Kentucky Third Parties Clear the Way for Rand Paul

The Libertarian Party of Kentucky recently held its nominating convention for 2010 elections and failed to nominate a candidate for Senate. Similarly, the Constitution Party of Kentucky is rumored to be avoiding the Senate race ostensibly because of Rand Paul’s presence in that race. Rand Paul, a Republican candidate for the open U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky is currently ahead in polling by double digits and is largely considered the frontrunner. Rand Paul is the son of Congressman and former Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Ron Paul.

K. Joshua Koch, vice chair of the Kentucky Libertarian Party, was an early supporter of the younger Paul’s run for Senate. George Whitfield, one of the organizers of the Libertarian Party meetups in Kentucky, was also an early supporter and made a donation to Rand Paul’s exploratory committee.

Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party’s 2008 Presidential nominee, has had good things to say about Rand Paul too, calling him a “sincere conservative-libertarian”, in contrast to “Big Government neocon” John McCain.

Rand Paul is considered a friend to ballot-access reformers according to Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News. He is well-educated on the unjustness of current ballot access laws.

27 thoughts on “Kentucky Third Parties Clear the Way for Rand Paul

  1. paulie

    There is an independent by the name of John Long running.

    Almost certainly not actually on the ballot and not likely to be on the ballot.

  2. paulie

    The Libertarian Party of Kentucky recently held its nominating convention for 2010 elections and failed to nominate a candidate for Senate. Similarly, the Constitution Party of Kentucky is rumored to be avoiding the Senate race ostensibly because of Rand Paul’s presence in that race.

    Perhaps, but lack of resources for ballot access may have a good deal to do with it as well.

  3. Trent Hill Post author

    Im aware, but Mr. Long isn’t very well known and doesn’t have a party behind him.

  4. Robert Milnes

    Let the GOP or the CP have The Pauls.
    There are PLAS alternatives for KY e.g. run a libertarian Independent or a Green.
    We don’t want or need The Pauls.

  5. the bone collector

    wait a second… where’s the sarcasm and condescending tone? who wrote this?

  6. Galileo Galilei

    Rand Against the Machine!

    This ad starts today (Monday) in all Kentucky markets. Rand made a huge 1000 point broadcast buy. That means the average TV viewer will see the ad 10 times per week!

    The LP and CP of Kentucky are helping one of the few GOP candidates this year worthy of election. I always vote third party except for Ron Paul. And now we have Rand Paul.

  7. paulie

    The LP and CP of Kentucky are helping one of the few GOP candidates this year worthy of election.

    I’m not aware of anything the LPKY is doing as an organization to help Rand Paul, although individual members are.

    Not running a candidate assumes they could have easily run one. In reality, the task of getting on the ballot without national help (and there would be none in a non-presidential year) appeared overwhelming.

    It is possible that the LPKY would still not have run a candidate if they were already ballot-qualified so as to help Rand Paul, but that is not what actually happened.

  8. Trent Hill Post author

    Paulie–I think the closest thing to the truth is that they neither WANTED to run a candidate against Paul, nor were able to.

    As you’ve said, they didn’t have the resources to do so. And, if they did, it’d likely be a bad political move. Constitutionalists and libertarians in the state are enamored with Paul the Younger and it would create a lot of ill-will to run against him.

  9. cyndeZu

    Rand Paul isn’t a ‘career politician’ an appealing factor on many fronts while his opponent, Grayson is willing to do the bidding of the establishment elites to get elected, speaks volumes, what do we need more of?

  10. Richard Winger

    It is somewhat likely that Alabama, Kentucky, New Mexico, and Washington will be the only states holding an election for statewide office in 2010 with no minor party or independent candidates on the ballot. This assumes the New Hampshire Libertarians successfully get on, and makes a few more assumptions. In Washington, I know there is a vigorous independent Green campaign for US Senate but I doubt he can come in first or second in the August primary.

  11. paulie

    Alabama is likely to have Constitution Party on in the 1st Congressional district.

    Campaign manager told me it is the only district in the country this year which will have a third party/independent one on one against a Republican. That didn’t sound right…Richard or anyone know of other such districts?

  12. Joshua Koch

    Yes, I WAS a supporter of Rand. Note the past tense. I have since gone back to the LPKY because he isn’t the libertarian his father is. I am currently serving as the vice-chair of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky, a position I resigned in mid-2009 to support Rand. Having realized the truth about the candidate in question, I went back to the LP.

    Before you mention someone as a credential for Rand, you may want to approach them for commentary. Yes, I was involved, and yes, I did volunteer from quite early on. I am no longer a supporter, and, although I wish him no ill, I want to make that perfectly clear. You can make up your own mind on his qualifications and credentials, but know that I don’t endorse him anymore.

  13. Ken Moellman

    Any statewide race, including for US Senate, requires 5,000 signatures, minimum (contrasted to the 2 signatures required for R’s and D’s), and 7,500 to be safe. Yeah. Not going to happen this year.

    There was nothing more or nothing less about this decision. While we are staying neutral in this race, especially during the primary, we have been on record noting that Rand Paul is not a Libertarian.

    If someone pops up who is (A) Libertarian; (B) libertarian; and (C) well financed, I’m sure the committee would be open to discussion on endorsement.

    We do have one candidate in an FEC-regulated race this year; so we’ll use our $1000 FEC filing exemption on our own candidates.

    Besides, the direction I’ve been trying to lead the party as chairman is a focus on local races, not Federal races.

    We have a really exciting state house race shaping up near Louisville that is a two-way race, against an incumbent that angered independents, liberty groups, and right-wing groups. That’s exciting!

    Federal races just cost too much in time and money. There won’t be any PBS-sponsored debates this year, so we won’t even get airtime. And, I’d rather spend $1,000 on a local race and WIN rather than throw more money at a race we’ll never win, and alternative strategies blew up in our face in 2008, so we’re not playing that game again, either.

    However, if there’s an L out there that wants to run for the seat and has $15,500 laying around without a better purpose, I’d be open to filing someone as a partisan L for US Senate. Would just have to get approval of the state executive committee.

    Also, the only organizer of what’s left of our official state party meetups is the D2 Chair Harlen Compton. We’re actually phasing out LPKY’s use of, replacing it with facebook, which is equally effective and free.

  14. Trent Hill Post author

    “Before you mention someone as a credential for Rand, you may want to approach them for commentary.”

    I have all the commentary I need for the story–all I said was that you were an early supporter of Rand’s, and you aren’t disputing that fact. So, why do I need additional commentary from you?

    And I’m not trying to use anyone as a “credential for Rand”, I was simply investigating as to whether either the LP or CP of KY were going to run a Senate candidate and why that might be. This story accurately reports that. If you want it on the record that you supported him before you opposed him, ohk, whatever, but that isn’t my fault. If you disavow the statements you made back then, then remove them, rescind them, or update them.

  15. paulie

    As I said, the primary reason why the LP is not running a US Senate candidate – from my conversations with state chair Ken Moellman – apparently is lack of ballot access/resources, not a desire to help Rand Paul. Moellman apparently says the same thing in his comments here.

    We can speculate as to whether or not the LP would run someone if Rand Paul appeared to be headed for the Republican nomination AND the LP had ballot access or sufficient resources to easily get ballot status. The answer to that question is not apparent from the actual situation. As best I can interpret Moellman’s statements the answer is that they might have, but it is also possible that he would have been in the minority among likely delegates at a nominating convention.

    It’s not accurate to say that acknowledging the reality of lack of ballot access is the same thing as wanting to help Rand Paul. That may or may not be a secondary reason; we don’t know, because the preliminary requirement to determine the answer (ballot access) does not exist.

  16. paulie

    Trent @ 20

    I think that is what Ken was addressing when he said above and alternative strategies blew up in our face in 2008, so we’re not playing that game again, either.

  17. Joshua Koch

    Yes, Trent, and that stupid incident is why we had Sonny removed from the slate of 2008 candidates. Nice attempt at switching subjects. The issue here is the factual omission from this story.

  18. Citizens For A Better Veterans Home.......... Lake

    Trent Hill:

    [a] dishonest and unethical actions and reactions (the Chelene Nightingale, Don Grundmann, Cody Banks Quirk’s school of Red Herrings) ……..

    [b] and then repetitive on feigning innocence!

    [c] also (like Quirkie Boy and the totally unnecessary and ultra snarkie comment on my long deceased Mother) moving [quickly and quietly] on from obvious mistakes —– like Cody after blowing a stink bomb during a crowed dance floor or crammed party area!

  19. Citizens For A Better Veterans Home.......... Lake

    Nice silhouette of Kim Wilder ??????? (*complementary not derisive*)

    AOK class lessen up:

    Ignoratio elenchi
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    (Redirected from Red herring (logical fallacy))
    Jump to:

    Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion[1] or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.

    “Ignoratio elenchi” can be roughly translated by ignorance of refutation, that is, ignorance of what a refutation could logically be; “elenchi” (genitive singular of the Latin elenchus) is from the Greek ???????, meaning an argument of disproof or refutation.[2]

    Aristotle would describe ignoratio elenchi as a mistake made during a refutation of an argument. He called it “an ignorance” of what makes for a refutation.

    For Aristotle, ignoratio elenchi amounts to ignorance of logic. To Aristotle all logical fallacies can be reduced to ignoratio elenchi.[3][unreliable source?]
    [edit] Example

    * “Because HIV virus can be found in human population, there should be some in other animals as well.”

    [edit] Red herring
    Main article: Red herring (idiom)
    Search Wiktionary Look up red herring in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

    Similar in category, but with darker implications than ignoratio elenchi, a “red herring” is an answer, given in reply to a questioner, that goes beyond an innocent logical irrelevance. A “red herring” is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of inquiry by changing the subject.

    For example:

    “I think that we should make the academic requirements stricter for students. I recommend that you support this because we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected.”

    Topic A is the proposal that academic requirements be raised. Topic B is the possible effects of a budget crisis on teacher salaries. Topic A is abandoned and the unrelated topic B is introduced.

    A “red herring” is a debating tactic that seeks to divert an opponent. A digression can, similarly, be a verbal tactic of diversion, but has no place in a serious debate; and the diversion of digression may also be in play.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.