KY-Sen. 2010: Trey Grayson gave keynote speech at Van Jones-sponsored climate change event

AIP / Conservative Hippie Chick ^ | 2009-11-22

[rabscuttle385]

(snip)

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.

WHOA

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?

(snip)

[skinkinthegrass]

well....so much, for my "wallpaper" comment. 8^/
hmm..given this "event" was two years ago, I wonder
if the candidate(s) would care to illuminate / discuss these
issues during the debates.

[Falcon28]

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?

Bill Johnson has military servive. Bill Johnson is the Reagan Republican. Why stick with either Greyson or Paul?

Bill Johnson For Senate (KY)

[TheThinker]

Guess I’ll vote for the Rand Paul and hope he’s not as crazy as his dad.

[TheThinker]

If Johnson is the real deal, then Freepers should get behind him nationally.

[Impy]

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.

[BillyBoy]

I agree with not being thrilled with the prospect of Grayson or Rand Paul being the GOP nominee, but be willing to back either in November if they do win the nomination. I'm not sold on the idea that Grayson is a closet liberal as the Paul backers claim, or the idea that Rand Paul will be a complete looney embarrassment as the Grayson backers claim (if Rand Paul pulled a "Bob Conley" in KY and announced he was running as a RAT and voting for Reid to run the Senate because he was mad at the GOP for the WOT, THEN I'd place him into unacceptable loon category)

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.

[BillyBoy]

>> 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. <<

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.

[Sofia]

Good grief. Trey Grayson is such an elitist embarrassment. Went to both Harvard and the Aspen Institute.

[EternalVigilance]

BUMP for Bill Johnson. He’s the real deal.

[Theodore R.]

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”.

[Theodore R.]

In the caes of John N. Kennedy, he was accepted because he was the only alternative to Landrieu. Had Kennedy been elected in 2008 — he just couldn’t convince voters about Landrieu — the health-care bill would be one-vote short of cloture.

I know nothing about Grayson but am surprised to see that he is such a recent liberal Democrat, apparently more liberal than Kennedy, but maybe not.

[Theodore R.]

It was GHWB that Paul opposed, not Reagan. In 1984, Paul lsost the Senate nomination to Phil Gramm.

[St. Louis Conservative]

I’m liking Rand Paul more and more in this race.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Thank you for your more level-headed analysis here.

[WOSG]

It’s not really a problem that he gave a speech at a Kentucky University on a matter of public concern, and it doesnt matter much who invited him.

The problem would depend on WHAT HE SAID.

So, what did he say anyway?

[WOSG]

"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"

If Grayson is a true conservative, he'll have to campaign as one.

[Impy]

According to Grayson: “Some people in college tried pot. I tried Clinton’”

So his version of the story is apparently that he was young and dumb.

The biggest indication that would speak against him being a huge RINO is his alleged status as Bunning’s protege.

I’m not sure what year it was he switched. But whether it was 1993 or 1997 at the time Bill Clinton had carried the state and the rats dominated state-level politics.

So I doubt very much he switched cause he thought the rat party was dead in Kentucky. It is still unfortunately alive and well.

That doesn’t mean his not a “climate change” fool like many lifelong Republicans are.

[BillyBoy]

>> In the caes of John N. Kennedy, he was accepted because he was the only alternative to Landrieu. <<

Not exactly true, Kennedy did draw primary oppoisiton in the form of Jacques Boudreaux of Baton Rouge. It was a similar case to Bloomberg's GOP primary opposition in the 2001 NYC race, the mainstream media completely ignored the other Republican and the outcome was a foregone conclusion. Nevertheless, I would argue in both cases that the little known primary opponent was the only actual Republican on the ballot.

>> I know nothing about Grayson but am surprised to see that he is such a recent liberal Democrat, apparently more liberal than Kennedy, but maybe not. <<

Don't know enough about Grayson's Dem years to judge, but I researched Kennedy's Democrat days so I'm guessing you're wrong. Kennedy claimed to have "always been a conservative" and said he wasn't changing any of his positions when he switched parties. Anyone who remotely looked at his track record as a Dem knows this is completely false. At best, Kennedy had been a center-left Dem. He wasn't a moonbat, but under no stretch of the imagination was this guy ever "conservative" until he changed party's overnight. He ran to the left of centrist Democrat in the 2004 RAT primary (Kennedy finished 3 out of 3 as the more conservative Democrat beat him) and had been socially liberal and fiscally moderate throughout his career. He eagerly campaigned for Kerry in 2004 despite Kerry's slim chances of winning LA. He tried to spin this later on by saying he felt "miserable" doing that and only campaigned with Kerry because the RAT party officials forced him to. Of course the Dems refuted this in the general election by showing campaign footage of the "miserable" state treasurer very eager and passionately in favor of Kerry. IMO, Kennedy morphing from a liberal to a conservative overnight really hurt his credibility with voters because it was clear he wasn't being sincere and only running as a Republican to ensure he'd be on the ballot in November.

As Impy would put it, on a scale of RINO party switchers:

Endorsing Kerry in '04 and every Dem prior to that > Endorsing Clinton in '92

>> Had Kennedy been elected in 2008 — he just couldn’t convince voters about Landrieu — the health-care bill would be one-vote short of cloture. <<

You're probably right, although I suspect Kennedy would have been another Walter Jones in office and started off as a strong "90% conservative" politician during his early days in Congress, then slowly drift leftward back to his Democrat roots after he became an entrenched incumbent. I doubt he'd ever be as bad as Laudrieu though. I'd hold my nose for the guy in November but there would be no way in hell to convince me to vote for Kennedy in the primary.

I find it amusing how this guy decided to toss an "R" next to his name right before the '08 and got a pass from most conservatives while we're supposed to believe Coleman and Grayson are "closet Democrats" despite switching parties well over a decade ago (and siding with the GOP on most major issues since then).

[Lancey Howard]

Wow, this guy Trey Grayson is a real p.o.s.
Are Kentucky Republicans stupid enough to give this assclown the time of day?

[ellery]

Here are the undisputed facts:

1. Grayson gave the keynote address at a conference convened to address the grave problem of global warming.

2. Grayson’s speech was billed thusly: “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.”

Absent the actual speech, everyone has to decide for him/herself how to interpret these facts. Personally, I have never seen a keynote speaker who opposes the premise of the conference he/she is keynoting. Coupled with the description, I reasonably infer that Grayson is a warmist.

To what degree (pardon the pun), I don’t know.