Former presidential contender Forbes to endorse Paul’s U.S. Senate bid

January 04, 2010 | | Comments 67

Rand Paul

Rand Paul

FRANKFORT – Former presidential candidate Steve Forbes is to endorse Rand Paul’s Republican campaign for U.S. Senate, Paul’s campaign manager, David Adams, said Monday.

Adams said the campaign will issue a news release Tuesday about Forbes’ endorsement.

Forbes was a Republican candidate in the presidential primaries in 1996 and 2000. He primarily ran on a campaign to establish a flat income tax. Forbes also is editor-in-chief of business magazine Forbes.

Paul, a Bowling Green eye surgeon and the son of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, is making his first bid for public office.

Other Republican candidates in Kentucky’s U.S. Senate race are Secretary of State Trey Grayson, Todd County businessman Bill Johnson, Brian Oerther of Oldham County and Roger Thoney of Northern Kentucky.

–Jack Brammer

Filed Under: ElectionsFeaturedRand PaulRepublican PartyUS Senate Race

About the Author:

RSSComments (67)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. Dan says:

    “Here I thought I was another Kentuckian for Bill Johnson.”

    One of 2%! Johnson is “riding the wave” all the way to fourth place in the polls; behind Paul, Grayson and Thoney!

  2. Dan says:

    “News Flash: Bill Johnson accelerates to 17%”

    LOL! Keep clutching that Johnson internal poll comfort blanket and you’re going to be in for a huge shock on May 18th.

    Get back to me when a REAL, INDEPENDENT poll has Johnson somewhere other than 2%.

  3. robbie says:

    I like Buck’s name better.

  4. Buck Feshear says:

    Yes, I think I express my affection for this state’s miserable excuse for a governor very well in my nom de plume. With the exception of John Y. Brown, I’ve met every governor this state’s had since Julian Carroll. I intend to break that streak in this administration. No way I’d shake his sleazy hand. No telling whose slot machine levers he’s had a hold of.

  5. Billy Boy says:

    @ Buck, almost anything can be justified in the sense that if affects the national security: for example, if you consider national economic security, you might consider the outsourcing of American jobs to China a national security issue, but does this require high tariffs or a war in order to keep American jobs here in America? Or does economic security come with a trade off of costs and benefits of using the military in order to secure them, because it hardly be argued that America doesn’t have the military might to destroy any country that attempted to take American jobs away from American workers in order to maintain the “strategic industries” here in America. You can see that the logic of national security for the protection of vital American interests is really a red herring, where the military is used for the benefit of some well placed industries and not for others, examples of this include the oil industry. There are countless examples of other American interventions around the globe to protect well entrenched industries. The point being that almost any action around the world can be justified for the purposes of “national security”, because someone someone in some district is usually affected by actions around the globe in a global economy. The argument is almost a flexible as a justification for communist society, an all expansive ideology that can be all things to all people, and yet we know the communist ideology is one of false promises. Thus is contemporary American national security policy, an all expansive justification for virtually any American intervention anywhere, one that can’t be questioned at any cost, yet national security policy shouldn’t be a realm that’s off limit for debate, because there are many different reasons for our policies, and just like in any government intervention, some people benefit, and other people lose. My point is simply this: the average American is the loser in the national security policy of the US government, and it isn’t allowed to be questioned because if it is, the people who run it will be found upon rational examination to be totally incompetent and beholden to special interests, people who will do whatever they can to suppress debate and maintain a status quo that they benefit from, just as in any other department of the government, regarding any other policy, on any level. The national security apparatus shouldn’t be off limit for debate, and even American military heroes such as Dwight Eisenhower warned future generations of Americans to guard against unwanted influence in this area under the fall flag of patriotism. There is a waste in spending in foreign policy, and the policy itself is flawed, yet no one can question it. If you want some further reading on this by a realist (the school of international relations that most republicans find themselves in) who even men like Dick Cheney read and respond to, read Stephen Walt’s article on a new vision in American foreign policy, it’s very conservative and very rational. Incidentally, it’s also the stance of one Ron Paul. The cost isn’t irrelevant, and neither are the results, and if you don’t want to consider that, then one day I’m sure that Big Brother will keep you totally safe.

  6. Doc says:

    Wow Billy Buoy,
    That was GREAT for cut and pasting. Let’s be frank with the readers. You were unable to report accurate and timely financial figures or news stories about Bill Johnson this morning (3-6 months expired) and now you come off with a Patterson School of Diplomacy Dissertation on Foreign Affairs.
    I was born at night but not last night. You can fool the Paulers but you can’t fool me. You write with an unusual sign of personality type which precludes such an “off the top of your head” elegant piece of intellectual argument.
    Since I turned down Randi’s offer, through Adams, to co-manage the Paul Shared Delusional Scheme Senate Campaign I can tell you I know him well.
    He’s never said any of your distortions. He may think some of them, though.
    Let Randi speak for himself. Let’s you and me set up a debate. I think I can convince the Johnson campaign to do it.
    Let’s put all our chips on the table Billy Buoy.
    I’ll grant you this. If ever you publically you what you wrote then you should be the candidate in the race, a Libertarian candidate however.
    See, Randi told me he knew he couldn’t win in KY as a Libertarian so he was running as a Republican. If he won his daddy and he were going to reform the GOP in their image.
    Bet you didn’t know that, Billy Buoy. Smacks of character defect up front, big delusions of grandeur defects. Plus, no guts no glory. The inability to stand on principle got us Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

    Johnson? An American Success. Proven leader. Duty-Honor-Country.

    Attack those if you want.

  7. Billy Boy says:

    Wanna try to string together something coherent? I was responding to Buck, not to you, and it happens to be in an area that I’m not sure if Rand agrees with me on, but I know Ron does. As for Johnson, he’s advocating the same foreign policy red herring line of the last eight years, and that’s been rejected time and time again by the voters of the nation, left, middle, and right.
    The only people who don’t reject it seem to want to continue to both be wrong and lose elections. I mean seriously Doc, let’s drive the republican party right into the ground with Johnson, where else is there left to go, who cares about reforming it. I mean, why get back to the foreign policy of Robert Taft, Dwight Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan like Paul wants to, hell they weren’t Republicans, no this is something brand new for Republicans, let’s reform it in Paul’s image, as if he hasn’t been spouting this stuff for 30+ years with the likes of Reagan endorsing him. The only difference between Johnson and Trey is that he may advocate a more conservative economic policy, but without addressing foreign policy you can’t fix economic policy. The only one here who seems to be being fooled is you, fooling yourself? So, if you want George Dubya and a bunch of RINOS as your senator, vote for Trey or Johnson, I’m sure you’ll be very happy. He’s got a stunning record of success.

  8. Doc says:

    Billy Buoy,
    You’re last post perfectly confirms my observation of your cut and paste plagerism.
    Folks, this is one modus operendi of the Ran Paul Libert Tree blog staff. They don’t live in, or care for, Kentucky. They probably could care less about a small town eye doc under different circumstances.
    The stakes are much higher, indeed. A Rand loss will be a direct broadside hit to the 2012 Ron Paul presidential run.
    As people with marginal levels of function get challenged en pointe they begin to evidence signs of increasing emotional instability. Watch Liberty Tree as a prime example.
    Coherent enough for you Billy Buoy?

  9. Billy Boy says:

    Doc, Nope, just a bunch of outlandish accusations not based in fact, I didn’t “plagiarise” a thing, go ahead and search for anything I said you won’t find it anywhere, not that you have any idea what plagiarism really is. I’m not paid by anyone to do this. “As people of marginal levels of function” I take this to mean you’re calling me stupid despite earlier claims of intellectual eloquence in my original post? Displaying emotional instability? Where? The only one displaying that is you, by believing blindly and not questioning. You can’t respond to anything I say without some false slander about who I am or why I post, and you can’t challenge the argument. Keep on trying Doc, I’m sure it’s a self applied title. Your cookie cutter neocon argument is dead in the water, just like Johnson’s campaign. It’s pretty obvious that the only one who doesn’t care about KY here is the one who’s still saying we should let the RINOS run around, while I prefer to only see them at the zoo.

  10. That was GREAT for cut and pasting. Let’s be frank with the readers. You were unable to report accurate and timely financial figures or news stories about Bill Johnson this morning (3-6 months expired) and now you come off with a Patterson School of Diplomacy Dissertation on Foreign Affairs.

  11. Thanks for the nice article. It was very useful for me. Keep sharing such ideas in the future as well.I am glad to be here!

  12. Your essay is good except for the spelling.I feel honored to e your guest.

  13. sabo thomas says:

    Enter in sludge but don’t dye, Unaffected by bourgeois sugar-coated cannonball erosion, Is the most valuable revolutionary qualities.

  14. Sister Carolyn, I love the daily blogs, brilliant. You’ve inspired me. I’ve started blogging again. Thank you!

  15. sex shop says:

    Ecelente tópíco

  16. mac makeup says:

    Wow, fantastic blog structure! How lengthy have you been running a blog for? you made running a blog glance easy. The entire glance of your site is excellent, well the content!

  17. (sex shop) says:

    ótimo conteudo, parabéns