They want to take away a woman's right to abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.  They oppose equal rights for gay couples.  They are the driving force behind the oppostion to mosque construction all around the country.  They want to teach Creationism in public schools.  The list goes on and on.

I have, and yet I haven't seen any evidence that supports your claims ... I tend to watch CNN which tends not to make as many unsubstantiated claims as MSNBC does. Personally, I think you would find it impossible to pick an issue that the majority of Tea Party supporters had a view on that (at least) 45% of Americans did not share the same view.

Links please.

I think you greatly misunderstand the Tea Party.

While I wouldn't doubt that the typical tea-party supporter is pro-life, I highly doubt that there is any evidence to suggest that the majority hold as extreme of a position as you suggest; and commonly elected representatives of both the Republican and Democrat parties  are pro-life which makes this a fairly mainstream opinion. 

I wouldn't be surprised if Tea Party supporters opposed gay marriage, but being that the majority of people in one of the most socially liberal states (California) voted to ban gay marriage this can't be seen as an extreme position.

I'm certain that the majority of Tea Party supportes opposed the ground zero mosque, but so did the majority of American, the majority of Republicans and the majority of Democrats. Beyond that, I doubt you could find another mosque which is opposed in any signficant way by the majority of Tea Party supporters.

Basically, you need to stop getting your information from extreme left-wing blogs ...

To add to this, the Tea Party does not base law on there idea's of how they wish you conducted yourself. it's what makes them better then the other parties.

Both the Democrats and Republicans have an idea about how you should conduct yourself, and make laws accordingly. Republicans make laws to discourage gay behavior, and promote Christian values though law. Democrats force charity through law.

Both are wrong. The Tea Party knows this. So while I am sure most are anti-abortion or gay marriage, they are equally against telling you how to live.

They are against the government forcing another's idea of morality onto you. This includes there own morality (what sets them apart).

That is a huge lie.  I've heard Tea Party politicans speak, I have one of my own running in the Republican side in my state, they want to take more freedoms away than the Republicans they replaced and the Democrats they are running against.

For example, Democrats ten to let the woman decide on abortion and Republicans tend to want abortion to be banned expect for cases of rape and incest.  The retarded Tea Party candidate wants to ban abortion in all cases, so even underage girls who were raped by their father would be forced to have a child.  The morning after pill is considered abortion to, so they want to get rid of that as well.

Once again, do you have any evidence to support that the Tea Party holds this position? This can't be one candidate's viewpoint either, or the view of a handful of supporters, because extreme views on abortion exist in both parties on both sides of the abortion debate. Some politicians support partial birth abortion, which is a reprehensible act even to most people in favour of abortion while others have just as extreme of views as you're suggesting the Tea-Party has; and both of these extreme views exist in supporters and politicians of both major political parties.

Abortion as an issue which is based on the question of when a human being should be considered a living entity; and it is not quite as binary as "when you're born" in people's opinions. Some people believe that you're a human at conception, others when you've reached a certain level of development within the womb, and others believe that you aren't a human until you have been born. At the point an individual believes that a fetus becomes an unborn person the act of aborting the child is the moral equivalent of crushing a new-born baby's head with a rock; and (for the most part) we do not tolerate the murder of an individual in society regardless of whether you were wronged by another.

People who oppose abortion would generally point out that they're defending the rights of a individuals who can not speak for themselves, who are being punished/murdered because of the irresponsible act of another human being. You may disagree with this point of view, but it is just as valid as your position, and (hopefully) you're understanding enough to see how both sides of the abortion debate can see it as defending the rights of individuals.

Who is the candidate?

Also, this is what got Rand Paul called a racist. He was for everything in the civil rights movement, other then telling completely private restaurants who they are required to serve food to.

He feeling, is if I buy my own piece of land without government assistance, build a building on it without government assistance, and operate it without government assistance, I should be 100% allowed to say who can enter my property.

That's his position, is had nothing to do with race. They then asked him "So it's ok to have a restaurant with a sign that says "no blacks allowed". The obvious answer is yes, but that does not make you a racist. No one asked him it if was ok to have a sign that said "no white allowed" in a black community, or "no straight people allowed" in a gay community. His answer would have been the same.

If a restaurant opened up around Rand Paul that didn't allow blacks while he was in office, I could see him disgusted by it, protesting out in front of it, sending out flyers to help stop people from eating there, and hoping it goes out of business.

A Restaurant that does now allow black people (or any people as a group) would disgust Rand Paul. That does not mean just because he doesn't like it, he is going to make a law to stop it.

That's the problem today with everyone in office. They have a vision of how they think you should conduct yourself, and then try and pass law to force you to do so. The Constitution was written with the sole purpose of stopping that.

That's what freedom means. To be free to do anything you like that does not step on other peoples liberties, regardless of what other people think about it.

You're projecting your pure libertarian values onto the Tea Party, which simply isn't the case. The Tea Party has rage without an agenda backing it up, and will prove destructive to the Republicans in a single-member-simple-plurality system much as ManusJustus suggested.

Even if they sweep into power, it'll go nowhere, much like the Contract With America.

Yes and no. The Tea Party at its core is just a grass roots protest against the political establishment and has no organized leadership, policies or beliefs. They are the representation of the reality that the vast majority of voters have become disenchanted and disenfranchised with the current political system. In the long run it is difficult to say whether this particular outlet of this dissatisfaction will remain intact, but the outrage will continue to grow and become more important politically until significant real change is produced within the government.