Back in the day ( my state sponsored higher education ones) a fellow student introduced me to the term 'politically correct'. It was innocent enough. We were walking between classes and the term 'PC' was dropped. My first reaction was, what does a Personal Computer have to do with the discussion at hand? Of course being the honors program token Conservative at the time, I was making a point (I don't remember what) that was not cool in my fellow student's estimation. 
My shock at the time was that the endeavor that I was involved with, was not necessarily engaged in an enlightened path to the truth, but an insidious tone that cherry picked issues and in order to perform a greater agenda. After all, the discussion of ideas and their influence on public life has been the whole point since Plato (perhaps Socrates) starting musing on such matters. Ultimately I decided anarchy was my only fit in this regard and I pursued a path that might be considered agorism. Having come full circle back into the arena of politics, I'm always disturbed when the assumption is that libertarians are racists or sexists because they don't accept the current standards in polite bourgeoisie society.
While the expected or extended fall of Governor Spitzer rids the world of another statist bully at the pulpit, my concern is that the underground will continue. As individualists, libertarians often don't share the same day to day offices of the bureaucracy or higher education establishments. We make our way in the world despite the overt aggression of the state and it's misguided policies and programs to do good and help others based on what is considered an irascible human nature.
I can understand why liberals or progressives get outraged when talk of universal healthcare is couched in terms of universal food or shelter. While the classic liberal may not hold these truths to be self evident, the modern one does. Rather than employ classic argument styles with rules of validity or otherwise, they employ the tactics of passive bullies. Expressing outrage and indignation at the callous attitude of those who would not feed or cloth the indigent or needy through state means. Accepting socialism as a paradigm is off limits and unnecessary as long as the modern political system allows the fundamental premise that assisting others in need is a public service that we should all share in providing. The coercion factor is simply dismissed as chicken little reactions by the easily vilified middle age white guy who likes Star Trek, Ayn Rand and still lives with his mom.
If we look at a definition of passive bullying we can see how that relates to the common actions of those who latch onto the power of the state for redistributive equality purposes:
Passive bullies are also referred to as anxious bullies. They rarely provoke others or take the initiative in a bullying incident. Passive bullies are usually associated with aggressive bullies and, hence, often take the less-aggressive role. As groups, the aggressive bully will instigate the bullying situation while the passive bully supports his/her behavior and/or begins to actively participate once the bullying begins. The passive bully aligns with the more powerful and, relatively speaking, more popular, action-oriented aggressive bully, earning the passive bully the descriptors of "camp follower" and "hanger-on."
Thus as the noble politician demands fairness at the pulpit, the willing legions of social workers, teachers, professors and any other apologists for the state, will gladly denounce the war as an evil brought onto the world by the other side, yet still call for the continuation for assistance to all who need it in our own society. It is thus related as an obvious opportunity cost (bad war, good welfare), but never considered in the light of it's coercive nature and behaviors.
Perhaps libertarians in the end are the defenders of the individual in a world where perceived and imagined state interests bully us into conformity on many levels. As someone who looks at each individual as simply that, an individual, it is hard for me to see things as a group. So whether it is race, sex or some other sociological grouping, I always have a hard time accepting policy, common assumptions about the well being of said groups and so on. I guess I'm just as shocked when I'm referred to as a racist or sexist as I was back in seminary when I first heard the term 'politically correct'.
Apparently I'm not the only one being assailed. Geraldine has more splainin' to do than libertarians.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/03/ferraro_says_co.html