State-Journal.com - Republicans skeptical about Senate hopeful

Photo By Kelly MackeyJenny Gilbert talks with U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul after Paul spoke to local Republicans at The Kitchen.

Although many local Republicans were interested in hearing what Rand Paul had to say, they aren’t ready yet to support him.

Paul, a U.S. Senate candidate, spoke to about 35 Republicans at The Kitchen on Georgetown Road near Forks of the Elkhorn Monday night.

Franklin Country Republican Chairman Stuart Victor said that was more than usual because there’s a lot of interest in hearing him speak.

Paul preached his fiscally conservative message for about 30 minutes, attacking big government and pork barrel spending.

“We used to be a great exporter,” said Paul, an ophthalmologist from Bowling Green. “Now our number one export is debt.”

He pledged to stop illegal immigration, cut government spending and support term limits.

Three other Republicans are in the primary – Secretary of State Trey Grayson, western Kentucky businessman Bill Johnson and Gurley Martin, a World War II veteran from Owensboro.

Several Democrats are seeking the nomination of their party, including Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo and Attorney General Jack Conway.

Most in attendance Monday said they were undecided on which candidate to support.

For example, Jason Gilbert, 33, of Frankfort, says he agrees with Paul that out-of-control spending in Washington will either require a huge tax increase or a sharp cut in services.

“He is in the right direction for what a lot of people in Kentucky want to hear,” Gilbert said. “He’s sick of the attitude we can keep spending, spending, spending with no cutoff.”

However Gilbert said he disagreed on some issues and wasn’t ready to back Paul yet.

Don Stosberg questioned Paul’s leadership ability and others were concerned about his lack of military experience. Paul said he had founded the Kentucky Taxpayers United and led it for more than 15 years.

Stosberg said that’s not enough.

“I think that’s rather limited leadership experience to ask us to elect him to the U.S. Senate on,” Stosberg said.

Gilbert disagreed and said he likes Paul’s outsider status and doesn’t mind his lack of military service.

“A fresh perspective without a lot of baggage is a benefit,” he said. “I would love to see (military experience) but it’s not a showstopper.”

Paul follows the issues closely and his concerns about economic issues are valid, Stosberg said. However, he’s unconvinced Paul is the best candidate.

“I came away a little undecided on if he’s a nut or not,” Stosberg said.

Paul’s proposals are too simplistic, he said.

“Electing people based on bullet-points is not a wise idea,” Stosberg said.

Stosberg said he’s not satisfied with any of the major Republican or Democratic candidates but he slightly favors Grayson.

“Trey has done his homework and put in his time,” Stosberg said.

15.	Posted by daniel2497451 December 4, 2009
	Naughty fish says: "Some of us remember waiting for gas, Iran hostage crisis, misery index, lame duck 1st term, sky high inflation, high unemployment, etc. " Some of us remember wrong! His term came during a period of persistent stagflation in a number of countries, including the United States, which significantly damaged his popularity. This stagflation resulted when the world's economy was slowed by an unfavorable supply shock as a result of OPEC's dramatic increase in the price of oil, which raised prices at the same time that it slows the economy by making production less profitable. This type of stagflation presented the world's nations with a policy dilemma because most actions to assist with fighting inflation worsen economic stagnation and vice versa. Carter had little to nothing to do with this, but he still was blamed for it by the Republicans. RD says: "Yes he was in the Navy too. He also said he hated the military. He wasn't good at it as with many other things he has done and still attempts. Foreign policy being one. " That is your unsubstantiated opinion...the fact say otherwise. Carter went to the United States Naval Academy in 1943, and graduated 59th out of 820 midshipmen. "Carter served on surface ships and on diesel-electric submarines in the Atlantic and Pacific fleets. As a junior officer, he completed qualification for command of a diesel-electric submarine. He applied for the US Navy's fledgling nuclear submarine program run by then Captain Hyman G. Rickover. Rickover's demands on his men and machines were legendary, and Carter later said that, next to his parents, Rickover had the greatest influence on him. Carter has said that he loved the Navy, and had planned to make it his career. His ultimate goal was to become Chief of Naval Operations. Carter felt the best route for promotion was with submarine duty since he felt that nuclear power would be increasingly used in submarines. During service on the diesel-electric submarine USS Pomfret, Carter was almost washed overboard. After six years of military service, Carter trained for the position of engineering officer in submarine USS Seawolf, then under construction. Carter completed a non-credit introductory course in nuclear reactor power at Union College starting in March 1953. This followed Carter's first-hand experience as part of a group of American and Canadian servicemen who took part in cleaning up after a partial nuclear meltdown at Canada's Chalk River Laboratories reactor in 1952. Upon the death of his father, James Earl Carter, Sr., in July 1953, Lieutenant Carter immediately resigned his commission, and he was discharged from the Navy on October 9, 1953. This cut short his nuclear powerplant operator training, and he was never able to serve on a nuclear submarine, since the first boat of that fleet, the USS Nautilus (SSN-571), was launched on January 17, 1955, over a year after his discharge from the Navy." Looks like he was pretty good at being in the Navy to me...a lot better than most, including fishman. One does not have to be in the military to understand its shortcomings...just a student of history. I have spent a lifetime in public service that was both honorable and beneficial.

14.	Posted by daniel2497451 December 4, 2009
	Roger Dodger says: " 11. Posted by RangerDanger November 24, 2009 I like Carter as a person*, but as a president, he's not memorable (he was terrible from what I hear,..." From what you hear? Are you relying on hearsay from your right wing buddies? What do you expect them to say? I LIVED through the Carter years (and was paying attention then too) and Carter got a really bad rap over the whole Iranian hostage thing...which he did not deserve. What could he have done differently? The embassy was taken by the same bunch of thugs that are in power now, including Akmanagetajob. Carter even ordered the military to plan and carry out an attempt to rescue the hostages, but a sandstorm scuttled it in dramatic fashion, killing many of our troops in helicopter crashes at zero visibity...and Carter was unfairly blamed for that too. Carter was an honest man with his heart in the right place, having grown up with black families in the peanut district of Georgia. He was spot on about the teabagger's being racially motivated on their anti-everything Obama, which hits a little too close to home for some of you, I guess. He calls'em like he sees'em...and he sees'em through experienced eyes that have seen a lot.