The decision for me was one of ease. Rand Paul is not a Republican. Rand Paul is not a National Defense Conservative. Rand Paul is a Libertarian who will subvert our agenda on a regular basis - worse than Senator McCain or Senator Graham could dream of. I wish I could say the same for fellow Conservatives; but a full blown war has erupted.
Sarah Palin and Erick Erickson have endorsed Rand Paul for Senate, while Dick Cheney and Dan Riehl have endorsed Trey Grayson for Senate, with millions of vulnerable Conservatives sitting on the sidelines, unaware and unsure as to which candidate is deserving of their support. We're looking at a Senatorial race that could define our movement for the present and future elections.
We must look at this election from Conservative lenses instead of Establishment lenses, because Republicans can be downright Conservative, and still be the favored candidate of the Republican Establishment, without being apart of a grand scheme to neutralize Conservatism as we know it.
When one looks at this election through Conservative lenses, instead of listening to Sarah Palin or Erick Erickson attack the "Establishment" choice, the candidate of choice becomes apparent. Rand Paul is a Libertarian who will mimic his father, and will pain Senate Republicans on every possible issue, which includes National Defense - Paul blames America for September eleventh and surrounds himself with Libertarian nut jobs who oppose our Defense.
Trey Grayson has an accomplished record as Secretary of State in Kentucky, and unlike Rand Paul, Grayson has received the Kentuckian donations, and Grayson has a Conservative record that he can point to, once again, unlike Rand Paul. Though, if we want a glimpse into what Rand Paul might represent in the Senate; look at his fathers record.
With all that has been written on this election, there is just one more question for Conservatives across Kentucky and the United States: Do we want a candidate that will sacrifice our National Defense for debt reductions and the legalization of pot, or do we want a candidate that will stand strong with our National Defense, regardless of what other issues are being discussed?
Will we stand against or for National Defense? That's the question of the month when examining the Paul - Grayson Republican primary. I hope it's the latter, because we cannot afford another liberaltarian on National Defense related issues, the Senate has enough Democrats already.
Vote Grayson!
Bookmark our site!
3 comments:
IF anyone here knows some of the 'kooky' views of 'kooky' Rand Paul, you're way out in front of the rest of the media--including conservative bloggers.
Of course, the Pavlovian response to the name "Ron Paul" and anything related comes as much from some conservative bloggers as it does from the Left. I realize that works both ways as many of his supporters' enthusiasm is over-the-top.
His father's foreign policy views are not my cup of tea by any means, but his libertarian domestic policies stands mirror many of our readers' positions.
This article mentions the need to look through conservative lenses instead of establishment lenses. Sounds like a trip to the optometrist should be on the author's to-do list.
By and large, the politicians who've endorsed Trey Grayson are Republican establishment types.
Several pro-life groups have endorsed Grayson, but one of Paul's strongest positions has been pro-life; Obstetrician Ron Paul's always been staunchly pro-life.
Paul's leading in every poll that's been taken recently--by double digits, in some.
If you are a single-issue defense voter, this article would have some use. It's may be the author's point of view, but that's not what the article is about.
There's are things I do not like about Ron Paul's positions; however, trying to attack his son by labeling him "kooky" does nothing to help conservatives.
Attacking one man because you may disagree with some positions of another is positively MSM-like and reminds me of the attacks on the Tea Party.
This hit job is something I'd have expected from Little Green Footballs.
I will just say that I agree with "Mondo's" comment.
I'd much rather have Rand Paul than a McCain who votes for amnesty and bailouts! It's beyond childish to look at foreign policy as a left or right thing.
Remember when it was the Republicans who all opposed Clinton's war in Kosovo? Remember when Sean Hannity said this:
"Why should one U.S. airman give up his life when our national security is not in imminent danger?" "...But you know what? There's a lot of massacres going on in the world. As you know, 37,000 Kurds in Turkey, over a million people in Sudan. We have hundreds of thousands in Rwanda and Burundi. I mean, where do we stop?"
How about trading in your faulty "conservative' lenses?
If you think "National Defense" means sending our troops around the world to Promote Democracy you re Wilson Progressive and NOT a conservative.
Ron Paul voted to send troops to Afghanistan. We had a real national defense interest in sending troops into that country.
There is no valid conservative case for sending troops to Iraq. George W Bush is not a conservative. He misled this nation, and Obama is leading us further down the same path.
Rand Paul is the only conservative choice for Kentucky.
Post a Comment