Skip to comments.KY-Sen. 2010: Trey Grayson gave keynote speech at Van Jones-sponsored climate change event
Posted on 11/29/2009 12:28:33 PM PST by rabscuttle385
Trey Grayson, a Republican candidate for US Senate, was the keynote speaker on the issue of global warming last year at Eastern Kentucky University as part of the National Focus the Nation event.
Now, why is that such a big deal? Well, the Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation for Focus the Nation is none other than Van Jones. Yes, that's right, the self-proclaimed communist Obama hired to be the Green Jobs Czar that had to tuck tail and resign at midnight.
Now, let's back up a bit. Here's a bit of history on Focus the Nation. They are a "climate change" advocate group that supports Cap and Trade and all kinds of other crap. their supporters are a who's who of the liberal progressive DC bunch, including Ma'am Boxer, Pelosi, Arlen Specter, all the way up to Obama himself. Last January, they conducted webcasts and "teach-ins" in over 1900 high school and college campuses across the country, and now they are working on what they call "The Road to Copenhagen." Oh, you remember the upcoming Copenhagen event, right? The one that, if the treaty is signed and ratified, will literally override the Constitution. Yeah, nice, right?
(Excerpt) Read more at aipnews.com ...
Ted Grayson , just another turd wrapped in human skin masquerading as a Republican.
Looks like there’s another Rino in the woodpile!
You think we're kidding?
If he is associated with Van Jones; he is worse than a RINO.
Is this race DeDe Scozzafava all over again?
Where is Republican Wildcat? He’s hot on this issue!! Big Grayson supporter!
As I recall, Rand Paul is also in the Pub primary! That should make it easier for the Pubs to pick him. Who is the Dem candidate?
Grayson is a RINO for coddling Van Jones, George Soros, and their assorted "progressive" machinations.
Anyone who continues to back him while knowing of his insidious affiliations is a RINO and a fool.
Maybe there’s an innocent explanation for this, but it certainly looks bad.
I’m backing Grayson, Rabs. The longer this campaign continues, the more disgust I have for Rand Paul and his father’s attempts to buy Junior a Senate seat for which he has no qualifications, has done nothing for Conservatism or for the KY GOP (I’d never even heard of Junior until he decided he wanted a Senate seat), and all the while downplaying or hiding his links to his Paleo backers and his father’s fundraising network. I abhor all this sleaze thrown at a good man who has done a good job during his 6 years as KY Sec of State.
Trey Grayson: http://www.jointreygrayson.com/
Bill Johnson: http://kentuckybill.com/
Rand Paul: http://www.randpaul2010.com/
pps: If anyone has a website for the other (conservative)
candidates, please FR_mail me...thanks.
I disagree. I think both are qualified to be a senator. I’d like to see some military service and neither man makes the grade on that criteria. Aside from that, my question is are they electable and if both are, who is the Reagan Republican in this race? I’d love to see where their differences are, and/or which one refuses to take a stand. By now, we should know where they stand on all issues, from socializing medicine and tax policies to the flag burning amendment, homosexualizing the military, gun control and immigration.
Thanks for the PING, skink. This lifelong Kentuckian and lifelong Republican knows of NOTHING GOOD that Grayson has ever done for this state or the party.
Who is the Reagan Republican ? Well, Grayson is a party switcher and was too young to cast a vote in the ‘80s. He did support Bubba in college, but grew up and got with the program. As for Rand Paul, given that his father WAS the anti-Reagan who opposed him for President, Rand cannot claim that mantle, either.
Frankly, I’d say Grayson is closer to the Reagan mode, but there’s no “perfect” viable candidate in the race. My problems with Rand are that he had no visibility before this seat was appearing to come open, he’s just using his father’s name and fundraising network to buy the nomination. He has no public record, no accomplishments. He had ample opportunity to have run for lesser office and build a record. It’d be a different story, perhaps, if he were running a kamikaze bid in a state with no viable Republican to run, but we’ve already got an experienced candidate in who has won statewide twice.
Virtually all the sleaze and slander has been coming exclusively from Paul’s camp, the Soros and Van Jones associations, which are so ludicrously over the top (because, oh, yeah, Soros is real interested in Kentucky and a lesser statewide official - makes perfect sense, y’know ? I’d be surprised if Soros has even set foot in Kentucky). It’s crap like this which is going to inflict enormous damage on the eventual nominee, and the Dems could very well take this as a result.
And what are all the great things Junior Paul has done for the state of Kentucky and the KY Republican Party ? Nobody I know heard of this guy until he declared to run. Just using daddy’s name and connections to buy a high office he has zilch qualifications and accomplishments for.
You preceeded me to posting on this thread, and did so by trashing Dr. Rand Paul yet again, and repeating your talking point about Grayson being a “man who has done a good job during his 6 years as KY Sec of State,” and saying that “nobody I know heard of this guy until he declared to run.” As far as I know, you have never lived a day of your life in Kentucky, and have never been active in the Republican Party of Kentucky. I have lived here my entire life, and been involved in the party for over fifteen years. And all my friends know plenty about both candidates. Still waiting to hear about all these wonderful things Grayson has done in his current office. If I am wrong about your experience in the state, please correct me.
In other words, again, Junior Paul has done jack squat.
FRiend, is it true that Grayson gave the keynote speech at this conference? If so, this doesn’t sound like “sleaze” to me—it seems like a real problem.
Hmmm....What you say is true.
Hadn't heard of him prior to this Senate Run.
....and I rem: BlueGrass Patriot's tactics in '03.
all smoke...no fire.
I rem; you talking about his local/state connection (Louis'ville mtg.), RPL.
No, in other words, you come to yet another thread and start the RINO talking points about Grayson being a man who has done a good job, but you are an out-of-stater who cannot give me examples of the good job he’s done.
Good memory about the “BlueGrass Patriot” tactics from 2003, skink! And once again, you are correct, skink, about me discussing his connections in the state back several years ago.
Elected officials give speeches at conferences and events all the time, that’s a fact of life. I doubt seriously that Grayson knew who Van Jones was, and he certainly wouldn’t approve of a Communist thug. You could dig up and slime any pol with guilt by association at such events. But the sleaze here is implying he is in the back pocket of Soros and a close personal acquaintance of Jones. Anyone with an ounce of brain matter knows that is bullcrap.
I have, for my entire life, lived less than 40 miles from Kentucky as the crow flies. We get KY news, KY weather, KY sports and on and on, so take your red herring crap argument and shove it up your kiester. And, y’know, for somebody touting Junior Paul, you seem thoroughly incapable of detailing all his “great achievements” for which you claim he is infinitely better than that “horrible Grayson.” Well, what are they ? You guys remind me of the Slick Willardbots proclaiming how great their guy was, yet when it came time to reeling off his accomplishments, he had NOTHING. Oh, wait... Slick Willard at least had a record to review, Junior Paul ain’t even got that. Talk about a real achievement.
I guess my question is more focused on whether he’s a warmist. I’m looking for the actual speech, but it certainly doesn’t look good that he gave the keynote. I assume that the keynote speaker is not going to be a person who opposes the goals of the conference.
I also found this: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P3-1389489451.html
It appears Grayson endorsed Romney ‘way back in November 2007. That’s a huuuuuuuge red flag for me.
Once again, you take words out of context and then add words where convenient for you. I never used the words "great achievements" in regards to Dr. Paul, and I never used the words "horrible Grayson." But since you asked so nicely, here are just a few facts about Dr. Paul:
- Founder of the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic to help provide eye surgery and free exams for the poor
- Founder and Chairman of the Kentucky Taxpayers United since 1994
- Sponsor of the Taxpayer's Pledge of Americans for Tax Reform
These things are more in line with the Kentuckian Republicans I have known for decades than a Harvard guy who was still a Democrat one year prior to running for public office. Ironic that you mention the Slick Willardbots, since Grayson was a Clinton supporter also.
Valid question. I don’t rightly know, as Sec of State of KY that’s not an issue he’d be dealing with as a policy (you’d be more likely to know were he Governor or a Congressmember). That Presidential endorsement is troubling (and my reputation on FR as the #1 opponent of Slick Willard is well established, risking my account to see his candidacy scuttled), although as we saw, a lot of pols were trying to pick over whom they thought were the best of a lot of subpar candidates. Of course, DeMint of SC endorsed Slick Willard, too, a black mark on an otherwise good record in the Senate.
As I’ve said many times, if Grayson ends up this horrific left-winger the Paulbots claim in the Senate, I’ll be the first to call for his defeat. I give folks a chance to do the right thing, and if they screw up, they lose my support, it’s that simple.
Good point about DeMint—although at least he endorsed Romney before there was much thought of Thompson getting in the race (so he gets a leeetle more of a pass). :)
Anyway, for all the arguments about who’s local to this race, I’m way up here in Pa, so I’m a complete spectator. :)
As I thought, Paul was one of the few who supported Reagan in 1976. He headed their 1976 delegation which presented headaches for the Ford people. As for either candidate losing, I can't imagine Kentucky sending a liberal to the senate next year.
I’m sure somebody soon will chase them both down and nail them on specific issues. I hope we don’t end up with a 70% solution when we could have a 100% solution.
Irrespective of Rand Paul's record, it does appear that Trey Grayson did in fact give a speech at a "sustainability" event at Eastern Kentucky University on 01 Feb. 2008. Quote:
Secretary Grayson will discuss how Kentucky can respond to the challenge of global warming and climate change. Event is sponsored by EKU's Committee on Responsible Environmental Stewardship as part of the national "Focus the Nation" event.
Event Date: February 01 11:30 a.m.
Location: SSB O'Donnell Auditorium
Contact Information: Charles Elliott, 622-1538
Source: Eastern Kentucky University, Press Release, 25 Jan. 2008 (https://ssl.eku.edu/prm.eku.edu/ekutoday/?module=0&id=4646&PHPSESSID=0170afcc5a00b46c487399bfd500e22f)
Note that Grayson's speech on "global warming" was preceded on the evening of 30 Jan. 2008 by a video web cast featuring Van Jones, Stanford University climate scientist Stephen Schneider, and sustainability "consultant" Hunter Lovins.
Source: Eastern Kentucky University, Press Release, 25 Jan. 2008 (https://ssl.eku.edu/prm.eku.edu/ekutoday/?module=0&id=4645&PHPSESSID=0170afcc5a00b46c487399bfd500e22f)
Note: Dr. Schneider in 1977 predicted an imminent Ice Age and was later criticized by colleagues for using scare tactics in order to gain publicity. In addition, his e-mails were recently caught up in the hacked Hadley CRU e-mail scandal, popularly known here on FR as "Climategate."
With an increase of government spending of 2% of GDP, we can solve all these problems, but it will require "grand bargains" between the parties, with Democrats agreeing to accept market-oriented programs if Republicans will generously fund them. For instance, Miller says many Republicans would support universal health coverage if Democrats would allow a plan relying on tax subsidies to cover private insurance policies. Based on similar principles, Miller crafts Solomonic proposals to raise teacher pay, experiment with school vouchers, subsidize a living wage for poor workers, publicly finance elections, slow the growth rate of Social Security and Medicare expenses, and offset the costs of the new initiatives. Though he calls it "ideologically androgynous," Miller's agenda resembles the New Democrat platform and will be a harder sell to the committed tax cutters of the GOP.
Source: Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/Two-Percent-Solution-Americas-Conservatives/dp/1586481584)
In other words, we are talking about a video web cast promoting some serious "bipartisanship" in the style of McCain and Romney including such programs as Obamacare.
According to Eastern Kentucky University, both Grayson's speech and the video web cast were sponsored by progressive advocacy group Focus the Nation. In its own words, the organization is
a national non-profit headquartered Portland, Oregon. We believe in the science of climate change and the opportunity it presents to rebuild American communities and US leadership at the local and international level. We are driven by a fierce commitment to empower young people with the leadership, educational and engagement opportunities that will accelerate our transition to a more just and prosperous clean energy future.
Source: Focus the Nation, About (http://www.focusthenation.org/about)
The group has been praised by such liberal Democrats as Sens. Kerry and Feinstein of Massachusetts and California, respectively, and has partners such as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund whose self-described mission includes "helping to build a more just, sustainable, and peaceful world."
One further link I forgot to include at post 32:
ellery: I didn't even realize that Grayson had been a supporter of Mitt Romney. I was a supporter of Dr. Ron Paul, as obviously was his son. When I saw the term "Slick Williard," I mistakingly thought the reference was to Bill Clinton.
As to being local or complete spectator, I don't think there is anything wrong with being involved with races across the country. I simply have a problem with someone I know pretty well (Dr. Rand Paul and I share several good friends over several years) being called crazy and unaccomplished and trying "to buy a Senate seat."
See posts 32 and 33.
Ugh. Double ugh.
And great research—thank you.
That makes sense. I have to say that at this point my default is against the establishment republican in any GOP primary race (unless there are massive, compelling reasons to support him/her). I don’t get to vote in this one, though...:)
It does seem odd calling an MD unaccomplished. Personally, I think that some of our best candidates for office are those who have NOT spent their entire life in government.
Okay, now I am going to put two and two together and go out on a limb a bit.
Supporter of Mitt Romney?
Hanging out with guys who are pushing "The 2% Solution," which includes as part of the proposal the following:
For instance, Miller says many Republicans would support universal health coverage if Democrats would allow a plan relying on tax subsidies to cover private insurance policies.
which sounds very similar to Romneycare in Massachusetts.
Combined with Trey Grayson's past history as a Democrat, I would be interested in finding out exactly when he decided to switch parties and his motivation for doing so.
Otherwise, this sorry bastard doesn't pass my sniff test, no matter what his backers claim he has done for Kentucky.
Grayson was involved in crafting the GOP platform last year. For what it’s worth, here is what he had to say related to climate change/global warming (still looking for the speech):
The group faced a similar challenge with a statement regarding global warming, which the party’s position statement refers to as “climate change.”
“For me the terms are interchangeable,” Grayson said. But for others in the party the term “global warming” isn’t acceptable. “I think the distinction some people make is that they aren’t fully convinced that maybe we’re not warming,” he said. “I don’t think there’s skepticism that something’s going on, which is why the climate change phrase is OK with them.”
Bill Johnson has military servive. Bill Johnson is the Reagan Republican. Why stick with either Greyson or Paul?
Guess I’ll vote for the Rand Paul and hope he’s not as crazy as his dad.
If Johnson is the real deal, then Freepers should get behind him nationally.
Option C, there’s a thought. He’s and unknown polling in single digits though so it doesn’t look good for him.
Paul would be an unknown polling in single digits too if his name was Paul Rand and he wasn’t related to Ron Paul. I don’t care for dynastic politics much.
Ron Paul did back Reagan in 1976. When he ran for President himself as the Libertarian it was in 1988 against Bush and Dukakis. Allegedly he criticized Reagan that year for the deficit.
I can’t say I’m thrilled with Grayson or Rand Paul. If Grayson is a ‘climate change’ guy that’s definitely a point against him.
I just hope the GOP doesn’t piss away the seat to the rat Conway. I’d vote for either Grayson or Paul in the General election.
Usually if there's not an unacceptable RINO who MUST be stopped in the primary, I'm inclined to vote for whoever I think would be the best choice, even if they stand little chance of winning. In that case, my choice would probably be Bill Johnson (I agree he seems to be the only solid Reagan Republican in the race), though at this point it would be little more than a throwaway protest vote against the two "main" choices.
IMO, Grayson was expected to easily win the primary as the big name statewide official, so it's internal problems with his campaign that are causing him to struggle with Paul. The problem now is that Paul is portraying himself as the true conservative choice and Grayson as a moderate establishment squish. I don't think that reflects reality, as it seems to me that Grayson is better on social issues (right to life, traditional marriage, etc.) and national security issues (keep gitmo, support the Patriot Act, etc.) than Paul. But Grayson isn't communicating this to voters and Paul is deliberately being vague about his stance on those issues. Paul is probably the stronger candidate on economic issues like abolishing the income tax, returning to the gold standard, etc.
The main problem I have with these candidates backed by the Paulbots is often the bots themselves. They tend to hijack the GOP message in November and make everything a referendum "Dr. Paul's rEVOLution", sending any Republicans who don't think Ron Paul walks on water to the back of the bus. This tends to narrow their candidate's appeal (Chuck Baldwin had the same problem last November when his conservative third party campaign was engineered to appeal solely to Paul voters, though his background actually fit with Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, and Duncan Hunter voters more). And I'm the Peter Schiff campaign in CT is suffering from the same problem. Schiff is the consensus conservative choice but the Ron Paul fan club wants to make everything about Ron Paul.
This could hurt Rand Paul's chances of winning in November (as Field noted he's using daddy's network of support and fund-raisers to propel himself ahead), but I don't know if it would be a fatal blow to his candidacy.
I would be interested in finding that out as well. As I have noted in the past, there are two types of party switchers. Those who do so for ideological reasons because they no longer feel comfortable with the RAT party platform (Reagan types) and those who do so for political strategic reasons because they need to have an "R" next to their name to get on the ballot in November (Bloomberg types). Of course some candidates may have a combination of reasons but what was the primary factor?
I find it interesting how I've seen legions of freepers sound the "RINO!!!!" alarm at guys like Norm Coleman and Trey Grayson because they "used to be a Democrat" over a decade ago, but when guys like Louisiana State Treasurer John N. Kennedy and Philadephia Schools CEO Paul Vallas have been loyal, comfortable liberal Democrats for decades and decided to toss an "R" next to their name only a few months before a recent election, many conservatives told us there was nothing of concern about that, move along and get behind them. Hmmm.
One of the favorites of conservatives (at least online conservatives ala Ron Paul) here in Illinois is Adam Andrejewski. I'm told by numerous conservatives that supposedly he's the "most conservative" and the "best choice" for Governor. But "true conservative" Adam was raised in a Democrat family and I'm pretty sure he personally didn't become a Republican until the 1980s. I'd love to get more details on that, because I'm not buying the idea his dad was a "conservative Democrat" running against a "RINO" in 1978. All the evidence from that time period shows otherwise.
Bottom line is what motivated Grayson to switch parties in '92? It's possible he did it in order to ensure he'd "win", but unlikely since KY Democrats tended to fare much better than KY Republicans in statewide bids at that time. What was the reason?
And I'd very interested in getting some actual detailed policy positions from the two candidates about where they stand on tough issues. For example, let's start with the U.S. Senate candidates from Kentucky telling us exactly how they feel about Obama moving Gitmo terrorists to a regular Chicago prison, if and why and they agree with it, if and why they don't, and what they alternates they would suggest.
Good grief. Trey Grayson is such an elitist embarrassment. Went to both Harvard and the Aspen Institute.
BUMP for Bill Johnson. He’s the real deal.
KY has long sent liberals to the Senate, Wendell Ford, John Sherman Cooper, Thruston Morton, Earle Clements, and Alben Barkley. The outgoing senator, Mr. Bunning, is an exception to the KY pattersn. People there believe that government “bound to be helpful”.