Kentucky: Paul, Grayson to Meet With Club for Growth

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_25/atr/38500-1.html?type=printer_friendly

Getting their endorsement and money spent in Kentucky supporting Rand Paul would be huge.

[thasre]

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_25/atr/38500-1.html?type=printer_friendly

Getting their endorsement and money spent in Kentucky supporting Rand Paul would be huge.

Whoa, the article says Paul's meeting with a Libertarian women's group! There are libertarian women? A whole group of them??

jk.

[dr. hfn]

Whoa, the article says Paul's meeting with a Libertarian women's group! There are libertarian women? A whole group of them??

jk.

lol libertarian women...ya right lol

[Matt Collins]

Whoa, the article says Paul's meeting with a Libertarian women's group! There are libertarian women? A whole group of them??

jk.
Check out the Ladies of Liberty Alliance.

[MRoCkEd]

CFG better endorse Rand!

[Chieftain1776]

The problem with Club for Growth is that they are pro Corporatist (NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO) and claim it's free trade. They're pro immigration (as am I) but don't fully include the expansion of the welfare state now and in the future of low income workers and future voters in their calculations.

I'd love to get their endorsement but if their analysis (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/10/ron_pauls_record_on_economic_i.php) of Ron Paul is any indicator he's not going to get it. They also slam Ron Paul for earmarking even though he doesn't add a dime to the process and wouldn't save a dime if he did what Club for Growth wanted.

In short they're a beltway outfit knowingly or unknowingly enthrall to corporatist interests and promoting corporatist policies.

[TruthisTreason]

The problem with Club for Growth is that they are pro Corporatist (NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO) and claim it's free trade. They're pro immigration (as am I) but don't fully include the expansion of the welfare state now and in the future of low income workers and future voters in their calculations.

I'd love to get their endorsement but if their analysis (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/10/ron_pauls_record_on_economic_i.php) of Ron Paul is any indicator he's not going to get it. They also slam Ron Paul for earmarking even though he doesn't add a dime to the process and wouldn't save a dime if he did what Club for Growth wanted.

In short they're a beltway outfit knowingly or unknowingly enthrall to corporatist interests and promoting corporatist policies.

Immigration could be an issue, but Grayson can't be pro-immigration so that issue in KY goes nowhere... I don't like the trade treaties much myself, but I do support free trade. :o Rand and Ron may differ a little on earmarks or so I've heard, but I don't expect Rand to jump through any hoops.:cool:

I really don't see the CFG that far away from a strong conservative candidate.

[randolphfuller]

Club for Growth is strictly a Wall Street Journal, National Review, Rush Limbaugh, Larry Kudlows grousp. They will never endorse Rand.

[specsaregood]

Club for Growth is strictly a Wall Street Journal, National Review, Rush Limbaugh, Larry Kudlows grousp. They will never endorse Rand.

They might if they think they will get more out of endorsing him than the other guy. such as credibility, hopes to co-opt some of the freedom movement, etc.

[Imperial]

Alot of the stuff in that link is accurate about Dr. Paul. They did do their homework on the votes and what he voted for. The analysis simply illustrated a difference of opinion with us.

Could Rand get their support though? I think so. Rand hasn't come off quite as hardline as Ron Paul by perception, even though I think he has most positions ultimately the same as his dad. But the perception is what is key, and in that regard we could get that crucial support.

[specsaregood]

From:http://bluegrassbulletin.typepad.com/bluegrass_bulletin/2009/09/rand-paul-and-trey-grayson-getting-attention-in-dc.html


“After months of runaway federal spending and record deficits, our members are especially motivated to support high-profile, pro-growth candidates for Congress,” Keating said. “It’s possible that will include Trey Grayson or Rand Paul. There’s not a set timeline for endorsement, but we look forward to meeting with both candidates soon and completing our research on their records, as well as our assessment of the competitiveness of this race, before making any decisions.”


Rand is definitely high profile now; but what is this "pro-growth" bit? Is that some sort of doublespeak or are they talking about growth in some other way than growth in government?

Edit: Ah found my own answer I guess...


Club for Growth is a national network of thousands of Americans, from all walks of life, who believe that prosperity and opportunity come through economic freedom. We work to promote public policies that promote economic growth primarily through legislative involvement, issue advocacy, research, training and educational activity.

The primary tactic of the separate Club for Growth PAC is to provide financial support from Club members to viable pro-growth candidates to Congress.

Club for Growth Policy Goals:

◦Making the Bush tax cuts permanent
◦Death tax repeal
◦Cutting and limiting government spending
◦Social Security reform with personal retirement accounts
◦Expanding free trade
◦Legal reform to end abusive lawsuits
◦Replacing the current tax code
◦School choice
◦Regulatory reform and deregulation


Still seems like a bad name for them considering their goal...But on the other hand I think Rand matches up with their goals fairly nicely.

[centure7]

“After months of runaway federal spending and record deficits, our members are especially motivated to support high-profile, pro-growth candidates for Congress,” Keating said.

Which Keating? Lets not forget Trey Grayson worked for Keating Muething & Klekamp! In fact its the first thing I say on my website (http://www.treygraysonforsenate.com/) where I add the comment
"While Trey Grayson worked at Keating, Tray Grayson was not involved in the Keating Five Scandal, in which firm founder Charles Keating donated money to five senators in return for the favor of calling off legal investigations. The favors were not effective as Keating recieved a five-year prison sentence for fraud."

Depending on which Keating it is if he personally endorses Paul I'll probably be deleting that fact but for the moment I'd say it makes me very suspicious of Grayslum.

[specsaregood]

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/keating.php

I don't think it is the same guy.
Yeah, not him and not his child either
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating#Marriage_and_family.2C_early_legal _and_business_career

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I'm going to e-mail the Club for Growth and ask they support Rand Paul.

The money they throw around on commercials supporting their candidates in big races can be a game-changer for Paul in this Senate race.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I'm going to e-mail the Club for Growth and ask they support Rand Paul.

Got this response back from the Club for Growth today:


Thanks for the email. We're still doing our due diligence on that race, but we agree he's fantastic on the issues.

Regards,

Andy

[specsaregood]

Excellent, sent one myself.
http://www.clubforgrowth.com/contact.php

[erowe1]

I doubt that CFG would endorse Rand over Trey. But if he can keep them from endorsing Trey over him, that would be nice.

[Imperial]

Thanks for the email. We're still doing our due diligence on that race, but we agree he's fantastic on the issues.

Regards,

Andy

I think what this means is that in a theoretical world in a vacuum where issues are the only factor for a candidate, Rand would get the endorsement.

However, in the real world they have to deal with electability. That is where the conflict appears to be coming.

How much you want to bet they wait for either A) the next fundraising report or B) the next polls?

However, one thing is for certain. The fact they are CONSIDERING Rand this explicitly shows he is totally legitimate.

Now we need to do the same with Schiff.... anybody emailed them about Peter Schiff?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

However, in the real world they have to deal with electability. That is where the conflict appears to be coming.

Now we need to do the same with Schiff.... anybody emailed them about Peter Schiff?

This is the problem I think with Schiff. While Rand Paul is polling well, Schiff is at 0% and 1% respectively in two different credible scientific polls. I doubt they'll even consider going to bat for Schiff until he is doing better than that.

[specsaregood]

I think what this means is that in a theoretical world in a vacuum where issues are the only factor for a candidate, Rand would get the endorsement.

However, in the real world they have to deal with electability. That is where the conflict appears to be coming.


I think you are onto something. On their about page:

The primary tactic of the separate Club for Growth PAC is to provide financial support from Club members to viable pro-growth candidates to Congress


Now i was doing some seaching and they didn't used to focus on "viable" I saw a few statements where they said "energizing" and "principled". Perhaps they too are becoming one of those groups that doesn't care about principles and instead focusing on winning no matter the ideology....

[TruthisTreason]

CFG probably wants someone who will compromise. :o

You know give up something you'd never give up, for a little of what they want.

If they were looking for a real conservative who favored lowering tariffs and free trade -- they'd endorse Dr. Paul Senior.

[angelatc]

They picked Rubio over Crist.

Just sayin'

Here's an article that starts out "The influential Club for Growth, which loves to make political life miserable for moderate Republicans, " (http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2009/05/club-for-growth-digs-rubio-not-crist.html)

[Imperial]

Now i was doing some seaching and they didn't used to focus on "viable" I saw a few statements where they said "energizing" and "principled". Perhaps they too are becoming one of those groups that doesn't care about principles and instead focusing on winning no matter the ideology....

I wouldn't say no matter. They are considering a primary against Bennett in Utah. They attempted to primary Specter too. But I am sure its a consideration.

After all, if you don't win your money is somewhat wasted.


This is the problem I think with Schiff. While Rand Paul is polling well, Schiff is at 0% and 1% respectively in two different credible scientific polls. I doubt they'll even consider going to bat for Schiff until he is doing better than that.

True, we should probably hold off on the emailing campaign for Schiff til some poll numbers have him higher. For that, he's gonna have to spend a pretty big amount of money and barnstorm Connecticut. But I think come november, it could be time.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

They picked Rubio over Crist.

Just sayin'

Here's an article that starts out "The influential Club for Growth, which loves to make political life miserable for moderate Republicans, " (http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2009/05/club-for-growth-digs-rubio-not-crist.html)

Despite their non-endorsement of Ron Paul in the republican presidential primary (did they endorse anyone?), I think there is a very high chance they could endorse Rand Paul. And like I've stated here already, I think their money could be a game-changer.

[steined]

I can tell you this for certain, I will join groups that endorse Rand Paul and will leave or not donate to groups that endorse his competition. They are business people too, and they have to see the potential out there of all us 'Paulites' who are both passionate and generous with our FRNs when it comes to supporting Liberty. As Glenn Beck says "I'm just sayin'"

[TruthisTreason]

I can tell you this for certain, I will join groups that endorse Rand Paul and will leave or not donate to groups that endorse his competition.

I predict a good year in 2010 for GOA memberships. :D

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I predict a good year in 2010 for GOA memberships. :D

Is that one of those other groups Paul was meeting with yesterday you spoke of? ;)

[TruthisTreason]

Is that one of those other groups Paul was meeting with yesterday you spoke of? ;)

Yes, it was.

Lifetime GOA member here. :cool:

[specsaregood]

Truth, this is the public forum, reminder that is all.

I like the sound of that though.

[TruthisTreason]

Truth, this is the public forum, reminder that is all.

I like the sound of that though.

Well, I don't know what GOA will do, but as a member I know what they should do! ;)

[erowe1]

They picked Rubio over Crist.



Not a good sign. If they like Rubio, then they probably won't like Rand.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Not a good sign. If they like Rubio, then they probably won't like Rand.

I know nothing of Rubio, but do know Crist is the obvious parallel to Trey Grayson: an establishment, moderate RINO weenie picked by the NRSC brain trust in the fuhrerbunker.

You know, the same NRSC brain trust that secured such big wins in 2006 and 2008 (amazing no matter how much they lose, they always think they just know who is the most electable candidate.)

[erowe1]

I know nothing of Rubio, but do know Crist is the obvious parallel to Trey Grayson: an establishment, moderate RINO weenie picked by the NRSC brain trust in the fuhrerbunker.

You know, the same NRSC brain trust that secured such big wins in 2006 and 2008 (amazing no matter how much they lose, they always think they just know who is the most electable candidate.)

Actually, establishment moderate weenies picked by the NRSC are usually the ones the CFG likes the most. Rubio fits all of that (except for the NRSC part) more than Crist does. Neither of the two is any good. But Crist at least has the credential of having been rated by the Cato Institute as the most fiscally conservative governor in the nation, while Rubio has no fiscally conservative background or credentials at all and even has a book of ways the Republican party can implement leftist ideas wrapped in faux conservatism. I'm not sure why the CFG would break their modus operandi and go against the bulk of the establishment GOP in the Florida race. But it may have to do with existing schisms that lie under the surface in the party, particularly the hatred the Bush family has for Crist.

The CFG also has a history applying their fiscal conservatism inconsistently by favoring pro-war candidates (i.e. candidates who want to increase spending in the single item that is most to blame for our big government being so big) against more anti-war opponents, such as when they endorsed Andrew Harris against Wayne Gilchrist and tacitly endorsed Joe McLauglin against Walter Jones, ultimately only opting not to officially endorse McLaughlin because they deemed him unelectable.

Another illustration of where the CFG is coming from and how much they are married to the GOP establishment is the case of Pat Toomey. Toomey as congressman had an absolutely horrendous, fiscally liberal voting record, one that was clearly worse than Arlen Specter, even according to CFG's own rating system. For example, he voted for Bush's prescription drug entitlement (which is easily worse than any of the bailouts), while Specter voted against it. But CFG endorsed Toomey against Specter in 2004 and were about to again in 2010 before Specter switched parties. The reason isn't just that Specter is a liberal (granted, he is), because Toomey is clearly as bad or worse. The real reason is that Specter is more independent, and Toomey is a more reliable party-line Republican vote.

And that's what the CFG is really looking for, reliable party line Republican votes, like Rubio, Toomey, Harris, and McLaughlin. Now who fits that description better, Grayson, or Rand? I think it would be a great boon for Rand to win CFG's endorsement. But I'm not holding my breath, and I fear they may do the opposite. You can be sure that the current CFG head, my own former congressman, establishment Republican, Chris Chocola, and other leaders in CFG are getting approached by a lot of people they know and respect begging them to endorse Grayson, and probably zero people they know and respect asking them to endorse Rand. I'll be happy if they sit this one out and endorse neither.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

DeMint's Senate Conservative Fund (http://senateconservatives.com/index.php?p=candidates&c=) likes Rubio. The Washington Post called Rubio the "non-RINO". The NRSC supports Crist.

It seems Rubio isn't a RINO. Or at least, a RINO conservatives like.

[erowe1]

DeMint's Senate Conservative Fund (http://senateconservatives.com/index.php?p=candidates&c=) likes Rubio. The Washington Post called Rubio the "non-RINO". The NRSC supports Crist.

It seems Rubio isn't a RINO. Or at least, a RINO conservatives like.

I don't get into the term RINO too much, since, truth be told, it's really those of us who genuinely believe in seriously reducing government who are Republicans in Name Only. Those who want to enlarge it are the heart and soul of the party. So the Washington Times (which is pretty representative of the GOP establishment) saying someone they like isn't a RINO doesn't mean much. Demint's organization also endorsed Toomey, which does not engender much confidence in their ideals (see above). The endorsement they give to Rubio, while claiming Rubio believes in limited government (which, everyone does in one way or another), sets the bar awfully low in the way it backs up that claim. Sure he opposes a few things that Obama supports. But he has a whole book outlining how he wants government more involved in centrally managing virtually every aspect of society. It appears also that they are as interested in his social conservatism as his fiscal conservatism. I wouldn't be surprised if Crist's ambiguous sexuality had as much to do with that endorsement as anything else (though I'm sure his support for the bailout was another major factor).

But it was good to add these organizations for comparison. I am about as pessimistic about the likelihood of Demint's group or the Washington Times endorsing Rand Paul as I am the Club for Growth. I hope I'm wrong.

[specsaregood]

CFG probably wants someone who will compromise. :o

You know give up something you'd never give up, for a little of what they want.

If they were looking for a real conservative who favored lowering tariffs and free trade -- they'd endorse Dr. Paul Senior.


You guys hear anything back from the club for growth yet?

[steined]

All I know is this year I am holding back ALL my donations to so-called conservative groups until they make endorsements on candidates that are Constitutionally minded, for example Rand. Imagine the new money that would roll into these institutions if they got serious about their own Core Values and Messages...

[TruthisTreason]

You guys hear anything back from the club for growth yet?

YouTube - Cricket Chirping (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQFEY9RIRJA)

[krazy kaju]

Rand is definitely high profile now; but what is this "pro-growth" bit? Is that some sort of doublespeak or are they talking about growth in some other way than growth in government?

Seriously? You've never heard of the term "economic growth?"

[specsaregood]

Seriously? You've never heard of the term "economic growth?"

Yeah thats it. :rolleyes:
Certainly not as much as I hear about the growth of government. Thanks for chiming in.

[krazy kaju]

Haha okay, I see what you mean. In any case, the Club for Growth is not as bad of an organization as many make it out to be. It generally speaking stands behind free market principles. We should seek its endorsement for Rand Paul.

[Imperial]

The CfG just recently steered over 250k in ads to a candidate for Congress from the Conservative Party in New York, Doug Hoffman.

He has been polling with at least some chance of competition in the three-way race. The Republican is more liberal leaning.

So we at least have one example of the CfG taking the less electable choice. Although Hoffman was familiar in the GOP circles already and lost the nod for the nomination.

[Nathan Hale]

Club for Growth is an overly-pragmatic organization with its roots in the conservative/libertarian wing of the party. They're on our side, but only if we can demonstrate that we're a plurality. Rand Paul has a lot on his side going in to this, I hope he comes out with the endorsement.