The Senate Feud in Kentucky

Posted on | January 26, 2010 | 150 Comments

Lisa Graas, a Kentuckian who supports Bill Johnson in the GOP Senate primary, informs me that FreedomWorks is supporting Rand Paul. She also compiles a list of Kentucky conservative bloggers who are backing Johnson and says:

As a tea partier, a Reagan conservative and a Christian here in Kentucky, I’d like the folks at Freedom Works to know that I will be voting Democrat if Rand Paul wins the GOP primary here.

Lisa had told me about her feelings a few weeks ago and it troubled me. When I was in Kentucky to cover the Sparkman investigation, I talked to some staunch conservatives who are Paul supporters. My sympathy for them may prejudice my perspective on this fight, but I know there are good people on both sides, and I hate to see this kind of blood feud among conservatives.

We’re going to see lots of contested primaries this year. As one GOP operative told me, “If you’ve ever considered running for office as a Republican, this is the year to do it.” I’m not in a position to tell Kentuckians how to conduct their feuds, but if my advice were asked, I’d advise this:

In criticizing a rival primary candidate, avoid making public doomsaying declarations like, “If so-and-so wins the primary, he’ll lose in November” or “If so-and-so wins the primary, I’ll vote Democrat.” (Anyone who wants to call me a hypocrite here, given how savagely I went after Crazy Cousin John . . . Well, OK, but that turkey was doomed from Day One, no matter what I said. “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for Bob Barr.” )
Rand Paul needs to recognize he’s got a serious problem with a huge chunk of the GOP base in Kentucky, and his campaign needs to do whatever is necessary to fix that problem. If you’re a Republican and you’ve got pro-life Catholics like Lisa Graas swearing vows against you, you’ve got big trouble. Even if you can win the GOP primary, you’ll be badly wounded when the general election campaign begins.
Likewise, Bill Johnson’s campaign needs to recognize that they’re not doing themselves any favors by deliberately ostracizing libertarian-minded Republicans. It’s one thing to disagree with Rand Paul on specific issues. It’s another thing to make Paul’s supporters feel as if they are unwelcome inside the Big Tent, even if you think Paul’s supporters are dangerous kooks. Hey, kooks can vote, y’know.

Bad tactics are the small change that add up to bad strategy, and I think these primary fights escalate into blood feuds mainly because of the vicious negativity of some campaign operatives who are mentally accustomed to a win-at-any-cost rationale.

Personal friends of mine have been hurt by these tactics, and I know the damage done. Dishonorable politics attract dishonorable people, and vice is habit-forming. The path that led Jack Abramoff to federal prison began with a few “minor” ethical compromises.

I’ll close with some advice that is perhaps not strictly neutral, but which is of general application: If you can’t win a GOP primary without accusing your opponent of treason or sodomy, maybe you deserve to lose. And if your campaign staff can’t do better than that, maybe you need to get a new campaign staff.

UPDATE: Some heavy-duty stuff going on in the comments, where Dr. David Duncan links his own post relating his experiences dealing with Rand Paul’s supporters. I kind of knew I was kicking a hornet’s nest here. Like I said, I know good people who support Paul, and if Paul has supporters who are harming his cause by their tactics, that’s something he needs to deal with.

Category: Election, Kentucky, Republicans, Senate

Comments

150 Responses to “The Senate Feud in Kentucky”

Alvin Ambers
January 31st, 2010 @ 4:45 am

I am strongly inclined to support Bill Johnson as he is more in line with Conservative values, and I hope he wins the Republican nomination. However, if Rand Paul did win the nomination, I consider it tantamount to shooting oneself in the foot to vote for a Democrat who is entirely less desirable and less likely to serve Conservative ends than is a Libertarian/Republican. Were Trey Grayson a Zell Miller-type Democrat, I could understand preferring him over some Republicans, but he is not. Rand Paul has to be a better bet for Conservatives than Grayson, si I’m somewhat mystified that someone would vote for the one least likely to serve Conservative principles. Because the most Conservative candidate didn’t win the nomination one would give their support to the “enemy”? Those who dislike Paul enough not to vote for him would serve Conservatisim better if they simply didn’t vote. It doesn’t make any sense to help someone get elected to the seat who is more contrary to our values.
This is reminiscent of the sentimentally understandable but none-the-less pragmatically ludicrous notion of voting out all the incumbents. You CAN’T vote anyone out. There is no facility on the ticket for voting someone out. If you vote, you have to vote for SOMEone. If we in Kentucly aren’t totally happy with Mitch McConnell, and Michael Moore could somehow win the Democratic nomination to run against him, would we vote for Moore just to get McConnell out?
If we decry Liberalism for it’s feel-good, Utopianistic ideology, then shouldn’t we advance Conservatism as being predicated on level-headed, well-considered observations? If Obama and the Liberal Democrats are flailing on the ropes in bewilderment from not having gotten the whole pie (and actually settled for relatibe crumbs) when by the numbers it was their’s, then we need to take good measure of the opportunity.
Alvin Ambers
January 30th, 2010 @ 11:45 pm

I am strongly inclined to support Bill Johnson as he is more in line with Conservative values, and I hope he wins the Republican nomination. However, if Rand Paul did win the nomination, I consider it tantamount to shooting oneself in the foot to vote for a Democrat who is entirely less desirable and less likely to serve Conservative ends than is a Libertarian/Republican. Were Trey Grayson a Zell Miller-type Democrat, I could understand preferring him over some Republicans, but he is not. Rand Paul has to be a better bet for Conservatives than Grayson, si I’m somewhat mystified that someone would vote for the one least likely to serve Conservative principles. Because the most Conservative candidate didn’t win the nomination one would give their support to the “enemy”? Those who dislike Paul enough not to vote for him would serve Conservatisim better if they simply didn’t vote. It doesn’t make any sense to help someone get elected to the seat who is more contrary to our values.
This is reminiscent of the sentimentally understandable but none-the-less pragmatically ludicrous notion of voting out all the incumbents. You CAN’T vote anyone out. There is no facility on the ticket for voting someone out. If you vote, you have to vote for SOMEone. If we in Kentucly aren’t totally happy with Mitch McConnell, and Michael Moore could somehow win the Democratic nomination to run against him, would we vote for Moore just to get McConnell out?
If we decry Liberalism for it’s feel-good, Utopianistic ideology, then shouldn’t we advance Conservatism as being predicated on level-headed, well-considered observations? If Obama and the Liberal Democrats are flailing on the ropes in bewilderment from not having gotten the whole pie (and actually settled for relatibe crumbs) when by the numbers it was their’s, then we need to take good measure of the opportunity.
Lisa Graas
January 31st, 2010 @ 6:54 am

As a Catholic I am obligated to vote. I can’t just stay home on election day. It is my duty to vote. As a Republican, I cannot vote for any candidate who sayst things like this:
http://genuinegopmom.blogspot.com/2010/01/rand-paul-on-guantanamo-bay.html

The Democrats are not more extreme than Paul is on Gitmo detainees. Further, Paul is more extreme than the Democrats on abortion. American Life League president is right when she says Paul’s abortion legislation is properly termed “proabortion” and not merely “prochoice”. I’m rather vote for a man who doesn’t understand personhood and believes he is voting for choice than to vote for a man who agrees the unborn are persons but states can allow abortion ANYWAY.

This is really a no-brainer, folks. Many conservatives here in Kentucky have told me that they will have to vote for the Democrat if Paul wins because of one or both of these things. Rand Paul is not a conservative. He is the benefactor of political nepotism backed by an out of state machine who has extreme positions that conservatives in Kentucky cannot stomach. The sooner conservatives outside Kentucky understand this and start speaking out against it, the better. I’m sick of seeing endorsements come in for a candidate who does not represent Kentucky conservatives. Look at this report regarding the Ron/Rand Paul rally in Louisville today.
http://genuinegopmom.blogspot.com/2010/01/ron-and-rand-paul-draw-crowd-of-300-in.html

Those who have endorsed Rand Paul have done so prematurely. Johnson is within ten points of Paul and Grayson who are tied, with a large percentage undecided. The more people find out about Johnson, the more they jump on the Johnson campaign bandwagon with fire in their bellies. That is the reality here in the Bluegrass State. Reagan Rally in Lexington tomorrow (January 31), btw. Stay tuned.
http://genuinegopmom.blogspot.com/2010/01/reagan-rally-for-conservatives-to-be.html
Lisa Graas
January 31st, 2010 @ 6:54 am

As a Catholic I am obligated to vote. I can’t just stay home on election day. It is my duty to vote. As a Republican, I cannot vote for any candidate who sayst things like this:
http://genuinegopmom.blogspot.com/2010/01/rand-paul-on-guantanamo-bay.html

The Democrats are not more extreme than Paul is on Gitmo detainees. Further, Paul is more extreme than the Democrats on abortion. American Life League president is right when she says Paul’s abortion legislation is properly termed “proabortion” and not merely “prochoice”. I’m rather vote for a man who doesn’t understand personhood and believes he is voting for choice than to vote for a man who agrees the unborn are persons but states can allow abortion ANYWAY.

This is really a no-brainer, folks. Many conservatives here in Kentucky have told me that they will have to vote for the Democrat if Paul wins because of one or both of these things. Rand Paul is not a conservative. He is the benefactor of political nepotism backed by an out of state machine who has extreme positions that conservatives in Kentucky cannot stomach. The sooner conservatives outside Kentucky understand this and start speaking out against it, the better. I’m sick of seeing endorsements come in for a candidate who does not represent Kentucky conservatives. Look at this report regarding the Ron/Rand Paul rally in Louisville today.
http://genuinegopmom.blogspot.com/2010/01/ron-and-rand-paul-draw-crowd-of-300-in.html

Those who have endorsed Rand Paul have done so prematurely. Johnson is within ten points of Paul and Grayson who are tied, with a large percentage undecided. The more people find out about Johnson, the more they jump on the Johnson campaign bandwagon with fire in their bellies. That is the reality here in the Bluegrass State. Reagan Rally in Lexington tomorrow (January 31), btw. Stay tuned.
http://genuinegopmom.blogspot.com/2010/01/reagan-rally-for-conservatives-to-be.html
Lisa Graas
January 31st, 2010 @ 1:54 am

As a Catholic I am obligated to vote. I can’t just stay home on election day. It is my duty to vote. As a Republican, I cannot vote for any candidate who sayst things like this:
http://genuinegopmom.blogspot.com/2010/01/rand-paul-on-guantanamo-bay.html

The Democrats are not more extreme than Paul is on Gitmo detainees. Further, Paul is more extreme than the Democrats on abortion. American Life League president is right when she says Paul’s abortion legislation is properly termed “proabortion” and not merely “prochoice”. I’m rather vote for a man who doesn’t understand personhood and believes he is voting for choice than to vote for a man who agrees the unborn are persons but states can allow abortion ANYWAY.

This is really a no-brainer, folks. Many conservatives here in Kentucky have told me that they will have to vote for the Democrat if Paul wins because of one or both of these things. Rand Paul is not a conservative. He is the benefactor of political nepotism backed by an out of state machine who has extreme positions that conservatives in Kentucky cannot stomach. The sooner conservatives outside Kentucky understand this and start speaking out against it, the better. I’m sick of seeing endorsements come in for a candidate who does not represent Kentucky conservatives. Look at this report regarding the Ron/Rand Paul rally in Louisville today.
http://genuinegopmom.blogspot.com/2010/01/ron-and-rand-paul-draw-crowd-of-300-in.html

Those who have endorsed Rand Paul have done so prematurely. Johnson is within ten points of Paul and Grayson who are tied, with a large percentage undecided. The more people find out about Johnson, the more they jump on the Johnson campaign bandwagon with fire in their bellies. That is the reality here in the Bluegrass State. Reagan Rally in Lexington tomorrow (January 31), btw. Stay tuned.
http://genuinegopmom.blogspot.com/2010/01/reagan-rally-for-conservatives-to-be.html
DaleOIFVet
January 31st, 2010 @ 12:13 pm

I have always voted – I have never missed a vote ever. BUT this time whenI go if Bill Johnson’s name is not on the ballot I will skip that office vote – I will vote on the other offices. I cannot support a man like Rand.

I promised in the Last election with McCain- I will NEVER vote for a person Just because of their party. This is the first election since that time and I promise you – I will Never Vote For Someone Just Because They Are Running As A Republican.

I was thinking about voting for Rand – before I got to know Bill Johnson. I was turned Off by Rand and His Cult.
DaleOIFVet
January 31st, 2010 @ 12:13 pm

I have always voted – I have never missed a vote ever. BUT this time whenI go if Bill Johnson’s name is not on the ballot I will skip that office vote – I will vote on the other offices. I cannot support a man like Rand.

I promised in the Last election with McCain- I will NEVER vote for a person Just because of their party. This is the first election since that time and I promise you – I will Never Vote For Someone Just Because They Are Running As A Republican.

I was thinking about voting for Rand – before I got to know Bill Johnson. I was turned Off by Rand and His Cult.
DaleOIFVet
January 31st, 2010 @ 7:13 am

I have always voted – I have never missed a vote ever. BUT this time whenI go if Bill Johnson’s name is not on the ballot I will skip that office vote – I will vote on the other offices. I cannot support a man like Rand.

I promised in the Last election with McCain- I will NEVER vote for a person Just because of their party. This is the first election since that time and I promise you – I will Never Vote For Someone Just Because They Are Running As A Republican.

I was thinking about voting for Rand – before I got to know Bill Johnson. I was turned Off by Rand and His Cult.
Lisa Graas
January 31st, 2010 @ 2:25 pm

Dale is right. I feel the same way. We are not “supporting the party” by voting for candidates who have positions that are SERIOUSLY opposed to the platform. That is why it was right for so many to support Hoffman in NY23 who was not running as a Republican. You can’t expect me to vote for Rand Paul any more than you could expect me to vote for Scozzafava if I were in NY23.
Lisa Graas
January 31st, 2010 @ 2:25 pm

Dale is right. I feel the same way. We are not “supporting the party” by voting for candidates who have positions that are SERIOUSLY opposed to the platform. That is why it was right for so many to support Hoffman in NY23 who was not running as a Republican. You can’t expect me to vote for Rand Paul any more than you could expect me to vote for Scozzafava if I were in NY23.
Lisa Graas
January 31st, 2010 @ 9:25 am

Dale is right. I feel the same way. We are not “supporting the party” by voting for candidates who have positions that are SERIOUSLY opposed to the platform. That is why it was right for so many to support Hoffman in NY23 who was not running as a Republican. You can’t expect me to vote for Rand Paul any more than you could expect me to vote for Scozzafava if I were in NY23.
Erica Coyle
January 31st, 2010 @ 2:32 pm

Dale, I too am turned off. Recently I asked to be taken off the mailing list of Campaign 4 Liberty, I had gone to one meeting after meeting them at a tea party in Louisville. Instead a polite thank you and bidding my request I was repeatedly attcked by a Rand Paul supporter who said I needed to study the constittution with one breath and then in another email made the erroneous statement that our Constitution is for “all the people of the world” and that they [terrorist] should be given a fair trial as they are children of God! Makes you wonder how they came to that conclusion as our constitution is an American Document founded by the very forefathers that left Europe too seek freedom from the oppression, oppression much like we have now! Bill Johnson is truly a man of HONOR-DUTY-COUNTRY. He will get my vote and I will continue to rally around his cause and see that he brings it home not only for KY but for America! http://[email protected]
Erica Coyle
January 31st, 2010 @ 2:32 pm

Dale, I too am turned off. Recently I asked to be taken off the mailing list of Campaign 4 Liberty, I had gone to one meeting after meeting them at a tea party in Louisville. Instead a polite thank you and bidding my request I was repeatedly attcked by a Rand Paul supporter who said I needed to study the constittution with one breath and then in another email made the erroneous statement that our Constitution is for “all the people of the world” and that they [terrorist] should be given a fair trial as they are children of God! Makes you wonder how they came to that conclusion as our constitution is an American Document founded by the very forefathers that left Europe too seek freedom from the oppression, oppression much like we have now! Bill Johnson is truly a man of HONOR-DUTY-COUNTRY. He will get my vote and I will continue to rally around his cause and see that he brings it home not only for KY but for America! http://[email protected]
Erica Coyle
January 31st, 2010 @ 9:32 am

Dale, I too am turned off. Recently I asked to be taken off the mailing list of Campaign 4 Liberty, I had gone to one meeting after meeting them at a tea party in Louisville. Instead a polite thank you and bidding my request I was repeatedly attcked by a Rand Paul supporter who said I needed to study the constittution with one breath and then in another email made the erroneous statement that our Constitution is for “all the people of the world” and that they [terrorist] should be given a fair trial as they are children of God! Makes you wonder how they came to that conclusion as our constitution is an American Document founded by the very forefathers that left Europe too seek freedom from the oppression, oppression much like we have now! Bill Johnson is truly a man of HONOR-DUTY-COUNTRY. He will get my vote and I will continue to rally around his cause and see that he brings it home not only for KY but for America! http://[email protected]
Lisa Graas
January 31st, 2010 @ 4:45 pm

Erica, we could never have won WWII if America were run by these people. These people behind the Pauls are fringe and do not represent Kentucky values. Unfortunately, right now, most Kentuckians are in a bit of a shock because of the immediate dangers of rampant spending that is destroying our economy……and the only candidates getting good coverage are one supported by the NRSC and one supported by fringe Paulites from around the country who can’t even vote here. When Kentuckians hear about Johnson, they have moments of “epiphany”, get excited and jump on board the Johnson campaign train headed for D.C.

I was being bombarded with commenters for Rand Paul until I started monitoring IP addresses and denying those not commenting from within the state. It cut them all off. Every single one. Not one was in Kentucky. So, I’ve lightened up to let a couple of them through as long as they are respectful. For a couple of weeks we’ve had ONE Paul supporter because he can manage to be respectful, and he is commenting from Memphis, TN. This morning we got one from Indiana. Sigh.
Lisa Graas
January 31st, 2010 @ 4:45 pm

Erica, we could never have won WWII if America were run by these people. These people behind the Pauls are fringe and do not represent Kentucky values. Unfortunately, right now, most Kentuckians are in a bit of a shock because of the immediate dangers of rampant spending that is destroying our economy……and the only candidates getting good coverage are one supported by the NRSC and one supported by fringe Paulites from around the country who can’t even vote here. When Kentuckians hear about Johnson, they have moments of “epiphany”, get excited and jump on board the Johnson campaign train headed for D.C.

I was being bombarded with commenters for Rand Paul until I started monitoring IP addresses and denying those not commenting from within the state. It cut them all off. Every single one. Not one was in Kentucky. So, I’ve lightened up to let a couple of them through as long as they are respectful. For a couple of weeks we’ve had ONE Paul supporter because he can manage to be respectful, and he is commenting from Memphis, TN. This morning we got one from Indiana. Sigh.
Lisa Graas
January 31st, 2010 @ 11:45 am

Erica, we could never have won WWII if America were run by these people. These people behind the Pauls are fringe and do not represent Kentucky values. Unfortunately, right now, most Kentuckians are in a bit of a shock because of the immediate dangers of rampant spending that is destroying our economy……and the only candidates getting good coverage are one supported by the NRSC and one supported by fringe Paulites from around the country who can’t even vote here. When Kentuckians hear about Johnson, they have moments of “epiphany”, get excited and jump on board the Johnson campaign train headed for D.C.

I was being bombarded with commenters for Rand Paul until I started monitoring IP addresses and denying those not commenting from within the state. It cut them all off. Every single one. Not one was in Kentucky. So, I’ve lightened up to let a couple of them through as long as they are respectful. For a couple of weeks we’ve had ONE Paul supporter because he can manage to be respectful, and he is commenting from Memphis, TN. This morning we got one from Indiana. Sigh.
Kelley Matthews
January 31st, 2010 @ 5:26 pm

This might not make much sense to many of you but I’m a retired law-enforcement officer from Chicago. Gut “instinct” was the one major attribute that allowed me to survive the 24 years I worked in Violent Crimes. Now as then my gut “instinct”, after investigating the postions of all five candidates that were interested in running for this office, has me supporting Bill Johnson for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky. He’s not only the right choice for Kentucky but also the right choice for the Country.
Kelley Matthews
January 31st, 2010 @ 5:26 pm

This might not make much sense to many of you but I’m a retired law-enforcement officer from Chicago. Gut “instinct” was the one major attribute that allowed me to survive the 24 years I worked in Violent Crimes. Now as then my gut “instinct”, after investigating the postions of all five candidates that were interested in running for this office, has me supporting Bill Johnson for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky. He’s not only the right choice for Kentucky but also the right choice for the Country.
Kelley Matthews
January 31st, 2010 @ 12:26 pm

This might not make much sense to many of you but I’m a retired law-enforcement officer from Chicago. Gut “instinct” was the one major attribute that allowed me to survive the 24 years I worked in Violent Crimes. Now as then my gut “instinct”, after investigating the postions of all five candidates that were interested in running for this office, has me supporting Bill Johnson for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky. He’s not only the right choice for Kentucky but also the right choice for the Country.
Angela Thorn
January 31st, 2010 @ 11:09 pm

Dr. D, Sorry so late with my reply! You can reach me at the blog I link to if you want…I didn’t think to read these comments again! The group I was referring to was the Concerned Women Of America, who claim to be “the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization, with a rich 30-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy.”
Angela Thorn
January 31st, 2010 @ 11:09 pm

Dr. D, Sorry so late with my reply! You can reach me at the blog I link to if you want…I didn’t think to read these comments again! The group I was referring to was the Concerned Women Of America, who claim to be “the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization, with a rich 30-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy.”
Angela Thorn
January 31st, 2010 @ 6:09 pm

Dr. D, Sorry so late with my reply! You can reach me at the blog I link to if you want…I didn’t think to read these comments again! The group I was referring to was the Concerned Women Of America, who claim to be “the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization, with a rich 30-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy.”
Dr. David
February 1st, 2010 @ 5:50 am

That must not be the same as the two national groups who say that Paul’s states rights position would overturn the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban and would defacto be a pro-abortion position, would it?
That’s even more extreme than Pro-choice, isn’t it?
Dr. David
February 1st, 2010 @ 12:50 am

That must not be the same as the two national groups who say that Paul’s states rights position would overturn the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban and would defacto be a pro-abortion position, would it?
That’s even more extreme than Pro-choice, isn’t it?
Eric
February 1st, 2010 @ 1:33 pm

“That must not be the same as the two national groups who say that Paul’s states rights position would overturn the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban and would defacto be a pro-abortion position, would it?”

So what you are saying is that the federal government should continue to supersede its constitutional authority with a democratic majority? Do conservatives embrace constitutional liberty anymore? I could see if you were in favor of a constitutional amendment banning abortion. If you are in favor of constitutional governance and reducing the size of the federal govenrment, then federal laws should be restricted to those areas allowed in the Constitution. Everything else is reserved to the states.

If conservatives simply want to centrally run things their way, then it is no different than the liberals and just as socialist. I think it would be refreshing to have a libertarian-leaning republican in office. Maybe he would actually try to do reduce government and protect my liberties instead of just giving lip service to the idea during election time and then offering all kinds of excuses why we must grow government once elected.
Eric
February 1st, 2010 @ 1:33 pm

“That must not be the same as the two national groups who say that Paul’s states rights position would overturn the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban and would defacto be a pro-abortion position, would it?”

So what you are saying is that the federal government should continue to supersede its constitutional authority with a democratic majority? Do conservatives embrace constitutional liberty anymore? I could see if you were in favor of a constitutional amendment banning abortion. If you are in favor of constitutional governance and reducing the size of the federal govenrment, then federal laws should be restricted to those areas allowed in the Constitution. Everything else is reserved to the states.

If conservatives simply want to centrally run things their way, then it is no different than the liberals and just as socialist. I think it would be refreshing to have a libertarian-leaning republican in office. Maybe he would actually try to do reduce government and protect my liberties instead of just giving lip service to the idea during election time and then offering all kinds of excuses why we must grow government once elected.
Eric
February 1st, 2010 @ 8:33 am

“That must not be the same as the two national groups who say that Paul’s states rights position would overturn the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban and would defacto be a pro-abortion position, would it?”

So what you are saying is that the federal government should continue to supersede its constitutional authority with a democratic majority? Do conservatives embrace constitutional liberty anymore? I could see if you were in favor of a constitutional amendment banning abortion. If you are in favor of constitutional governance and reducing the size of the federal govenrment, then federal laws should be restricted to those areas allowed in the Constitution. Everything else is reserved to the states.

If conservatives simply want to centrally run things their way, then it is no different than the liberals and just as socialist. I think it would be refreshing to have a libertarian-leaning republican in office. Maybe he would actually try to do reduce government and protect my liberties instead of just giving lip service to the idea during election time and then offering all kinds of excuses why we must grow government once elected.
Lisa Graas
February 1st, 2010 @ 1:58 pm

The Paul rally 01/30 drew 300 people.
http://genuinegopmom.blogspot.com/2010/01/ron-and-rand-paul-draw-crowd-of-300-in.html

The Reagan Rally where Johnson spoke 01/31 reportedly drew the same number. The campaign has promised me video. I will post it when I have it.

Stacy, the Tea Party movement here is naturally splitting between Libertarians and Reaganites. There are more Reaganites than Libertarians in Kentucky, and there are certainly more Reaganites registered as Republicans in Kentucky than there are Libertarians registered as Republicans. The only reason Rand Paul has been leading Johnson in the polls is that he is backed by a machine made up of out of state supporters of his father, Ron Paul. There is no other reason. We still have until May 18. I’m confident that these poll numbers are correct. Also, Oerther announced yesterday that he is pulling out and supporting Johnson. And I am confident that as word gets out about Johnson, he will pull as many (or more) votes away from Grayson as he will from Paul.

Below is the latest internal poll. Statewide, Sample Size 1,097 Likely Republican Voters. Margin of Error 4.5%.

Paul 26%
Grayson 26%
Johnson 18%
Thoney 1%
Oerther .5%
Martin .5%
Und 28%

———————

(First week of Jan, 1830 responders, likely Republican voters)

The poll was a simple statewide poll Conducted by Persistence Consulting (California, engaged to advise campaign but NOT paid for by Johnson campaign).

We asked likely republican primary voters: Who are you planning on voting for in the Republican Primary next year?

Candidate Statewide
Grayson 29
Paul 25
Johnson 14
Thoney 2
Oerther 1
Martin 1
Und 28
Lisa Graas
February 1st, 2010 @ 1:58 pm

The Paul rally 01/30 drew 300 people.
http://genuinegopmom.blogspot.com/2010/01/ron-and-rand-paul-draw-crowd-of-300-in.html

The Reagan Rally where Johnson spoke 01/31 reportedly drew the same number. The campaign has promised me video. I will post it when I have it.

Stacy, the Tea Party movement here is naturally splitting between Libertarians and Reaganites. There are more Reaganites than Libertarians in Kentucky, and there are certainly more Reaganites registered as Republicans in Kentucky than there are Libertarians registered as Republicans. The only reason Rand Paul has been leading Johnson in the polls is that he is backed by a machine made up of out of state supporters of his father, Ron Paul. There is no other reason. We still have until May 18. I’m confident that these poll numbers are correct. Also, Oerther announced yesterday that he is pulling out and supporting Johnson. And I am confident that as word gets out about Johnson, he will pull as many (or more) votes away from Grayson as he will from Paul.

Below is the latest internal poll. Statewide, Sample Size 1,097 Likely Republican Voters. Margin of Error 4.5%.

Paul 26%
Grayson 26%
Johnson 18%
Thoney 1%
Oerther .5%
Martin .5%
Und 28%

———————

(First week of Jan, 1830 responders, likely Republican voters)

The poll was a simple statewide poll Conducted by Persistence Consulting (California, engaged to advise campaign but NOT paid for by Johnson campaign).

We asked likely republican primary voters: Who are you planning on voting for in the Republican Primary next year?

Candidate Statewide
Grayson 29
Paul 25
Johnson 14
Thoney 2
Oerther 1
Martin 1
Und 28
Lisa Graas
February 1st, 2010 @ 8:58 am

The Paul rally 01/30 drew 300 people.
http://genuinegopmom.blogspot.com/2010/01/ron-and-rand-paul-draw-crowd-of-300-in.html

The Reagan Rally where Johnson spoke 01/31 reportedly drew the same number. The campaign has promised me video. I will post it when I have it.

Stacy, the Tea Party movement here is naturally splitting between Libertarians and Reaganites. There are more Reaganites than Libertarians in Kentucky, and there are certainly more Reaganites registered as Republicans in Kentucky than there are Libertarians registered as Republicans. The only reason Rand Paul has been leading Johnson in the polls is that he is backed by a machine made up of out of state supporters of his father, Ron Paul. There is no other reason. We still have until May 18. I’m confident that these poll numbers are correct. Also, Oerther announced yesterday that he is pulling out and supporting Johnson. And I am confident that as word gets out about Johnson, he will pull as many (or more) votes away from Grayson as he will from Paul.

Below is the latest internal poll. Statewide, Sample Size 1,097 Likely Republican Voters. Margin of Error 4.5%.

Paul 26%
Grayson 26%
Johnson 18%
Thoney 1%
Oerther .5%
Martin .5%
Und 28%

———————

(First week of Jan, 1830 responders, likely Republican voters)

The poll was a simple statewide poll Conducted by Persistence Consulting (California, engaged to advise campaign but NOT paid for by Johnson campaign).

We asked likely republican primary voters: Who are you planning on voting for in the Republican Primary next year?

Candidate Statewide
Grayson 29
Paul 25
Johnson 14
Thoney 2
Oerther 1
Martin 1
Und 28
Lisa Graas
February 1st, 2010 @ 2:08 pm

Dr. David and Angela.

I called National Right to Life about Rand Paul’s abortion legislation. Dave Andrusko, editor of Nat’ RTL News, told me in a message that passed through their legislative committee and PAC that sending the issue back to the states (Paul’s position) would overturn the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act “among other things”. Judie Brown of American Life League told me that the legislation Rand Paul supports is properly termed “proabortion” not even merely “pro-choice” because it says the unborn are “persons” but states can allow abortion ANYWAY. It’s not because Paul is “proabortion” himself that he supports the legislation but that he doesn’t consider the 14th amendments protections to be valid. His campaign coordinator told me, when I inquired about this, that the 14th amendment only covers “freed slaves” and not the rest of us. This is incompetence to the highest degree. I will not rest until May 18, election day, to make sure Rand Paul does not become my Senator. I am supporting Bill Johnson http://save2010.com
Lisa Graas
February 1st, 2010 @ 2:08 pm

Dr. David and Angela.

I called National Right to Life about Rand Paul’s abortion legislation. Dave Andrusko, editor of Nat’ RTL News, told me in a message that passed through their legislative committee and PAC that sending the issue back to the states (Paul’s position) would overturn the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act “among other things”. Judie Brown of American Life League told me that the legislation Rand Paul supports is properly termed “proabortion” not even merely “pro-choice” because it says the unborn are “persons” but states can allow abortion ANYWAY. It’s not because Paul is “proabortion” himself that he supports the legislation but that he doesn’t consider the 14th amendments protections to be valid. His campaign coordinator told me, when I inquired about this, that the 14th amendment only covers “freed slaves” and not the rest of us. This is incompetence to the highest degree. I will not rest until May 18, election day, to make sure Rand Paul does not become my Senator. I am supporting Bill Johnson http://save2010.com
Lisa Graas
February 1st, 2010 @ 9:08 am

Dr. David and Angela.

I called National Right to Life about Rand Paul’s abortion legislation. Dave Andrusko, editor of Nat’ RTL News, told me in a message that passed through their legislative committee and PAC that sending the issue back to the states (Paul’s position) would overturn the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act “among other things”. Judie Brown of American Life League told me that the legislation Rand Paul supports is properly termed “proabortion” not even merely “pro-choice” because it says the unborn are “persons” but states can allow abortion ANYWAY. It’s not because Paul is “proabortion” himself that he supports the legislation but that he doesn’t consider the 14th amendments protections to be valid. His campaign coordinator told me, when I inquired about this, that the 14th amendment only covers “freed slaves” and not the rest of us. This is incompetence to the highest degree. I will not rest until May 18, election day, to make sure Rand Paul does not become my Senator. I am supporting Bill Johnson http://save2010.com
Angela Thorn
February 1st, 2010 @ 2:11 pm

Dr David, I am of the mindset that both Johnson or Paul would be a better choice than Grayson. If Paul dropped out tomorrow, I’d jump on the Johnson bandwagon in a minute.
Angela Thorn
February 1st, 2010 @ 2:11 pm

Dr David, I am of the mindset that both Johnson or Paul would be a better choice than Grayson. If Paul dropped out tomorrow, I’d jump on the Johnson bandwagon in a minute.
Angela Thorn
February 1st, 2010 @ 9:11 am

Dr David, I am of the mindset that both Johnson or Paul would be a better choice than Grayson. If Paul dropped out tomorrow, I’d jump on the Johnson bandwagon in a minute.
Angela Thorn
February 1st, 2010 @ 2:12 pm

Lisa,

So you don’t support overturning Roe V Wade?
Angela Thorn
February 1st, 2010 @ 2:12 pm

Lisa,

So you don’t support overturning Roe V Wade?
Angela Thorn
February 1st, 2010 @ 9:12 am

Lisa,

So you don’t support overturning Roe V Wade?
You Betcha: Palin Endorses Rand Paul in Kentucky GOP Senate Primary : The Other McCain
February 1st, 2010 @ 12:59 pm

[…] 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 expect was for Palin to get herself involved in […]
Scott
February 1st, 2010 @ 8:16 pm

Enough vitriol. I have never understood how one can be pro-liberty on the Economic side, yet be so Pro-Tyranny on the social and foreign side.

If one is so gung-ho on the Drug War, one must logically be pro-criminalization of alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol and Tobacco kill and addict more people each year than all the other drugs combined. This is a fact. I find it telling that you support the legality of these, and yet lament those who wish to make legal other substances. Besides, as a wholly moral point is it not my body? Is it not my choice? Why is it your choice to tell me what I can put in my body?

Follow from there, if you believe in this, how come you do not believe that you can tell me what I can or cannot spend my money on? Why can’t you tell me who I have to give my money to? Why are you against Welfarism on one hand (Which is increase of State power), yet on the other are Pro-Police State (Increase of State power)? It seems logically contradictory.

Was it not Ronald Reagan himself who said “the heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” Why yes, it was. I also find it telling that the so-called religious shun the Christian Just War Theory in fear of some mythical security apparatus which is none other than a large and powerful Police and Nanny State with omnipotent power to detain, torture, and arrest anyone without warrant. See: Military Commissions Act and Patriot Act.

Indeed, the GOP used to be libertarian. The Old Right were libertarians. The Howard Buffets, Robert Tafts, and Charles A. Lindberghs. They were conservatives. They fought Imperialism, Welfare, Prohibition, and the rest of the State apparatus gamut.

I am staunchly libertarian and much more so than Rand. I can tell you right now, Rand is not that much of a libertarian. He takes lukewarm positions on our Foreign Policy, and on Immigration his policy is anti-liberty.

I think a lot of Neo-Cons don’t understand that our Foreign Policy is a direct corollary of our Fiscal Policy. Our Foreign Policy costs us trillions a year. If you are indeed a Fiscal Conservative then you must be Anti-Imperialism. You must shun these Un-Constitutional expenditures and expeditions. It was Benjamin Harrison our 23rd President who said:

“We Americans have no commission from God to police the world”

I also find it telling those who wear their military badges on their sleeves as a point of authority. I am AD USCG and I find that those who do so espouse Military-Junta-esque views. It is a dangerous and perilous view.

It is also concerting to me that conservatives have yet to wake up to the fact that “War is the health of the State.”. If you are a limited-Government conservative (Re: Not a Neo-Con), you must be Anti-War for War gives rise to the largest expansions of the Government– always. And as you and I know, once something is enacted in DC it doesn’t go away.

I’m sorry, but what your social conservatism gotten us? A rabid Police State which annihilated the 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendment. Congratulations.
Scott
February 1st, 2010 @ 8:16 pm

Enough vitriol. I have never understood how one can be pro-liberty on the Economic side, yet be so Pro-Tyranny on the social and foreign side.

If one is so gung-ho on the Drug War, one must logically be pro-criminalization of alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol and Tobacco kill and addict more people each year than all the other drugs combined. This is a fact. I find it telling that you support the legality of these, and yet lament those who wish to make legal other substances. Besides, as a wholly moral point is it not my body? Is it not my choice? Why is it your choice to tell me what I can put in my body?

Follow from there, if you believe in this, how come you do not believe that you can tell me what I can or cannot spend my money on? Why can’t you tell me who I have to give my money to? Why are you against Welfarism on one hand (Which is increase of State power), yet on the other are Pro-Police State (Increase of State power)? It seems logically contradictory.

Was it not Ronald Reagan himself who said “the heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” Why yes, it was. I also find it telling that the so-called religious shun the Christian Just War Theory in fear of some mythical security apparatus which is none other than a large and powerful Police and Nanny State with omnipotent power to detain, torture, and arrest anyone without warrant. See: Military Commissions Act and Patriot Act.

Indeed, the GOP used to be libertarian. The Old Right were libertarians. The Howard Buffets, Robert Tafts, and Charles A. Lindberghs. They were conservatives. They fought Imperialism, Welfare, Prohibition, and the rest of the State apparatus gamut.

I am staunchly libertarian and much more so than Rand. I can tell you right now, Rand is not that much of a libertarian. He takes lukewarm positions on our Foreign Policy, and on Immigration his policy is anti-liberty.

I think a lot of Neo-Cons don’t understand that our Foreign Policy is a direct corollary of our Fiscal Policy. Our Foreign Policy costs us trillions a year. If you are indeed a Fiscal Conservative then you must be Anti-Imperialism. You must shun these Un-Constitutional expenditures and expeditions. It was Benjamin Harrison our 23rd President who said:

“We Americans have no commission from God to police the world”

I also find it telling those who wear their military badges on their sleeves as a point of authority. I am AD USCG and I find that those who do so espouse Military-Junta-esque views. It is a dangerous and perilous view.

It is also concerting to me that conservatives have yet to wake up to the fact that “War is the health of the State.”. If you are a limited-Government conservative (Re: Not a Neo-Con), you must be Anti-War for War gives rise to the largest expansions of the Government– always. And as you and I know, once something is enacted in DC it doesn’t go away.

I’m sorry, but what your social conservatism gotten us? A rabid Police State which annihilated the 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendment. Congratulations.
Scott
February 1st, 2010 @ 3:16 pm

Enough vitriol. I have never understood how one can be pro-liberty on the Economic side, yet be so Pro-Tyranny on the social and foreign side.

If one is so gung-ho on the Drug War, one must logically be pro-criminalization of alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol and Tobacco kill and addict more people each year than all the other drugs combined. This is a fact. I find it telling that you support the legality of these, and yet lament those who wish to make legal other substances. Besides, as a wholly moral point is it not my body? Is it not my choice? Why is it your choice to tell me what I can put in my body?

Follow from there, if you believe in this, how come you do not believe that you can tell me what I can or cannot spend my money on? Why can’t you tell me who I have to give my money to? Why are you against Welfarism on one hand (Which is increase of State power), yet on the other are Pro-Police State (Increase of State power)? It seems logically contradictory.

Was it not Ronald Reagan himself who said “the heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” Why yes, it was. I also find it telling that the so-called religious shun the Christian Just War Theory in fear of some mythical security apparatus which is none other than a large and powerful Police and Nanny State with omnipotent power to detain, torture, and arrest anyone without warrant. See: Military Commissions Act and Patriot Act.

Indeed, the GOP used to be libertarian. The Old Right were libertarians. The Howard Buffets, Robert Tafts, and Charles A. Lindberghs. They were conservatives. They fought Imperialism, Welfare, Prohibition, and the rest of the State apparatus gamut.

I am staunchly libertarian and much more so than Rand. I can tell you right now, Rand is not that much of a libertarian. He takes lukewarm positions on our Foreign Policy, and on Immigration his policy is anti-liberty.

I think a lot of Neo-Cons don’t understand that our Foreign Policy is a direct corollary of our Fiscal Policy. Our Foreign Policy costs us trillions a year. If you are indeed a Fiscal Conservative then you must be Anti-Imperialism. You must shun these Un-Constitutional expenditures and expeditions. It was Benjamin Harrison our 23rd President who said:

“We Americans have no commission from God to police the world”

I also find it telling those who wear their military badges on their sleeves as a point of authority. I am AD USCG and I find that those who do so espouse Military-Junta-esque views. It is a dangerous and perilous view.

It is also concerting to me that conservatives have yet to wake up to the fact that “War is the health of the State.”. If you are a limited-Government conservative (Re: Not a Neo-Con), you must be Anti-War for War gives rise to the largest expansions of the Government– always. And as you and I know, once something is enacted in DC it doesn’t go away.

I’m sorry, but what your social conservatism gotten us? A rabid Police State which annihilated the 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendment. Congratulations.
Sarah Palin Endorses Paul!
February 1st, 2010 @ 5:32 pm

[…] + Paulistas = Wow. The Kentucky primary is extremely bitter (53 comments on that thread) and the last thing I expect was for Palin to get herself involved in […]
Something tells me the Classic Liberal is happy about this « The Daley Gator
February 1st, 2010 @ 9:16 pm

[…] + Paulistas = Wow. The Kentucky primary is extremely bitter (53 comments on that thread) and the last thing I expect was for Palin to get herself involved in […]
Dr. David
February 6th, 2010 @ 9:16 pm

(Released today)

The Bill Johnson for U.S. Senate campaign received the following poll results. Shamrock Polling conducted the statewide poll for an undisclosed client. Questions regarding the poll can be directed to Persistence Consulting ([email protected]). The Johnson for U.S. Senate campaign did not pay for or participate in this poll. The results are consistent with internal polling done by the campaign.

We asked 1,257 likely republican voters the following questions:

“Who are you planning on voting for US Senate in the republican primary on May 18th?”

Trey Grayson 27%
Bill Johnson 23%
Rand Paul 21%
Undecided 29%

We then asked are you strongly, moderately, or leaning towards your candidate?

Rand Paul 7% 27% 66%
Bill Johnson 72% 21% 7%
Trey Grayson 52% 14% 34%

Margin of Error 4.5%
Dr. David
February 6th, 2010 @ 9:16 pm

(Released today)

The Bill Johnson for U.S. Senate campaign received the following poll results. Shamrock Polling conducted the statewide poll for an undisclosed client. Questions regarding the poll can be directed to Persistence Consulting ([email protected]). The Johnson for U.S. Senate campaign did not pay for or participate in this poll. The results are consistent with internal polling done by the campaign.

We asked 1,257 likely republican voters the following questions:

“Who are you planning on voting for US Senate in the republican primary on May 18th?”

Trey Grayson 27%
Bill Johnson 23%
Rand Paul 21%
Undecided 29%

We then asked are you strongly, moderately, or leaning towards your candidate?

Rand Paul 7% 27% 66%
Bill Johnson 72% 21% 7%
Trey Grayson 52% 14% 34%

Margin of Error 4.5%
Dr. David
February 6th, 2010 @ 4:16 pm

(Released today)

The Bill Johnson for U.S. Senate campaign received the following poll results. Shamrock Polling conducted the statewide poll for an undisclosed client. Questions regarding the poll can be directed to Persistence Consulting ([email protected]). The Johnson for U.S. Senate campaign did not pay for or participate in this poll. The results are consistent with internal polling done by the campaign.

We asked 1,257 likely republican voters the following questions:

“Who are you planning on voting for US Senate in the republican primary on May 18th?”

Trey Grayson 27%
Bill Johnson 23%
Rand Paul 21%
Undecided 29%

We then asked are you strongly, moderately, or leaning towards your candidate?

Rand Paul 7% 27% 66%
Bill Johnson 72% 21% 7%
Trey Grayson 52% 14% 34%

Margin of Error 4.5%
Fallout From Sarah Palin’s Kentucky Senate Endorsement of Rand Paul : The Other McCain
February 8th, 2010 @ 2:40 am

[…] with her. Be warned. Like Sarah Palin, I won’t pull any punches.Read rest of that. Having blogged about the bitterness of the Kentucky Senate primary, I was surprised that Palin made an endorsement in that race. She defended the endorsement in her […]