« ***THE ARMED CITIZEN*** An Every Friday Feature | Main | Morning Funnies »

March 30, 2012


This is the perpetual corruption that will always exist as long as we have political parties.. There will always be very ambitious people who will always want things their way and to hell with the rules. Even so called conservatives cannot be trusted for many who call themselves conservatives do not conserve anything. Too concerned about what someone else is doing with their lives and narcisstically interject themselves in other people's lives to the point where they feel some how threatened or violated by the individual actions one might choose to take for themselves. Conservatives who claim to be Pro-Life but then support perpetual war efforts that send hundreds home in body bags every year. YES IM TALKING TO YOU SOCIAL NEOCONS!! You are more than willing to beat the constitutional drum until something comes up that doesnt quite sit well with what your preacher told you then you are just as liberal as the Democrats.

Marcus why do you waste your time debating these folks? They are only interested in using the GOP structure and its fundraising appeal to advance the Libertarian agenda incognito.

Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Thomas Massie and Phil Moffett have no interest in republican politics it's just that they get no traction at all for their goofy ideas when the are open and honest and tell people who they really are, social liberals masquerading as Libertarians who are trying to infect the GOP with their mind numbed ilk.

If their ideas were so good, then why can't Ron Paul get any votes? If you ask them they will say it all has to do with the press. Bravo Sierra! People know he's in favor of legalizing drugs, letting the Arabs take over Israel, repealing the Civil Rights Act, cutting our military, giving states the right to be pro-choice, and a bunch of other half baked ideas wrapped in his version of the Constitution.

They are nuts!

I want to add one final comment ...

If your intention is to dodge left for the primary and if successful parry right for the general ... More power to you.

But for that strategy to be successful, you have to throw some bones behind the scenes and in front of the camera.

As for me ... I trust you ... I whole heartedly endorse you. You would be a great congressman. Don't disappoint me.

God Bless.

[Marc's Reply: Thanks Mr. Scott Ryan, but I don't think I'm dodging at all. I actually think my views have been pretty consistent. Yes, I have a great deal of respect for the TEA party, but not for the way in which some people, with other agendas are trying to use it. Thanks for adding to the debate.]

Mr. Carey said ...

"Next you ask how Mr. Grayson became a republican. He registered as one. But that didn't keep many of us from questioning his loyalties, or those of his family, against whom we had worked to elect republican candidates for years."

My response is that despite your opposition, this did not disqualify him. Your opposition and the Party rules are separate. In Lexington last week, the Party disqualified delegates because of their allegiance to a Republican Candidate of which they did not approve.

With respect to my comments regarding state law vs. Republican rules ... The party, for the past year or so, has disinfranchised its members based solely on their candidate preference. If all else being equal, ballot access and state election law, I have no problem with that. But the state does not treat groups and people equal. Republicans and Democrats are treated superior to independants and third parties. Therefore, an argument can made that disinfranchisement within the Party is the same as disinfranchisement in general. Can a private school, regulated by state law, exclude students based on party affiliation or candidate endorsement?

You obviously do not like people being disloyal to the party or its candidates. What if your disagreeable comments about the second highest ranked elected Republican official in the state of KY can be construed as disloyalty? Should this disqualify you from running as a Republican official? Where do you draw the line? Because it seems you are being a bit arbitrary.

Finally, what if the Republican establishment financed an independent candidate to better position itself in future campaigns? Would that be considered disloyalty? Or is covert behavior different than transparent behavior?

I agree with Bruce Layne who wrote:
It's outrageous that a Democrat or Republican needs two signatures to be on a ballot and anyone else needs 5000, which is really more like 8000 by the time those who can't be immediately verified are discounted. The two parties are now both two wings of the same big government bird, and they have a near monopoly on the political process, to the detriment of the voters and our country.

We're trying to imbue the empty vessel that is the Republican party with values, but they aren't interested in our values. They want to keep pushing party over principle, even to the extent of ignoring the party platform to promote party insiders who are very poor representatives of the party's stated values.

For the record, Ken Moellman was a far superior candidate to KC Crosbie. I signed Ken's petition and I voted for Ken, because it's immoral to vote for an inferior candidate based on party loyalty. Unfortunately, most of the establishment Republicans don't see it that way. They want obedient mindless followers who vote as we're told. Sorry, but this isn't your father's Republican Party. We're making some changes. They use dirty tricks to fight us, but those dirty tricks are ultimately their undoing. We're on the right side of this issue and we will prevail. We'll elect REAL conservatives, and not the RINO pretenders.

Now that I've publicly admitted to voting for Ken, I'll probably be disqualified as a precinct captain. No big deal. I was already black listed so I had no chance to be a Fayette County delegate, even though delegate slots were given to those who have done far less for Republican candidates, and in fact, delegate positions were awarded to those who didn't bother to show up at the precinct elections or county mass convention. Fayette County didn't seat about 60 alternate delegates, because they ran out of insiders. From what I could see, the delegates were those who worked on the losing campaigns, and those who worked hard to elect our junior Senator were excluded. It's shameful.

To the RPK - If you want to win elections, run better candidates.

To Senator Rand Paul - Thank you speaking out... for decency, and for common sense.

You are exactly right Mr. Carey. In fact, I'd expect Rand to clarify his letter in light of your commentary.

I'm sure he didn't mean to say that elected officials of the republican party have the right to support the candidacy of others who oppose republicans.

If so he would stray pretty far from his promise back in 2010 to support the nominee in that race should he have lost.

It might be tough for him to do this considering that his father might run third party, but unless he really wants to be quoted as the guy who led a mutiny, I think he will re-consider.

Two points …

First, it is ironic that you mentioned Trey Grayson. As a former Democrat and supporter of Bill Clinton, based on your logic, how was it possible that Mr. Grayson ever became an elected official within the Republican Party, especially given the timing of his first campaign as a Republican and the close proximity to his status as a Democrat.

Second, given the nature of state law regarding ballot access and the special status that state law places upon the Democrat and Republican parties, would it not be an argument of merit that Republican rules and procedures must be subordinate to state law when it comes to elections, the right to vote, and ballot access?

And finally I wish to pose a question …

Can people be acting in the best interest of the Party by endorsing an independent candidate? Obviously, you seem to think the answer to that question is no. I, however, along with Rand Paul and many other Republicans and Tea Party members think the answer to that question is yes.

I do not wish to accuse you of pandering, but I wonder if your written words would be the same if you weren't running for office.

You have chosen your position on this and it will likely be a campaign issue. I, for one, think you have chosen unwisely. Far be it from me to claim my opinion superior to a seasoned partisan veteran.

[Marc's reply: First, thank you Scott for you comment.

Next you ask how Mr. Grayson became a republican. He registered as one. But that didn't keep many of us from questioning his loyalties, or those of his family, against whom we had worked to elect republican candidates for years.

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand your argument about subordinating party rules to state law. They are two separate things. Ballot access is governed by state law and not discussed in the RPK rules. But ballot access was not the issue in my comment so I admit to being a little lost here.

Lastly you assume that I think supporting an independent candidate can never be in the best interest of the party, then you go on to say that Rand Paul and many others do think so.

Well, first of all, remember my words correctly. I have no quarrel with a private citizen with no elected or party office endorsing whichever candidate he or she wants to endorse. My comment was only directed at elected officials.

Second, if your comment was properly limited to elected officials, then you are correct in only one context. If the party has nominated or is expected to nominate a person for a particular office I do indeed think it is disloyal for elected officials (public or party) to endorse an independent candidate. If the party does not put up a candidate in that race, then this would not apply.

What I think you are missing is that signing the petition put another soldier on the battlefield so to speak whose intention was clearly to beat the republican nominee. In my view those elected to serve as officers of the republican party who would do such a thing have given assistance to "the enemy" as I defined it in my original comment.

Oh, and lastly, you did question whether I would have this opinion if I wasn't running for office. The answer is yes. In fact, I wrote a number of comments around the time of last year's primary expressing very similar sentiments. Unlike some candidates who just recently popped on the scene, my views have been publicly visible for a long time now.

Thanks again for the comment.]

I sense a bit of a hypocritical stance here with Senator Paul's assessment !

The comments to this entry are closed.

Photo For Facebook

  • Kentucky's #1 Conservative Blog
     photo blogfacebooklogo_zpsd77979be.jpg



Tip Jar

My Twitter Updates

  • What's New?

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog powered by Typepad