Replies

Not true. He answered it very thoroughly and very satisfactorily that very same day. I heard it myself.

Do you mean his explanation that he was required to sign off on it by law, or his later one that since it was a digital signature it wasn't really a signature? Or his reversal back to saying that he was obligated to sign? Not having performed opposition on oneself for something like this (Bevins made opposition to TARP a big piece of his campaign), not anticipating how it might impact your campaign and not having a response prepped (even going preemptive) is a sign of an amateurish/not-ready-for-prime-time candidate.

Again not true, it was a rally and there happened to be pro-cockfighting folks in attendence

The rally was sponsored by the "Gamefowl Defense Network" which was/is a known pro-cockfighting organization. The people who organized the rally told the press at the time that the sole purpose of the rally was to legalize cockfighting. Not having done proper advance work, including understanding who is sponsoring a rally and googling them to understand their views is a sign of an amateurish/not-ready-for-prime-time candidate.

To the mix I'd add Bevin's website claiming that he'd been to MIT, rather than a graduate program that happened to take place on the MIT campus. Not properly vetting one's website for accuracy, including red-teaming it to identify and mitigate potential lines of attack, is a sign of an amateurish/not-ready-for-prime-time candidate

In reality, your entire note is based on the results of the GOP machine.

Nope. It's based on paying attention to the local KY (emphasis on Louisville) media. Which is decidedly pro-Grimes. One problem with a lot of Conservatives is that they expect that if the more Conservative candidate can just win the primary, they'll be able to overcome the hostility and attacks of a media machine bent on electing Democrats. Bevins would have been subjected to the same onslaught as McConnell, he just wouldn't have had the experience, or money, to overcome it. Which brings me to:

Ah, style over substance. That’s a wonderful way to ensure liberty in governance.

Both are incredibly important, and another issue with a lot of Conservatives is that they ignore style without recognizing the consequences of doing so. Look at the 1960 election, for instance. One reason why Nixon lost what should have been a winning election is due to his performance during the debate with JFK. Or rather his appearance during the debate. JFK brought a hair stylist and make up artist with him, and went on stage looking clean, well groomed and well-shaven. Nixon ... didn't. Looked pasty-faced, especially with the five-o-clock shadow he was wearing. The people who heard the debate on the radio thought Nixon had won it. The people who watched it on television thought Kennedy had won. But for the next 8 years or so ex-Vice President, failed Presidential candidate, failed CA gubernatorial candidate Nixon could console himself with the knowledge that HE had been the "substantive" candidate in the race ...

The truth is that Bevins was a lousy candidate who ran a lousy campaign. And would have been crushed by the KY Dem Machine had he gotten the nomination.

Funny that you reference Nixon as the example of substance losing to style. Yet, when “the party closed ranks and rallied behind Nixon,” the result was what could be argued as a top 5 worst presidential administrations in history.

You can thank that “rallying behind the party” for the EPA, the War on Drugs, the federalization of medicare and HMO’s. He even wanted to use the IRS to attack his political opponents.

So, no thank you to “rally behind the party” to win an election. The GOP can KMA. Their stated goal is to “crush the tea party” and by extension that means that they want to extinguish individual liberty.