KY: Public Policy Polling: Conway tied with Paul

[Lunar]

Is there something really bullish for Dems about this poll's internals that I'm missing?

Yeah this poll doesn't have me excited. 

OK. Could either/both of you please elaborate for the rest of us (particularly as the link here leads to PPP's breakdown of the NC Senate race rather than KY's)?

43%-43%, while an improvement for Jack, just isn't too exciting for me in a state like Kentucky and in a year like this, especially with no incumbent, that's all.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Undecideds will break heavily against Obama/Conway by November.

I guess undecides are undecided for a good reason. Going with Obama, who they probably don't like, or an extremist like Rand Paul.

Unfortunately, Rand Paul is a moderate, but that does mean he will win.

Are you real?
I mean,are most republicans this hackish and right-wingish?
If true,then I might have new thoughts about how stupid Italian PDL and Lega voters are...

Yes, I'm a real boy, Geppetto.

[justW353]

Undecideds will break heavily against Obama/Conway by November.

                                                                                                                                                     Why would undecideds choose a (pretty much self-described) neocons over a moderate?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Undecideds will break heavily against Obama/Conway by November.

                                                                                                                                                     Why would undecideds choose a (pretty much self-described) neocons over a moderate?

They won't. They'll choose Paul over Conway.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Why would undecideds choose a (pretty much self-described) neocons over a moderate?

They won't. They'll choose Paul over Conway.

Remember, anyone Libertas doesn't like is a neocon.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Why would undecideds choose a (pretty much self-described) neocons over a moderate?

They won't. They'll choose Paul over Conway.

Remember, anyone Libertas doesn't like is a neocon.

No, but a warmonger who supported Bush's wars and foreign policy (and supports Obama's continuation of those policies) is.

Jack Conway Promoted Iraq War in 2002


Jack Conway is a neoconservative authoritarian piece of crap. No wonder the corporate establishment is throwing everything they've got into this race on behalf of this Dixiecrat clown.

[Torie]

What is "Dixiecrat" about Conway again, Libertas?  Pretty good ad hominum dump on Conway by the way, in that sentence of yours. It just had a pretty euphonious smash mouth cadence about it.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

What is "Dixiecrat" about Conway again, Libertas?

Conway's agenda is re-packaged Dixiecrat garbage: authoritarianism under a thin veneer of populism, exploitation of racial issues for political gain, economic statism, social conservatism, etc, etc.

He is a Dixiecrat for the 21st century.

[Torie]

What is "Dixiecrat" about Conway again, Libertas?

Conway's agenda is re-packaged Dixiecrat garbage: authoritarianism under a thin veneer of populism, exploitation of racial issues for political gain, economic statism, social conservatism, etc, etc.

He is a Dixiecrat for the 21st century.

How has Conway exploited "racial issues?"

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

What is "Dixiecrat" about Conway again, Libertas?

Conway's agenda is re-packaged Dixiecrat garbage: authoritarianism under a thin veneer of populism, exploitation of racial issues for political gain, economic statism, social conservatism, etc, etc.

He is a Dixiecrat for the 21st century.

How has Conway exploited "racial issues?"

Were you asleep during the whole brouhaha over civil rights legislation and false accusations of racism coming from the Conway camp?

George Wallace himself had to change with the times, so naturally people like Conway needed to find new ways to inject racial strife into U.S. politics.

Jack Conway is part-George Wallace, part-George W. Bush, and part-Barack Obama. Quite an unholy combination.

[Torie]

You mean the bit about Rand saying he thought the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, were mistakes?  I mean, is it wrong for a candidate to just quote what comes out of his opponent's mouth?  Or did you have something else in mind?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

You mean the bit about Rand saying he thought the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, were mistakes?  I mean, is it wrong for a candidate to just quote what comes out of his opponent's mouth?  Or did you have something else in mind?

I'm not talking about Rand. I'm talking about Jack Conway's deliberate misrepresentation of Rand Paul's positions so as to falsely portray the latter as opposing civil rights and supporting repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[Torie]

Did Rand ever make clear that he had changed his mind, or did he just say that he was not inclined to revisit old battles?  In any event, I can't get too exercised about a candidate beating his opponent over the head with his opponent's own words.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Did Rand ever make clear that he had changed his mind, or did he just say that he was not inclined to revisit old battles?  In any event, I can't get too exercised about a candidate beating his opponent over the head with his opponent's own words.

Rand never said he favored repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That was a blatant lie, and Chris Matthews had to apologize for Conway propagating that lie on his show.

[Torie]

Did Rand ever make clear that he had changed his mind, or did he just say that he was not inclined to revisit old battles?  In any event, I can't get too exercised about a candidate beating his opponent over the head with his opponent's own words.

Rand never said he favored repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That was a blatant lie, and Chris Matthews had to apologize for Conway propagating that lie on his show.

Yes, he just said he did not favor its enactment in the first instance.

[Lunar]

Torie, to be fair, he just views one plank of it as extremely Unconstitutional.

Did Rand ever make clear that he had changed his mind, or did he just say that he was not inclined to revisit old battles?  In any event, I can't get too exercised about a candidate beating his opponent over the head with his opponent's own words.

Rand never said he favored repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That was a blatant lie, and Chris Matthews had to apologize for Conway propagating that lie on his show.

If cable news show hosts had to apologize every time they allowed one of their guests to tell a falsehood, they'd be doing nothing but apologizing

[Torie]

Torie, to be fair, he just views one plank of it as extremely Unconstitutional.

Yes, except the Courts don't agree with him, nor do almost all legal scholars. And he didn't like it, because it trampled on private property rights in the context of public accommodations, so he also thought it bad policy to enact, per his little balancing test. So, "to be fair," it is reasonable for a voter to consider based on all of this, that Rand is unfit for office, if they think publically humiliating a racial group this way is way, way beyond the pale. JMO.

[Lunar]

Torie, to be fair, he just views one plank of it as extremely Unconstitutional.

Yes, except the Courts don't agree with him, nor do almost all legal scholars.

Yeah but that's kind of his schtick, the extremely narrow view of the commerce clause & 10th Amendment that makes basically 95% of what Congress has done since the 19th century Unconstitutional, no matter what courts or legal scholars say.  

If he abandoned it just because the consequences would result in humiliating a racial group, he just wouldn't be him!  It's like a crazy uncle.

Conway has sort of made an interesting quip during some of their back-n-forths over the Constitutionality of the individual mandate, Rand saying that Conway doesn't know Jack about the Constitution, and Conway being all like:

[quote]"He didn't go to law school. I did. I don't need a lecture on Constitutional law from Rand Paul or Sarah Palin."

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Torie, to be fair, he just views one plank of it as extremely Unconstitutional.

Yes, except the Courts don't agree with him, nor do almost all legal scholars.

Yeah but that's kind of his schtick, the extremely narrow view of the commerce clause & 10th Amendment that makes basically 95% of what Congress has done since the 19th century Unconstitutional, no matter what courts or legal scholars say. 

If he abandoned it just because the consequences would result in humiliating a racial group, he just wouldn't be him!  It's like a crazy uncle.

'Courts' and 'legal scholars' cannot be trusted with the rights and freedoms of individuals.

[Lunar]

Torie, to be fair, he just views one plank of it as extremely Unconstitutional.

Yes, except the Courts don't agree with him, nor do almost all legal scholars.

Yeah but that's kind of his schtick, the extremely narrow view of the commerce clause & 10th Amendment that makes basically 95% of what Congress has done since the 19th century Unconstitutional, no matter what courts or legal scholars say.  

If he abandoned it just because the consequences would result in humiliating a racial group, he just wouldn't be him!  It's like a crazy uncle.

'Courts' and 'legal scholars' cannot be trusted with the rights and freedoms of individuals.

'That's' 'why' 'I' 'only' 'trust' 'opthamologists.'

[Torie]

I trust only pot head lawyers myself.

[Lunar]

Torie, the brilliance of your last post would have gone up exponentially with a comma between "lawyers" and "myself"

It'd be like....double meaning city!

[Torie]

I think a dash rather than a comma would better accomplish your goal there Lunar. 

[Badger]

Torie, to be fair, he just views one plank of it as extremely Unconstitutional.

Yes, except the Courts don't agree with him, nor do almost all legal scholars. And he didn't like it, because it trampled on private property rights in the context of public accommodations, so he also thought it bad policy to enact, per his little balancing test. So, "to be fair," it is reasonable for a voter to consider based on all of this, that Rand is unfit for office, if they think publically humiliating a racial group this way is way, way beyond the pale. JMO.

Thank you Torie, though in fact you're actually being generous to Paul's views. I went back and reread the Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the 64 CRA. It was based on a definition of the Commerce Claus from a decision in 1821 penned by John Marshall himself! You don't get any more orignial intentisyt than that.

Paul's vieews onf the Constitution transcend the liberal-conservative or original intent-activist judiciary dichotomy and just goes to plain old nutty.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Torie, to be fair, he just views one plank of it as extremely Unconstitutional.

Yes, except the Courts don't agree with him, nor do almost all legal scholars. And he didn't like it, because it trampled on private property rights in the context of public accommodations, so he also thought it bad policy to enact, per his little balancing test. So, "to be fair," it is reasonable for a voter to consider based on all of this, that Rand is unfit for office, if they think publically humiliating a racial group this way is way, way beyond the pale. JMO.

Thank you Torie, though in fact you're actually being generous to Paul's views. I went back and reread the Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the 64 CRA. It was based on a definition of the Commerce Claus from a decision in 1821 penned by John Marshall himself! You don't get any more orignial intentisyt than that.

Uh, that's not "original intentisyt(sic?)" at all. John Marshall is responsible for concocting the ridiculous unconstitutional notion of 'judicial review'.  Marshall was an authoritarian and centralizer of power as well.