Will the GOP back Rand

[spotics]

This may have been asked before, but if Rand wins the primary, will the Kentucky Republican Party back Rand?

I just want to get a layout of the land, but in what part of the state do you live and what has been the local party's attitude towards Rand.

I live in Western KY and have to say I have seen little support for Rand among the GOP. Rand's most recent appearance here (pre-PPP but after taking a slight lead) had not a single Republican committee member except myself.

I get the feeling they just don't know (or believe) that Mitch's candidate is losing in the polls or they believe McConnell will ride in on a white horse and save CM III's bacon.

I just don't believe they will back Rand.

[Flash]

I think once Mitch backs Rand (after the primary) the rest will follow suit.

[Agorism]

If he wins the GOP nomination, he will control all the party machinery. I can see a couple chairman...one in particular not backing him and resigning or back tracking, but for the most part, I think they have to fall in line if that's what the voters wanted.

[Thargok]

Once they hear him, they will back him. He is gaining an army of support in the party, even though a large chunk of it is not vocal about their support.

You'd be surprised how many people are closet supporters.

[thomas-in-ky]

they believe McConnell will ride in on a white horse and save CM III's bacon.
^^^this before the primary.

[TCE]

If Rand wins the Primary, Mitch has to back him. Reason being: He can't afford to lose the seat. How is it going to look if a Democrat wins a seat in his own state during a Republican swing year? Why would anyone vote for him as Minority leader if 10 Senate seats have been lost in 4 years under his watch, including one in his own state? Mitch will back Rand to save his own skin, but who care what his motives are? As long as Rand wins the seat, McConnell can do whatever he wants.

EDIT: As far as McConnell goes, we have to be extremely concerned for sure. This is a guy who has won statewide election 5 times in Kentucky, he knows how to win. There is still a lot of time between now and May.

[thomas-in-ky]

Don't get me wrong, Rand is building tons of support from the grass roots here. The polls, the fundraising... all of that information is reaching even our corner of KY. But most of those holding offices, those within the party machine, and especially those running for office (or re-election) are watching cautiously from the sidelines. I think a lot of them like Rand (they'll like him even more when they see him) and would support him if they thought it was safe, or if someone else within the machine would break ranks and endorse him. But still, they wait for the white horse to save Trey Grayson, because most of them know him, and that was the default candidate when Bunning pulled out.

After the primary... especially once McConnell endorses Rand Paul, I think most of them will be rabid Rand Fans in the general election.

[amisspelledword]

they'll support Rand when he wins the primary

this is what primaries are for! to pick the best guy and put him up against the democrats!

remember the guy at the town hall that asked Rand a question and told him that he support the other candidate but said that if Rand won the primary he would be a strong Rand supporter? remember? i bet even the kooky guy will support Rand once he wins the primary.

[lordindra3]

I agree with everyone that they will all support Rand once he wins the primary (and he will unless Rand magically makes a HUGE amatuer mistake with some bad controversy... But I doubt it will happen, honestly.. Rand is too genuine!), even McConnell. Think about it, even Tom Coburn endorsed McCain after McCain won primary. But I HIGHLY doubt the kooky weisel snake hybrid, Mike "the hypocrate" Bryant, will support even after. It is very very personal for Mike for some reason. He wont and will never support. HE FREQUENTS LIBERAL BLOGS FOR GOD'S SAKE AND PARTNERS UP WITH LIBERALS TO BASH RAND!! He would turn Democrat before he makes peace with his personal hatred for Rand. Ive never seen anything like it!

[aclove]

I'm not in Kentucky, but I'd have to agree with the majority sentiment here that most party officers will probably back Rand, provided he wins the primary. You'll probably have a couple of hard-heads who will resign their party positions rather than back him, but you'll find that sort of thing anywhere...here in North Carolina, B.J. Lawson (labeled "Ron Paul, Jr." by his neocon primary opponent) won his Congressional primary last year, only to have his own GOP county chair resign rather than support him. There are just some GOPers who hate libertarians more than they hate liberals...sad, but true.

[sofia]

The GOP hacks will "back" Rand in the same way that they "backed" Goldwater in 1964.

They will show up for the game, but they wont actually try to win.

McConnel and Grayson will issue a mild verbal endorsement for the sake of appearances...but then do nothing to help him win...... and they will remain silent when Conway starts labelling Rand an "extremist".

[TCE]

Well, we don't need the establishment to win, we just need them out of the way come the General. And, without Grayson in the General Election picture (if all goes well), they should get out of the way and let Rand and Conway/the Lieutenant Gov. duke it out.

Thomas: Just curious, how is Rand so high in the polls if the entire party machine is standing on the sidelines?

[pacelli]

Why wouldn't the GOP back Rand? Are they democrats or something?

[Agorism]

Goldwater was technically still part of the "new Right" that the National Review was promoting.

Namely pro-war and pro-imperialism and a continuation of FDR.

That being said he was fairly libertarian in a sense but only to a degree.

[erowe1]

Thomas: Just curious, how is Rand so high in the polls if the entire party machine is standing on the sidelines?

I'm not in Kentucky, but when you talk about the party machine, you're talking about maybe a few hundred people. This is the you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours crowd of people holding posts as county chairs or vice chairs or higher, and people in state-level elected office or higher. It's not in their interest to have someone outside their club win a senate seat and then not owe them anything. But the best tool they had at the start was to convince everyone that Grayson was the de facto candidate from the start by convincing all the precinct level volunteers and grassroots Republicans of that, and in turn getting the press to treat everyone else as dark horses who don't deserve attention. By now that strategy has been totally neutered.

[anaconda]

At some point (even if he wins the Senate seat) the powers that be are going to have to try to discredit Rand or try to set him up for ridicule or in some way generate a huge negative propaganda campaign. Rand in the Senate would represent a crack in the dam of tyranny and a very dangerous precedent for the military/industrial/federal reserve complex.

[lordindra3]

About Berry Goldwater- You are wrong about Berry Goldwater. Berry is the last man of the old right. He was not a neo con. He WAS HUGE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY!!! He believed, as do I, in a very strong national defense, but had publically spoke against being the policeman of the world. Yes, communism was a MUCH greater danger than "terrorism" is today. Communism back then was a clear and emminent danger, more so than Hitler. He did not support the initial invasion of Vietnam, but what got him in trouble was his off hand comments about nuking them to get it over with so "we can come home".. I am a HUGE Goldwater fan and he was very vocal and disgusted by the christian right's take over of the Republican party. We didnt have war mongers like we do now, so the neo cons were the christian right at the time. Berry Goldwater Jr. supported Ron Paul and said Ron was the closest thing to Berry there was. Berry Goldwater talked very very tough against our enemies and so did Reagan, but you also have to remember Reagan pulled out of Lebanon saying "we will never understand the politcs of the middle east".. Reagan's biggest problem was that he over spent and put us in debt and thats why he failed, but even Reagan was no bush in war terms. Please dont insult Berry Goldwater, I have studied him extensively and he is one of my many heros and he truely believed that NOTHING SHOULD BE DONE UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION and even if he was more aggressive militarily, he believed in the confines of the constitution and last time I checked, the liberty movement was about the Constitutional Republic FIRST and then non intervention SECOND. If we followed the constitution first, our second goal will progress naturally under the "first's" weight. Amen brother, long live the old right!!! Long live Berry Goldwater!!!

[Matt Collins]

Goldwater was technically still part of the "new Right" that the National Review was promoting.
That being said he was fairly libertarian in a sense but only to a degree.
I see him more as a Constitutionalist as opposed to a libertarian.

[MozoVote]

I'm not in Kentucky, but when you talk about the party machine, you're talking about maybe a few hundred people. This is the you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours crowd of people holding posts as county chairs or vice chairs or higher, and people in state-level elected office or higher.

I'm not in Kentucky either - but that sure sounds familiar.

[thomas-in-ky]

Thomas: Just curious, how is Rand so high in the polls if the entire party machine is standing on the sidelines?

In our county of 13,000+, the machine consists of less than two dozen with a title, and no more than 100 total. Rand will win... with or without them.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I see him more as a Constitutionalist as opposed to a libertarian.

Barry Goldwater was neither a Constitutionalist nor a libertarian. He favored foreign intervention, in direct contrast to the Constitution (and libertarianism). He was apart of Buckley's New Right. He was certainly not apart of the Old Guard. The Old Guard didn't want to go to WWI even after the Lusitania (Even though we were all ready in the war technically, they saw it as War Propaganda), and they didn't want to go to WWII and raised vociferous objection.

Yes, Goldwater certainly leaned more socially liberal than most Conservatives.

Anyways, why are we talking about Goldwater in this thread?

[LibertyEagle]

Barry Goldwater was neither a Constitutionalist nor a libertarian. He favored foreign intervention, in direct contrast to the Constitution (and libertarianism). He was apart of Buckley's New Right. He was certainly not apart of the Old Guard. The Old Guard didn't want to go to WWI even after the Lusitania (Even though we were all ready in the war technically, they saw it as War Propaganda), and they didn't want to go to WWII and raised vociferous objection.

Yes, Goldwater certainly leaned more socially liberal than most Conservatives.

Anyways, why are we talking about Goldwater in this thread?

I don't know why he is being discussed here, but since you brought him up, I'm going to address what you said. No, Goldwater most certainly was not a part of the big government globalist agenda that Buckley went to. In fact, he was the opposite. And he most certainly did not like big government or FDR. Where do you guys come up with this stuff? lol

Here's a pdf of his book, "The Conscience of a Conservative", if anyone really wants to know his viewpoint.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/PresidentsEssay/PresEssay2004.pdf

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I don't know why he is being discussed here, but since you brought him up, I'm going to address what you said. No, Goldwater most certainly was not a part of the big government globalist agenda that Buckley went to. In fact, he was the opposite. And he most certainly did not like big government or FDR. Where do you guys come up with this stuff? lol

Here's a pdf of his book, "The Conscience of a Conservative", if anyone really wants to know his viewpoint.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/PresidentsEssay/PresEssay2004.pdf

Goldwater supported Eisenhower over Taft in 52, even at a point when Taft was not as nearly libertarian as he was in the 30s and mid 40s. Even in 52 though, Taft was far more libertarian than Eisenhower! Goldwater also was apart of the National Review for a long-time and came up with Buckley.

Besides, I merely refuted the fact that Goldwater was a Constitutionalist. He supported continuing bombing of Vietnam even though it was never a declared war....

For the record Goldwater was pretty good on many issues, but not in Foreign Policy. I think one point that many don't give credit to Goldwater on is his opposition to the CRA of 64'. It was/is a blatant and insidious violation of Natural Law. I also liked his staunch opposition to the UN (However, moreso after Communist China was admitted). However, he was certainly no non-interventionist and didn't ascribe to NAP.

That said I probably wouldn't have supported him purely on the case of NAP.

[lordindra3]

No, he was not apart of any big government what so ever! He believed in doing nothing unless authorized by the constitution! In terms of foreign policy, he was no Taft or Ron Paul, but he didnt believe in occupying, but he did believe in being ruthless to our true enemies and I dont mean an "axis of evil" that he believed in occupying! Goldwater was very very much against expanded in government like Buckley! Goldwater did not believe in undeclared wars and declared wars are constitutional. Non intervention was just an awesom awesome great part of the founder's philosophy, but non intervention is not necessarily directly against the constitution. Declared wars by the congress is completely constitutional and there would naturally be less war (and wars with unwinnable stalemates) and more peace because it would take too much debates and presidents are removed from people and Congess has to listen to the constituents closesly to get elected and they wouldnt vote for a war their entire constituency was against the war (Iraq and Afghan doesnt care). Goldwater was hated for being "against civil rights" movement, but he really wasnt, he just believed in the constitution and that makes this issue a states rights issue and he stated many times it wasnt that he agreed with segregationists, its just that he was too principalled to go against the contitution, even under strict moral pressure. Today's politicians will not even think about constitutionality of anything as long as its popular and will get elected and thats why they favored Bush taking all blame of the war, yet the War Powers Act (which gives President the "right" to issue war) was ONLY designed for IMMEDIATE DANGER where we dont have time to debate it, like against a same day nuclear strike we have intelligence about, but we ALL KNOW IRAQ WAS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO ONE OF THESE and thats the whole reason Bush kept selling it to us like we have to act now or its too late so he can justify going to war and weapons of mass destruction was just an excuse to go in there under presidential comand, because he truely thought they had them and it back fired when Iraq came up clean. They the neo cons tried to spin it to make it seem like the whole idea was about "freeing Iraqis", like it is worth trillions of dollars and American hero's lives to free these Iraqis that didnt want to be "liberated". I rumbled on too long. Good night!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No, he was not apart of any big government what so ever! He believed in doing nothing unless authorized by the constitution! In terms of foreign policy, he was no Taft or Ron Paul, but he didnt believe in occupying, but he did believe in being ruthless to our true enemies and I dont mean an "axis of evil" that he believed in occupying! Goldwater was very very much against expanded in government like Buckley! Goldwater did not believe in undeclared wars and declared wars are constitutional. Non intervention was just an awesom awesome great part of the founder's philosophy, but non intervention is not necessarily directly against the constitution. Declared wars by the congress is completely constitutional and there would naturally be less war (and wars with unwinnable stalemates) and more peace because it would take too much debates and presidents are removed from people and Congess has to listen to the constituents closesly to get elected and they wouldnt vote for a war their entire constituency was against the war (Iraq and Afghan doesnt care). Goldwater was hated for being "against civil rights" movement, but he really wasnt, he just believed in the constitution and that makes this issue a states rights issue and he stated many times it wasnt that he agreed with segregationists, its just that he was too principalled to go against the contitution, even under strict moral pressure. Today's politicians will not even think about constitutionality of anything as long as its popular and will get elected and thats why they favored Bush taking all blame of the war, yet the War Powers Act (which gives President the "right" to issue war) was ONLY designed for IMMEDIATE DANGER where we dont have time to debate it, like against a same day nuclear strike we have intelligence about, but we ALL KNOW IRAQ WAS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO ONE OF THESE and thats the whole reason Bush kept selling it to us like we have to act now or its too late so he can justify going to war and weapons of mass destruction was just an excuse to go in there under presidential comand, because he truely thought they had them and it back fired when Iraq came up clean. They the neo cons tried to spin it to make it seem like the whole idea was about "freeing Iraqis", like it is worth trillions of dollars and American hero's lives to free these Iraqis that didnt want to be "liberated". I rumbled on too long. Good night!

I think you may have misinterpreted one of my points. I am in agreement with Goldwater in his opposition to the CRA of 64. Precisely for the same reasons as he was, because it's an infringement on private property (Natural Law).

Also, a kind word of advice, could you please space out your posts so it is easier to read? Thanks.

[itshappening]

No they will not back Rand, they would prefer the other Aspen Dem to win than to have Rand

[anaconda]

Rand is not what he NWO wants people to be supportive of. Do the math and project from there..

[Matt Collins]

It is my understanding that even Goldwater didn't want to abolish the income tax.


But regardless, he would've been one of the best Presidents this country had if he had won.

[Matt Collins]

Here's a pdf of his book, "The Conscience of a Conservative", if anyone really wants to know his viewpoint.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/PresidentsEssay/PresEssay2004.pdf (http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/PresidentsEssay/PresEssay2004.pdf)
WoW!!!

Thanks for that link. Now I don't have to pay for it on Amazon :D

[pacelli]

About Berry Goldwater- You are wrong about Berry Goldwater. Berry is the last man of the old right. He was not a neo con. He WAS HUGE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY!!! He believed, as do I, in a very strong national defense, but had publically spoke against being the policeman of the world. Yes, communism was a MUCH greater danger than "terrorism" is today. Communism back then was a clear and emminent danger, more so than Hitler. He did not support the initial invasion of Vietnam, but what got him in trouble was his off hand comments about nuking them to get it over with so "we can come home".. I am a HUGE Goldwater fan and he was very vocal and disgusted by the christian right's take over of the Republican party. We didnt have war mongers like we do now, so the neo cons were the christian right at the time. Berry Goldwater Jr. supported Ron Paul and said Ron was the closest thing to Berry there was. Berry Goldwater talked very very tough against our enemies and so did Reagan, but you also have to remember Reagan pulled out of Lebanon saying "we will never understand the politcs of the middle east".. Reagan's biggest problem was that he over spent and put us in debt and thats why he failed, but even Reagan was no bush in war terms. Please dont insult Berry Goldwater, I have studied him extensively and he is one of my many heros and he truely believed that NOTHING SHOULD BE DONE UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION and even if he was more aggressive militarily, he believed in the confines of the constitution and last time I checked, the liberty movement was about the Constitutional Republic FIRST and then non intervention SECOND. If we followed the constitution first, our second goal will progress naturally under the "first's" weight. Amen brother, long live the old right!!! Long live Berry Goldwater!!!

Could you please break your posts up into paragraphs, it is extremely difficult to read a huge wall of text with no line breaks. I'm sure you have some good things to say, I just want to be able to read them.

[Agorism]

calvin coolidge was for non-intervention, but not really Goldwater.

[Koz]

Couple of things:

If you think TG will back out gracefully you are kidding yourselves. Not sure how much money he has right now, but McConnell is going to get him some $$$. He is going to make a push. Rand is going to have to fight tooth and nail to win this primary. The backing of the minority leader is no small thing.

I don't believe McConnell will ever back Rand, it is not in his best interests to do so. Rand will not toe the party line of the big government republicans, to them he will be a liability because what he stands for flies in the face of the way they have run this country into the poor house. I just cannot see how he will back Rand. He exposes thier hypocracy.

[jrice]

Ok - I'm tickled to death to see this commentary - I posted somthing along these same lines in the general comments section and got no reply whatsoever.

The link to the pdf posted is not the whole book, but only a few chapters. I bought the book recently and enjoyed it tremendously. I have many many quotes I use from this wonderful text.

However, my only disappointment was in the final chapter "The Soviet Menace." In addition to being much longer than any other chapter, it seems to almost not fit with the rest of the book. All of the other chapters are concise and use the constitution as the basis for his view. The final chapter, however, doesn't even mention the Constitution at all. I'd like to hear someone else's comments on this!

I like Goldwater tremendously, though I don't totally agree with his stances on abortion and foreign policy. Many of the older self-described Reagan republicans that I am friends with and discuss politics with love the "young, Conscience of a Conservative" Goldwater, but not the older "liberal" Goldwater (in their words). It's interesting to talk about Goldwater with older people who recall the events of the '64 election as well.

[Agorism]

Does the older more "liberal" Goldwater have to do with him not having a problem with gay people?

[lordindra3]

Hahaha, oh, yeah guys Im sorry for not spacing out my words... If you read some of my other posts, you will notice I do space things out for the most part (at least if its a bit lengthier). I also loved my grammer and spelling;-)

It was New Years and I was celebrating a little early and I was a wee bit tipsy:-) So, I half purposely rambled like an ass like that. I hope you enjoyed!

.................................................. ...................................

Goldwater- Again, he was no Ron Paul and/or Robert Taft, but he was also no Bush. The Soviets were a clear and present danger. Although terrorism is a horrible and sad thing we need to defeat (but we even more need to actually understand whats causing it), but its actually nothing compared to the Red scare 40-50 years ago! But he wanted to kick their asses so they wouldnt be a threat any more, but he didnt want to expand our influence either and be the policemen of the world either.

As for Matt's point- Hmmm, I dont remember him talking about the income tax.. Thats good question, my friend, I will try to look it up! I dont know so I cant make a judgement. Oh, well. Hes still the shizz, for being who he is!

As for his political stances on abortion; Im against. Its a hard topic because perhaps he really didnt believe that fetuses are humans and thus not morally wrong in his mind and he believed personal liberty was the most important thing to have! He also believed in Gays serving in the military and I may or may not agree, but I respect his principals that he never gave up on!

[jrice]

Yes. It has all to do with how vocal he became on certain issues.

In an interview in 1994 with The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater072894.htm):

"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay," Goldwater asserts. "You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."

"He's the kind of spokesman who makes people focus on this issue through new eyes," says Goldwater's co-chair, Oregon Gov. Barbara Roberts, a Democrat who ardently opposed his candidacy in 1964. "He causes people to focus on the real issue: Should the country that celebrates life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness allow discrimination for a group of Americans based on sexual preference?"

Gay rights aside, Goldwater is doing lots more to drive would-be disciples nuts. In 1992 he backed a Democrat for Congress over a Christian conservative Republican (his candidate, Karan English, won), and has been applying the full force of his cantankerous personality to frequent denunciations of the religious right and occasional defenses of Bill Clinton – calling a press conference recently to urge Republican critics of Whitewater to "get off his back and let him be president."

Some of the faithful think he's lost his marbles.

"I am often asked by people inside Arizona, and outside of Arizona, about Barry," says Republican John McCain, Goldwater's successor in the Senate, in a tone that suggests he's apologizing for a crazy uncle in the attic. "I always say that Barry Goldwater has the right to say whatever he wants to. He has made his contribution – which transformed the Republican Party from an Eastern elitist organization to the breeding ground for the election of Ronald Reagan." (Goldwater likes to remind McCain, a Vietnam-era Navy pilot who spent 5 ½ years in the "Hanoi Hilton," that if he'd been elected president in 1964, "you wouldn't have spent all those years in a Vietnamese prison camp." McCain's reply: "You're right, Barry. It would have been a Chinese prison camp.")

...


"The first time this came up was with the question, should there be gays in the military?" Goldwater says. "Having spent 37 years of my life in the military as a reservist, and never having met a gay in all of that time, and never having even talked about it in all those years, I just thought, why the hell shouldn't they serve? They're American citizens. As long as they're not doing things that are harmful to anyone else. ... So I came out for it."

He says he's mystified by the origins of homosexuality. "You try to find out where it started, even going back to old Egyptology – and you knew damn well the Egyptians had to have those people – but you can't find any writings," he says. "I have one grandson who's gay. And my brother {Bob Goldwater} has a granddaughter who is gay. We're sort of at a loss to know what the hell it's all about."

Goldwater says that having openly gay relatives doesn't influence his beliefs, which are animated by libertarian principles that government should stay out of people's private lives.

...

Phoenix real estate entrepreneur and gay rights activist Charlie Harrison, who has been friendly with Goldwater since the senator began patronizing a restaurant Harrison owned 12 years ago, recalls a recent fund-raising dinner for Arizona gay men and lesbians at which Goldwater received one standing ovation after another. "He was treated like God," Harrison marvels. "Like the Grand Canyon come to Phoenix."

"Well, Charlie, I'm an honorary gay by now," Harrison says Goldwater told him.

All in all, a far cry from those glory days on the Radical Right.

"What I was talking about was more or less 'conservative,' " Goldwater recalls, saying he was smeared by the people around President Johnson – "the most dishonest man we ever had in the presidency." Goldwater continues: "The oldest philosophy in the world is conservatism, and I go clear back to the first Greeks. ... When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."



The article is a great read in its entirety.


So, there you have it. He was considered "liberal," because his views of personal liberty didn't jive with the "religious right," which he was also very outspoken about. By the way, when he said he "came out for it" that means he supported that position - not that he came out of the closet.

He certainly wasn't afraid to say what he thought, no matter what the consequences. Perhaps, this ultimately cost him the presidency because of his cavalier remarks on Veitnam. And older Gentlemen (who is strongly conservative) told me that he liked Goldwater but didn't "relish the idea of a nuclear war." No doubt influenced by the reaction to some of his comments and their use against him by Johnson in the campaign - with commercials like this YouTube - LBJ Daisy ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkWAhuXtalw)