Skip to main content

McConnell's Endorsement

I suppose it was only a matter of time but, given Jim DeMint's public endorsement of Rand Paul yesterday, it was bound to be soon. I finally heard it this morning on the radio on my way to work. What the heck am I talking about? Well, Mitch McConnell's official endorsement of Trey Grayson, of course! There is a radio commercial airing now in this area with McConnell talking about how he rarely endorses a candidate in the primary, but... (We all know what that's about, don't we?)

Trey Grayson is a nice guy. Seriously. He's been a good Attorney General for Kentucky so far. So, I'm sure that's a nail that Grayson's campaign coffin could have done without. The "establisment GOP" has made itself publicly known now and, unfortunately for Trey, it is not the endorsement of choice right now.

Sorry, Trey, but you're on the wrong side of political history this time. It's time to ditch the establisment in DC and try again another time. Hey, here's an idea -- become a Constitutional Conservative (whatever party you choose) and run for McConnell's Senate seat! I could certainly back you then.


Comments

Anonymous said…
You do realize that McConnell endorsed Grayson before DeMint endorsed Paul.

Also, Grayson is Secretary of State, not Attorney General.
5/07/2010 01:50:00 PM
Rena Bernard said…
Oops - just checked the dates and I stand corrected. I read the DeMint endorsement before I heard the McConnell radio ad. I'm no better than the average voter on my perception of those events. Thanks for the correction.

Wow - not my day for getting anything right, I suppose. Although... you know what's coming... I guess I mistook Grayson for the Democrat Conway. Honest mistake? ;-)
5/07/2010 02:26:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

As the Blog Turns...

Gee. I have found myself fascinated by the soap opera unfolding in the comments section of this blog since last night. One little mention on a controversial Democrat's blog and it's High Noon on ConservaChick! (Yes, I'm laughing while I type this.) For those of you who have no idea what's happening in the ever-expanding comments section , join the club! Here's what I know about Mark Nickolas from bits and pieces I've read on his blog, and from a local news report: Nickolas likes to sneer at Republicans and call them snide little nicknames as he provides his "Unfiltered and Candid Look at Politics, Politicians and the Media in Kentucky;" he raised a ruckus within the Democrat party here in Kentucky by filing a suit against the chairman of the party , Jerry Lundergan; and he will be appearing on the same panel with yours truly on Thursday night. That's about it. You now have the benefit of my not-so-extensive knowledge on this subject. Nickolas poste...
22 comments
Read more

Is conscription the prescription?

US Representative, Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is at it again. Rangel's prescription for fixing the ills we're feeling in Iraq is a draft . I have very mixed feelings about this. Conscription is conscription no matter what you choose to label it. Is that appropriate in a free country? On the flip side of this coin, I've often thought that compulsory national service would be a great idea for American kids right out of high school. It might have been a better start for me than learning to down beer at a Liberal Arts university! Two years in the service might give kids time to think about their future, learn higher levels of responsibility, and begin to take life more seriously. There are many countries who require some level of mandatory military service: Belarus, Chile, China, Croatia, Serbia, Russia, Iran, Lebanon, our neighbor Mexico, and our old buddy Germany, to name a few. Gee, now that I look at that partial list... aren't many of those countries Socialist or at battl...
19 comments
Read more

Pol Watchers Responds

I think it's important for anyone with a voice on the internet to present all sides of an issue. In that spirit, I am posting the response I received via email from John Stamper of the Lexington Herald-Leader to the piece I wrote about censorship on blogs: "Your post about Pol Watchers does not contain the entire thread of comments, as your blog states. If you go to the post in question , you will see that there has been no effort to eliminate comments just because they question Jonathan Miller and Mark Nickolas. Plenty of them still remain. However, as stated in my comment on Pol Watchers, we're not going to allow people to use the blog as a forum for name calling. It's that simple. Check around, it's a pretty common policy. For example, blogs at WashingtonPost.com have this policy: 'User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsi...
15 comments
Read more