Posted on 02/06/2010 7:59:21 AM PST by EternalVigilance
The guy is certainly right on all the issues.
After looking at Trey Grayson, I don’t see that he’s wrong on any of the issues either.
I came to the same conclusion.
Obviously, any of the three are better than any Dem.
How can we tell which of the conservatives is the real candidate, and which is the opportunist looking to “split the conservative vote”?
I hope so !
Only one opportunist in this race, and it’s name is Paul.
*its
I'm an opportunist. I see Rand Paul as a last chance to send the anti-mcconnell to Washington. He will hold the Senate's feet to the fire like no one else. We are at the end of our rope. If we don't try something different, it's not going to matter who wins. I assure you, this nation's worst enemies are not Muslim terrorists, they would kill us all but they are too weak. We are owned by whomever owns the Federal Reserve. We are slaves to a Ceasar we don't even know.
Fortunately for myself and many others, the last person we want to see serving in Congress under the Republican label is another Paul family moonbat, bankrolled by 9/11 Truther money, pro-drug and anti-Israeli kooks and other surrenderists. Crackpot comments about Mohammadans being “too weak” also shows this dangerously naive mindset. Paleos are a threat to our national security.
Definitely one to watch. Go Bill!
Poppycock. He takes votes from both of them.
His base of anti-establishment/Tea Party voters who aren’t totally comfortable with Paul would be split if Johnson were not in the race.
No he wasn't either...they had two other choices they were going to go with - David Williams, the Kentucky Senate President, who was taking heavy swipes at Grayson and Bunning (but had to abandon that effort as his home base was under assault by Beshear - the Kentucky Senate majority), and then Cathy Bailey was waiting in the wings as the next choice to simply right a check and overtake them all easily...but she ended up having a huge tragedy in her family around the time of the filing deadline which took her out of those possibly running. Grayson is starting to now get some more backing based on the relationships he has built from his years as Secretary of State...we'll see how that pans out. His fundraising numbers are solid, but if the party was truly gung-ho for him he'd have a lot more cash being raked in that what he currently has, especially given he was able to raise $1 million for a downticket state office last time around.
Both Trey Grayson and Bill Johnson are conservatives, Johnson probably a bit more so than Grayson but they are pretty close, and Rand Paul is a candidate reinventing himself as a conservative to appeal to the GOP primary electorate. He won’t even openly denounce the 9/11 truth movement and even had someone involved in that as his official campaign spokesman. He kept that guy on even after he openly commented that a video comparing Trey Grayson to Adolf Hitler was amusing. It was only after it was revealed he apparently participated in a band which played anti-Christian lyrics did the Rand Paul campaign decide to sack him - but keeping him on that long it was obviously due to the potential political ramifications rather than any sort of principle.
Supposedly Grayson was a protege of the conservative Bunning.
A lot of people are calling him a RINO cause he’s the establishment pick and was a democrat as a young man in the early 90’s.
I’m suspect he would have a good conservative voting record.
Just as many or more people don’t like the Pauls.
I think nominating Johnson would avoid both these problems.
I’d happily vote for any of the 3. I got the demon sheep Mark Kirk as the ‘Republican’ in my state.
If it comes down to close calls like that one has to further the weighing with at least one more not unimportant question: who has the more winning personality?
IOW, much ado about nothing.
We already had a go around on this subject and we'll probably have more. You personalize your arguments too much. I hope most people find it offensive and unpersuasive.
Crackpot comments about Mohammadans being “too weak” also shows this dangerously naive mindset
Muhammad and Malvo caused much more angst than 9/11 with one Bushmaster XM-15 and an old car. They could have gone on much longer but they started playing tag with the police. We have seen no repeats. If the Islamic Terrorists were disciplined, potent and had any brains, we should have been suffering anonymous sniper attacks ever since. They are weak. Here's another case: our country is covered with thousands of miles of expensive and vulnerable highway infrastructure. Taking out one overpass, bridge or tunnel, in a major city, during rush hour, could bring that city to it's knees and put thousands of people at risk for their lives. It ain't that hard, yet hasn't happened. It's not naive to believe that if it could have happened it would have. I believe it can happen. I believe they hate us enough to do it. But where are they? I'm not saying that we should not hunt them down and kill them. We should. I'm just saying we are distracted and we have much more powerful and dangerous enemies. I also say that the costs we have incurred in fighting islamoterrorists have been excessive.
Finally, I'm glad you don't have a vote in Kentucky.
"Finally, I'm glad you don't have a vote in Kentucky."
Hmm, sounds like a personal shot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.