Gurley L. Martin is primarying Mitch McConnell

[CaptLouAlbano]

Really? That's the best KY can do? An 80 something year old man? Someone step up to the damn plate and primary McConnell's ASS already.

It's a time and money issue for a lot of people. Personally, if I had my eyes on running for Senate, I would take the path of least resistance and wait for an open seat rather than trying to primary the Minority Leader. Some folks just don't have the ability to put their life on hold for a year to run a very uphill battle.

[Aratus]

even if there are no other contenders in the GOP primary... lets get the RPFs in high gear and let up a howl
and then some if there are no debates between Mitch McConnell and Gurley L. Martin!!! its up to y'all now!!!

[brandon]

$#@!ing right, Gurley is awesome. I'll donate to him.

[supermario21]

Brett Bozell is running ads in Kentucky against Mitch. He's been on O'Reilly and other FOX programs many times.


http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ell-85938.html

[NIU Students for Liberty]

But if Gurley wins, McConnell won't help Rand out

[Feeding the Abscess]

Vote Liberty and the Constitution, vote McConnell.

[Suzu]

http://gurleymartin.wordpress.com/

He ought to get a proper website, at least!

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Vote Liberty and the Constitution, vote McConnell.

-Jesse Benton

[compromise]

He may be a good guy and hold libertarian positions, but you're kidding yourselves if you think he'll win.. He's too old, McConnell is too powerful, and besides, some of the statements he's made (and fairly recently at that), make him completely unpalatable to the mainstream:

https://twitter.com/gurleymartin/sta...60724289966080

"The INTERNATIONAL JEW - {3,000 +/- world wide} <> "IS" <> At Work; With a Vengeance, Like No…" — GurleyLMartin http://disq.us/8bzx32

http://www.facebook.com/gurleymartin#

- Gurley L., Has No {NONE} Time or Patience for HATRED - Gurley L., "IS" a Little Disappointed and Mad. - The INTERNATIONAL JEW - "IS" - SO FEW - SO ROTTEN TO THE CORE - SO STINKY. For the NOW - They Can NOT Help "IT" or Themselves - That Will Take "Divine" INTERVENTIION.

http://www.gurleylmartin.com/Articles.html

Why "IS" the earth - {man's world; wo-man "IS" man, too} - Spinning through time & space - toward elimination of - ALL - Life - especially, yours' and mine? There has to be a Reason - What "IS" Your Choice? It can NOT - {or CAN it} - be the "LAST" feverish attempt of a devilish 'former' angel of God - to influence ALL men - {wo-men are men, too} - to kill and destroy each other - BEFORE - "We" Discover and Apply the "Truth of God, through Jesus Christ" - the very thing the sons of "Judah" denied - when demanding "His" crucifixion!

The International JEW; with "talents" bestowed from God - like no other people, EVER - blinded to "this" Truth - thereby, forestalling the shortening of the 7,000 years Plan of God through Jesus Christ, utilizing the Holy Spirit of God - {simply the ability to think/reason like Christ} - In so far as each; {that's me & you} and the Jew, too - "IS" - capable with what we have been given and have left - To Do With! - "Be It So" -

Christ stated: "Thou - {that "IS" me & you; the Jew, too} - Shall Love the Lord thy God with All thy Heart and Soul and Strength and Mind, and Thy Neighbor As Thyself." > A summation > 1st four; How to get along with God. Last {6} > How to get along with each other > of God's Commandments - {suggestions} - as to what, how or - "IF" - a Choice is made - {No Choice "IS" a Choice} - for 'EACH' individual; the Jew, too; on God's - (It "IS" Mine) - green earth! No -OTHER - belief system offers such a Choice = Life forever as a spirit being, without worldly limits - just like Christ - as a member of the God family - the church of God - NOT - the one down on the corner - OR - Death; as if never having been.

Most ALL the World's Current Problems Are Traceable to (a) man - Adam, Noah and/or - Especially Abraham, the father of Ishmael who in turn fathered (12) sons {tribes} becoming just about - ALL - the nations of the Middle East. Then about twelve years later, Abraham fathered Issac the father of Jacob who in turn fathered the (12) sons {tribes} of "Israel" - the name given, to be Jacob - no more; after prevailing in an all night encounter with an angel of God.

Judah - {the Jews, never - any more than a kingdom, ruled by judges; except for Manasseh, son of Hezekiah} - 4th son of Israel with Leah were to always compete with the 1st son of Israel with Rachel - Joseph and his twin sons - Manasseh and Ephraim - adopted by Israel, equal to the others. Manasseh was to become great - {United States of America}. Ephraim was to become even greater - {British Commonwealth of Nations}. Benjamin the 2nd & youngest son of Israel with Rachel was to be a buffer zone between Israel and Judah.

There are good Jews and there are bad Jews and then there "IS" the Jew that sez: "Let the Jew - bleed - a little"? Certain of the Jews - Either - Own or Control - {money changers & merchants; as in the temple} - All Commerce In Every Category; World Wide! Their Tables are about to be over turned - Just (1) More Time - Prior to their blindness to the Truth of God Through Christ and the Holy Spirit - Being Removed?

After the sons of Israel - in their jealousy, threw Joseph into a well, to die - minus his coat of many colors; covered with animal blood; to convince their father that he had been eaten by wild animals. Judah, convinced his brothers that it would be more profitable, to sell Joseph to a band of Canaanites - on their way to Egypt. - NOTHING HAS CHANGED - Not much Hope, either.

"IF" anyone EVER asks - How old "IS" the earth? Answer that question with a question: "How old "IS" God? - A Choice -

Judah existed as an independent kingdom for 300 +/- years; 55 years under the Most Evil of the kings of Judah > Manasseh, son of Hezekiah; 2,900 +/- years ago - when the country of Israel broke up into (2) separate kingdoms. The northern kept the name Israel - later being captured by the Assyrians {Germany} and scattered {lost (10) tribes} all over Europe & the Isles. The southern became known as Kingdom of Judah - composed of tribes of Judah, Benjamin and a few Levites. It ceased to be when the Babylonians - {gentiles} - conquered it - 2,600 +/- years ago. Then came the Balfour Declaration, the Peace of Versailles - Notably, mostly All Jews. The entire world knows - WHO & WHAT - the International Jew "IS" about. The International JEW - has arranged more than once for - It's own people - {to bleed a little} - Followed by the Cry of Massacre! The people of the United States of America - sorta look the other way - choosing to ignore or Forget the - INTERNATIONAL JEW - HOPING they will CHANGE - or just leave US alone - A Serious Mistake!

Richard Milhous NIXON - just thought he had problems - being "Vice" and then President; until he determined to go before & speak to the - {B'nai B'rith} - to Express His Thanks - For Being Chosen - To Become the {1st} President of the World. "They"- were NOT ready - NIXON resigned.

OBAMA is quiet CERTAIN - He "IS" the 1st President of the World & He Could Care Less. The United States - {since 1928} - has NOT had a single presidential administration - NOT - fully owned and KEPT by the - INTERNATIONAL JEW!

Totally dependent upon - {individual} - Actions; based upon Beliefs} - It "IS" - {up for grabs} - just where the U. S. of A. fits in all of the following. The "Jewish" One World Government - the United Nations = {confusion} -"IS" -Soon to achieve Its' Goal = Ishmael's descendants - {kings of the South} - instigated by the International Jew - will foolishly attack - the Gentile Babylonian European Union - {kings of the North} - German/Roman Alliance of 10 nations - also seeking a place in the sun at Jerusalem & Bethlehem. Both will more than meet their match from the Orient - 200,000,000 man {wo-man is man, too} army - marching down over Europe! The world at war; DISCOVERS - the "Armies of the Lord" <> That Will, In short order {42 +/- Months} <> Finish WAR Forever <> On This Earth. - "BE IT SO" -

Now, I understand a fair few of you agree with him. You're free to hold that view, but don't expect to get elected.

[Aratus]

i think we all know that if nobody else enters the race... and our intrepid gurley L.
lacks a sling & river rocks most metaphoric... ole goliath wins this one most totally!!
we are trying to make the KY GOP primary matter by getting senator mitch McC to debate
a tad before politics as usual takes on the Democrat of the hour! our pore mr. jesse B
has to gloriously earn his BIG weekly paycheck in mr. mitch's eyes at least once!!!

[sailingaway]

compromise

I wasn't aware of that view, but I am aware of some I think might keep him from winning. However, beyond winning there is protest of what McConnell is, and does. And that is worth something, and Gurley Martin right now might end up being the best person to do that. We really wanted to target McConnell. Rand endorsing him will likely defuse that. However, it doesn't mean a protest isn't important.

[Aratus]

i think having TWO viable candidates indeedy has to trigger at least two or three KY GOP primary debates
even if senator mitch mcconnell has spent at least thirty years of his life building up kentucky's local GOP!

[compromise]

compromise

I wasn't aware of that view, but I am aware of some I think might keep him from winning. However, beyond winning there is protest of what McConnell is, and does. And that is worth something, and Gurley Martin right now might end up being the best person to do that. We really wanted to target McConnell. Rand endorsing him will likely defuse that. However, it doesn't mean a protest isn't important.

If you want a serious protest, you'll need a serious candidate, someone younger, easier to understand, better at debating and with less baggage.

I'm sure there's some Kentucky libertarians who'd be interested.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Here's the issues as I see it:

1) Martin is not viable due to his age and many of the statements he has made in the past, not to mention his inability to raise big money
2) Even if he was, he is going up against a powerful incumbent who won the 2008 primary with 86%.
3) Rand is going to back McConnell

As I see it, why bother? There will be plenty of other races taking place in 2014 where candidates have a realistic shot of winning. Time and money are best focused on those races that can generate victories.

If someone wants to throw money at this black hole of a candidacy, go for it. If someone wants to take a stack of 100's in the backyard, burn them and do an Indian dance around the fire, go for it. If someone wants to see their money best used for candidates that have a chance of winning, then look elsewhere.

[compromise]

Here's the issues as I see it:

1) Martin is not viable due to his age and many of the statements he has made in the past, not to mention his inability to raise big money
2) Even if he was, he is going up against a powerful incumbent who won the 2008 primary with 86%.
3) Rand is going to back McConnell

As I see it, why bother? There will be plenty of other races taking place in 2014 where candidates have a realistic shot of winning. Time and money are best focused on those races that can generate victories.

If someone wants to throw money at this black hole of a candidacy, go for it. If someone wants to take a stack of 100's in the backyard, burn them and do an Indian dance around the fire, go for it. If someone wants to see their money best used for candidates that have a chance of winning, then look elsewhere.

+Rep. This is very true. It is not worth donating to protest candidacies.

[sailingaway]

+Rep. This is very true. It is not worth donating to protest candidacies.

If that is how you feel you shouldn't donate, of course.

[CaptLouAlbano]

If that is how you feel you shouldn't donate, of course.

People can donate to whom they wish of course. Some of us, like myself, feel folks should put some thought into it beforehand. I feel that a lot of people get "suckered" for lack of a better term to donating to candidates that have zero chance of winning. Not everyone who forks over their cash to a candidate has the ability to analyze a race and determine if their money is well spent or not.

John Dennis is a good example. The guy got close to 400K in small donations in his run against Pelosi. Nothing against John Dennis, but the only way he would win that race is if the week of the election Pelosi went on TV and stated that she was joining the KKK, called for the immediate execution of every homosexual living in San Francisco, that she converted from Catholicism to the Jedi religion, and did this all flanked by people in SS uniforms while she brandished a light sabre and had her hair done up like Princess Leia. And even then Dennis might only win by a point or two.

But people think with their emotions sometimes rather than their heads, and a lot of people sent him some cash solely because he was challenging Pelosi, without any thought to the potential of the race. Sadly, that money could have went to a candidate that had a realistic chance at winning his/her race.

My hope is that before people click on that shiny little "donate" button, they put some thought into it, and don't base their donation solely on their emotions or dislike of the opponent.

[sailingaway]

some people want to get a message out, and McConnell is precisely the sort of guy we should be primarying, to make a point. He is right up there with Lindsay Graham imho. I'd rather we had someone we thought had a real chance to win, but making it expensive to act like Mcconnell does is important in itself, to my mind. People can have different motivations.

but Dennis did much better than the teocon who ran against Pelosi previously, precisely because civil liberties etc have cross over appeal. I donated a bit to his first campaign, not so much to the second more because Ron and other who really interested me were running. In 2014 if fewer people are running that interest us, or interest a particular person, they may want to donate. Part of it is how good are the alternatives. If Tom Davis runs in 2014, there might be less money to spread around with keeping our congressmen and that fight against Lindsay, but if he doesn't, I don't know if his replacement will compel as much grass roots interest and money.

we will see how it goes.

[compromise]

If that is how you feel you shouldn't donate, of course.

It's 2014 and you have $50 to donate. Let's say Kurt Bills is in a tough House primary (polling 35% against his main opponent who has 40%), but if he wins the general election will be easy. He is a credible candidate and has the endorsements of conservative and libertarian organizations. Gurley is primarying McConnell, but is polling very poorly (<5%) and has no support from conservative/libertarian organizations because of his extreme views. Why would you give any money to Gurley? What's the point? And if you have more money to give, there are bound to be at least 15 liberty candidates running for the US Congress who will all have closer races than Gurley.

Gurley Martin will have nowhere near the amount of support Dennis had.

[CaptLouAlbano]

some people want to get a message out, and McConnell is precisely the sort of guy we should be primarying, to make a point. He is right up there with Lindsay Graham imho. I'd rather we had someone we thought had a real chance to win, but making it expensive to act like Mcconnell does is important in itself, to my mind. People can have different motivations.

but Dennis did much better than the teocon who ran against Pelosi previously, precisely because civil liberties etc have cross over appeal. I donated a bit to his first campaign, not so much to the second more because Ron and other who really interested me were running. In 2014 if fewer people are running that interest us, or interest a particular person, they may want to donate. Part of it is how good are the alternatives. If Tom Davis runs in 2014, there might be less money to spread around with keeping our congressmen and that fight against Lindsay, but if he doesn't, I don't know if his replacement will compel as much grass roots interest and money.

we will see how it goes.

I have a budget each year for political contributions. It's probably larger than most, but I am pretty well off, so I like to do what I can. But at the same time, there is a limit to what I am going to give, so I make sure that I give where it can be the most effective. What I do each year is take a look at all the races at hand, and assess them based on the candidates of course, but also the viability. I want bang for my buck. I start in the primary and then reassess in the general. For example, Massie & Cruz got money from me in the primary, but since their general was going to be a slam dunk I didn't donate for the general - I sent that money to others who needed it and faced a tougher general election bid. And at the same time, there were a lot of really good folks that didn't get a dime from me, simply because they had no shot at winning the race.

[sailingaway]

It's 2014 and you have $50 to donate. Let's say Kurt Bills is in a tough House primary (polling 35% against his main opponent who has 40%), but if he wins the general election will be easy. He is a credible candidate and has the endorsements of conservative and libertarian organizations. Gurley is primarying McConnell, but is polling very poorly (<5%) and has no support from conservative/libertarian organizations because of his extreme views. Why would you give any money to Gurley? What's the point? And if you have more money to give, there are bound to be at least 15 liberty candidates running for the US Congress who will all have closer races than Gurley.

Gurley Martin will have nowhere near the amount of support Dennis had.

You get into the what is a liberty candidate bit and who interests you. Making it expensive for McConnell interests me more than a bunch of the liberty candidates from the lists that ignore civil liberties do. Had I lived in Texas I would have voted for Cruz, but I didn't donate to him, for example, while I did donate to Bills who had 'less of a chance' because he was saying what I wanted to hear said more. Part of donations, to me, is a messaging campaign.

I donated to Bills this past election and would likely donate to in another election if he is running, and maybe there would be others who interest me. But I don't have an absolute 'give the money to the one some find acceptable who is most likely to win' process. I have people I like enough to donate to, and people I dislike enough to donate against, particularly if they have someone running against them who I like. I like Gurley, with all his warts, I think his heart is in the right place and he's an earlier generation paleoconservative. I'd take him all day against Mcconnell. I wouldn't expect to donate a ton, but to put together stickers and fans for Fancy Farm would be a kick, imho.

[CaptLouAlbano]

You get into the what is a liberty candidate bit and who interests you. Making it expensive for McConnell interests me more than a bunch of the liberty candidates from the lists that ignore civil liberties do. Had I lived in Texas I would have voted for Cruz, but I didn't donate to him, for example, while I did donate to Bills who had 'less of a chance' because he was saying what I wanted to hear said more. Part of donations, to me, is a messaging campaign.

I donated to Bills this past election and would likely donate to in another election if he is running, and maybe there would be others who interest me. But I don't have an absolute 'give the money to the one some find acceptable who is most likely to win' process. I have people I like enough to donate to, and people I dislike enough to donate against, particularly if they have someone running against them who I like. I like Gurley, with all his warts, I think his heart is in the right place and he's an earlier generation paleoconservative. I'd take him all day against Mcconnell. I wouldn't expect to donate a ton, but to put together stickers and fans for Fancy Farm would be a kick, imho.

That's all well and good for yourself. We all have our reasons for donating.

I give big to candidates - nearly 25K this year, so I want to make sure the money I donate generates votes and victories. Personally, I cannot see the point of giving even a small amount to a protest candidate.

[sailingaway]

That's all well and good for yourself. I give big, to candidates - nearly 25K this year, so I want to make sure the money I donate generates votes and victories. Personally, I cannot see the point of giving even a small amount to a protest candidate.

I don't think the amount of money you donate changes your philosophy of donations. I donated more in 2008 but it doesn't change my philosophy of it. I donated thousands to running high tide and getting delegates to RNC in 2008 and to billboards for Ron in 2008, beyond maxing out to him, and I didn't believe for a moment he was going to win by that point. I got involved when the race was already in the bag, pretty much, for McCain. We have different attitudes towards what is worth donating for, I believe, that goes much deeper than amounts. And that is fine, we should each donate as we see fit.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I don't think the amount of money you donate changes your philosophy of donations. I donated more in 2008 but it doesn't change my philosophy of it. I donated thousands to running high tide and getting delegates to RNC in 2008 and to billboards for Ron in 2008 and I didn't believe for a moment he was going to win by that point. I got involved when the race was already in the bag, pretty much, for McCain. We have different attitudes towards what is worth donating for, I believe, that goes much deeper than amounts. And that is fine, we should each donate as we see fit.

It shouldn't change the philosophy. It appears you donate emotionally in some respects. As you said, you like someone or your dislike someone. I donate solely for the purpose of seeing a result. Of course, I need to agree with the candidate that I am giving money to, and feel that they are going to vote the way I would vote 90% of the time or better. As much as I liked Bills, he didn't get a dime from me for the general election. I wanted to see him win the primary so he could get some name recognition, but beyond that I saw no purpose in sending him money. Especially since there were some races in the general I was interested in and were a lot closer: Amash, Bentivolio, Mourdock, Flake, Robinson, Yoho, and a couple others.

And like I said, the amount shouldn't change the philosophy. However, it is hard to write a check for $1000 to a guy that has zero chance of winning.

As far as Paul, he got some early primary money from me (pre-Iowa). I couldn't justify any more though after the losses.

[sailingaway]

I vote to get someone to win to vote my way OR to change the political dialogue. i don't think that is donating emotionally, although I definitely do that with Ron because I don't just like him, I am blown away by him. I just have different things I want out of the system and don't want at all to donate to 'winners' I don't want in office. I donated to Amash, Kerry, Massie, Chris Hightower (you may not have since I don't know if people thought he was going to win). Obviously, I donated to Ron, and others. I didn't donate to Flake and would never donate to someone who voted to extend the Patriot Act at this point. The only pass on that I give is to those who did it the first time if they changed position afterwards uniformly. NDAA is the same, for me. The Constitution is baseline and the oath means what it says imho.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I vote to get someone to win to vote my way OR to change the political dialogue. i don't think that is donating emotionally, although I definitely do that with Ron because I don't just like him, I am blown away by him. I just have different things I want out of the system and don't want at all to donate to 'winners' I don't want in office. I donated to Amash, Kerry, Massie, Chris Hightower (you may not have since I don't know if people thought he was going to win). Obviously, I donated to Ron, and others. I didn't donate to Flake and would never donate to someone who voted to extend the Patriot Act at this point. The only pass on that I give is to those who did it the first time if they changed position afterwards uniformly. NDAA is the same, for me. The Constitution is baseline and the oath means what it says imho.

There were about 30 or so candidates I had my eye on early on. I try to treat them all somewhat equally in that I don't say I like Amash more than Cruz, therefore he will get more money. I spread the money around, but not too thin. It's a vetting process of sorts. Once a candidate passes my litmus test in that I feel (or they have demonstrated) that they will vote my way 90% of better then I assess the race and their need for cash. Some guys just don't need the cash -- Walter Jones is a good example of that: weak primary challenger, and in a safe GOP district. I like the guy, but passed on him because he seemed just fine without my check.

[sailingaway]

I have no problem with your donating however you see best. I just think people should all be able to donate as they think best, including for the best candidate AGAINST someone they absolutely think needs to be challenged.

I don't think anyone here would donate a ton to Gurley, but I wouldn't be surprised if a fairish number, due to our familiarity with him, might not donate a some, which could add up.

Also, he is likely to raise some of our pet issues. We need candidates who will do that, imho. I assure you Gurley will not care in the slightest what other people think of his opinions, which in itself can be worth donating a little.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I have no problem with your donating however you see best. I just think people should all be able to donate as they think best, including for the best candidate AGAINST someone they absolutely think needs to be challenged.

I don't think anyone here would donate a ton to Gurley, but I wouldn't be surprised if a fairish number, due to our familiarity with him, might not donate a little, which could add up.

And I don't have a problem with them doing so. Nonetheless, I think it is reasonable to shed some light on it and let people know that if they expecting Gurley to even come close to winning, they should probably save their money for someone else.

[sailingaway]

I suspect polls will be available as the day nears.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I suspect polls will be available as the day nears.

My guess is it will be an 85/15 or worse.