me believe Mr. Bevin is not the candidate for Kentucky.
Before I continue, anyone that has read this blog with any regularity knows that I am a solid conservative. I supported Sen. Marco Rubio in 2010 before anyone knew who he was. I thought that Christine O'Donnell in Delaware was getting a raw deal in her race against then congressman Rep. Mike Castle. I backed Sharon Angle in Nevada and she actually ran a great campaign.
The point is that this is not the kind of post I want to write. I am a Tea Party Republican.
But what are Mr. Bevin's two sins?
Let's start with his support of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as TARP. TARP essentially bailed out the big banks that over extended themselves during the housing boom and essentially lended money to anyone with a pulse. Mr. Bevin was the president of am investment firm known as Veracity Funds. And in a letter to investors, it appears that Mr. Bevin signed it and in the letter it supports TARP. This link to Breitbart explains the now tortured reasoning Mr. Bevin is giving in signing the letter. The bottom line is that Mr. Bevin was for TARP before he was against it. Here is an excerpt from that letter. The excerpt that I believe damages Mr. Bevin's credibility:

Most of the positive developments [in the market this quarter] have been government led, such as the effective nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the passage of the $700 billion TARP (don't call it a bailout) and the Federal Reserve's intention to invest in commercial paper. These moves should help to stabilize asset prices and help to ease liquidity constraints in the financial system. We have yet to see significant improvement in lending spreads (for the most part the opposite is true), but are hopeful that the groundwork has been laid.

OK, the letter essentially says that the wonders of TARP is what has been the positive development in that particular quarter. At the end of the paragraph it essentially says that thanks to TARP, the groundwork is laid to see improvements to lending spreads.
When one puts a signature on any letter, at least they should take a cursory peek at what was written. I think that Mr. Bevin is speaking out of all sides of his mouth. First he refers to the document as an "investment commentary" then as a prospectus. Now he denies both claims. According to this article from Breitbart, Mr. Bevin claimed that he had to sign the disputed document by law. However, if you read on, Mr. Bevin did not sign a similar letter in 2009.
Yes, this is in the weeds but goes to credibility as to what Mr. Bevin really believes and if he does deserve the support of the Tea Party folks. If Mr. Bevin is really going John Kerry on the Republican voters of Kentucky, being for something before he was against it, then as a supporter/member of the Tea Party, I could not support Mr. Bevin.
The second reason is this wonderful commentary as to Mr. Bevin's opposition to same-sex marriage. 
Yep, Mr. Bevin essentially said that same-sex marriage could lead to parents marrying their children for some kind of tax benefit.
I give you the particular paragraph from the Janet Meffered program:

If it's alright to have same-sex marriages, why not define a marriage-because at the end of the day a lot of this ends up being taxes and who can visit who in the hospital and there's other repercussions and things that come with it-so a person may want to define themselves as being married to one of their children so that they can then in fact pass on that certain things to that child financially and otherwise.

UGH!
Really, why did Mr. Bevin go there? To make the sheer suggestion that say a mom could marry her daughter for tax purposes. And otherwise? Why did Mr. Bevin have to add those two words? And otherwise.
What the hell does that mean?
I think it is open to interpretation. But one is already being done by the left. And that is suggesting that incest could be what he meant.
This is where inexperience comes to rear it's ugly head.
This could be Mr. Bevin's Todd Akin moment. And because of it, Sen. McConnell will probably cruise to winning the GOP nomination.
Republican candidates have to grasp this in discussing same-sex marriage. And that is don't go down the road of "because of this, fill-in-the-blank will occur". Why not do that? Because the leftywhore media and the Democrats, I know redundant, huh?, will make that candidate sound like a total whack job.
Mr. Bevin actually had a great point about the tax benefits same-sex couples would have equivalent of married couples. As a supporter of the flat-tax and no deductions, it would eliminate the tax code being used for social engineering. And it is done by the right and the left. It's really pretty bipartisan if you ask me. Taxes should only be an evil necessity to fund the government, period. That is a better argument.
Another point that Mr. Bevin could have made is that he is not in favor of redefining marriage. Because same-sex marriage does redefine marriage. The proponents have to be honest about that. All that Mr. Bevin could add is that the traditional definition of marriage, one man to one woman, has been the bulwark of Western society for roughly 2,000 years. And there is the inconvenient truth that Utah was not admitted to the Union as a state until it stopped polygamy. And a revelation came to the then president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that stopped polygamy and then Utah became a state.
I believe that if any candidate is running to try and stem the tide of same-sex marriage, they should speak with a bit of eloquence and no throw in bromides that will turn off the great middle that any candidate needs to win a general election. Then mere suggestion that same-sex marriage can lead to parents marrying children is beyond a bromide. The reason is that opponents have tried the worst-case scenario and people, even some conservatives that do favor same-sex marriage, find it out of bounds. And if we want to win elections and maintain principles, our side better damn well do so but with a lot more savvy.
The things are that the Tea Party is about curtailing excessive government spending and intrusion into our lives. When a candidate claims he opposed one of the fundamental reasons for the Tea Party's being, TARP. and it turns out that is not true, it seems like said candidate is going to be stuck spending a lot of time on defense. That would be Mr. Bevin. When a candidate expresses opposition to same-sex marriage and goes into one of the most bizarre reasons why, it sounds more that said candidate is not always opposed to big government. That would be Mr. Bevin, again.
If a Tea Party candidate is having these problems in the primary and somehow wins the GOP nomination, unseating Sen. McConnell, realize that this will be the left's number one seat to take. And it will be easier because of what is happening now.
I must admit, I am not a big fan of Sen. McConnell. He is way too cozy in the Washington Ways. Seems to always be willing to cut bad deals with the Democrats. But on one issue, Sen. McConnell was spot on and that was his principled opposition to so-called campaign finance reform. Especially the dreaded McCain-Feingold debacle. I would have no problem giving Sen. McConnell a primary if the candidate actually knew what he was talking about. Mr. Bevin does not.
The Tea Party has to realize this. What is more important is to have a credible candidate in November. And like it or not, Sen. McConnell is a credible candidate and Mr. Bevin is not. I don't want this to be a waste of time, money and energy.
Therefore I can not, in good conscience, suggest to people in Kentucky to vote for Matt Bevin for the Republican nomination for senate. And I am not endorsing Sen. McConnell. But Matt Bevin is one Tea Party candidate I can not support and should not be supported.