Campaigns/Elections

Grayson Concedes in Kentucky GOP Senate Primary; Rand Paul the Winner

|

Politico has a summation of the bloodbath for the GOP establishment:

Insurgent Senate candidate Rand Paul claimed the Republican nomination for the seat of retiring Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning Tuesday evening, easily besting establishment favorite Trey Grayson, the sitting secretary of State who won the endorsement of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

With approximately 39 percent of precincts reporting, Paul was drawing 59 percent of the vote to Grayson's 36 percent – a yawning lead over a candidate once viewed as a sure bet for his party's nomination.

Rand Paul, the poster boy for both Tea Party and libertarianish sentiments amongst this year's GOP challengers, will be facing Kentucky state Attorney General Jack Conway on the Democratic side in November. Look for a longer piece on the meaning of Paul's victory here on Reason Online in the next 48 hours. In the meantime, read our May Reason magazine feature on the rise of Rand Paul.

NEXT: Reality TV in the Middle East

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Great! Let’s hope the GOP implodes from running these Tea party dimwits.

    1. Hello Max, I somehow knew you would be here. Do you actually understand what the Tea parties are all about?

      1. Yeah the tea party is made up of angry old white guys and rcist fucks.

        According to a New York Times/CBS poll, 18 percent of Americans identify themselves as Tea Party supporters. Tea Party supporters tend to be “white, male, married and older than 45.” In general, they are “wealthier and more well-educated” than the general public, and hold conservative views on a range of issues. Although most are registered Republican, they tend to be more conservative than Republicans at large.

        1. There are two contradictory stereotypes about tea party members according to many on the left. They are ignorant “rednecks” or they are “”wealthier and more well-educated”

          So which do you believe?

          Also the well-educated part kind of contradicts the theory that they are racist.

          Of course according to many on the left the word racist simply means “I disagree with you”

          But you still have not answered the question as to what they are actually about.

          Well? What do you think they are about?

          1. Is it racist to say that those who tend to be “white, male, married and older than 45,” are most likely tax-payers? Because the corollary is that Democrats (ie minorities) are more likely to be net tax consumers.
            Is the truth racist?

          2. The word “racist” no longer has any meaning when it comes from someone on the left.

          3. That they are on average wealthier and well educated was never surprising. They’re a homogeneous group, and they’re whiter and maler than the population–the combination of which is a good predictor of being wealthier and more educated.

            Understanding of course that more educated doesn’t mean smarter or more rational. Oh the engineers I’ve known.

            1. Speaking as an engineer, Tony: get bent.

              -jcr

              1. I think he was talking about social engineers.

            2. You had a pretty decent comment up to the engineers bit.

          4. There are two contradictory stereotypes about tea party members according to many on the left. They are ignorant “rednecks” or they are “”wealthier and more well-educated”

            Michael Moore syndrome.

            Vacillate between:

            1. Redneck friend you only need when your car breaks down.

            or

            2. Wealthy, caviar slurping Wall Street finance jockey who yells at the help.

            Pick one and stick to it.

        2. Yeah the tea party is made up of angry old white guys and rcist fucks.

          Yeah? Have you any evidence of this racism you so casually charge them with? If not, perhaps you ought to STFU. Besides, you’re the one who seems to be engaging in stereotyping here.

          1. All I know is that if I’m anywhere and there’s only white people around, I leave. It’s either a Klan rally or a douchey club.

            1. Way to be stereotypical of all white people, you supposed liberal.

              1. I am white. I can stereotype myself. It’s a rule of nature. (Actually white people are fair game.) Besides, I’m not stereotyping white people, I’m saying places where there are only white people are inevitably lame for one reason or another.

                1. What would you to places that are only brown?

                2. >I am white. I can stereotype myself.

                  Racism is stupidity, even if you’re directing it at yourself.

                  -jcr

                3. Besides, I’m not stereotyping white people, I’m saying places where there are only white people are inevitably lame for one reason or another.

                  Tony is correct. Black people are inherently “cooler” than white people. Ever hear of this hep new music called jazz?

            2. Yeah, cause that progressive urban hipster scene is so racialially mixed.
              There’s plenty of dreadlocks, I’ll grant. But on actual black people? Not so much.

              1. Good Hazel, now that is an example of stereotyping.

                1. Unlike your stereotyping of the Tea Partiers, I suppose?

            3. or a volunteer organization

            4. All I know is that if I’m anywhere and there’s only white people around, I leave. It’s either a Klan rally or a douchey club.

              You must not live in a liberal enclave, then.

              1. Good Lord Tony, get a clue.

                1. I suppose there should be a comma after Lord. But still I say get a clue, because when I look at many different types of protests, whether Tea Party or anti-war or many other causes, I hardly ever see black people. Not to mention the fact that most places you’ll go there are way more white people than black people anyway.

                  1. because when I look at many different types of protests, … I hardly ever see black people.

                    Counter examples:
                    1. Protests against welfare cuts.
                    2. Protests against government social services staff cuts.
                    3. Protests against watermelon subsidies.

            5. Tony – ever look beyond outward appearence?

              This darn assumption that brown on the outside means brown on the inside has to be one of the most rascist assertions I have ever heard.

              Move along crew to the new century

            6. Yeah, Tony, lots of Klan rallies break out at every farmer’s market in Vermont.

              They have to call out the National Guard every weekend.

              And all the military funerals in Vermont tend to be all-white also. So are they Klan rallies or douchey clubs? Come on, Mr. Phelps, give me your answer.

              1. Dude, all of my schools have been secret Klan indoctrination.

                Oh yeah, my family gatherings too.

        3. Yeah, you know, the people who actually produce the wealth in this country and make it work.

    2. Max, I’ve been following your posts a little more closely than I’ve been stalking that cunt you call a wife.
      You’re about as illiterate, unrefined and stupid as you look through the scope of my rifle.

      1. Remember:

        1) Take a breath
        2) Let half out, then hold it.
        3) Squeeze the trigger.

        1. Damn! They were teaching the same thing 40 years ago when I was in Basic. (Still works, too.)

    3. If running dimwits had that effect, the two major parties would have imploded decades ago.

    4. Fan of one-party rule, are ya, Max?

  2. I will stop threadjacking the ketchup thread now.

    1. It’s catsup, you philistine.

      1. Ive never understood why philistine was supposed to be an insult. If I was a jew, sure, I would get it. But Im not.

        1. Okay robc, you’re a cretan. Or an Okie, a Newfie, or redneck.

          1. Okie and Newfie are factually inaccurate, as I guess, technically, cretan and philistine are too. Redneck on the other hand, is pretty damn accurate.

          2. Cretan? He’s from here?

          3. Okay robc, you’re a cretan.

            It’s cretin, you cretin. 😉

  3. Fuckin’ fuck yeah.

  4. Paul up 24 with 56% reporting.

  5. To add insult to injury the new KY election results website isnt working right tonight. Thats a Secretary of State responsibility. Guess who is slacking on their job?

  6. Let me taste your tears, David Frum

    1. Mmmmmmm. Tasty tasty pants creasin tears.

      God that man is an embarresment.

      1. This is not the type of comment where you want a grammar error and a spelling catastrophe in the same sentence (the second one).

    2. I drink Frum tears by the gallon. They taste like honey and sex.

  7. Max, who could possibly be your friend or live with a guy like you?
    I bet you cum in your hand and spoon it into your cunty wife’s pussy because you’re so despondent over the fact that you can feel pleasure.
    Shoot your cock off with a (stolen) gun, free your wife from her cage and let real thinkers get back to the issues at hand.
    Love,
    your friend,
    Jamie
    P.S. Slip on something and hit your head. Or just off yourself.

    1. Ladies and gentlemen, The Sultan of Swear and Professor of Profanity…give the man a hand!

    2. Goddamn, I wish I could fuckin’ swear.

      1. Warty, you are the Renaissance Man of vulgarity. As you say, “A GOLDEN GOD.”

    3. I thought I was
      the Bally table king
      But I just handed by
      Pinball crown to him…

  8. im skeptical as to how libertarian Rand will be if he gets wins the general election….but at least he beat Trey Greyson, that guy was an asshole.

    1. Watched a C-J (Louisville newspaper) interview with him earlier. His ideas are very moderate libertarian. The themes are even if the application isnt. At least as libertarian as his Dad, more so in some areas, less so in others.

      1 hour, 6 minutes

      1. My point being, all of us could nit-pick his answers apart as to why they arent libertarian enough. But I cant remember a KY politician who had a chance at winning a major race who was even remotely that libertarian.

        1. Paul is LibertarianISH, not Libertarian. And I would not say that he is even as Libertarian as his dad. I’ve been watching him closely as a Kentuckian, and I can say that though he is better than anyone else currently in the Senate, he is still not a Libertarian.

          If you’re interested to see a breakdown of the major issues he’s addressed and his standing as pro or anti-liberty in my estimation as a libertarian, you can check it out at http://madlibertarianguy.net/2…..aul-review

          I’ll be writing posts on individual issues and his stance as well as how that conforms t the idea of individual liberty.

  9. the only question that matters: is there real hope in the next election cycle (2010 and 2012) or should we all just pray for bankruptcy to hasten the demise?

    1. Bankruptcy. The system has become hopelessly corrupted.

      1. Probably gonna get bankruptcy anyway…along with hyper-inflation and martial law to put down the riots. After all – how much farther can they kick the can down the road, and how much longer? Just a matter of time.

    2. If you’re thinking that “bankruptcy” would lead to limited government in any way, I’d like to know how.

  10. as of 8:45pm with .44% of the votes in Specter is up with 59.7% of the vote over Sestak 40.3%; Tony Williams is actually in first place right now with 46% of the vote over Onorato who has 32.7 in the gubernatorial race Corbett is up 72.7& to Rohrer who has 27.3% (why the hell didn’t reason talk about Rohrer at all???); in the lt. governor race libertarian turned republican Russ Diamond is in 3rd place with 8.5% of the vote; Toomey with 80%, stomping Lugsik (former constitution party candidate) with 20%;

    1. now Onorato has moved up to first place over Tony Williams, Specter/Sestak margin now closer, Rohrer/Corbett is getting closer as well

      1. Diamond is way down now. this and the above are with 5.2% of the PA districts in.

        1. 10% of the vote in Specter and Sestak are in a deadlock

          1. 31.65% of the districts reporting in Sestak is now in the lead

      2. I truly hope Specter loses. That asshole voted for BOTH TARP and the stimulus bill AND he voted for Obamacare. Specter is a statist through and through. That asshole needs to go.

        1. and the bastard is against auditing the fed. but Sestak isn’t much better. I’m more interested in seeing Rohrer pull an upset. it looks like the tea party, the libertarian republicans, and the republican liberty caucus don’t have their shit together here in PA.

        2. “Single Bullet” Specter goin’ down… fuck yeah!

      3. Fuck Onorato. Some idiot put one of his campaign signs on my property without my permission. I’m tempted to contact the PA election commission and file a complaint but I think I’ll just have a bonfire with the sign as the centerpiece.

        1. I’m sure the culprit will be brought to justice. This shall not stand.

          1. Bonfires and beer counter many a transgression. Maybe some full auto blastin’ for additional stress relief.

            1. Beer after FA fun of course.

            2. You gave ATF money and let them have your particulars? Brave or foolish.

        2. You’re missing a prime opportunity for humorous defacement.

          1. You know, this is really smart. I own that sign free and clear since it was disposed of on my land. I can modify and display any way I so choose. And if it gets stolen, I can lodge a complaint with the local constabulary.

    2. Specter is up with 59.7% of the vote over Sestak 40.3%

      Interesting. I wonder why the democrats would prefer the turncoat to one of their own?

      -jcr

      1. Sleestak won, so the lizard people did end up with one of their own.

        1. Well, I’ve never heard of Sleestak before, so I don’t know if he deserved to win, but Specter sure as hell deserved to lose.

          -jcr

    3. The lowlife vermin Spectre loses!!!

      And congratulations to soon-to-be Senator Rand Paul!

  11. +24,78%

    Conway up 5 pts. Conway is the left winger, Mongiardo has been running very centrist (opposing cap?, opposing ObamaCare). I dont think Paul can lose to Conway.

    1. Paul +24, Conway +3, 83%. Not sure Conway can hold on, the cities are done.

    2. Mongiardo has been running very centrist (opposing cap?, opposing ObamaCare).

      Not that running against those things actually means all that much compared to party loyalty.

  12. Paul articles already pissing me off. Its like after the 94 election. Its all about how Paul tapped into the anger. Blah blah blah.

    Im sorry. I apologize for that link. That is worse than a rickroll.

    1. A lot of people are pointing out that both major Dem candidates got more votes than Paul as some sort of evidence that there is enthusiasm for the Dems missing for Paul?

      I understand that Kentucky has a large Democrat voter registration edge.

      Is the higher Dem vote total significant or more a function of the larger number of Dems and the much closer Dem contest than Repub contest?

      1. Not at all significant. This state is ginormously democratic.

        It was only in the last 15 years or so that a republicans ever had anything resembling a real primary.

        The fact that Mongiardo is running against ObamaCare in the democratic primary is all the proof you need.

        1. “Not at all significant. This state is ginormously democratic.”

          Really? I thought KY was a red state.

          1. It is.

            Wheres the confusion?

            Maybe in other states people vote based on the registration card, but not in KY they dont.

            1. KY registration numbers:

              D- 56.77
              R- 36.64
              O- 6.63

              O is for other, yeah, that adds up to 100.04%, not sure how they screwed that up either.

              Despite that, McCain won 57-41.

              1. Despite that, McCain won 57-41

                Strange.

                D- 56.77
                R- 36.64
                O- 6.63

                O is for other, yeah, that adds up to 100.04%, not sure how they screwed that up either.

                Yeah, I could see if it was 100.03% that could mean they just rounded up all the numbers when they should have all been rounded down, but 100.04% implies a real calc. error.

                1. Whats strange? The state Democratic party has very few values in common with the national Democratic party. So they vote D locally but not nationally.

                  The local D is the guy they go shooting with on saturday and to church with on sunday. The national D guys arent into the whole guns and God thing.

                  1. Ah, I get it now. Thanks. for ‘splainin’.

                  2. FL Panhandle is like that. Closed primary system, if you want to have a say in local offices you register “D” because that’s where the serious candidates are but the vast majority goes “R” in national and any competitive general election.

                2. Hypothetically “Other” could include more than one small party aggregated together, but they calculated the percentages for each minor party separately, all rounded up, and then they summed the percentages.

                  But perhaps they just had the raw numbers and messed up when determining the total. I like how they keep hope alive by noting that 0 voters are registered in the non-existent 7th CD.

                  1. They don’t keep track of membership in the other parties. If you don’t register a D or an R, you are an independent.

  13. I certainly hope the Kentucky LP runs an actual Libertarian against Rand Paul – once he received the endorsement of Dr. James Dobson, that sealed the deal for me – the man’s not a Libertarian.

    1. You are an idiot. Watch the video I linked above. Is that not libertarian enough for you?

      I do admit the Dobson endorsement surprised me, but that probably was more a pro-life thing than anything. Or maybe Dobson is more fiscally conservative than we might think?

      1. I think Dobson was pissed because some stooge told him that Paul was not pro-life, and he didn’t appreciate being lied to. This is probably a sign of something bigger; another constituency of the GOP not falling in line with the establishment any more.

      2. I think it was mostly a matter of Dobson being irritated that Grayson’s people lied to him.

        -jcr

    2. Palin endorsed him to, but if you think the people endorsing him mirror his views you are being foolish. Rand Paul’s views are practically the same as Ron Paul’s. even if the KY LP runs someone they will get crushed, why waste your vote on a libertarian who isn’t going to win?

      1. Bunning endorsed Paul after telling Grayson he was going to stay out of the race. Grayson and team pissed a lot of people off.

      2. why waste your vote on a libertarian who isn’t going to win

        Why waste your vote on some asshole who’s policies revolt you to the core of your soul?

        It doesn’t matter if you vote for TweedleD or TweedleR, you’re still getting a Tweedle.

        … Hobbit

        1. It doesn’t matter if you vote for TweedleD or TweedleR, you’re still getting a Tweedle.

          It also doesn’t matter if you vote not at all or for a libertarian, you’re going to get someone, ugh, mainstream. Because most voters aren’t actually libertarian, and absolutely there are very few voters who agree with you on every issue or are pure.

          Everyone can decide for themselves when to vote for the lesser of two evils or not.

        2. Why waste your vote on some asshole who’s policies revolt you to the core of your soul?

          While I don’t feel this way about Rand Paul (although I don’t know that much about him), that’s pretty much the way I feel about nearly every other R or D politician. When people tell me I’m “wasting” my vote, I tell them voting for someone I agree with 6% of the time would be wasting my vote.

          1. Rand isnt going to make us happy all the time. But yeah, I will take the 94% guy that can get elected over the 99% guy who cant.

            But, Rand Paul isnt mainstream, that is the point.

          2. Yeah I totally agree with you BakedPenguin about voting your principles. But my point wasn’t to vote for just anyone that is going to win, but that given the choice between two libertarians and a democrat, it would make more sense to vote for the libertarian who has a realistic chance of winning. I love the LP and I always switch my registration back after the primaries, but the fact is they are too disorganized and inept to win a senate seat.

            1. want to add… and I always vote for all libertarians running unless there is a libertarian republican with better chances running. If I have the chance to help elect someone who I agree with 95 times out of 100 and he could actually win, I will vote for him over someone I agree with 96 times out of 100 and has no chance of winning.

            2. I figured as much. Like robc says – the 94% guy is good enough. (I’d probably go down to about 75%).

              It’s a Scylla / Charybdis dilemma: on the one hand, you have the libertarian purity police who wouldn’t vote for someone who doesn’t stand for immediate privatization of all roads; on the other, you have the Donderos convincing themselves that Giuliani is “libertarian” so they’ll have a chance to vote for a winning candidate.

        3. The guy is like pretty much 80% lockstep with the LP platform. He’s pro-life and not for open borders. He’s not perfect. He’s also, unlike any LP candidate ever in the history of the party poised to actually win a senate seat and actually matter on shaping policy.

    3. Just wondering, but is Ron Paul not a libertarian either? In other words, is this specifically an abortion litmus test on your part (because it was for Dobson), or something else?

    4. You can’t win an election without also garnering the votes of people you don’t like. Which means, I think, that pretty much by definition anyone winning would therefore be disqualified by you.

      More interesting will be to see if this affects the Congressional GOP at all.

    5. This kind of attitude is the reason why the libertarian philosophy is such a minority one. The perfect is always the enemy of the good.

    6. Well, I doubt that will make much of a difference in the General Election, but they can try. As for Rand Paul not being a libertarian……its Kentucky. I’m sorry, he can’t run as a pure libertarian in Kentucky, he has to run as a “Constitutional-Conservative.” Why? Because a pure libertarian has virtually no chance of winning a race in Kentucky. The state is very poor, and is largely dominated by social conservatives, who support the economic safety net. Rand Paul has to win those non-libertarian voters to win the election. Running as anything else other than a conservative with libertarian-leanings….is losing on principle.

  14. Paul 65.1, Grayson 28.4 in Christian County, home of Ft. Campbell.

    Make of that what you will.

    1. Most of the soldiers live in the Clarksville, TN side of the border. Why? No state income tax. 90% of the base is in Tennessee too.

      Also, A decent number of them are in Afghanistan right now. Hop-town is mainly retired military, taking advantage of Blanchfield hospital and the PX.

  15. 89.9% in. Paul +23.7, Conway +2.0

    1. Conway and Mongiardo would be having a runoff if this were Georgia. They are at 44 and 42 percent.

      1. A duel would be better.

  16. Congratulations, Rand!

    I don’t care what litmus test he fails, he’d be the closest thing to a libertarian in the Senate for a long, long time.

    One step at a time, people.

    1. Hear, hear!

      I just hope he becomes another “Dr. No”
      when it comes to gov’t spending.

    2. he’d be the closest thing to a libertarian in the Senate for a long, long time.

      Jim DeMint (R-SC) is the “most libertarian” sitting Senator.

      1. He wont be come January.

        1. God willing he won’t be. I think DeMint and Paul will be voting near identically however.

  17. Good to see the GOP moving to the far right.

    1. You mean real fiscal conservatism? Yeah, I agree then.

      1. “Fiscal conservatism” is codeword for some dick heads who want to “reduce the growth of spending”, “appoint a blue-ribbon commission to study entitlement reform” and are “open to a national consumption tax targeted to deficit reduction”. Fuck those mother fuckers I mean the FAR RIGHT, like Rand Paul and those who backed his campaign.

        1. You are a fucking idiot.

          1. Look who endorsed Rand Paul. Look who backed Greyson. Look who is usually referred to as “fiscally conservative”.
            Connect the fucking dots.

            1. I endorsed Paul. Guliani endorsed Grayson. Your point is?

              1. Guliani is not considered far right, Steve Forbes (and Palin) are.

                For whatever reason, it’s extremely difficult to find a politician (who can win elections) who honestly is small government on spending issues that isn’t culturally conservative (and generally socially) as well. While obviously there’s no philosophical reason for it, so it goes.

                This may simply mean that libertarians aren’t a large enough voting bloc to form a winning coalition.

                Of course, perhaps Tom Campbell will prove us wrong in CA, this time.

                1. Forbes has virtually nothing in common with Dobson (other than both endorsed Paul) and both are considered far right. This is my confusion. I thought Forbes was one of those libertarianish Republicans that couldnt win anything?

                  1. That’s true. The most libertarian wonkish guy to have won office and held power is probably Dick Armey. Also considered far right.

                    People who describe themselves as “very conservative” tend to be pretty libertarian on economic issues. Those who just call themselves “conservative” tend to be social conservatives but not libertarian on economic issues. “Moderates” are all over the place, but there are more anti-libertarian (in both senses) than libertarian leaners in practice.

            2. Also, how does the establishment supporting Grayson mean the GOP is moving to the far right?

              1. It doesn’t. But Paul winning could possibly pull the establishment.

                The establishment is guaranteed at all times to be amoral bastards who prefer winning above all else. Because in politics, people who like to win are selected for. That does mean that they like to win, though, and a big primary win is enough to force them to at least mouth platitudes and try to convince people.

  18. 94%, Paul +23.2, Conway +1.6.

    Dem race has not been called yet.

    1. 96%, Paul +23.3, Conway +1.3.

  19. From the Louisville Courier-Journal, whcih will wait 48 hours before they start calling Paul “strange and kooky”:

    Grayson tried to persuade voters that Paul’s libertarian ideas were “strange” and “kooky.” But judging from the election returns, Kentucky’s Republican voters weren’t buying it.

  20. I’m thinking it’s abundantly clear by now that Doherty was premature on calling the Conway/Mongiardo race. I think Mongiardo may just pull it out after all.

    Either way, such a bitterly divided primary bodes very well for Rand’s prospects given his surprise blowout. He needs to unite the GOP and keep the Dems divided to paper over the fact that, frankly, his libertarian leanings are a bit out of step with Kentucky.

    1. Unfortunately, and despite Grayson calling for his voters to get behind Paul, and McConnell holding a unity rally this saturday, last poll showed a significant number of Grayson voters saying they wouldnt vote for Paul.

      I dont really believe them, not when the choice is Conway/Mongiardo. And I dont think they will stay home. But, I dont think the Dems will have as much trouble unifying. However, if Conway wins, the blue dogs will vote for Paul. Heck, if Mongiardo wins, they will vote for Paul.

      1. But, I dont think the Dems will have as much trouble unifying. However, if Conway wins, the blue dogs will vote for Paul. Heck, if Mongiardo wins, they will vote for Paul.

        Huh? That to me seems like the Dems not unifying. Admittedly, like any southern states there’s a huge Dem registration edge that doesn’t correspond to general election votes, but still…

        Paul has done better in general election polling, so if there really are a lot of Grayson voters who won’t vote for Paul, Paul must do better pulling crossover voters or otherwise non-voters.

    2. I honestly dont think his libertarian leanings are really out of step with Kentucky. Less so than NY or MA or UT anyway.

      1. 51.59% of the districts reporting, Specter (47.4%) is still dwindling downward, Sestak has 52.6% of the vote so far.

        1. Even liberal-leaning non-political radio morning shows in PA have been playing audio clips of Sestak sounding like a creepy douche and making fun of him of late. It’ll be interesting to see how quickly they turn around when he’s the only game in town.

          1. Sestak is creepy. He’s so robotic and devoid of substance. His attacks on Washington are cynical and counterproductive to the Democratic agenda, which needs to be arguing in favor of government action to protect us from other powerful interests (people react most strongly when it’s characterized as “Wall Street.”) I don’t know if he can win a general. Though I’m a liberal I am kind of sad to see Specter’s career end. It would be nice if our political system could tolerate moderates.

            1. HISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

            2. Though I’m a liberal I am kind of sad to see Specter’s career end.

              MMMMMMmmmmmm yes. Say it again, please.

            3. Well, if Tony doesn’t like him, that’s a point in his favor.

              counterproductive to the Democratic agenda

              Oh, so he’s a decent human being? Good to know.

              -jcr

              1. Not always a reliable indicator; I’m pretty sure Tony doesn’t like Hitler either.

  21. 98% in, Paul +23.5, Conway +1.4.

    I think Conway is going to hold on.

    1. Somebody, AP or whoever, has called the race for Conway.

      1. If Conway holds on, it’s a HUGE piece of luck for Rand Paul. Paul might be too libertarian for KY, but there’s no way Conway can win in the general election with the positions he was forced to take to win the activist base in the primary: supporting Obamacare, primarily.

        Mongiardo would have been a tougher general election candidate for Paul by far. Against Conway, however, his flaws will be minimized unless he does something spectacularly stupid.

        Which is always possible because hey, Richard Blumenthal!

      2. If Conway holds on, it’s a HUGE piece of luck for Rand Paul. Paul might be too libertarian for KY, but there’s no way Conway can win in the general election with the positions he was forced to take to win the activist base in the primary: supporting Obamacare, primarily.

        Mongiardo would have been a tougher general election candidate for Paul by far. Against Conway, however, his flaws will be minimized unless he does something spectacularly stupid.

        Which is always possible because hey, Richard Blumenthal!

  22. Some breakdown. Paul killed it in the big cities, bigger towns, and suburbs. And the I-64 Louisville-Lexington corridor.

    Suburban Cincy, Louisville, suburban Louisville, Lexington, Ownesboro, Bowling Green, paducah he was well over 60%. Pushing or over 70% in bourbon distillery counties (Nelson/Woodford). He did poorly in the mountains of eastern KY, the only places Grayson won were there, both were in the 40% generally. Paul was in the 50% in most of rural south central and western KY.

    Im not sure Conway got a vote out of the mountains, so that makes things interesting.

    I bet there is a strong mapping between wet/moist/dry/mountain-moonshine counties and Paul’s vote. So maybe Esoteric has a point.

    1. So eastern KY lost both primaries, huh? That probably makes it easier for Paul, I agree.

      In NC, one iron rule is that the person from Charlotte always loses to the person from the rest of the state.

      1. That applies in KY too, wrt Louisville. Guess where Conway is from. The rural folks will vote for a Bowling Green guy like Paul over a Louisville guy like Conway without any regard to political stances.

      2. That’s the way it is for the Louisville candidate in KY.

        1. So both of you agree, so sounds like it makes sense. I suspected that it would, in a state like KY or NC where there are enough smaller cities and rural population to counterbalance the largest city.

          It’s regardless of party in NC too, certainly. Candidates from Raleigh or Durham or Winston-Salem or Greensboro all beat the person from Charlotte.

    2. That’s funny. Given that Paul is much more likely to try to cut funding to BATFE, you figure the shiners ought to like him.

      And since we’re talking about homemade liquor, some alembic stills.

      1. | you figure the shiners ought to like him.

        What, by cutting into their black-market profits?

      2. My guess is that Eastern Kentucky is pretty reliant on welfare, and the moonshiners, bootleggers, and pot farmers also get a check every month from the Feds.

  23. The early leader for the Dumbest Response prize

    After all, it was another right wingnut, Barry Goldwater, who laid the groundwork for the insanity that is trying to pass itself off as law in Arizona, and everybody knows who Barry Goldwater’s biggest fan was–George W. Bush. How many more Goldwater moments can this country afford, Mr. President?

    1. everybody knows who Barry Goldwater’s biggest fan was–George W. Bush

      Early leader? I think that might have clinched the award for all eternity.

      1. Yea, gotta agree with robc on this one. Jayne Lyn Stahl (the author of the linked story) has either completely gone off the deep end or has no clue as to what Goldwater actually stood for.

      2. I’d like to think Warty was engaging in masterful understatement…but it’s Warty.

        And yeah, W. was definitely what you would call a faithful disciple of Goldwater.

        1. You guys are forgetting: everything, everywhere, is the fault of libertarians and those who believe in small government, including George Bush and his massive increases in the size of government.

          Obama has repeated the Big Lie of Bush “deregulation” enough so that progressives believe it.

        2. Is it really fair to ignore context and interpret that quote as “Bush and Goldwater essentially had identical political philosophies”? My reading was, in terms of immigration policy, Bush had similar views to Goldwater. This of course is true as my other comment explains.

          https://reason.com/blog/2010/05…..nt_1713090

          Not defending her article, she is obviously not well informed, but I am disagreeing with your distortions.

          1. My reading was, in terms of immigration policy, Bush had similar views to Goldwater. This of course is true as my other comment explains.

            Yes, but she appears to be claiming that both Bush and Goldwater were immigration restrictionists. That’s even dumber. Unless she’s claiming that both of them, by supporting immigration and/or amnesty, set the stage for the Arizona backlash.

      3. It’s easy when you just dispense with facts or history and link Liberal hate figures to something you dislike.

    2. After 6 bourbons I have to say this bit of pedantry: bipartisan means two parties. Different parties working together or people crossing party lines is nonpartisan. I would like to thank my iPhone for correcting my spelling.

    3. more importantly, one that will safeguard those constitutional protections we still have left like a woman’s right to choose, and affirmative action.

      At least she loves the constitution!

    4. She is not completely clueless. This comment implies an understanding of one of the most important lessons of recent public sentiment, the crumbling of the neocon dominance in the GOP.

      “Today’s Senate primary in Kentucky can be seen as good news if it makes a strong enough impression, and this President decides to take control of the steering wheel away from McChrystal and Gates, and steer us out of the quagmire in Afghanistan and Pakistan in which he’s allowed himself to sink deeper in the name of bipartisan cooperation.”

      That comment about Goldwater was not even close to the Dumbest Response prize winner.

      “After all, it was another right wingnut, Barry Goldwater, who laid the groundwork for the insanity that is trying to pass itself off as law in Arizona, and everybody knows who Barry Goldwater’s biggest fan was–George W. Bush. How many more Goldwater moments can this country afford, Mr. President?”

      Goldwater supported a clear immigration policy with rigorous enforcement. Opposed amnesty but supported a guest worker program.

      George W Bush had essentially the same policy prescriptions.

      Arizona SB1070 is all about enforcement (as anyone who has actually read the bill rather than be swayed by media distortions knows)

      There are of course civil liberty concerns with the new policy, but Arizona is in a unique position and people from other states less directly affected who have concerns should direct their ire toward federal policy. My personal opinion is the changes will have little success other than perhaps driving some small number of illegals out of Arizona to NM, Texas, Cali.

  24. Im not sure anyone here cares, but this probably ends Mongiardo’s political career. He gave up his Lt Gov position to run for the Senate (he is finishing out the term, but isnt running next year). He lost to Bunning 6 years ago because he looked too much like Uday (or was it Qusay). This time he lost the primary.

    Fork him. He is done.

  25. Sestak beats Specter. Good riddance.

    1. There’s no doubt that Sestak is a fuckslobbering puddle of gaytardation and a Pollack to boot, but at least he’s not Specter.

      1. But, from a poetic justice standpoint, is it better for Specter to lose here, or to get knocked off in the general by the man he left the GOP to avoid, Pat Toomey? Think strictly as a screenwriter, or maybe a Greek Tragedian.

        It’s actually a tough call. Both outcomes are Pretty Fucking Rich regardless.

        1. Don’t worry. When he gets home tonight, he’ll find out that he’s been accidentally fucking his mother’s corpse for 60 years, or something along those lines. And then, when he tries to finally get some reading done, he’ll break his glasses.

          Also: Esoteric.

          1. I laughed out loud when I got to the “breaking glasses” part. Twilight Zone callbacks are always welcome.

  26. Rand Paul! Now I don’t have to move to Canada just yet…

  27. I enjoyed how Specter cited voter unhappiness with Washington gridlock as a reason for his defeat. It just highlights how out of touch he is.

    Just warming up.

    1. OTOH, the 12th CD race in Pennsylvania seems to show that Democrats can win this year by running as conservative Dems.

  28. Well, there’s still a general election to go. The only person from Kentucky who found out for sure that he’s going to DC next year is John Wall.

  29. 88.89% of districts reporting:
    Sestak 53.7% Specter 46.3%
    Corbett 69.7% Rohrer 30.3%
    Toomey 81.1% Luksik 18.9%
    Tony Williams will come in 3rd in the D primary for governor

    1. Can/will Specter run as an independent? Can anyone show proof that PA has a sore loser law? I’ve never heard of it. If there isn’t one he can switch to independent tomorrow and has till August 2nd to file nomination papers.

  30. I don’t think most people realize just how much power a libertarian (leaning) Senator will have…. Ron Paul was safe for the Establishment to ignore, until the surprising success of his presidential run gave him a national platform. A Senator has far more leverage than a member of the House, especially if the Republicans gain a few seats in November and get closer to 50-50 again….

    1. Yeah, the fact that a non-statist (or the closet thing to one in a long time) might actually get into the Senate is awesome! It will make it much harder to write-off libertarians as just a bunch of crazy nuts.

  31. Not to mention that if Rand Paul wins, and makes it to a second term, he becomes a much more serious contender for the White House than any libertarian has been in recent generations…

  32. How do libertarians feel about nepotism anyway?

    1. Its not nepotism if you support him based on his views. If Rand Paul was a socialist, or even a democrat (whats the difference ha), do you really think any Ron Paul supporter would support Rand Paul?

    2. About the same way we feel about people who don’t know what nepotism means, you ugly coprophile.

      You throw insults like old people fuck, numbnuts.

    3. Nice try, Tony, but fail. Nepotism doesn’t play into the Paul/Paul scenario, no matter how hard you try to force the pieces together.

      1. Besides, unless you’re willing to include anyone from the Kennedy clan, you’re just being selectively hypocritical.

        1. I don’t have a problem with it, I’m just wondering when teabaggers who aren’t the offspring of teabagger leaders are gonna start winning elections.

          1. *yawn* for the “teabaggers” non-issue, Tony. You’re not even trying.

            Oh, and the Bidens. Don’t forget to include them in your bogus nepotism argument, along with your bogus teabagger argument.

            1. What teabagger issue? Paul has referred to his victory as a victory for teabaggers. He is the prince of teabaggers. How do you guys feel about Sarah Palin being your queen, btw? I will say this about her, she has some massive balls, all the better for your avocation, of course.

              1. If Rand Paul is the teabagger, who’s the teabagee?

              2. Really, Tony: trotting out the “teabaggers” taunt is extremely lame, even for you. I’m sure you wanted the Republicans to nominate the next Arlen Specter, but you can’t always get what you want. Sucks to be you.

                -jcr

              3. I don’t see why tea partiers take offense to the term teabagger. I think they should embrace it. They are trying to teabag Tony’s/liberal’s/the government’s bag fat mouths.

                1. *big fat mouths, but I’m sure their bags have mouths too.

    4. I’m shocked no one has slapped the CONCERN TROLL sticker on this one…

    5. Fine with me, as long as the kid can do the job. You’ll notice that Ron Paul only made one campaign appearance for Rand, BTW.

      -jcr

  33. Tony, libertarians are against the theft of property regardless of who does the stealing. A father handing his own property to his child is perfectly okay. If that father has stolen the property, it matters not whom he hands it to, it is wrong.

    1. How far back does that moral stance extend? If you’re white in the US you’re most likely the beneficiary of massive amounts of property theft (and worse).

      1. Tired old argument. It’s the same one used by the reparations idiots.

        1. And it’s a very good way to illustrate the complete vacuousness of libertarian claims to property sovereignty that are moral in nature.

          1. Okay, let’s give back land to everyone who originally owned it. ALL of it. Not just here in America.

            Oh, and everyone descended from those original landowners, must be the only residents in said territories.

            See how ridiculous your argument can become, Tony?

            1. It’s not my argument, it’s yours. Not only should people be sovereign over their “legitimately acquired” property, they have the right to pass it all on to the snot-nosed brats they shat into the world. Based on the moral premise that… what? They worked for it? They earned it? They didn’t steal it? jj said property not legitimately acquired is not legitimately given, I was just wondering how many generations back that rule should extend.

              My argument is that the resources of the earth properly belong to the people of the earth as a whole, and through the people’s generosity you may rent a portion of it for your own use.

              1. Tony’s anus properly belongs to the people of the earth as a whole, and through the people’s generosity you may rent it for a time for your own use.

              2. How can one be said to have stolen something from a people who didn’t believe such a thing (the land) could be owned in the first place? People who don’t believe in property rights or ownership cannot logically accuse others of theft. The concept of theft is meaningless without the concept of ownership.

              3. “My argument is that the resources of the earth properly belong to the people of the earth as a whole,”

                Aside from the numbers, how is that different than “therefore, you are entitled to everything you get your grubby hands on.”

          2. have you ever heard of “statute of limitations” and “adverse possession”? if the land has been stolen and nothing is done to reclaim after a certain time you lose that claim.

            1. Of course. Thank goodness we have governments to sort these things out.

              1. Nailed em.
                I believe adverse possession and statutes of limitation are necessary. This is not contrary to other libertarian principles. You can’t just wait years and years and years and years and years and years and years till you decide you want to reclaim your properly acquired land. After a certain point even the thief or his descendants could be considered rightful owners since the original owner effectively abandoned his property.

                1. Just as a trademark owner must defend his trademark or they lose their ownership of the trademark.

                2. You can’t just wait years and years and years and years and years and years and years till you decide you want to reclaim your properly acquired land.

                  Elephant in the room…ISRAEL.

              2. Everyone but the anarchists would agree with that statement. Protecting property rights and contracts is considered one of the legitimate functions of gov’t by even the most ardent libertarians.

      2. Sorry all mine came after the Civil War and settled in Boston and NYC — both, I believe, purchased not stolen. The only thing we’re “guilty” of is Irish Welfare. But keep up your little bullshit talking points.

      3. “All the territorial possessions of all the political establishments in the earth–including America, of course– consist of pilferings from other people’s wash. No tribe, howsoever insignificant, and no nation, howsoever mighty occupies a foot of land that was not stolen.”

        Shut the fuck up, Tony.

        1. I agree with Twain… I’m just wondering why you think you’re entitled to the fruits of others’ misdeeds.

          1. Read more closely.

            1. I don’t see anything between the lines like “therefore, you are entitled to everything you get your grubby hands on.”

              1. Read it again, Tony. I think you missed the point.

              2. Are you really too thick to get Mark Twain? Let’s see if the next few sentences help:

                “When the English, the French and the Spaniards
                reached America, the Indian tribes had been raiding each
                other’s territorial clothes lines for ages, and every acre of
                ground in the Continent had been stolen and re-stolen 500
                times. The English, the French and the Spaniards went to
                work and stole it all over again ; and when that was satisfac-
                torily accomplished they went diligently to work and stole it
                from each other. In Europe, and Asia and Africa every acre
                of ground has been stolen several millions of times. A crime
                persevered in a thousand centuries, ceases to be a crime and
                becomes a virtue. This is the law of custom, and custom
                supersedes all other forms of law.”

                1. the Indian tribes had been raiding each
                  other’s territorial clothes lines for ages

                  I know that isn’t true because Kevin Costner told me in his Dances With Wolves documentary that the Indians didn’t fight over land or resources like the white man did.

              3. I don’t see anything between the lines… -Big Fat Tony
                put your glasses on, or try looking at it like you would an autostereogram

              4. Tony, the point is that the only way to stop a history of murder and expropriation is to stop it. Not to continue it by other means.

                Pick a date. Any date. Even if the property arrangements at that exact moment are unjust, enrolling them into a civil society that will “sin no more” is a moral improvement upon leaving in place the war of all against all.

                Because if you convince me that no man has the right to own the property he possesses [or even any property he gains by the trade of his own labor] well, then, I might just act as if I actually believe that. And you won’t like it.

                Your argument also suffers from the Proudhonistic fallacy. If no one can possess a valid property claim [including property they acquire by direct trade of their own labor] due to injustice that happened in the past, then that broad disqualification of all claims extends back into prehistory – since there has always been injustice. This would mean, for example, that slaveholders didn’t actually do anything wrong, because their slaves could never have possessed valid property claims ANYWAY, so taking the fruit of their labor at swordpoint or gunpoint didn’t actually deprive them of anything that was theirs by right. Is that what you’re arguing?

                1. Tony can’t follow a train of logic that long, Fluffy.

            2. This sounds frighteningly like liberals saying “Bush did it too!”

      4. And if you’re going to live in one of those ‘low cost apartments’ being built by Bruce Ratner in exchange for ACORN keeping quiet about his being the beneficiary of eminent domain abuse, then you are also the beneficiary of massive amounts of stolen property.

        My example is current and should probably matter more than vague insinuations that may or may not be true in reference to whom it is being applied.

        It’s mind boggling that you get all deferential towards government authority in the present when abuses long in the past – that your statements would imply you believe need repaid – were government sanctioned.

  34. I just noticed how much he resembles Mayor Tommy Carcetti…

  35. No mention of the impending Lincoln/Halter runoff? That one is going to get good!

    1. Poor Blanche. Even if she pulls this one out, she’s going to blanch when she has to go through the beatdown she’ll take in November.

  36. Someone’s pissed. Guess who?

  37. BTW, Grayson was a lying douchebag to the bitter end. He ran a story on his campaign web site claiming that the Rand Paul poll watchers were engaged in “voter intimidation”.

    -jcr

    1. Yes, but the one advantage of his political patron being Senate Minority Leader is that he did at least call for the candidates’ supporters to unite instead of announcing an Independent Republican campaign or something.

  38. Re: Tony,

    How far back does that moral stance extend? If you’re white in the US you’re most likely the beneficiary of massive amounts of property theft (and worse).

    AS far as the State allows, of course… The State was the only culprit in all massive land-grabs: Read your history. American whites were more than willing to buy the land from the natives, but since the State [Yes, your beloved State] was already exterminating them, what was then the point? Moral Hazard, they called it.

    1. Read your history. American whites were more than willing to buy the land from the natives, but since the State [Yes, your beloved State] was already exterminating them, what was then the point?

      IIRC, the US government, like the British before them, banned direct land purchases from natives, saying that it would prevent “abuse” if the government and its representatives bought it directly. How plausible you view this statement may vary.

  39. I was selling Gadsden pins at a Louisville Tea Party Rally and even sold some to an interracial family who were there with their kids. So much for the racism bullshit. Grayson never even cared to speak at one of those rallies either.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.