Obviously, as a Democrat, I’m not endorsing Trey Grayson. Contrary to some of what I read here, however, he is not a RINO, and I take him very seriously as a leader of opposition to what some things I believe in very strongly. But he is a competent leader in this state and nothing he has done leads me to believe he is insincere in what he claims is his philosophical conservativism. Would he be in line with Mitch McConnell? Yes, but again, unlike some of the regular contributors, I see Mitch as having been very effective at advancing both conservative and Republican agendas on multiple fronts.

Rand Paul, on the other hand, is a kook. His comment trail from his father’s election is clear. The nature of some of his inner circle, and certainly of his original core group of supporters, is much more akin to fringe than mainstream, and I use that word without the perjorative sense it sometimes takes here. He is not ready for prime time, end of story. Not because this is his first bid for political office, which, as has been noted, could be a plus this cycle, but because his views are not in step with either Kentucky or the main of conservative or moderate Republican thought.

It is likely the Democrats will lose this race. While a Paul victory makes that less likely given the presence of A-list Dem candidates who can take advantage of his foolishness, if it is in fact a wave year, the wave will wash up some junk along with qualified candidates (see Franken, Al), I hope that non-Kentuckian conservatives who have interest in this race will look at Rand Paul very carefully before jumping on the anti-establishment, anti-Mitch band wagon and supporting Paul. Trey Grayson, while not my choice, is a legitimate, serious, and able politician who would cause no embarrassment to me or my state as a US Senator. Even if you cannot support Grayson because of the internal struggle over control of the Republican party, I find it hard to believe you guys can truly accept Rand Paul as one of yours. There are multiple other great places to put your support.

My two cents, and I’m not trying to assert I have some master understanding of conservatism or RedState specifically as a liberal and a Democrat and a lurker. But I’ve been here long enough to see so many things people here stand for that Rand Paul simply does not.

And Leon, glad it was you to write this article. We’ve disagreed to much in our last few interactions

Before endorsing any of the candidates in the GOP primary, we need more information from the candidates.

How about requesting each of the candidates to submit to RS a summary of their positions on all the important issues. Then we wouldn’t have to speculate.

A good starting point would be if they support Jim Bunning’s refusal to give the dems what they want by unanimous consent.

What constitution are you referring to?

Whether you consider them worthy or not:

On the issue of earmarks a quick google search would have shown that Rand Paul took a no earmarks pledge early in his campaign. When DeMint and SCF called for such a pledge recently Rand Paul reaffirmed the pledge while his chief opponent and minor opponent refuse to take such a pledge. Earmarks are big deal in Kentucky and I’m sure that’s costing him support among the establishment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViDSNwVtYRA
http://senateconservatives.com/v1/index.php?p=post&id=71

Note that Erick’s post on Earmarxists would exclude Rand Paul’s opponents from consideration under his standard. http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/03/01/no-more-earmarxists/

On Defense issues:

Rand Paul is with Dick Armey, Brent Scrowcroft, and others when it comes to a strong national defense. He has not tried to hide his opposition to Iraq and believes in a more restrictive use of American force. No he isn’t a global crusader for democracy.

Other than that he differs from his father on trying terrorists at GITMO and gives more flexibility to the President when projecting American power in response to attacks (i.e. not requiring a declaration of war in an immediate response to an attack)
http://www.randpaul2010.com/2009/11/rand-paul-try-convict-and-lock-up-terrorists-in-guantanamo/

Also he is the only candidate that has called for a moratorium on student visas from terrorist prone countries until the system can be reformed. He gives a great explanation here: http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h-p/national-defense/

Look Rand Paul isn’t going to agree with the line on foreign policy that many take here for his own conservative reasons.

If that’s your litmus test then support the special interest porkers that generated the biggest collapse in the American economy in 70+ years. But realize that a deficient border and a historically depressed economy limits even a “hawks” version of a strong defense more than a single vote against an Iraq war.

I served as Congressman Paul’s advance man on the Republican primary debates and the comment to which you are referring, in Florida in December of 2008, was that Vietnam and the US have benefited far more from the peace dividend than either country did from the war. To equate that with condoning the Cambodian killing fields in order to justify your associative malice towards Rand Paul is a leap of intellectual dishonesty I generally only expect from leftists.

The fact that you claim that you won’t engage in blaming Rand for Ron’s belief, set up a straw man argument against Ron, and then pin it on Rand is further proof of how rationally and intellectually unhinged some conservatives become when the subject of the Pauls come up.

Rand Paul is a chip off the old block. Take it from a Texan who consistently votes Republican but who will vote against Ron Paul at every opportunity. Rand Paul, like his father is a danger to America. He is a blind deer in the headlights of history.

No on Rand Paul.

Amadine: “some conservatives become when the subject of the Pauls come up.”

See? Even the Paulians know the two are identical.

No on Rand Paul.

I think alot of thought needs to be given to the whole Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul fringe mainstreaming, ALOT. There is a good reason William F. Buckley ran these loons and the birchers off and out of the movement. Keep in mind Paul refused to endorse the GOP ticket vs Obama the Marxist.

There is a great featured column at NRO on Exceptionalism being at the root of the debate against Obama. It also is at the root of the Debate against the Paultards and always has been. There is alot of History in that article that just scratches the surface that show what a Deceitful POS Ron Paul is, and yet this is the History he’s teaching to the Young, would be republicans. Paul has on multiple occassions appealed to his buddies on the Far-Left to work with him to “Dismantle the Empire”, and by that he means 90% or more of All Military and Defense Spending. “Abolish the CIA, FBI, Gitmo, every military base in other countries, etc” he claims the nation can be “Defended” with just a “few good Submarines”.

The man is a Utopian fool like the far-Left, that is why he cites Far-Left views like Robert Pape for support of his blame America theories. The Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul camp, which are really Murray Rothbard followers, routinely cite Leftist like Glenn Greenwald as sources of “truth” on anything that conforms to their Isolationist worldview. In their minds, its the US that provokes and if not for us, we could freelly trade and sing Kumbaya with EVERYBODY around the world. That they would never go against Economic libertarianism or something??? Purple Unicorns would be abundent in other words. They are either Insane or working with the Radical Left in this country.

What’s important is they, like their Allies on the left, are pushing Alternate/false history, distortions, and a Utopian worldview to trash American history, its Founding and the concept and reality of American Exceptionalism.(which is a blessing from God).

I was struck that he declares on his website that it illegal immigration is a “state” issue. I think protecting our borders is a federal responsibility, and I’m for a small federal government….

I’m thankful to hear that most of the contributors at RS are in agreement as to Rand Paul. I also respect Ericks right to support whomever it is he chooses.

As I said on Erick’s diary, despite Rand having the same last name as Ron, and of course the blood relationship, Rand would not be supported by Ron’s organization, the Campaign for Liberty, if he did not fully support the Paultarian foreign policy, national security positions. That has been backed up by many comments on Erick’s diary which have direct quotes with Rand saying he has to portray a different or shadowy view on foreign policy in order to win Republican/Conservative support. I suspect that the same
wobbly words apply to the Paultarian social issue views. That is downright deceitful and dishonest, and, exactly what we will no longer accept in any of our elected officials.

The Campaign for Liberty has one goal, to “reform” the Republican party. In my diary on the C4L, I linked directly to their Leadership Summit site where they say- “The Republican Party is the easiest to ‘take over’, and that “Republicans don’t want to get their hands dirty.” Again, on Erick’s diary, someone quoted Rand repeating this exact goal.

Granted, the C4L is a very organized and disciplined group. They do have troops of people who “show up” at events, in support of the candidates they have screened and recruited, such as Rand or Debra Medina. I understand that they are aware that their boisterous and obnoxious behavior during the 2008 Ron presidential campaign has not done anything to gain them support as a serious and professional group, though fringe. Not all have gotten that memo. They are a group, with an agenda, that all Republicans need to keep their eyes on, or, one day we will wake up to a new Paultarianpublican party. I take all cults seriously, after all, look what these types did for Obama.

Let me first say that, not being from Kentucky, I have not done much in the way of research on any of the candidates, so I have no dog in this fight. That being said, I must disagree with your post. Only Rand Paul’s Iran remarks – admittedly troubling – provide any solid backing to what your post says. The rest is simply a rant against his father. Can Rand Paul really be assigned his father’s views on Vietnam, simply because he was backstage at one of his father’s campaign rallies? I’m sure he was at a great many of them. I dunno, I figure that’s what family does.

If you have disagreements with RAND Paul’s positions, than by all means state them. But the idea that somehow he must disown his family in order to satisfy the need for some sort of exorcism is a little extreme, don’t you think?

social conservative issues. Some issues were already discussed in Erick’s diary, but it is disconcerting that not much is being said in this area. It would help if supporters of Rand Paul can really clarify how he differs from his father. When I first heard Ron Paul in one of the presidential debates, he made some sense on the fiscal issues, but remarks and statements over the past couple of years, certainly made me look askance at him.

There are times that libertarian ideas seem to be excellent and make sense, but then when I hear proponents expound on them, I think, “that’s a bad idea.” My understanding is that Rand is running as a Republican, because he cannot be elected running as a Libertarian.

I’m glad this is an issue for Kentuckians and not really the rest of us. Those that accept Rand and his beliefs can support him, those that do not, do not feel that they have to. As much as I believe that the “sins of the father should not be visited on the son” I think it is going to be hard for Rand Paul to roll far enough away from the apple tree that may be his bane.

Here in KY, he may be the RIGHT answer to the Grayson-Paul conundrum.
http://kentuckybill.com/

if we as conservatives agree that the U.S. government has grown such that it threatens individual liberties, undermines the free market, devalues and downgrades our economic and diplomatic clout, and compromises the role of God and faith in our society, it is not totally out of the question that the U.S. has made military and foreign policy mistakes.

To equate the Pauls’ position that the U.S. must examine its own actions as well as the motives of its enemies with comforting the enemy is ludicrous.

When someone swats a beehive and gets stung, we don’t say that someone is defending the bees when he says you should have been careful. Fundamentalist Islam is a dangerous and evil enterprise, and to say we did nothing to provoke them is manifestly untrue. This needs to be said before one even asks whether we had a moral right to provoke them, but we did provoke them.

Fundamentalist Islam was not attacking us during the Cold War when we fought the Soviets – another enemy we admittedly made A LOT of diplomatic and military mistakes with. Why did they all of the sudden start doing it in the 70′s and 80′s? Did some series of events or policies lead up to this?

America is the greatest nation to ever exist, but its government is not an infallible, all-seeing, holy state. I know this because I am not a Fundamentalist Muslim who unquestioningly abides by it. America’s greatness is undebatable, but it remains entirely conditional [de'touqville said we are great so long as we are good]. We are not good if we as citizens become complacent, hubristic and ruthless with regard to the rest of the world.

Muslim extremists were and are evil and malicious for attacking us, but our government didnt act like saints leading up the current war against them.

That is not a condemnation of America, American society, the American way, the American military or the American people. It is a condemnation of the U.S. government which we conservatives REGULARLY and rightly do condemn.

These quasi conservatives who become outraged when one considers enemy motivations and self examination, are as credible as an angry mob. This is the responsibility of a good and effective government. Its negligent and reckless to do otherwise.

So, they would prefer leaders like silver tongued, cross dressing pro-abortionists like Giuliani, to pro-life, small government, free market conservative Reaganites like the Pauls who advocate peace through strength, and sensible governing.

ps, the Cambodia reference was not only a cheap shot, it was down right idiotic and indicative of the hubris and arrogance of quasi-conservatives.

Unless he unequivocally renounces the beliefs of his anti-Semite, isolationist, nutcase father, I can’t support him.

Ron Paul’s rhetoric about 9/11, Iraq, etc. was not just wrong, but morally obtuse in a way that gained him the support of the troofer moonbats. He has been careful not to back off from it enough to lose them.

And I’m not even getting to his chumminess with the Stormfront guys.

We don’t need or want the Paulnuts.

is an Anti-Christian bigot, who was in a Satanic Metal band and into wild conspiracy theories. He was with Rand from the beginning, we going to tolerate this sort of Amature hour stuff by the way?

a blue-dog democrat can easily beat Paul, if he wins it would only be because of the election cycle and last 1 miserable term.

If Nominated, how many conservatives would return the favor to the Paul’s and refuse to vote for Rand in the General and either stay home, vote 3rd party or go with a blue dog? My guess is plenty, the Dems could tear him to pieces in general if they run a blue dog, and take time to explain some of his views. Moderates would run away in spades at that point.

I would prefer a moderate on every issue than a die-hard leftist on *any* issue, especially national security, where lives are at stake and our soldiers at risk..

wonder if Beck will ever get far enough to realize that Ron Paul is in bed with the “Progressives” and just how.

he really, reallly needs to read some books, like say “Dangerous nation” by kagan and “Special Providence” by Walter Russell Mead

If you gave a goat $4 million to run on the GOP ticket in Kentucky, Erickson would endorse it against the Reagan conservative. Erickson doesn’t believe in policies. He believes in money.

Obviously we are the grown up party, even if the Pauls won’t support the consequences of a primary, we certainly have to. There is no logic in stating it is okay to ignore the primary results just because the Pauls did it first.

I’m inclined to let the Republicans in Kentucky decide who they want as their nominee and support their decision as it is theirs to make and they are the closest to the situation and must be trusted to know their own desires.

I think Leon, and most in this diary are underestimating the support of the Pauls. I know Ron didn’t do much in the presidential primary, but post-Obama I think Paul and his crowd are really gaining populist steam.. That troubles me because I am instinctively anti-populist, but I don’t deny their power. I think a great deal of the Tea Party movement (at least those I know in it) are people that support many of the same policies as Ron Paul.

If we are to create a coalition that can win, we must include these people. Coalitions are not built on purity or everyone getting along. They are arrangements for victory between interested parties interested first, and foremost in defeating the other side. No matter where Paul stands on foreign policy, I think it is difficult to call him a leftist. Some will, but I think that strains the term to the breaking point thus removing all meaning.

Ron Paul and his crowd have different interests in foreign policy and even on some fiscal policy, but when has that mattered in building a coalition? We find what we can agree on and work from there. We also give them a fair chance in the primary without ever doing harsh damage that could hurt a potential nominee in the general.

I am wary of making these primaries fodder for the opposition in a general election campaign. We must support the nominee no matter what.

I think your opinion on “pork” and elevating McCain and Kyl to some type of hero-status, says it all. Thanks, but no thanks.

Rand Paul was asked specifically if he disagreed with Ron Paul on issues. Rand Paul answered affirmatively, and Rand Paul explained further. He satisfied the questioner.

Bill Johnson attended too. I believe more and more that Johnson is a Trojan horse who only wants to siphon votes from Rand Paul to help the moderate Grayson.

The most telling endorsement of Rand Paul came from an older GOP voter, a veteran of Korea and a former legislator who served in the Kentucky State Senate with Jim Bunning. The voter came specifically to hear Rand Paul speak. Once the meeting ended, the older gent came over to me to say he would vote with pride for Rand Paul. He believed Rand Paul to be the best conservative choice for Kentucky.

Rand Paul specifically endorsed term limits, balanced budgets, a flat tax, et cetera.

I have heard Rand Paul on at least 4 occasions. I report to you he is the MAN for this nomination, and he deserves your full support. As I said, I have heard him at least 4 different times, and I am convinced he is the best choice.

If someone “on the ground” reports intel, is it valuable? In this case, yes. I don’t make decisions lightly. I try to consider everything that is presented to me, and I tell you Rand Paul is the best choice for Kentucky.

To say Johnson is a Trojan Horse to siphon votes from Paul for Grayson is such a red herring. It is baseless. There is no evidence. This type innuendo comes out of the knowledge that Bill Johnson is a solid candidate who cannot be attacked on any ratioional basis.
In fact, Johnson led a coalition of Paul’s supporters and his own at the Rally for Bunning in Lexington yesterday.
He issued a joint statement with Grayson clarifying the fact that Paul’s position on abortion is, in effect, pro-abortion.
He has offered to issue a joint statement with Paul on any issue in common to demonstrate shared conservative values to the voters.
As a natural leader, Johnson is more than willing to reach out to his opponants in unity and not division, as is “politics as usual.” He intends to take that stand in the Senate on domestic and foreign affairs in keeping with putting the people’s business first.
As you read this thread you can see the overwhelming controversy surrounding Rand Paul. There are misleading representations as well as personal misunderstandings of his position. That spells uncertainty, indecision, and raises boucou questions of his true message.
No such questions exist with Bill Johnson. He stands firmly on principle. you know who he is. He fosters trust and confidence, values the voters, and listens.
He is solid as a rock.
Not so with Rand Paul. His supporters share few common positions on Paul because Paul and his campaign disseminate inconsistant messages.
Inconsistancy is the last thing we need at this time in history.
Politics as usual is the backbone of Paul’s campaign.

Bill Johnson: Duty-Honor-Country www.kentuckybill.com

60% of Republicans want to see the long form Birth Certificate and cases are working their way to the Supremes. That’s a majority of Republicans, bigredone.
Johnson says, “Just show the BC and get on with the nation’s business. We don’t need any more distractions.”
Keyes has his suit in progress. Inquiring minds want to know, once and for all!
Yea, Keyes does challenge Rand but not in the manner you describe. He points out how sates’ legislative authority would not stop abortion. In fact, it would overturn the federal Partial Birth Abortion Act. Hence, Rand’s position is Pro-abortion according to Right to Life.

I’ve known Rand for quite some time and he is really a good, decent, strong willed person. I don’t think he was really ready to run for office, but he feels like he has a duty to help restore our country to a saner budget and start reducing debt. I think he’ll be a great advocate for talking about the things our founders held dear, and I think that alone is almost enough reason to vote for him. He can re-frame the debate from the current Progressive Left and Progressive Right to a true Conservative vs Progressive debate. I may not agree with him 100% on everything, but I’m pretty sure I’ve never met a candidate I DO agree with 100% on. I’ll take 98% any day. As I live in KY and am a life-long registered Republican. I take pride in knowing that my vote this year for Senate won’t be the lesser of two evils. It will truly be for a great man who will fight for our freedoms and liberty. As for foreign policy, I think he realizes his Dad has more of a idealistic view of the way the world would work, and Rand is more practical. I think Rand actually makes sense when he says we should declare war on a country, and fight to WIN and get out, not nation build like we are now. Very George W Bush PRIOR to his election you know.

As a genuine Pro-life advocate, Johnson believes all children have an inalienable right to natural or assited birth.
By this definition, Rand Paul is not a birther.

He is a “truther” however. How bizarre is that, a federal 9-11 conspiracy!
How about his association with David Duke? Stormfront? What’s that about?