Get Buchanan to endorse Rand

[spotics]

I believe Pat Buchanan would be an excellent endorsement for Rand. He would appeal to the small gov. conservatives and cement Rand's pro-life position.

[MRoCkEd]

What do Kentuckians think of Pat?
The problem might be his foreign policy views

But I don't think Pat can make endorsements anyway as part of his MSNBC contract

[fj45lvr]

how about Walter Williams??

[TCE]

how about Walter Williams??

Iffy, but I don't think it would do anything. He's a professor at a college that is several states away from Kentucky, I can't see his endorsement gaining Rand much.

Same with Buchanan. Not only that, I believe Mrocked is correct that Buchanan can't make endorsements.

The only ones left that really matter are the Club For Growth, Senate Conservatives Fund, and some smaller organizations (Palin?). As far as Steve Forbes goes, I wonder if he donated $4800 to Rand.

At this point, neither organization has any excuse to not back Rand, unless they're waiting until the 4th quarter FEC reports are released, but that wouldn't make much sense.

[fj45lvr]

Iffy, but I don't think it would do anything. He's a professor at a college that is several states away from Kentucky, I can't see his endorsement gaining Rand much.
.

I disagree, because of the simple fact that Williams is well known to those that listen to Rush Limbaugh (which is a huge amount of republicans, even in KY).

[lx43]

An endorsement from Williams would only help.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

There are still some big potential endorsements out there:

1. Club for Growth
2. Senate Conservatives Fund
3. Sarah Palin (SarahPAC)
4. NRA
5. Jim Bunning

[Cowlesy]

There are still some big potential endorsements out there:

1. Club for Growth
2. Senate Conservatives Fund
3. Sarah Palin (SarahPAC)
4. NRA
5. Jim Bunning

Freedomworks

[erowe1]

At this point, neither organization has any excuse to not back Rand, unless they're waiting until the 4th quarter FEC reports are released, but that wouldn't make much sense.

Sure they have an excuse. The issues that separate Rand from Grayson (at least the positions Grayson is campaigning on) are generally not issues where those groups agree with Rand. The Club for Growth has even worked against anti-Iraq War Republicans in primaries (Wayne Gilchrist and Walter Jones), despite the fact that their foreign policy makes them more pro-free market than their competition, just because they were not in agreement on other more minor domestic policies.

[Agorism]

Sarah Palin is too unpredictable.

It's hard to tell what she wants or looks for in a candidate. She is buddy buddy with Bill Kristol though so he maybe influence her.

[TCE]

Sure they have an excuse. The issues that separate Rand from Grayson (at least the positions Grayson is campaigning on) are generally not issues where those groups agree with Rand. The Club for Growth has even worked against anti-Iraq War Republicans in primaries (Wayne Gilchrist and Walter Jones), despite the fact that their foreign policy makes them more pro-free market than their competition, just because they were not in agreement on other more minor domestic policies.

Rand has not come out against the wars, he has merely stated that he wants a declaration, and after that, everything's good. Sure, it is a somewhat thinly veiled non-support of the wars, but his position is understood to be for the wars if a declaration is made by Congress. Ron doesn't care either way, he wants out. Also, I can't see how Trey Grayson, someone who supports Cap-and-Trade, hasn't come out against earmarks, hasn't come out for or against the wars, and is a former Democrat, can be endorsed by the Club For Growth. What exactly does he have in common with them?

Agorism: Her endorsement is excellent in a Republican Primary (much like being on Glenn Beck), however, in the General, it will likely act more as a hindrance than a helping hand. She is someone liberals love to hate on, so, if Rand gets her endorsement, they might just throw Rand and her together.

[fj45lvr]

Grayson is for "Cap N Trade"??? If thats true I'll I can say is hahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahaha hahahahahahaha :D:D:D

this is going to be like shooting fish in a barrel

[erowe1]

I think that if the Rand campaign wants Buchanan's endorsement, and if Buchanan is allowed to endorse candidates, then they have better avenues to get to him than to have a bunch of people whom he's never heard of sending emails to whatever email address he makes available to the public soliciting his endorsement on Rand's behalf without Rand's permission.

[erowe1]

Also, I can't see how Trey Grayson, someone who supports Cap-and-Trade, hasn't come out against earmarks, hasn't come out for or against the wars, and is a former Democrat, can be endorsed by the Club For Growth. What exactly does he have in common with them?

Pat Toomey was the head of CFG before running for Senate (at which time CFG got on his bandwagon with relish). When Toomey was in the House, he was fiscally more liberal than Arlen Specter and was graded worse than Specter by the CFG itself. Toomey voted for Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind. Club for Growth may superficially be about fiscal conservatism, but what they're really about is helping the GOP keep everyone in line. They support candidates who will vote the party line, and not ones who cause trouble. The only thing you mentioned about Grayson that would be a mark against him for them is Cap and Trade. Is he really on the record as being for it? I doubt that, but if so, I stand corrected. Other than that, all things considered Grayson seems to be campaigning more as the kind of party line Republican the CFG has a history of endorsing than Rand is.

[TCE]

Pat Toomey was the head of CFG before running for Senate (at which time CFG got on his bandwagon with relish). When Toomey was in the House, he was fiscally more liberal than Arlen Specter and was graded worse than Specter by the CFG itself. Toomey voted for Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind. Club for Growth may superficially be about fiscal conservatism, but what they're really about is helping the GOP keep everyone in line. They support candidates who will vote the party line, and not ones who cause trouble. The only thing you mentioned about Grayson that would be a mark against him for them is Cap and Trade. Is he really on the record as being for it? I doubt that, but if so, I stand corrected. Other than that, all things considered Grayson seems to be campaigning more as the kind of party line Republican the CFG has a history of endorsing than Rand is.

I agree completely, although their support of Rubio is what baffles me. Rubio is playing the same type of strategy that Rand is, and yet they support him even though his record is largely unknown.

He was the Keynote Speaker at a Fight Climate Change event, where Cap-and-Trade was one of the topics the group supported. I remember someone posting some articles on it a few months back. Additionally, some of his campaign posters have included the words "alternative energy source."

Even if we can't tie Grayson to that group, we can throw the above quote at him. Alternative energy sources mean solar, wind, hydro-electric and not coal, and with the current political climate, nuclear energy will not be allowed by the Democrats. It would be beneficial to show the voters that if Grayson has his way, coal will be obsolete while Arizona, California, and Texas will abuse the new solar power grid, wreaking havoc on Kentucky's economy. Painting him as an enemy of the coal industry is a winner, especially when Rand has already gone to lengths to prove he is on the side of the Kentucky coal industry.