An Unholy Alliance In Kentucky: Miss McConnell Getting Behind Rand Paul?
>
Teabaggers and even libertarians are starting to get fed up with Rand Paul as he's become a more serious contender for the open Kentucky Senate seat. Remember, the undisputed boss of Kentucky's Republican Party machine, Mitch "Miss" McConnell, cynically maneuvered incumbent Jim Bunning out of his re-election bid in favor of his hapless protégé, Secretary of State Trey Grayson. But with Rand Paul, the son of the anti-Establishment firebrand Ron Paul, absolutely crushing the bloodless, vapid and colorless Grayson, McConnell and Paul seem to have come to an accord. Two radical right teabagger types have resigned from Paul's campaign in the last 2 weeks, key supporter and accused racist Christopher Hightower and lunatic fringe Christi Gillespie, who claimed it was "morally necessary" to resign because Paul has prohibited campaign staffers and his supporters from attacking the Republican Party or GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell.
Paul, who, like his dad, appeals to anti-tax fanatics (as well as angry, pissed-off-at-everything teabaggers) has raised a huge amount of grassroots money-- close to $2 million so far-- from donors who, basically, are enamoured of his anti-tax , Ayn Randian platform. (He was named for Ayn Rand.) Although he's backing away from criticizing the ultimate Establishment Insider, Miss McConnell, he's still trying to rally teabaggers by claiming "career politicians" have sold taxpayers "down the river." Last week at a press conference on McConnell's turf-- the Kentucky Republican Party headquarters in Louisville-- Paul played up to teabaggers:
"We, the members of the Tea Party movement, you, the members of this movement, have come to take our government back from the special interests, from the lobbyists, from the pork barrel politicians who continue to spend our country into oblivion."
According to the most recent poll (December 22) by PPP, Paul is leading Grayson 44-25% among likely GOP primary voters. Grayson has a slighter better lead among Republican moderates but among hard core rightists, Paul is winning 47-20%. "Paul is having a particularly good amount of success with folks who think that the Republican Party in Washington has become too liberal- his lead with them is 54-18." He seems determined to also appeal to the corrupt and clueless Republican Party establishment and their mindless followers. Here's an excerpt from Gillespie's resignation letter last week, as she explained why she has re-registered as a Libertarian:
I have decided, after much thoughtful deliberation, to leave the GOP after 15 years of activism and campaign involvement at all levels. My political career began as a highschool student, where I served as the state chair of the Teenage Republicans. Since then, I have consistently continued my involvement by working both as a volunteer and as staff in Republican organizations and campaigns. This step, therefore, is not taken lightly, but I deem it morally necessary.
After all, it was Rand Paul who caused me to "see the light" about Mitch McConnell and the GOP establishment, both of whom Rand has now forbidden campaign members and grassroots supporters to attack. Rand now says he can't win by attacking McConnell. Rand has changed his message of reform, so I cannot be further involved in this effort with a clear conscience. If we are not working to reform the GOP, we are only helping the establishment.
Labels: Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul, Senate 2010
posted by DownWithTyranny @ 6:00 PM
38 comments
|
Reddit
38 Comments:
A "poll" of 450 respondants who may or may not be registered voters is not a poll. It's a sampling.
Results of a poll to be released this week show an impressive surge of support for Johnson.
To understand this success, go to www.kentuckybill.com .
In the meanwhile, the Grayson camp has alienated Mitch and the GOP.
No one in their right mind would voluntarily enter the Rand Paul Shared Delusional Scheme Campaign.
Johnson is ushering in the new era of responsible Reagan conservative leadership people have been crying out for.
My question is, "Why is this sending the RPK and GOP into a subclinical state of neurophysiologic seizure?"
Answer? For the same reason that they tried to get him to drop out of the race in exchange for a seat in the KY State Legislature. It was a bribe, ladies and gentlemen, and the RPK tried to pass it through me to Bill.
He's prepared. He's organized. He's dedicated to God, Country, and Constitution. He's focused. He's loyal and he fully intends to restore respectable leadership in the United States Senate.
He's not Old Guard and won't be bought.
nlah blah blah.....
Don't blah blah Bill Johnson until you check him out for yourself. I did, and I can assure you, he's got my vote! I want a REAL conservative in the US Senate - not a liberal in conservative clothes.
I would never vote for the (RINO) Grayson or the son of Ron Paul Rand the other (RINO) with libertarian views. Neither one of them holds my views and neither are what I view as a Conservative Republican. I would like to see men that would be statesmen for Kentucky and I believe Bill Johnson fits that bill no pun intended but he is a very personable guy and is very steady in his views and has not flip flopped like Paul. I think Rand reads about Bill Johnson every day before he decides where he stands on the issues. I could not imagine him in Washington as a Senator representing Kentucky.
kentuckybill.com
Look, think and ask yourself, exactly how much DOES the Country need BILL JOHNSON. A true American that has put his life on the line for a better America.He represents me.
Saw your tweet asking who Bill Johnson is. He's the only choice for conservatives in Kentucky. Unfortunately, he is up against two machines -- the Ron Paul machine that wants to elect Rand and the Mitch McConnell machine that wants to elect Trey Grayson. I'm an activist for Sarah Palin and since Bill Johnson most closely represents the positions she holds, I am hoping for a Palin endorsement this month. Johnson is polling well according to an independent poll done by a California firm recently which showed him leading in one of four Kentucky regions, leading among women statewide and polling at 17% statewide in a three-way race with many still undecided. Kentuckians need to vote for the best candidate, not the one with the most money. If Kentuckians decide to vote their conscience, Bill Johnson will be Kentucky's next Senator.
America dissolved the two tier social structure that still exists in the rest of our world. It was the major deterrent to economic progress in the world, because it shut off adventure by the many ruled by the few. The two tier, elite and powerful few ruling the weak many in the social herd, meant no one should stand above their fellows in each tier. No one could safely challenge the accepted and established way things operated. There was no attraction to do so, no pulling a single individual forward into uncharted waters, only the fear of being punished. America, without an elite and powerful few ruling the herd, experienced what it was like for free men and women to think out of the social bubble and act out of the box, become pebble-droppers and try to fly in so many areas of interest, that progress was the unavoidable result. This is what the 19th century libertarian Democrats fought to retain for America that the 20th century Democrats are trying to destroy. This is what the libertarians, objectivists, Ayn Rand supporters and most knowledgeable conservatives are trying to retain today against a new two tier society where an elite and powerful few have gained political power and are exercising it now. Claysamerica.com shows these roots for those interested in easy learning.
I checked out Kentucky Bill, and it looks to me like he's just a stalking horse for "more of the same" Greyson and McConnell. How precisely will an endorsement of a guy who holds the same positions that gave us GWB as a "conservative" help limited government? I've written Gov. Palin and urged her to support the only viable pro-life, constitutional conservative in the race, Rand Paul.
Thanks for your tweet asking why Bill Johnson is running.
It's a fact that Alan Keyes is a mad-hatter political opportunist, and that when he holds vendettas...against libertarians and constitutional conservatives for denying him the nomination of the Constitution Party last election. It's interesting that Johnson would rather attempt to split the conservative vote and give the race the Greyson, the liberal Republican alternative, than to support a constitutional conservative after the manner of Barry Goldwater. It is obviously across the country that the GOP lost because they focused too much on social conservatism, and not enough on economic liberty. Why then nominate someone who will turn off the tea-party voters angry about government intrusion into the economy?
It's a fact, the Johnson shills are either nothing but closet Grayson backers or short-sighted hacks without a shred of principled scruples.
This Kentuckian is in whole hog for Rand Paul!
When people fail to prevail in substantive arguments regarding matters of law, principle, and character they resort to name calling, personal attacks, innuendo and slime thus denigrating and dishonoring not only themselves but the very candidates they set out to defend.
Hence, the Schizophrenic Ron Paul/Rand Paul Senate Campaigners in Kentucky. Poor, poor pitiful Paulers.
Rand Paul ISN'T pro-life. How can you give that option to the states and then say you're pro-life. Either YOU are or aren't. "leave it up to someone else" is a cop-out.
Learn and go to KentuckyBill.com
Gee, now I feel like a "bitter clinger" to my guns and bible. I see a few elitist personalities above me that think they have to look down their nose and insult people because they have a different viewpoint than their own. Here I thought Obama had all the elitists in his camp. Poor Paul, things may not bo so rosy for him after all and it won't be all his fault. By chance or design, he's attracting some mighty vitriolic backers. Good luck with that.
I initially thought the "Rand Paul Shared Delusional Scheme Campaign" remark in the top comment was a bit strong. After reading the "stalking horse" fantasy followed by the vituperative epithets hurled at Keyes and others, I now realize the remark was spot-on.
Looks like Randy Boy's supporters are just as obnoxious, kooky and classless as daddy's. Maybe they hope all that rude noise will keep anyone from noticing Randy's flip-flopping.
Smells like fear to me. And the way Johnson is breathing down Randy Boy's neck in the polls WITHOUT daddy's money, who can blame them?
I checked out KentuckyBill and I am impressed. He's one of US, not a liberal poseur or an over-achieving daddy's boy.
No one is "giving" the States anything. Anonymous, you are apparently unaware that we live in a FEDERAL republic composed of STATES who have given the central government certain, constitutionally defined powers.
I side with Reagan and Judge Robert Bork on this on, the Constitution doesn't empower the federal government to act concerning abortion, one way or the other.
Johnson is another Alan Keyes wannabe wacko of the same old mold... we need fresh blood in DC, someone who will enforce the constitution as written, not as he wants it to read.
Only one candidate will do that, Rand Paul, the conservatives conservative, a man among men.
"Overachieving"? Nice and personal "Smilin"...
You guys know Johnson's backers are arguing that the 14th Amendment applies to private, individual actions? If the government decides that your views are hateful, under Johnson's view, the federal government can intervene, into your State, into your county, into your bedroom.
This position is more outrageous and ludicrous legally than any asserted by even the most radical moon-bat last election... People should look at Johnson, his views should be considered and relegated back to the crazy-fringe they come from.
This Republican will NEVER vote for a crazy like Johnson, or a leftie like Grayson! Finally an opportunity for a real conservative!
Ben you're wrong.
That's right. The money is arolling in..from outside of Kentucky, too. Good thing cause we ain't got no damn money Dr. Paul. In fact all we can give ya'll is less than 10%. Who's buying this election Dr. Paul?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/13/AR2009091303258.html
Why are your supporters so flat out arrogant Dr. Paul? It's already cost you Hightower and Gillespie with Adams moved aside. You are judged by the company you keep.
Ben, you're absolutely right.
Anon,
Elections cost money. So long as government officials use their offices to distribute money plundered from taxpayers to those they favor, money will continue to flow into politics in ever increasing amounts. Judged by the company you keep? Ok, let's use your standard, even if it is wrong... look at Alan Keyes, enough said.
I don't think any of Dr. Paul's opponents would be crying too hard if they were outstripping him in fundraising. Greyson is raising most of his money from big-donor RINOs in DC and NYC... far from bastions of conservatism. Paul's money is coming from the grass-roots, from the same people who started the Tea-Parties, from patriotic Americans dedicated to recapturing our government.
Is the Rand day care camp really that dense, or is the kool-aid just really strong? Using their logic, the second amendment or any other right could be gutted in the name of states' rights. It's remarkable what passes for an education in some circles
I'm sure Rand and his drones have tried reading the Constitution, but they obviously don't comprehend it. If the right to life can be reduced to a matter of consensus, no other right much matters.
I'm beginning to wonder if Paul has secretly teamed up with the Obama crowd, as the tactics look the same: say something silly, then dispatch the minions to tell people they only imagined it and Rand knows best. He'd fit right in with Harry Reid.
Hey nokooks...
States don't have "rights"...they have powers, the powers given them by the people... sorry.
The Second Amendment is directed against the FEDERAL government, it forbids the federal government from infringing on individual liberties... you know, like the rest of the BILL OF RIGHTS?
It's remarkable that someone with so vapid a knowledge of American civics is attempting to discuss constitutional history, law, intent and construction.
Who said anything about consensus?
This is about delegated authority. The federal government only has ENUMERATED powers, the powers specifically granted TO it... the States have the rest. The 14th Amendment forbids the States from violating the life, liberty and property of the individual, but abortions provided to women by private physicians, under Moose Lodge v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163, 92 S. Ct. 1965, 32 L. Ed. 2d 627 (1972) and the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment, constitute PRIVATE, non-State action, even if the physician is operating under a State license. Bring out some law if you want to tangle.
I'm beginning to think these anti-constitution folks like Keyes and his leftist minions disagree with James Madison, when he wrote in Federalist Paper No. 78 concerning constitutional interpretation: "The Courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of judgment, the consequences would be the substitution of their pleasure for that of the legislative body."
Dr. Paul's critics want the Constitution to be interpreted to say what they want it to say, noy what it actually says. I say, let's support a strict constructionist for the U.S. Senate! Let's put a Jim DeMint in the Senate from Kentucky, support Dr. Rand Paul!
I appreciate your excercise of your First Amendment Rights here, Ben.
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
Yours is opinion, Ben, and you have every right to express it but please don't impune the character of the founding fathers or Jim DeMint to fit your fancy.
See you May 18.
I agree. Plus, Ben isn't on the ballot last time I checked, nor does he qualify his observations with a J.D in Constitutional Deception. His buddy, David, told me he does stay at Holiday Inn Express regularly though.
If Ben will expend his energy to get Rand to a debate then I'll get his opponents there. So far he has refused...he skipped Constitutional Law class in medical school.
Thank you, Ben. You may return to your seat, please. An opinion is the least of things you are publically showing.
Ben,
I see I struck a nerve ... sorry :-)
Quibbling over semantics as if "states' rights" was an unknown term and trying to paper over Rand's right-to-life perfidy with a volley of disjointed pseudo-legalese only demonstrates your desperation.
That tired old tactic is known as "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, try to baffle them with bull$#!t" - you have it down to a science but it's just not effective, as Rand himself is learning.
Here's the bottom line:
Bill Johnson is staunchly and unashamedly pro-life and anti-abortion.
Rand Paul once claimed to be pro-life, but now he says it's not his job and he thinks this most basic God given (and constitutional) right should be left to the discretion (consensus) of others at the state level.
Blow all the smoke you like, Ben, but facts is facts - and Rand just doesn't pass the smell test. At least the folks in Bowling Green will get their eye doctor back after May 18.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wow anon #1 and 2...nokook,
I'm glad to see you managed to muster a substantive reply...sic.
First of all, constitutional law is not a class in Medical School, though it is covered in several classes in law school, classes I did take, with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Michigan Supreme Court Justice Stephen Markman, but be that as it may... I didn't know anyone, even you hard-line pro-European-style central government guys, thought that words didn't have any meaning beyond what you personally ascribe to them... I suppose you don't think "Is" means "is", do you?
You may disagree with me, I'm only an attorney who handles civil rights and other claims, in both federal and State courts, routinely... so I urge you to contact ANY attorney, and inquire of them precisely HOW the protections of the 14th Amendment are triggered. You are arguing with a brick wall here guys, and your desperation is really beyond humorous at this point. If insanity is defined as repeating the same line of attack over-and-over while expecting a different result, you are the most nocturnal of moon-bats.
States must act in order for the 14the Amendment to be triggered. This is a fact of constitutional life, and it has always been. It is clearly written in English in the amendment, no amount of word-manipulation to the contrary. Words have meanings, and ideas have consequences. Two things you guys in favor of giving the federal government police powers seem to forget... or is it embrace?
No-Kook, why should abortion only be banned at a federal level? Why entrust such an important charge to a mere federal government, why not ban it on a world-wide level? It is because different governments have different powers, given them by those principles which empowered their agent, the government, with authority. Why doesn't the federal government ban rape? Why doesn't the federal government ban theft? Is rape and theft no important? Are those activities not as evil?
These are not federal issues, though they involve liberty and property respectively, the other two private actions protected under the 14th Amendment from State action...
Take care now, I think you need more than an eye doctor... I think a neurologist would be in order.
Oh, Anon ,1,2, and nokook d/b/a Lisa, I forgot to also mention, I worked for Arizona Supreme Court Justice Scott Bales, took another class with Sandra Day O'Connor, and completed my law school seminar and graduate writing requirements in law school by writing a scholarly law review article focusing on federalism and the historical relationship of divided powers, imperium in imperio, between the States and the federal government throughout history, focusing with specificity on post-Reconstruction federal relations... you know, from the original Slaughterhouse Cases to Michigan v. Long and Printz v. U.S and Watters v. Wachovia.
I'm sure I won't upset your skull-smashing, logic-defying, book-burning type of arguing, but, for what it's worth, you are wrong, the 14th Amendment only applies to STATE action... it only forbids the States from harming someone without due process. This is why the Civil Rights Act was passed, and upheld in Heart of Atlanta, under the COMMERCE CLAUSE, NOT the 14th Amendment.
God Bless now.
Since your two law practices are apparently not very busy, as you now troll the blogs to get someone, anyone, to listen to you, read this at your leisure:
http://www.conservativepartyky.org/?p=51
Now, last time I checked,your former mentors lived nowhere near KY. Why do you find it necessary to interfere here? Ron Pauler Liberty Trees cannot grow in KY. They lack grassroots.
Since Randi knows nothing about the Constitution I see he has retained two carpetbagger legal beagles who are not admitted to the KY Bar to advise him. Ah yes, more (un)ethics of Randi's.
Why won't he speak for himself?
News Flash: Johnson accelerates to 17% in KY. Ron Paul maintains his House minority lead of 1. Forbes seeks to extend his political losing streak to 2.
Bugger off you two. You've revealed your MO and who you serve as mercenaries. That's a sad commentary of your own professional incompitence.
Sure. go ahead. Respond again. Pitiful.
Busy yes, productive yes, and efficient, yes... this is what enables blogging...
Former mentors? Does one's mentor need to be from Kentucky to know what the U.S. Constitution means when it says something?
Talk about Stalinism in argument, instead of admitting the merits of another's arguments, in your case dropping your wacko-claim that the 14th Amendment allows the federal government to reach the private action of individuals sitting in front of their own fireplaces, you decide to try to launch personal attacks. Nicely done.
As for not being a Kentuckian, whoever said we weren't members of the Kentucky bar? I don't think you want to go there in any event... using Alan Keyes as your own trumpet, it seems you're being a "little" hypocritical for political purposes... Odd that you're advocating a guy who's a huge carpetbagger himself, who ran last election on the ticket of the Segregationist George Wallace's old party. Talk about fringe!
Steve Forbes endorsed Rudy G last go around by the way, and is revered in conservative grass-roots circles for his support of the flat-tax, something you would know if you had been around in 1996.
I wish I were a mercenary to destroy you moon-bat wackos, because then I would be getting paid to do what I enjoy doing for leisure when not engaging in real debates.
Get ye gone RINOs, let's grow up conservatives.
More easy reading kids
http://marieacole.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/is-the-grass-really-blue/
So, do you solemnly swear or affirm that you are licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and that you are members in good standing of the KY Bar?
I don't argue law. I'm not a lawyer.
Keyes proferred his endorsement. He's not running for the office. I endorse Bill Johnson, too, yet I'm not on the ballot either.
Your point Mr. Pair of Legals? That means two legals if you didn't get the pun.
Why would we possibly swear anything? This isn't a deposition, nor an interrogatory, nor are we in front of a notary, nor are we in court, nor are we offering legal advice, nor are we acting in any capacity as officers of the court in whatever county we may now reside.
The entire point of laying out for you credentials was to force to you actually consider whether your entire basis for your hateful campaign against Dr. Rand Paul, is based on truth.
You write that you do not argue the law... ok, that's well and good, but do you argue that the 14th Amendment applies to individuals? Because if you do, you ARE arguing law... not much of an argument, but an argument nevertheless.
How can you assert that Rand Paul knows nothing about the Constitution if you yourself proclaim not to be capable of discussing the supreme law? How are you in a postion to condemn if you are not in a position to verify the truth?
You say Bill Johnson's constitutional perspective is correct, and Dr. Rand Paul's is incorrect, but you will not appeal to the law to tell me why or where this is so? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you are willing to discuss law, or you are not. If not, then you are not in a logical or moral position to oppose someone on those grounds. If you are prepared, then you must be prepared for criticism stemming from the law.
God Bless now.
Checkmate charlatans.
LOL anonyomus, these big-government wolves in sheep's clothing don't know when to give up. Tragically for them, they ran into these two advocates of freedom! Let's see the Johnson constitution deniers fight their way out of this logical box, great word choice, charletons they are!!!
I understand Rand Paul is getting another Washington insider endorcement. THIS IS WHAT WE DON'T WANT. I will vote for Bill Johnson, who wants Kentucky votes,not the big political buy outs.
Are you talking about Steve Forbes, or has Sarah Palin come out for Rand today?
Thankfully Steve Forbes has never been a Washington insider the way Alan Keyes has, serving in DC! Forbes thankfully is a respected businessman and advocate of the flat tax, while ol' Alan offers "more of the same". I don't know who's scarier, "Rev" Wright or Alan Keyes!
I'll vote for Rand Paul, the constitutional conservative in the race!
You must be Chris Hightower or another Rand Paul racist has just come out from the Pauler hole.
You folks are clueless and oh so easy to bait.
Says the supporter of Alan Keyes and his George Wallace proto-Segregationist party...
Ben,
It's been great fun watching you swallow the bait and flounder on cue, but it's gotten tedious. The hubris card ("I'm a lawyer") intensified the fun for a while until it became obvious you were in over your head. I personally doubt that you've taken (much less passed) the bar, but you have obviously learned enough buzz words to impress your fellow Randbots. I've known several novice paralegals with more acumen. I'm guessing that if you do indeed own a diploma, it was mail-ordered from the classified ads in the back of "True Detective" or the like. Thanks for the grins; it's been a real hoot. I recommend you stick with Rand to the end; it's a match made in heaven.
I'm off to elect Bill Johnson. Toodles!
Well Lisa/nokooks, that's the glory of the anonymity of the internet, it is cost prohibitive for me to sue you for libel. The entire reason I revealed my profession is because you argued that I in fact was incorrect on the fundamental meaning of the U.S. Constitution. I cited to authority and explained why it was that I was in a unique position to hold this knowledge...
Considering you failed to respond to any substantive objection or issue raised, I'd say let's leave it to the reader to determine the relative merits of our respective positions.
Nice come back with law regarding the 14th Amendment by the way!!!
Continue backing your loony constitution-denying Johnson, your attempts to give the nomination to Greyson will fail!
God Bless now.
Post a Comment
<< Home