McConnell targeted by Kentucky tea partiers

[itshappening]

+1. Even if he doesn't win, dragging his ass through the mud and showing everyone who McConnell really is will go a long way towards getting his ass out of that seat. Boehner, McConnell, Pelosi, Reid etc are not royalty. People need to make them accountable to their treason. Making these people focus towards just keeping their seat is time and money they can't spend taking our rights away, too.

it's virtually impossible to remove them and would cost millions of dollars and result in failure. contrary to your beliefs the likes of Boehner and Pelosi are hugely popular back in their district and are national figures, same with McConnell. They have plenty of money and good will and will cruise to victory every time.

What's the point?

Do you know how much it costs to run a senate campaign, dear lord...

Much easier to focus on WV where 2 million will win you the seat than try and dethrone McConnell in Kentucky which would cost 5-10m just to try and make it competitive and unlikely to succeed because no one decent will run against him, certainly no elected official and no one with a brain will waste a year of their time going round Kentucky trying to beat him in a primary .

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

Its unfortunate we'd have to face off with him during a primary, which I see as a time when the average voters don't care to become the slightest bit informed and vote based of off incumbent or name recognition. I want to see it done though, and I'll definitely donate what little I can to the cause if a liberty candidate steps up. Is this district red enough where a victory in the R primary virtually assures them the senate seat?

 

[FSP-Rebel]

We'll continue to only be able to take on one Senator per election if we get stuck in the weeds and refuse to deal with the primary system. The more states that we can convert in terms of having commanding shares in the chair and exec comm, then we can reject the primary in favor of state conventions picking party nominees.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

We'll continue to only be able to take on one Senator per election if we get stuck in the weeds and refuse to deal with the primary system. The more states that we can convert in terms of having commanding shares in the chair and exec comm, then we can reject the primary in favor of state conventions picking party nominees.

I tend to agree, although Caucuses are much preferred over primaries.

 

[compromise]

We'll continue to only be able to take on one Senator per election if we get stuck in the weeds and refuse to deal with the primary system. The more states that we can convert in terms of having commanding shares in the chair and exec comm, then we can reject the primary in favor of state conventions picking party nominees.

Good luck with getting the rest of the GOP to agree to that. There will probably even be a lot of liberty people who don't support that. Look at other countries without primaries, almost everyone toes the party line. The primary is one of the few good things about elections in the United States.

 

[tony m]

Good luck with getting the rest of the GOP to agree to that. There will probably even be a lot of liberty people who don't support that. Look at other countries without primaries, almost everyone toes the party line. The primary is one of the few good things about elections in the United States.

Depending on what state your in. I would rather caucus than have our primary in NYS. At least the caucus offers a voice and a fighting chance.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Good luck with getting the rest of the GOP to agree to that. There will probably even be a lot of liberty people who don't support that. Look at other countries without primaries, almost everyone toes the party line. The primary is one of the few good things about elections in the United States.

Try to think of it in terms of what happened to Sen Bennett at the UT state convention where the delegates decided he was too RINO via his voting record and the majority of them decided to reject their sitting Senator in favor of putting up current Sen Lee. The party establishment is who wants primaries these days as they see the liberty movement networking with the broader conservative base against them. Heck, even Karl Rove is trying to get a handle on challengers to the establishment candidates in the next go around. This is where we use or strengths to our benefit. Then, w/o primaries the conservative PACs can save their money to really showcase our conservative nominees going into the general and hence we could get a brand new wave of solid Senators in a short time not to mention save state taxpayers money that would be spent on primaries every time we turn around. Then, in county conventions the districts could decide who get to be the local nominee to run for Congress which would be the real check on voting records as the general republican voter would have or pay very little attention to it. Perfect way, if the support is there, to get rid of the likes of Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy by the conservative/liberty delegates if they have enough clout in whatever Congressional district.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Depending on what state your in. I would rather caucus than have our primary in NYS. At least the caucus offers a voice and a fighting chance.

A caucus would be better than a primary but ideally we need to use our numbers as party delegates along with other conservatives to handle business at state conventions. There'll be certain areas in every state where the GOP establishment will hold their sway but when all the districts come together at state, the tide turns. That said, some states have made significant progress in reshaping their party chair and exec comm but other states need to work on this so that the option to pick nominees in conventions can occur. It should be fairly easy to get other conservative delegates on board for this as it saves taxpayer money (a common sense way to ingratiate the party with the average person) as well as gives them a solid say-so in the intra-party functions, of which, picking party nominees is the most important thing that party officers should have discretion over, not the unwashed masses.

 

[twomp]

Good for Liberty PAC. SOMEONE has to stand up to the tyrants. If everyone in this country were like some of the posters here who are afraid to challenge someone because they are deemed "too powerful" or "too rich" then we will get no where as a country. Even if we don't replace McConnell, let it not be said we did nothing.

 

[paulbot24]

If we choose to challenge him, at least we remind him that he is an elected official. I'm sure by now he views his re-elections as mere formalities to keep the people feeling empowered and it makes for a great excuse to put together extravagant events. Challenging him sends a message that the liberty movement is growing and watching his voting record.

 

[eleganz]

control the endorsements = liberty candidate.

fsp rebel is spot on.

 

[sailingaway]

Exactly. This may turn into much more, but the truth is even if no one chooses this as a worthwhile cause to donate to, without spending a penny we've already caused McConnell a huge headache in the national media. After all the bad votes, it's the least Kentuckians could do for everyone's favorite senator!

I can't rep you again this soon.... but I will!

I look forward to seeing what happens out there.

 

[Aratus]

rand paul is being taken seriously at the national level as evidenced by the press coverage of john kerry's confirmation hearings

 

[VBRonPaulFan]

it's virtually impossible to remove them and would cost millions of dollars and result in failure. contrary to your beliefs the likes of Boehner and Pelosi are hugely popular back in their district and are national figures, same with McConnell. They have plenty of money and good will and will cruise to victory every time.

What's the point?

Do you know how much it costs to run a senate campaign, dear lord...

Much easier to focus on WV where 2 million will win you the seat than try and dethrone McConnell in Kentucky which would cost 5-10m just to try and make it competitive and unlikely to succeed because no one decent will run against him, certainly no elected official and no one with a brain will waste a year of their time going round Kentucky trying to beat him in a primary .

you're right. we should let these scumbags get away with their shit and just go for the low hanging fruit, always. challenges are to be ignored.

in other words: politics is hard, lets go shopping!

 

[Victor Grey]

I'd love to see McConnell taken down, make no mistake. That would be wonderful. I don't see it being likely whatsoever though, so in that case it would be a waste of resources in that venture, to attempt it at this time.

you're right. we should let these scumbags get away with their shit and just go for the low hanging fruit, always. challenges are to be ignored.

in other words: politics is hard, lets go shopping!

You think you'll make him cry when you run against him. There is always that. You might make him cry. That'd feel good.

When he still wins, and you've put limited money down the hole for basically nothing, instead of toward campaigns where there could of been gains made, beyond simple minded pud pulling, that as a result of which would in time lead to a political situation where successful campaigns against major candidates akin to McConnell were made possible...

well, that won't happen so do enjoy beating that meat I guess.

 

[sailingaway]

why are some so controlling of where OTHERS put their money? At this point there isn't even a candidate to decide on. If Kemper were running, even building up name familiarity might be worth some dollars to some people, and to others, just opposing a horrible majority leader who has gotten away with political murder is worth some. Some think making consequences exist is a bit more than 'beating meat'. If you don't, obviously, you will make your own support decisions.

Meanwhile, kudos to the Kentucky grass roots. Just the headlines making their independence clear is worth a bit, in my book.

 

[twomp]

why are some so controlling of where OTHERS put their money? At this point there isn't even a candidate to decide on. If Kemper were running, even building up name familiarity might be worth some dollars to some people, and to others, just opposing a horrible majority leader who has gotten away with political murder is worth some. Some think making consequences exist is a bit more than 'beating meat'. If you don't, obviously, you will make your own support decisions.

Meanwhile, kudos to the Kentucky grass roots. Just the headlines making their independence clear is worth a bit, in my book.

I agree! Here in California, I donated to Rick Williams and John Dennis even though I knew they didn't have a very good chance. And while there are some here who would say that I'm "throwing my money away." I feel like anyone who is willing to challenge the establishment deserves my support no matter how long of a shot it is. They deserve to know that there are people who support them and that they should continue the fight.

 

[VBRonPaulFan]

I'd love to see McConnell taken down, make no mistake. That would be wonderful. I don't see it being likely whatsoever though, so in that case it would be a waste of resources in that venture, to attempt it at this time.



You think you'll make him cry when you run against him. There is always that. You might make him cry. That'd feel good.

When he still wins, and you've put limited money down the hole for basically nothing, instead of toward campaigns where there could of been gains made, beyond simple minded pud pulling, that as a result of which would in time lead to a political situation where successful campaigns against major candidates akin to McConnell were made possible...

well, that won't happen so do enjoy beating that meat I guess.

he might not be beat this time, maybe not the next. but you're looking at this as an all or nothing deal. sure, he's strong there. but run a couple of pretty good campaigns against him, and his 'rock-solid support' will begin to waver when they realize he's just as bad as most dems are. it's an investment, and if nothing else, it shows establishment folks that people are willing to primary them if they make shitty votes. that may keep them from continuing to make those shitty votes.

 

[Liberty & Justice]

Hope there are some good candidates to challenge.

 

[supermario21]

We might not beat McConnell, but he could turn into Orrin Hatch and suddenly have a 100% JBS voting record.