You’re all embarrassingly lame with the exception of crazy Darlene Price and Rand Paul.
Don’t tell a student group at the University of Kentucky that you’re going to show up for a forum if you don’t plan to show up.
Really says a lot about your character or lack thereof.
And while we’re at it… let’s go ahead and get this out in the open:
Jack Conway: You need to start calling elected officials and community leaders back. I can’t tell you how many people I personally know whom you have ignored. It could be Mark Riddle’s fault for not passing information along. It could be the fault of someone else. Who knows? I know I’ve given you names and numbers via telephone in the past, as well, and those folks have never been contacted. And when are you gonna run this race like it’s a blood sport? If you don’t, your political career is over. P.S. What’s with continuing to string potential staffers along? You are indirectly forcing people to put their professional lives on hold because your campaign manager told them they had jobs only to string them along. That’s killing your reputation with the campaign workforce.
Daniel Mongiardo: When will your staff stop making excuses for your ridiculous behavior? And when will you man-up and publicly admit that you don’t have a positive relationship with your governor? You say you’ve got dirt on him, so spill the damn beans. Otherwise, you’re obstructing justice and are giving Eastern Kentucky a bad name. Your lack of honesty and openness regarding your thoughts of Steve Beshear is sickening.
Trey Grayson: What the crap kind of embarrassing campaign are you running, man? Really? Letting Rand Paul get ahead of you in any poll? You need to stop taking advice from Mitch McConnell. Stop trying to be some faux conservative. And run this race as yourself. Otherwise, your political career is over.
Rand Paul: Quit allowing David Adams to flip-flop and obscure your positions on equality, choice, taxes and everything else. Stop spinning. If you think Barack Obama is Adolf Hitler? Effing admit it and get on with things so the rest of the mouth-breathers can follow you blindly.
It’s a shame Kentucky doesn’t have a senate candidate it can be proud of. To think this is how far we have fallen in the Commonwealth.
Shame.
UPDATE: Conway camp says it was never confirmed for the UK event.
Is this an instance of some students doing a terrible organizing job? Or someone playing games so they can make candidates look badly?
Doesn’t matter. If a campaign knew about an event, it should have made an effort to attend.
27 responses so far ↓
1 Crimson // Nov 4, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Bravo!
2 Terri // Nov 4, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Conway needs to get to work. Because even though I *want* to vote for him, a candidate simply being not-_____ is good enough. Get it together, convince me why I should support you, and I’ll volunteer. But not until then.
3 Terri // Nov 4, 2009 at 2:33 pm
^not good enough, that should read…
4 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Nov 4, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I would also advise Trey to run as Trey. Trey, the successful, liked, responsible government official. In the end, I believe most Republicans would “come home” to such a person rather than extremist Ayn Rand Paul (R-Serf City).
5 diane // Nov 4, 2009 at 3:26 pm
At a Rand Paul Town Hall meeting, I pointed out that over 50 women were sitting in the room & that 7 would possibly be diagnosed with breast cancer sometime in their life.
I asked Rand Paul if he would protect, not necessarily expand, federal funding for breast cancer research when he was elected for the 7 women sitting in front of him & for every other woman who may be diagnosed with breast cancer.
He responded he couldn’t say whether he would or not.
Horrifying!
The women present didn’t blink. They simply nodded politely, clapped quietly & scared the hell out of me because of their complete & total commitment to Rand Paul.
6 Picture This // Nov 4, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Diane, that is a horrifying story. What kind of a world do we live in when a politician refuses to pander to members of his audience?
7 diane // Nov 4, 2009 at 4:35 pm
What kind of world do we live in when a politician like Rand Paul states publicly that women can fight this devastating disease without his support.
That he could stand there & turn a deaf ear to a disease which could have taken my life & has taken the lives of so, so many women.
Rand Paul turned his head away from the suggestion of protecting federal funding which would produce studies identifying better ways to detect, treat & prevent breast cancer.
And yet, women & men sat there and nodded their heads in agreement…
8 Picture This // Nov 4, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Many people, myself included, believe that decisions concerning the allocation of disease research funding should be made by non-politicians, like the CDC. Many people believe that it is unseemly for politicians to inject themselves into life and death matters that they know very little about in an effort to cater to a political constituency. Many people believe that such life and death decisions should not be made because Cameron Diaz or some other B list celebrity went to the Hill and drummed up political support for the fashionable disease of the week, enlisting support from dumb politicians who just want to share the microphone with a movie star.
I have no idea if these are the reasons Rand Paul would not commit to becoming involved with research funding decisions. But wanting to keep politicians out of this field in no way suggests that a deaf ear is being turned to people suffering from life threatening diseases. In fact, just the opposite. Because we care about people suffering from these diseases, we would like the people who actually know what they are talking about to make funding decisions, not politicians.
9 Terri // Nov 4, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Frankly, I’m surprised at how much Rand Paul and his supporters use the internet, what with the government funding of telecoms and r&d into electronics and such…
10 le gardien de but // Nov 4, 2009 at 5:01 pm
What a sorry lot of candidates. What a shame that Kentucky can do no better than this. The best of these 4 is IMHO Rand Paul. I refuse to vote for Conway & could like Dr Dana lot more if he would say openly what he was taped saying on the phone. There is no shame being on this governor’s shit list–it would seem a badge of honor. Grayson is Mitch’s man–need I say more. Speaking of Mitch, I feel strongly that a solid candidaten with integrity like Andrew Horne would have trounced Mitch; I voted for him because I despised his opppnent…
11 curtis morrison // Nov 4, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Terri is onto something. There are a lot of Libertarians in Kentucky arguing not just for limited government, but since they aren’t championing any purposes of government, they sound actually more like anarchists, and that’s okay.
I think their next strategic move should be to boycott the government’s internet tubes, and public roads. Oh and bike paths and side walks. In other words, if you’re really for Rand Paul…and you talk the talk, then it’s time to walk the walk. And by “walk” I am referring to walking in a circle in your basement. And if it floods, you’ll have to swim, because I don’t want to hear about any of you calling MSD either.
12 Crimson // Nov 4, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Rand Paul poison drinkers have infiltrated all blogs.
13 Picture This // Nov 4, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Quite the leap in logic there Curtis. If you think government has overreached into every area of our life, and needs to be scaled back, you are an anarchist who hates roads and sewer systems.
I love roads and sewer systems. I hate the government reading my email and listening to my phone calls (thanks Patriot Act). I hate the government peering into my bedroom and concerning itself with the love lives of consenting adults (thanks right wing fundamentalists). I hate government moralists telling me what I can and can’t eat, drink, smoke etc (thanks fundies and public health nanny staters). And I hate working all day to send a good chunk of my money to politicians (regardless of party) whose over riding concern is reelection, and will happily use my money to fund the museum of twine, or to build a tank the Pentagon does not even want, as long as it helps them win votes.
But Curtis, I am certain the status quo appreciates your undying loyalty. It will happily accept your check, will do everything to keep you tightly under thumb, and will encourage you to keep fighting on its behalf.
14 Dan // Nov 4, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Yeah, yeah, another election, another “we hate all the candidates” line. So stale.
15 Thunder Storm // Nov 4, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Diane – Do you have video of Rand Paul making that statement. You writing it without support makes me a skeptic.
16 jake // Nov 4, 2009 at 8:50 pm
I spoke with Diane as this was happening and Paul’s campaign manager later confirmed it.
17 Thunder Storm // Nov 4, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Count me as no longer skeptical
18 diane // Nov 4, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Thunder Storm, as an 18 month breast cancer survivor, I am passionate about the continuation of federal funding for research. David Adams told me beforehand that Rand Paul wouldn’t support expanding or protecting federal funding. I went to the Town Hall Meeting to hear Paul say it myself.
19 Tracy Saboe // Nov 4, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Maybe it’s because all the federal funding has produced absolutely no results. Some even wonder if it’s counter productive.
Then there’s lots of alternative or private research that can’t compete with the “free” (read taxpayer money) government funds because they’re different from the standard hypotheses.
We need a free market in scientific research. We’d start seeing some actual progress with cancer, and AIDS, etc. again.
20 Rod // Nov 5, 2009 at 12:43 am
“Frankly, I’m surprised at how much Rand Paul and his supporters use the internet, what with the government funding of telecoms and r&d into electronics and such…”
Send your regards to Al Gore. What an invention!
21 Rod // Nov 5, 2009 at 12:46 am
“Stop trying to be some faux conservative. And run this race as yourself. Otherwise, your political career is over.”
Jake, once again we agree on something. He should run as himself … against Conway and Lt. Dan in the other primary.
22 jake // Nov 5, 2009 at 7:29 am
Tracy:
“http://randforsenate.blogspot.com/” <– “randforsenate” — see that? You’re using a website to explicitly advocate the election of Rand Paul.
You may want to review campaign finance law to ensure you’re not in violation of FEC regulation.
23 Conservative // Nov 5, 2009 at 9:43 am
Yep. How much does that “randforsenate.blogspot.com” url cost, anyway?
Oh, wait. It’s free.
If our nation’s campaign finance laws put onerous reporting requirements on private individuals using free Web sites to promote candidates they support, it’s time for an overhaul of said laws to make them more common-sensical. If I use a free blog site to promote a candidate I support, or if I go to makestickers.com and have some stickers printed up myself in support of a candidate, it’s foolish that those efforts have to be reported to the feds.
24 jake // Nov 5, 2009 at 9:48 am
You don’t have to report it to the feds unless you exceed a spending threshold.
That said – I didn’t say anything about the cost of the Blogpost account. I said to be aware of FEC regulation.
25 Larry West // Nov 5, 2009 at 11:06 am
Jake: I asked in another post a link to a site that had the FEC regulations in readable, non-legalese English. I have yet to find anything. Seeing as how you are so passionate about FEC regulations being followed, perhaps you should write such a document.
If I create a hand-made poster or sign, do I need to put a disclaimer on it? I don’t recall seeing any signs at any rally, Democrat or Republican, with a disclaimer. Everyone must be violating the law. Why would a blog or website be any different than a hand-made sign? Both are advocating the election of a candidate.
26 jake // Nov 5, 2009 at 11:11 am
And I linked you: FEC.gov – dig in. There are tons of guidebooks and brochures there.
If an individual is just making a couple hand-made signs? That’s not an issue. But if they’re producing hundreds upon hundreds and spending money doing it? That could be an expenditure.
If a website is created to advocate the express election or defeat of a candidate, then paid-for-by disclaimers are required.
You can complain all day long about how restrictive you (plural, not Larry, specifically) campaign finance law happens to be. But guess what? You don’t get to ignore the specifics of said law just because you think your freedom of speech is being ignored.
27 Larry West // Nov 5, 2009 at 12:13 pm
I could not find anything not in legalese there. There is a link to a “Citizens Guide,” but when you click on the link (www.fec.gov/pub/citizens_guide_pub.pdf), you get a 404 error. Perhaps they are modifying it to make it more readable.
I did find the following: “Any other person (individual, partnership, qualified nonprofit corporation or group of individuals) must file a report with the FEC on FEC Form 5 [PDF] at the end of the first reporting period in which independent expenditures with respect to a given election aggregate more than $250 in a calendar year and in any succeeding period during the same year in which additional independent expenditures of any amount are made. 11 CFR 109.10(b).” (See http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/indexp.shtml)
If I interpret that correctly, then a person cannot spend more than $250.00 for all candidates they support combined in a calendar year without filing with the FEC. I don’t understand what is meant by “succeeding period” but I do urge everyone to make sure they don’t go over the $250 mark. I really doubt if anyone that you have complained about has.
OTOH, there is also an item in the same URL that states that a political committee cannot send out more than 500 “substantially similar” e-mails without a disclaimer, so your complaints about Marilyn Parker’s e-mails are correct if her e-mail list has more than 500 e-mail addresses in it. I wonder if it has. How can one find out?
Leave a Comment