Trey Grayson says he won’t run for attorney general or any office in 2011

[BamaFanNKy]

That doesn't matter. I do know that Trey Grayson is a liar and is not someone whom I would ever support, nor would anyone who wants liberty.


So now you are wanting to censor me? That's really lame.

Besides I never said I would be voting in KY.

How so?
Is he going to actually shrink the size and scope of government? Is he going to refuse to prosecute those who have been charged but have harmed no one? How is he going to enforce federalism and force the Federal government to follow the Constitution? What does he think the role of government is?

No he's a liar and someone who will do or say anything to hold office. He proved that during the campaign. That right there is enough to ensure he never holds office again, his character (or lack thereof) proves it..

Censor you? Aren't you the one who was PMing me during the campaign telling me what I should post and what not to, saying you 'worked for the campaign?'

Matt, you're someone who'd rather burn bridges and sometimes be an ass thinking you are proving a point. Like talking down to people. As someone who has to live in this state and someone who owns a business and has had to work with the SOS office, Trey has made it more efficient and done so within a smaller scope of previous offices.

He's also someone who would challenge Obamacare and know how to do it properly. Not everyone has the liberty of starting their political public life in 2007.

 

[BamaFanNKy]

Some possibilities include Andy Barr, Rob Sanders and Brian Goettl.

Good Lord.

I've known Andy Barr, nice guy.... no way should he be up for AG.

Too bad a former Fletcher man (thus why he can't run) who IS a libertarian will not run.

 

[TheTyke]

How can Grayson be a heck of a Sec of State or make a good Attorney General if he: 1) Didn't even read the Kentucky Constitution he took an oath to support, 2) Actively worked against freedom of speech, 3) Lied to further his agenda and career, 4) Requested more money to spend every year? I'm utterly baffled how one can be skeptical of someone like Phil Moffett, but support someone like Grayson with an indisputable track record of working against liberty...

I'll echo the dislike of Andy Barr though. I've been told he worked to shut the Paul delegates out in 2008.

Really, our problem is that we don't have any good candidates. Ron & Rand are the only ones I trust fully, but a very few others I can support - like Stan Lee or Moffett. I'm not going to waste my efforts on "lesser evils" that run on free markets and liberty and then vote the opposite... that just hurts our message, and may be worse than having established enemies in office.

 

[BamaFanNKy]

How can Grayson be a heck of a Sec of State or make a good Attorney General if he: 1) Didn't even read the Kentucky Constitution he took an oath to support, 2) Actively worked against freedom of speech, 3) Lied to further his agenda and career, 4) Requested more money to spend every year? I'm utterly baffled how one can be skeptical of someone like Phil Moffett, but support someone like Grayson with an indisputable track record of working against liberty...

I'll echo the dislike of Andy Barr though. I've been told he worked to shut the Paul delegates out in 2008.

Really, our problem is that we don't have any good candidates. Ron & Rand are the only ones I trust fully, but a very few others I can support - like Stan Lee or Moffett. I'm not going to waste my efforts on "lesser evils" that run on free markets and liberty and then vote the opposite... that just hurts our message, and may be worse than having established enemies in office.

Maybe because I see the office of AG different than Governor and Senate. Also, because the other candidates that will be put before us are that much more craptastic. I've talked to him on the two "freedom of speech" points you raise and he said it was a mistake with the laws they were offering. Probably didn't weigh the unintended consequences.

Honestly, all these people are varying in their levels of craptastic, some have a black belt in craptastic over others (Andy Barr, David Williams, Phil Moffett, Bill Johnson, Mitch McConnell, Hal Rogers, Todd Lally etc.). None of the prior have a true LF/Liberty movement pedigree.

I will admit, I like Trey personally and think he is more likely open to being convinced to do the correct thing where as others are stubborn in their wrong minded views. Plus, I thought Trey was pretty solid after the election and took his ass kicking like a man, I respect that.

 

[Matt Collins]

Also, because the other candidates that will be put before us are that much more craptastic.

Honestly, all these people are varying in their levels of craptastic, some have a black belt in craptastic over others (Andy Barr, David Williams, Phil Moffett, Bill Johnson, Mitch McConnell, Hal Rogers, Todd Lally etc.). None of the prior have a true LF/Liberty movement pedigree.

Keep on supporting the lesser of the evils and see where that lands you. As for me, I only support candidates who are going to bring about liberty.

I will admit, I like Trey personally and think he is more likely open to being convinced to do the correct thing where as others are stubborn in their wrong minded views.

Really? You mean like lying about his opponent? You mean like smearing his opponent and his family?

Plus, I thought Trey was pretty solid after the election and took his ass kicking like a man, I respect that.

So? What does that have to do with anything? Besides, what other choice did he have?

 

[Matt Collins]

I'm not going to waste my efforts on "lesser evils" that run on free markets and liberty and then vote the opposite... that just hurts our message, and may be worse than having established enemies in office.

Exactly. But keep in mind that BamaFan used to work with the Republican Party in KY prior to Rand, so he has a bit of a "go along, get along establishment" type of mindset as is evident in his posts here.

 

[Matt Collins]

Censor you? Aren't you the one who was PMing me during the campaign telling me what I should post and what not to,

because you were posting things that could potentially be used against the campaign

Matt, you're someone who'd rather burn bridges and sometimes be an ass thinking you are proving a point.

Not at all. I only support liberty, not some quasi compromise which will bring anything but.

As someone who has to live in this state and someone who owns a business and has had to work with the SOS office, Trey has made it more efficient and done so within a smaller scope of previous offices.

Ok so he might be an ok administrator. But that doesn't mean he will bring about more liberty.

He's also someone who would challenge Obamacare and know how to do it properly.

How so? What methods would he use to do it? And Obamacare is just the tip of the iceberg. What other federal encroachments is he going to challenge and how is he going to do it? What does he believe the role of government is?

 

[TheDriver]

Not at all. I only support liberty, not some quasi compromise which will bring anything but.

Define liberty..... :o


In Kentucky, we have a two-party state, and I'm not seeing much, if any, primary fights brewing.

Analysis: Well connected establishment-type Republican candidates will face Obama-friendly democrats in the general.

Focus: We have an Obama-friendly AG - Jack Conway - now, and he wouldn't even challenge ObamaCare, how's that for "liberty?"

Summary: Yapping about what we'd like on this forum will not change the conditions on the ground, at least not for a primary that is only a few months ago.

 

[Matt Collins]

Define liberty..... :o

A reduction of government to the only absolute necessities - providing justice, securing individual rights, enforcing contracts.

Summary: Yapping about what we'd like on this forum will not change the conditions on the ground, at least not for a primary that is only a few months ago.

No argument there.

 

[TheDriver]

A reduction of government to the only absolute necessities - providing justice, securing individual rights, enforcing contracts.

Anyone can say that, however its subjective as to who we chose to believe.



I generally agree that we need better candidates, however I and others may differ with fighting the two-party system with a candidate that can't win. Burning bridges isn't always the best way to get what you are after.

 

[Matt Collins]

I and others may differ with fighting the two-party system with a candidate that can't win.

Oh I agree.

Running a candidate who isn't credible is largely a waste of time. It's why I'm not a member of the LP. But running a credible candidate (even if they are not able to win; such as Ron Paul in '08) can have distinct benefits strategically and philosophically.

The trick is finding someone who is credible and still willing to run in a race they are almost guaranteed to lose.

But if those conditions don't exist, I refuse to support anyone who isn't a liberty candidate. Better to have a wolf than a wolf in sheep's clothing because they'll trick less people

 

[BamaFanNKy]

Oh I agree.

Running a candidate who isn't credible is largely a waste of time. It's why I'm not a member of the LP. But running a credible candidate (even if they are not able to win; such as Ron Paul in '08) can have distinct benefits strategically and philosophically.

The trick is finding someone who is credible and still willing to run in a race they are almost guaranteed to lose.

But if those conditions don't exist, I refuse to support anyone who isn't a liberty candidate. Better to have a wolf than a wolf in sheep's clothing because they'll trick less people

Matt, I think what both Driver and I like to do is grow our base. Blasting Trey Grayson pushes people away from our movement since, he's one of the more well liked politicians (by both sides) in this state. He lost in the primary because he symbolized Mitch McConnell and we had the rarest GOP candidate that I can remember in a long time with Senator Elect Paul.

As far as not supporting anyone who is not a liberty candidate, totally agree. Voting for a better of the two was my POV with Trey. That said, I hope he stays in politics because without a doubt, one of the nicest guys. He's also willing to debate the issues with you one on one (much like Senator Elect Paul). The thought of a Faux Liberty candidate (which we get from many in this state) is more repulsive to me than the establishment more Bush/McConnell type.

Also, Jim Bunning was one of his early mentors so.... I have hope for him.

 

[Matt Collins]

Matt, I think what both Driver and I like to do is grow our base. Blasting Trey Grayson pushes people away from our movement since, he's one of the more well liked politicians (by both sides) in this state. He lost in the primary because he symbolized Mitch McConnell and we had the rarest GOP candidate that I can remember in a long time with Senator Elect Paul.

I understand.

But leadership is not going with whatever is popular, leadership is doing what is correct, regardless of popularity.

I would rather be on the wrong side of popular opinion and still be philosophically sound, than be on the popular side of opinion and be philosophically / morally bankrupt.

Obviously winning elections are all about popularity, but as Rand just proved, one can still do that but not compromise one's principles in the process. Extraordinary situation? Perhaps, but it's a sad modern day commentary when we think that a single politician actually holding true to their philosophical beliefs is "extraordinary".

That said, I hope he stays in politics because without a doubt, one of the nicest guys.

He sure didn't act like it during the primary. Besides, Jimmy Carter was a very nice guy. Many Americans thought FDR was a nice guy. Sara Palin is a nice person too. But that doesn't mean that we should want them to hold office. Personality is not as important as philosophy and character. Trey has just shown that he has neither philosophy nor character based upon his refusal to stand for anything and his unnecessary and "despicable" attacks on Rand. This last campaign brought out the worst in him and his real self showed through -- he is willing to do or say anything to attain power.

The thought of a Faux Liberty candidate (which we get from many in this state) is more repulsive to me than the establishment more Bush/McConnell type.

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer

 

[TheTyke]

I will agree that after the primary, Trey was very good-natured and supportive. Whatever the motive, that impressed me too, and I don't see profit in going after him at this point either... I just think when it comes to who we support, it seems like we'd need people who are serious constitutionalists.

 

[MRoCkEd]

I doubt he would be much better than Conway, besides taking the obvious political move and suing Obamacare. Trey seems to be a nice guy, but he has no coherent philosophy besides wanting to stay in office. I'm not in Kentucky, though, so to each his own I guess.

 

[Matt Collins]

I don't see profit in going after him at this point either... I just think when it comes to who we support, it seems like we'd need people who are serious constitutionalists.

I agree. No need to needlessly go after him, but if he runs for office again we should definitely find someone credible to run against him since we now know who he is and what he's about.

I doubt he would be much better than Conway, besides taking the obvious political move and suing Obamacare. Trey seems to be a nice guy, but he has no coherent philosophy besides wanting to stay in office.

Exactly.

 

[jonathansloas]

I understand.

Trey has just shown that he has neither philosophy nor character based upon his refusal to stand for anything and his unnecessary and "despicable" attacks on Rand. This last campaign brought out the worst in him and his real self showed through -- he is willing to do or say anything to attain power.

I mean really Matt you sound like such a whiner there. If I remember correctly, Trey's first ads were him to camera saying he disagreed w/ Dr. Paul. Then Dr. Paul went up with ads saying Trey Grayson was "Dangerous Allies" with Barack Obama and Ahmadinejad. Really, you think those were fair ads? I mean it's a campaign, do you think it's fair to say Grayson is an ally of Obama? I'm not arguing against the ads, they were very effective, I'm just saying it's a campaign, shit happens, stop bitching and moaning it just seems like your feelings were hurt.

 

[Matt Collins]

Really, you think those were fair ads? I mean it's a campaign, do you think it's fair to say Grayson is an ally of Obama

YES


Anyone who is going along to get along with the establishment is an ally of the establishment.

I see from your low post count you must be new here.

 

[BamaFanNKy]

I doubt he would be much better than Conway, besides taking the obvious political move and suing Obamacare. Trey seems to be a nice guy, but he has no coherent philosophy besides wanting to stay in office. I'm not in Kentucky, though, so to each his own I guess.

Other than he doesn't want to stay in office..... missed the whole thing. hehe

I get some of you haven't moved on from the primary. His campaign was awful and I think he realizes Nate Hodson was a mistake. Best thing to do when you see a campaign manager that wastes time, money and has a jumbled focus is to move on without that person.

 

[low preference guy]

I mean really Matt you sound like such a whiner there. If I remember correctly, Trey's first ads were him to camera saying he disagreed w/ Dr. Paul. Then Dr. Paul went up with ads saying Trey Grayson was "Dangerous Allies" with Barack Obama and Ahmadinejad. Really, you think those were fair ads? I mean it's a campaign, do you think it's fair to say Grayson is an ally of Obama? I'm not arguing against the ads, they were very effective, I'm just saying it's a campaign, shit happens, stop bitching and moaning it just seems like your feelings were hurt.

if i recall correctly, you were not a Rand Paul supporter in the primary or in the general election. is that correct?