McConnell: "We're Going To Be Behind Whoever Wins The Primary"
EDITORIAL:
As we approach the last five weeks of the republican primary race between Trey Grayson and Rand Paul an interesting dynamic has developed. Rand Paul seems to be everywhere on television, while Grayson has much less of a presence. For a guy who is down in the polls by double digits, it's Grayson's move that needs a look.
No one doubts that Mitch McConnell has provided support for Grayson. McConnell was blamed for elbowing Jim Bunning out of the race and soon thereafter began hosting fund raising events for Grayson among his Senate colleagues.
McConnell has recently commented on the race itself.
I dont have any current plans to endorse anybody in the race but theyre both outsiders, he said. Neither one of them has been in Congress, and either one of them, I think, could make a plausible argument that they would be something different. Theres no incumbent in the race. [NKy.com]
According to unofficial reports from those close to two campaigns, both have raised nearly identical sums of money with which to wage battle in the final days.
Paul has apparently made a significant media buy in most of the TV markets in the state. Some are commenting already on how much penetration he seems to be getting. The Grayson camp is saying that Paul has "spent it all", will be out of money by the last two weeks and that Grayson will then have the advantage, having saved his ammo until the final hours.
But can a candidate, already down by 10-15 points afford to let his opponent have a free run for three weeks and then seriously think he can take the lead away? To most political observers that can mean only one thing, the "Hiroshima" or "scorched earth" strategy.
If Grayson is planning to allow Paul to run three weeks of television without a tit for tat response, Grayson must be planning to drop a nuclear bomb in the last two weeks big enough to win the war.
Grayson so far has tried to plant seeds in the minds of voters that Paul is "kooky" and has "strange ideas". But Paul has responded that Grayson is lying, distorting the truth and that Grayson represents the same failed thinking which started the process of putting our country in the shape it is in today.
Rank and file republicans understand the message that Paul is sending out. The word "bailout" connected with AIG has become a buzzword for reckless government spending with a hint of government corruption. That message sticks.
Political insider republicans understand that despite the popularity of George W. Bush right after 9-11 (the one who put out a WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE poster on Osama Bin Laden) the guy who ended his term by starting the bailout ball rolling is in part to blame for the rise of Obama, and the condition we are in today.
Republicans know that the bailouts were started under George Bush, and in large part, that his failure in leadership translated over to John McCain and cost us the election. Republicans have since developed a serious mistrust of political insiders tied to big bankers and lobbyists regardless of party affiliation.
If Paul's message sticks, Grayson will be seen at worst as sharing his DNA with the same "neo-cons" who lobbied GW on behalf of AIG or at best being just another politician willing to lie and/or distort the truth in order to win an election.
If Grayson's message sticks, Paul will be seen as at best unpredictable and at worst far more liberal than your standard Bush/Cheney republican on social issues, but more conservative on fiscal issues.*
If Grayson is holding back on his money until the end and plans to drop a nuclear bomb, it better be a big one and it better be on target and it better cause surrender. Otherwise he might be seen as the guy who gave the democrats all the ammo they need in order to win the seat against a wounded, yet still battle worthy Rand Paul.
Might Grayson have placed all of his faith in McConnell to help him deliver a knock out blow, raise the money needed to drop the bomb and then shore up his image among the voters should he win? Maybe, but that would be a very dangerous strategy given McConnell's well known history. His ability to keep his distance just enough to avoid the blood splatters when he throws you under the bus is masterful and legendary.
Research reveals that Paul has purchased a ton of media all the way through the primary. Grayson could do better by using the button hole method of getting votes in some districts, like the 5th, and save his dough. He might even be wise to buy cable in some markets targeting his republican audience more precisely by staying on channels like Fox News and using direct mail to reach regular voters.
But in a year where the cry for "change" is ringing louder now than even 2008, though McConnell was right, both Grayson and Paul can make a plausible argument that they are something different, the question becomes whether Grayson can convince republican voters that he is different enough.
As one old political saying goes, "Politicians are like diapers, they both need changing regularly, and for the same reasons." Which diaper is Grayson? That's the question he needs to address.
). I don't think you would see a problem, and that's what worries me about that. 
