The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

You Betcha: Palin Endorses Rand Paul in Bitter Kentucky GOP Senate Primary

Posted on | February 1, 2010 | 75 Comments

Maybe she did this just to make Allahpundit’s head explode:

National political icon and conservative leader Sarah Palin has endorsed Dr. Rand Paul in his bid for United States Senate from Kentucky.  The Paul campaign has received a generous donation from Governor Palin’s PAC.

Palinistas + Paulistas = Wow. The Kentucky primary is extremely bitter (53 comments on that thread) and the last thing I expected was for Palin to get herself involved in that feud.

UPDATE: Scott Brady at Conservatives for Palin says, “Rand Paul has solid conservative positions on the major issues,” and quotes more from the Paul campaign’s press release:

Dr. Paul was recently identified as one of the five most important candidates to support by Dick Armey, Freedom Works and the National Tea Party Movement. Dr. Paul has also received endorsements from Concerned Women for America, Gun Owners of America, Steve Forbes and RedState.com.
Recent independent polls show Rand holding a double digit lead in the Republican primary and large leads over either Democratic opponent. Rand Paul has raised over $1.8 million dollars, including over $650,000 in the fourth quarter of 2009.

These are bandwagon arguments and I don’t suspect they will placate Kentucky conservative Lisa Graas and other such supporters of Bill Johnson, to say nothing of Trey Grayson’s supporters. Meanwhile, it seems Allahpundit has been stunned into silence.

Category: Election, Kentucky, Sarah Palin, Senate, Uncategorized

Comments

75 Responses to “You Betcha: Palin Endorses Rand Paul in Bitter Kentucky GOP Senate Primary”

  1. Lisa Graas
    February 1st, 2010 @ 8:54 pm

    For the record, I was going to support Rand Paul until I interviewed his campaign manager and campaign coordinator and was appalled by what they told me.

    I just love the “whiner” comments. If they only knew. Sigh.

  2. forgodsake
    February 2nd, 2010 @ 2:16 am

    Lisa, Rand is going to win anyway whether you like it or not and whether you cry about it. no one cares.

  3. forgodsake
    February 1st, 2010 @ 9:16 pm

    Lisa, Rand is going to win anyway whether you like it or not and whether you cry about it. no one cares.

  4. Something tells me the Classic Liberalis happy about this « The Daley Gator
    February 1st, 2010 @ 9:16 pm

    […] You Betcha: Palin Endorses Rand Paul in Bitter Kentucky GOP Senate Primary Maybe she did this just to make Allahpundit’s head explode: […]

  5. Shock and Awe Day for the GOP : The Other McCain
    February 1st, 2010 @ 9:27 pm

    […] Bill Johnson or Trey Grayson, I’m sure they’re scratching their heads. Personally, I was surprised she’d get involved in such a bloody three-way feud.Meanwhile, as Pat Austin notes at Not One […]

  6. Why Is Sarah Palin Endorsing Ron Paul’s Son? « Calvin Freiburger Online
    February 1st, 2010 @ 9:54 pm

    […] and do something stupid.  But sadly, that’s exactly what just happened with Sarah Palin.  Via the Other McCain, she has endorsed Rand Paul in Kentucky’s GOP primary for the 2010 Senate […]

  7. ml
    February 2nd, 2010 @ 3:36 am

    What is Palin thinking? Why she endorsed Rand Paul? Palin must be another Rino’s just like Sen. John McCain and former Gov. Mitt Romney.

  8. ml
    February 1st, 2010 @ 10:36 pm

    What is Palin thinking? Why she endorsed Rand Paul? Palin must be another Rino’s just like Sen. John McCain and former Gov. Mitt Romney.

  9. The Javelineer
    February 2nd, 2010 @ 9:45 am

    Lisa, I’ve read your blog posts on Rand Paul and Ron Paul. Most of them overreach.

    Ron Paul calls for the disestablishment of the CIA. You infer that this means Ron Paul wants to eliminate all foreign intelligence gathering. That’s false. He wants to eliminate a hopelessly corrupt, unaccountable, and ineffective agency – and then replace it with something that works and is accountable. You’re just wrong on the facts. You say the idea is kooky. I watched the CIA wage an undeclared war on GW Bush. You must have been distracted, at the time.

    But just think about this one thing: the CIA can’t keep secrets! I advocate putting all intelligence gathering into DIA. Under the UCMJ, leakers can be shot for treason and the entire system is under a unified, accountable command structure.

    Rand Paul thinks we should consider moving Gitmo detainees back to their home countries. You think this “basically denies that we are at war” and entails releasing the inmates back onto the battlefield. This is false. In fact, your beloved CIA conducts rendition which is nothing more than sending inmates back to their home countries to face much more harsh interrogations than allowed by US detention facilities. Sending people to prisons back in their home country is hardly putting them “back into the battlefield.”

    You also state that the Gitmo detainees are POWs. This is false. They are unlawful combatants who are not eligible for POW protections. The US, being a benevolent nation, has granted most detainees treatment as though they are POWs. You have the same mistaken reading of Geneva as the most radical European leftists.

    Lisa, apparently some people here have lied about you. That’s unwarranted. Kindly give others the same treatment in your analysis.

  10. The Javelineer
    February 2nd, 2010 @ 4:45 am

    Lisa, I’ve read your blog posts on Rand Paul and Ron Paul. Most of them overreach.

    Ron Paul calls for the disestablishment of the CIA. You infer that this means Ron Paul wants to eliminate all foreign intelligence gathering. That’s false. He wants to eliminate a hopelessly corrupt, unaccountable, and ineffective agency – and then replace it with something that works and is accountable. You’re just wrong on the facts. You say the idea is kooky. I watched the CIA wage an undeclared war on GW Bush. You must have been distracted, at the time.

    But just think about this one thing: the CIA can’t keep secrets! I advocate putting all intelligence gathering into DIA. Under the UCMJ, leakers can be shot for treason and the entire system is under a unified, accountable command structure.

    Rand Paul thinks we should consider moving Gitmo detainees back to their home countries. You think this “basically denies that we are at war” and entails releasing the inmates back onto the battlefield. This is false. In fact, your beloved CIA conducts rendition which is nothing more than sending inmates back to their home countries to face much more harsh interrogations than allowed by US detention facilities. Sending people to prisons back in their home country is hardly putting them “back into the battlefield.”

    You also state that the Gitmo detainees are POWs. This is false. They are unlawful combatants who are not eligible for POW protections. The US, being a benevolent nation, has granted most detainees treatment as though they are POWs. You have the same mistaken reading of Geneva as the most radical European leftists.

    Lisa, apparently some people here have lied about you. That’s unwarranted. Kindly give others the same treatment in your analysis.

  11. Lisa Graas
    February 2nd, 2010 @ 12:19 pm

    Video of Bill Johnson at the Reagan Rally 01/31/10

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1pHQO1kJ0I

    He’s going to win this race because he has a strong conservative spine and the people LOVE him.

  12. Lisa Graas
    February 2nd, 2010 @ 7:19 am

    Video of Bill Johnson at the Reagan Rally 01/31/10

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1pHQO1kJ0I

    He’s going to win this race because he has a strong conservative spine and the people LOVE him.

  13. Mike Wallace
    February 2nd, 2010 @ 2:41 pm

    Rands rise in the polls guaranteed this race would receive a national focus. The Pauls are a very well known enigma. They exist and raise political funding outside of the normal process of favors and connections. Politicians want to be them & at the same time are unsure of supporters who cannot be transferred or mollified. Palins endorsement is of course controversial, because she is. In 2008 She was on record of favorable opinions of older Paul.

    Both Pauls have spent a lifetime advancing the philosophy of liberty laid out in the Declaration of Indep. They know that the Const. is a framework for protecting those liberties by restraining Gov & that every act of expanding gov undermines that. Anyone that promotes liberty like that understands two points. To respect liberty you MUST respect life, & to have rights you MUST have the ability to assert those rights by force (military) otherwise you have no rights. To the chagrin of some, rights also come with the responsibility to be justified in using force to defend them.

    Rand gets the intent of the Const and the need to be strictly limited on legislation he would like to advocate vs what on the surface looks good but ultimately undermines the intent of the Const.

  14. Mike Wallace
    February 2nd, 2010 @ 9:41 am

    Rands rise in the polls guaranteed this race would receive a national focus. The Pauls are a very well known enigma. They exist and raise political funding outside of the normal process of favors and connections. Politicians want to be them & at the same time are unsure of supporters who cannot be transferred or mollified. Palins endorsement is of course controversial, because she is. In 2008 She was on record of favorable opinions of older Paul.

    Both Pauls have spent a lifetime advancing the philosophy of liberty laid out in the Declaration of Indep. They know that the Const. is a framework for protecting those liberties by restraining Gov & that every act of expanding gov undermines that. Anyone that promotes liberty like that understands two points. To respect liberty you MUST respect life, & to have rights you MUST have the ability to assert those rights by force (military) otherwise you have no rights. To the chagrin of some, rights also come with the responsibility to be justified in using force to defend them.

    Rand gets the intent of the Const and the need to be strictly limited on legislation he would like to advocate vs what on the surface looks good but ultimately undermines the intent of the Const.

  15. Chuck Cross
    February 2nd, 2010 @ 3:02 pm

    Sad.

    All of us probably agree on 95% of issues (5% disagreement on Pro-America vs. Pro-Global foreign policy view), yet conservatives will fight over word-smithing by inter-party foes as a reason to hate a candidate.

  16. Chuck Cross
    February 2nd, 2010 @ 10:02 am

    Sad.

    All of us probably agree on 95% of issues (5% disagreement on Pro-America vs. Pro-Global foreign policy view), yet conservatives will fight over word-smithing by inter-party foes as a reason to hate a candidate.

  17. William R
    February 2nd, 2010 @ 4:36 pm

    Time for conservatives to return to their roots. There’s nothing conservative about preemptive war and nation building. The GOP has lost its way with this bellicose foreign policy. On Jan 17 1961 President Eisenhower used his farewell address to the nation to warn the American people about the military industrial complex. Today we’ve got so called conservatives wanting to start another war with Iran. Never mind we are stuck in two wars right now. Why not make it three. As Ed Crane founder of the CATO institute recently wrote, “it is time for the GOP to dump these faux conservatives”

    http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/mar/01/00040/

  18. William R
    February 2nd, 2010 @ 11:36 am

    Time for conservatives to return to their roots. There’s nothing conservative about preemptive war and nation building. The GOP has lost its way with this bellicose foreign policy. On Jan 17 1961 President Eisenhower used his farewell address to the nation to warn the American people about the military industrial complex. Today we’ve got so called conservatives wanting to start another war with Iran. Never mind we are stuck in two wars right now. Why not make it three. As Ed Crane founder of the CATO institute recently wrote, “it is time for the GOP to dump these faux conservatives”

    http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/mar/01/00040/

  19. Morning Whip, Feb. 2, 2010 - Medary.com
    February 2nd, 2010 @ 12:45 pm

    […] but Palin has a fairly wide libertarian streak, as do many western conservatives . . . You Betcha: Palin Endorses Rand Paul in Bitter Kentucky GOP Senate Primary Reverse Scozzafava: Republicans Can Pick Up Special Election House Seat in Hawaii We want you to […]

  20. The Javelineer
    February 2nd, 2010 @ 6:58 pm

    Lisa Graas wrote, “He’s going to win this race because he has a strong conservative spine and the people LOVE him.”

    Well that’s a good reason to be happy. A people’s representative should represent them. If he’s a strong conservative, even better!

    Still, none of that goodness will justify Lisa’s factual errors.

    Chuck Gross wrote, “conservatives will fight over word-smithing by inter-party foes as a reason to hate a candidate.”

    This dispute is not over word-smithing, but over factual errors. There is a crease in the Republican Party. It’s a crease, not a rift, because as you point out there is substantial agreement among the caucuses. These creases divide paleo-conservatives, neo-conservatives.

    The disputes between the two camps is not trivial, as Chuck seems to think. While there is 95% agreement, the issues at dispute are quite substantial.

    Neo-conservatives like big government; paleo-conservatives want a strictly limited government. Neo-conservatives are comfortable with government interference in society; paleo-conservatives want society to develop free of a “tyranny of experts.”. Neo-conservatives are supply-siders; paleo-conservatives advocate consumer sovereignty. Neo-conservatives accept the radical changes of the New Deal; paleo-conservatives want to roll back the entire edifice of the administrative state.

    Chuck, if we can’t achieve agreement let us achieve clarity. Let us know each other’s position. Only clarity is a basis for cooperation on the 95% area of agreement.

    Because Lisa Graas overreaches and distorts rather than clarifies, her approach will yield only discord.

    We’re conservatives. We tell the truth and deal with facts as best we can. We don’t make stuff up.

  21. The Javelineer
    February 2nd, 2010 @ 1:58 pm

    Lisa Graas wrote, “He’s going to win this race because he has a strong conservative spine and the people LOVE him.”

    Well that’s a good reason to be happy. A people’s representative should represent them. If he’s a strong conservative, even better!

    Still, none of that goodness will justify Lisa’s factual errors.

    Chuck Gross wrote, “conservatives will fight over word-smithing by inter-party foes as a reason to hate a candidate.”

    This dispute is not over word-smithing, but over factual errors. There is a crease in the Republican Party. It’s a crease, not a rift, because as you point out there is substantial agreement among the caucuses. These creases divide paleo-conservatives, neo-conservatives.

    The disputes between the two camps is not trivial, as Chuck seems to think. While there is 95% agreement, the issues at dispute are quite substantial.

    Neo-conservatives like big government; paleo-conservatives want a strictly limited government. Neo-conservatives are comfortable with government interference in society; paleo-conservatives want society to develop free of a “tyranny of experts.”. Neo-conservatives are supply-siders; paleo-conservatives advocate consumer sovereignty. Neo-conservatives accept the radical changes of the New Deal; paleo-conservatives want to roll back the entire edifice of the administrative state.

    Chuck, if we can’t achieve agreement let us achieve clarity. Let us know each other’s position. Only clarity is a basis for cooperation on the 95% area of agreement.

    Because Lisa Graas overreaches and distorts rather than clarifies, her approach will yield only discord.

    We’re conservatives. We tell the truth and deal with facts as best we can. We don’t make stuff up.

  22. Chuck Cross
    February 3rd, 2010 @ 2:50 pm

    @ Javelineer – I appreciate the thoughtful feedback. A point of clarification. I do not think most conservatives are neo-conservatives — most certainly not a 50/50 split. In my view, there are facets of their ideology that leak into conservative philosophy that contribute to your “crease,” and that is predominantly their views on foreign policy. If you had a distribution of conservatives, with paleo-conservatives as the right-tail, neo-conservatives the left-tail and most conservatives in the middle, the gravity, until recently, has been stronger in the neo-conservative direction.

    Neo-conservatives are recognizing this in their increasingly loud shoutdowns of the other end of the spectrum, using their 1960’s tactics to paint the paleo-conservatives as Isolationists. The paleo-conservatives, having been bested in the 80’s and 90’s, are already grumpy, but find their message at least being listened to and mentioned in the press. I believe that is so partially due to it being in-line with the founding fathers original intent .

    Facts and musings aside, it really comes down to who delivers their message better. I give the advantage to the neo-conservatives, as they are masters of manipulation when it comes to painting their opposition as anti-troops/anti-america (when in reality the polar-opposite is true).

  23. Chuck Cross
    February 3rd, 2010 @ 9:50 am

    @ Javelineer – I appreciate the thoughtful feedback. A point of clarification. I do not think most conservatives are neo-conservatives — most certainly not a 50/50 split. In my view, there are facets of their ideology that leak into conservative philosophy that contribute to your “crease,” and that is predominantly their views on foreign policy. If you had a distribution of conservatives, with paleo-conservatives as the right-tail, neo-conservatives the left-tail and most conservatives in the middle, the gravity, until recently, has been stronger in the neo-conservative direction.

    Neo-conservatives are recognizing this in their increasingly loud shoutdowns of the other end of the spectrum, using their 1960’s tactics to paint the paleo-conservatives as Isolationists. The paleo-conservatives, having been bested in the 80’s and 90’s, are already grumpy, but find their message at least being listened to and mentioned in the press. I believe that is so partially due to it being in-line with the founding fathers original intent .

    Facts and musings aside, it really comes down to who delivers their message better. I give the advantage to the neo-conservatives, as they are masters of manipulation when it comes to painting their opposition as anti-troops/anti-america (when in reality the polar-opposite is true).

  24. Fallout From Sarah Palin’s Kentucky Senate Endorsement : The Other McCain
    February 8th, 2010 @ 2:39 am

    […] supports Bill Johnson in Kentucky’s GOP Senate primary, and was extremely disappointed by Palin’s endorsement of Rand Paul in that primary. Now Lisa has announced she’s pulling out of PalinTwibe:I have decided to ask […]

  25. Rachel Maddow vs. Rand Paul: Intellectual Terrorism and ‘Civil Rights’ : The Other McCain
    May 20th, 2010 @ 12:56 pm

    […] […]