You still didn’t say anything, mentioning the unique situation of Palin endorsing McCain does not apply to her endorsement of Rand Paul, and repeating that you don’t like Rand Paul and you do like Grayson just isn’t saying anything. Has Jim Bunning endorsed his “protege”?
Ansel, I’m sorry you refuse to see the reality here. I’ve enlightened you several times and you’re choosing to willfully ignore and dismiss it. I’m very disappointed in you.
Sarah Palin endorsed Lindsey Graham too, and had SarahPAC send him a $1000 donation (I'd also mention her endorsement of RINO Lisa Murkowski in the primary, except you'd probably claim that was “special situation” too). Is the SC primary also a unique situation, or does it “prove” that Lindsey Graham is the best conservative candidate in SC?
See sources about those endorsements here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2327046/posts
http://www.gop12.com/2009/08/sarahpac-gives-money-to-graham-hatch.html
Ditto with Steve Forbes. I think Steve Forbes is a GREAT guy, I strongly supported Forbes in the 2000 primary. But did I hop aboard Rudy Giuliani's campaign because Steve Forbes endorsed him? No.
Did freepers dump Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter for Mitt Romney when Jim DeMint endorsed Romney? No.
Just because so-and-so prominent conservative official endorses a candidate does not prove that candidate is the best choice. People like DeMint, Palin, and Forbes deserve praise for being on the right side of decisive races like Hoffman vs. Scozzafava, but their opinion is not infallible. I believe their track record shows Grayson is stronger on social issues and national security than Rand Paul. Paul is better on economic issues. I'm going with the candidate who is best on 2 out of 3.
Grayson ain't a perfect candidate and has been on the wrong side of an issue or two, so there's nothing with criticizing when he's gone wobbly. The thing we question is the Paulbots constantly smearing him as a RINO socialist and Democrat sleeper cell. That's really going out on a limb. And yes, I think stumping for FDR in the 30s and 40s was just as bad as stumping for Clinton in ‘92.
That's why people like Field are striking back and calling Rand Paul ‘a clone of his dad,the stench of Paleo-Libertarian all over him, 9/11 Truthers bankrolling him,and is a danger to our national security’ , et. al.
Turnabout seems to be fair play.
Now I don't trust Rand Paul, but I don't think he'd be THAT bad. Ironically, Field's arguments against Paul are the precise ones I used against Bob Conley, last year's RAT candidate in SC. To this day, his supporters refused to acknowledge he was just as flawed as Lindsey Graham and was NOT the “true conservative” in the race. All of Field's criticisms of Rand Paul fit Bob Conley to a tee (google “Bob Conley Moneybomb” and look up who bankrolled his campaign):
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/21520.html
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=26443
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=150171
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/65037
http://freeamerica.ning.com/profiles/blogs/2022243:BlogPost:901
And if he was the “true conservative” in the race, it was certainly news to DemocratUnderground, MoveOn.org, and DailyKos, since they made it clear which candidate they were rooting for in that race and it wasn't “neocon warmonger Lindsey Graham”:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=177x1653
What this does show, is that like the KY primary, the SC general election featured two candidates who were running as conservatives but had some serious flaws in their background. Nobody is perfect and sometimes you just gotta accept there are no excellent choices on the ballot.
And again, ansel112, I think you'll find most Grayson supporters would be perfectly willing to vote for Rand Paul if he is the nominee. Why is the reverse not true? Paulbots “my way or the highway” tactics in primaries doesn't make them particularly popular around here.