Gurley L. Martin is primarying Mitch McConnell

[sailingaway]

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

I'd love that. Rand's polls against Grayson started out worse, I believe. Or maybe that is just what he thought they would be.... don't remember.

[Dystopian]

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.

Then don't do it, that's simple enough.


As for Gurley, he's got my money and support.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I'd love that. Rand's polls against Grayson started out worse, I believe. Or maybe that is just what he thought they would be.... don't remember.

Earliest poll in that race was by Survey USA (8/15-17/09): Grayson 37, Rand 26, Other 13, Undecided 17

[CaptLouAlbano]

Then don't do it, that's simple enough.


As for Gurley, he's got my money and support.

Oh I won't I have stated that. But given that this site is for a place to share their opinions, it is equally beneficial for people to encourage people to donate for a candidate as it is for people to discourage people from donating, and give their reasons why.

[sailingaway]

Earliest poll in that race was by Survey USA (8/15-17/09): Grayson 37, Rand 26, Other 13, Undecided 17

Fine, but it doesn't matter. I put $400 into his first money bomb without ever seeing any polls, because I wanted him to have a chance and I believe I maxed out by the end of the campaign. Did you donate to that? He wasn't given a good chance to win until December of 2009 about.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Fine, but it doesn't matter. I put $400 into his first money bomb without ever seeing any polls, because I wanted him to have a chance and I believe I maxed out by the end of the campaign. Did you donate to that? He wasn't given a good chance to win until December of 2009 about.

Actually Rand took the lead in the polls in late October and never lost it. But I donated to him early on. I believed he was in striking distance from the very start.

[Dystopian]

Gurley is the real deal, not a smooth-talking, game player. I would love to see him debate one of the worst senators that there is.

[sailingaway]

Actually Rand took the lead in the polls in late October and never lost it. But I donated to him early on. I believed he was in striking distance from the very start.

Regardless, he needed money to do that, and I didn't care what the polls were, I donated.

[sailingaway]

Gurley is the real deal, not a smooth-talking, game player. I would love to see him debate one of the worst senators that there is.

I'd love to see McConnell just have to wrestle with some of what he brings up, but the GOP is so in McC's pocket there, I don't see the moderators making him answer to that much. Still, I'd love to see it, as well.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Regardless, he needed money to do that, and I didn't care what the polls were, I donated.

I donated because he was viable. Had he not been, then I probably would not have. Like I said, I send my money where it can be best utilized. This year for example, there is not much for me to donate too being an off year. I haven't looked at it formally yet, but there isn't much up this year. I'll be involved directly in SC-1, will likely donate to Cuccinelli for the general. I have some homework to do on MO-8 (Kinder is on my radar). I highly doubt the IL-2, NJ governor or the MA Senate race will be of any interest to me.

[sailingaway]

Right. So we donate differently. That's fine. But some who donate as I do might enjoy donating a bit to Gurley, enough to at least make it clear he has some support, if enough do it. If I lived there, I'd volunteer, but I don't.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I would love to see him debate one of the worst senators that there is.

He won't. Incumbents only debate opponents if they're at least somewhat viable. In 2008, a random trucker by the name of Daniel Essek was the only one to challenge McConnell in the GOP primary that year, and they didn't debate one another. McConnell beat him 86%-14%, for the record.

Ron Paul too, knows you don't debate no-hopers like Martin will be against McConnell:

[sailingaway]

He won't. Incumbents only debate opponents if they're at least somewhat viable. In 2008, a random trucker by the name of Daniel Essek was the only one to challenge McConnell in the GOP primary that year, and they didn't debate one another. McConnell beat him 86%-14%, for the record.

Well, we will see how it plays out and how many people want to make a point of it. Someone is already running commercials against Mitt from the right, so I wonder if the climate might be better for someone like Gurley than it was for the truck driver.

also, Gurley actually knows his stuff, barring essays like the one posted above in this thread.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Well, we will see how it plays out and how many people want to make a point of it. Someone is already running commercials against Mitt from the right, so I wonder if the climate might be better for someone like Gurley than it was for the truck driver.

also, Gurley actually knows his stuff, barring essays like the one posted above in this thread.

I am not sure how it is in KY, but typically candidates are under no obligation to debate an opponent. McConnell could simply refuse to do so. That refusal might generate a news story or two locally for a few days, but come election day the percentage of people who are going to switch their votes over that issue is minor. If I was McConnell I wouldn't bother debating him either. He has nothing to gain by doing so - he will win the primary by a huge margin unless some extraordinary event occurs between now and then.

[sailingaway]

Yeah, he could, or he could not, depending on how much pressure he is under. We will see how things go. But my interest is more, to paraphrase Tom Woods, because 'it is immensely satisfying to fight for what is right' than for the reasons that drive you. I consider most politicians to be maggots, and McConnell is right up there, imho.

--

edit, have to caveat, I mean maggots in the sense of something writhing and noxious. I know that real maggots can get rid of corruption, wheras most politicians seem to increase it if 'only' by perpetuating the pay to play mentality of corporatism. But in any event, I'm only interested in the politicians I am interested in, and sometimes my interest is to oppose them.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Yeah, he could, or he could not, depending on how much pressure he is under. We will see how things go. But my interest is more, to paraphrase Tom Woods, because 'it is immensely satisfying to fight for what is right' than for the reasons that drive you. I consider most politicians to be maggots, and McConnell is right up there, imho.

Don't make the assumption that I am not "fighting for what is right". I am, and have been for many years. I just know what battles to fight and which ones to take a pass on. With 435 House seats, 35 Senate seats, 38 Governorships nationally along with State legislature races in my home state there is a lot going on in 2014. I choose my battles wisely.

I fight for what is right - but I fight smart as well.

[sailingaway]

You fight smart according to your lights and I view things differently. I don't think it is smart to support corruption, period. You see a utility in supporting a certain amount if it is less, to your views, than others. I'm sure there are as many different views on this on this board as there are members here, and that is how we all grow our opinions.

[CaptLouAlbano]

You fight smart according to your lights and I view things differently.

Of course, would you expect someone to fight according to someone else's views? I have certain policies and ideological positions that I hold, and seek to support candidates that most closely match those views, be it Rand, Ron, Massie or whomever. I look at all the races in a given year, make my decisions whom I am going to support and do so.

I have my criteria based on ideology, need and viability. You may base it solely on ideology and you are free to do so. However, since this is an opinion board, it is profitable for both sides to be heard and for others to make their own determination whether or not they wish to donate money and/or volunteer for the Martin campaign. My personal opinion is no - he is not a viable candidate and any monies that go to his campaign can be better used elsewhere.

Individuals can choose whether or not to accept my opinion based on their own standards and criteria.

[sailingaway]

I don't choose solely based on ideology, but that is a baseline for me. I agree that everyone should choose for themselves how to donate.

[Aratus]

we all need to put INTENSE PRESSURE on minority leader mitch to indeedy explain his merrie compromising henry clay self!
he may decide he has to do at least ONE primary debate all told before he most likely takes on the obligatory Democrat!!!
lets all not be totally unrealistic how gloriously uphill any GOP primary win is for anyone other than KY's senator mcconnell!

[Aratus]

rand was willing to let gurley debate... we can say this to jesse benton happily!

[RonPaulFanInGA]

When Jill Bohnson kicks your ass, despite having dropped out of the race over two months before the primary vote, that's a bad sign.

[dannno]

With Jesse Benton running McConnell's campaign, Gurley Martin has a real shot at it!

[sailingaway]

When Jill Bohnson kicks your ass, despite having dropped out of the race over two months before the primary vote, that's a bad sign.

Ah, but now Gurley has name recognition!

And us!

well, some of us, anyhow...

but in your heart of hearts, do you really think hard core tea partiers will choke down a mcconnell vote in the primary?

[Aratus]

we need to be kind & merciful and give them all an option in the GOP primary especially
if there are only two determined contenders in 2014 (i had to chuckle at dannno's post)
maybe we can ask jesse benton politely to hint to his boss that a debate or two is cool

[compromise]

Ah, but now Gurley has name recognition!

And us!

well, some of us, anyhow...

but in your heart of hearts, do you really think hard core tea partiers will choke down a mcconnell vote in the primary?

Most 'hard core tea partiers' are also Christian Zionists. So if they go on Gurley's website, follow him on Twitter, add him on Facebook, subscribe to him on YouTube and see his views on "International Jews" which he likes to plaster around prominently everywhere, they'll be turned off him immediately.

[sailingaway]

Most 'hard core tea partiers' are also Christian Zionists. So if they go on Gurley's website, follow him on Twitter, add him on Facebook, subscribe to him on YouTube and see his views on "International Jews" which he likes to plaster around prominently everywhere, they'll be turned off him immediately.

does he really plaster it everywhere? Because your posting it here was the first time I saw it and I followed Rands race pretty closely, watched all the debates, etc.

Is there some reason you personally would want McConnell to win?

[TheTyke]

He did post it to a bunch of random people's Facebook topics. But to be honest, I couldn't even tell what he was trying to say. It could be spun as negative, but I doubt a clear case could be made against him.

Anyhow, this race could get a lot more lively than people suspect. The next several months should prove interesting.

[compromise]

does he really plaster it everywhere? Because your posting it here was the first time I saw it and I followed Rands race pretty closely, watched all the debates, etc.

Is there some reason you personally would want McConnell to win?

I was interested in Gurley's positions on the issues so I decided to type his name into Google. Prior to doing so I knew very little about him.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gurl...hrome&ie=UTF-8

The first result was: http://www.gurleylmartin.com/

There was no section on the issues, so I clicked on "articles" instead. The only article there was the rant about international Jewry.
http://www.gurleylmartin.com/Articles.html

He had a link to his Twitter on his site, so I clicked on that to follow him. One of his most recent tweets was something about international Jews.
https://twitter.com/gurleymartin

I click the link on his site to his Facebook so I can add him. The first thing I see? His comments about how rotten Jews are.
http://www.facebook.com/gurleymartin

Then I go ahead to subscribe to him on YouTube from the official link on his website, one of the first things I see is yet another post about Jews and Judah, him liking a video about the "Jewish Illuminati" and also liking two videos by Louis Farrakhan.
http://www.youtube.com/user/gurleymartin

I go and hit "Browse Videos" to see what content he produces himself, and one of the videos in the first row is him "blasting Jews and Jonah".
http://www.youtube.com/user/GurleyMartin/videos?view=0

So yes, he does plaster his views everywhere.

Now, if the MSM and political opponents managed to smear Ron Paul as an anti-semite (first during his House campaign in the 90s and then during his presidential campaigns) by digging up something comparatively mild that a ghostwriter intern wrote once in a newsletter 20 years prior, they will absolutely destroy Gurley if he polls any higher than 3%.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Thanks for doing the legwork, compromise. This guy is toxic.