A quick update on Ken Vaughn (with added thought)

Just got an email from the campaign. Ken Vaughn has far exceeded the state’s 1000 signature requirement to get on the Virginia 2012 Republican Primary ballot.  And I mean FAR. W00T!!! From the release:

Last year, Vaughn concentrated his efforts on helping state and local candidates; over the last two months, the focus has been on getting on the ballot. Now the focus will shift to a proper discussion of the issues in this election.

“I am the strongest candidate to finally defeat career politician Gerry Connolly,” said Vaughn.  “I look forward to a series of debates on the issues.”

Let’s see if the good Colonel actually decides to engage in debate.

BRAIN DROPPING ADDITION:  You know, folks… Something is interesting to me here.

I did a search on articles on Ken Vaughn during the past several months. And in nearly every single one, Chris Perkins supporters have come out in droves to insult and denigrate Mr. Vaughn.

Here are some examples:

Here – a simple article taking about each candidate’s cash on hand. Note the slew of Perkins supporters engaging in insults.

Here – a Q&A with the candidate.  Note the insults coming from the Perkins supporters in the comments section.

And of course, on this blog, as soon as I posted anything positive about Ken Vaughn, the slew of assbaggery has been staggering, even though the article didn’t insult Col. Perkins in any way and merely wrote a positive article on the former.

I haven’t seen those types of actions on the part of Vaughn supporters.

I’ve always said that a big part of Ron Paul’s problem is that very loud, obnoxious, know-it-all portion of his “fan base.”  Some of the people supporting Perkins are rapidly approaching that status, while hypocritically accusing Mr. Vaughn of personal attacks.

So…. grow up.

21 responses

  1. Come on you’ve got to be kidding me. Ken Vaughn struggled to reach 1000 signatures. The Perkins campaign reached 1000 a MONTH before Vaughn did and a month before the deadline and they spent the rest of the time leading up to the deadline validating those on their own and collecting extras just in case. The final count was 1800. Vaughn is a narcicist who will run against anybody to get into the US Congress and doesn’t care what that person stands for. He was going to primary Frank Wolf for Christ’s sake!!! To be completely honest I am completely turned off by his lies that he presents about Colonel Chris Perkins and for a person who has based his campaign around “integrity” he has shown none. Oh yeah, and how about you stop closing out the comment sections of your posts. Are you scared that the truth will come out if people are allowed to retort?

    Like

    1. If you spam my site again, pretending to be different people, I will simply erase your drivel.

      Vaughn already responded to the accusations of “lying.”

      You want integrity? Why don’t you find out why Col. Perkins’ campaign won’t allow their candidate to participate in an honest debate.

      And by the way, I find it amusing that a person who attempts to pretend he’s two people in order to comment on a website and create the illusion of numbers impugns ANYONE’s integrity

      Like

    2. Actually, genius, Vaughn had well over 1000 before the rules were myseriously changed a couple weeks before the deadline by the GA. As it is, he exceeded it by far. You guys are the excuse-makers, the campaign that won’t debate.

      Like

    3. And by the way, moron. Everyone is moderated the first time they comment to avoid spam. JESU CHRISTE, you’re a dumbass!

      Like

  2. If he worked so hard for those 2011 state and local candidates why did almost all of them endorse Chris Perkins?

    Like

  3. I get emails from both candidates although sometimes they get marked as spam. But this isn’t a national election… Or even statewide… Shouldn’t Vaughn and Perkins let the best man win instead of putting out letters online like Vaughn did to trash Perkins? I just think the focus should be on the prize which is knocking out Connolly. Same problem that’s going on in the presidential race don’t you think?

    Like

    1. I actually agree with you, but I will submit that Vaughn didn’t “trash” Perkins. He was specifically asked to name some differences between him and Perkins, and he used the candidate’s own words to point out the differences between the two.

      I would urge you to read the link before you make that claim.

      I know Ken Vaughn personally. Have known him and his wife for more than a year. The guy isn’t CAPABLE of the duplicity you accuse him of!

      Like

  4. Well that was the article I had previously seen… And I get the impression that some of it was taken either wrongly or out of context. Like I don’t feel that leaving that decision up to the woman and her doctor and family makes him pro choice. In fact Herman Cain held the same stance. The second amendment answer that Perkins gave sounds a lot like something Rick Perry would say being the Federalist that he is and I don’t see what’s wrong with Perkins’ answer. Same with the tax cut. Of course when you cut taxes there will be extra debt in the Fed, but if Vaughn doesn’t want to cut taxes then doesn’t that mean he wants to raise them? I simply think it’s foolish to hate on Perkins for saying the tax cut was a small victory because there has to be many small victories in order to truly win and I think he was trying to say that it was a victory in the sense that Obama didn’t win ya know?

    Like

    1. Actually, at least as far as the Second Amendment is concerned, Ken’s dead on. I’m a gun rights blogger, primarily, and Perkins doesn’t even have a concept about incorporation of the 2A. But again, beside the point. Vaughn doesn’t want to raise taxes. He wants to pay off our debt, which threatens to reach 100 percent of GDP. 100 percent. That’s an absurd number. It’s a debt level that would actually keep us out of the Eurozone! Vaughn, while he does not want to raise taxes, acknowledges that in order to pay down our debt, some may have to be raised.

      I don’t see him as “hating” on Perkins. He was asked about the differences between him and the Colonel, and he stated them plainly. From what I understand the Perkins campaign won’t even debate, so the two can’t even show their differences. I don’t see hate here. Honestly.

      Like

  5. Well what incorporation does there need to be? And I think Perkins has a point… The fed has no right to regulate or control the sale of guns. But states and localities can in a very limited respect so I don’t see a problem with his quote. And why didn’t Vaughn talk about downsizing the government instead of raising taxes ya know? What I get from Perkins is that he wants to minimize the fed and I don’t get that from Vaughn.

    Like

    1. The 2A has already been incorporated, and rightly so. (See the McDonald case.) And no, the states should have no right to infringe on it. Unless you’re going to claim they have the right to infringe on free speech, religion, assembly, press, property. The right to keep and bear arms and the right to protect your life and the lives of the ones you love should never be violated by ANY government, be it state, federal or local.

      Again. That’s part of the reason I support Ken Vaughn. He understands that.

      Like

    2. Not to insult anyone, but such obfuscation and/or confusion of federalism and basic human rights (as the right to keep and bear arms falls under) borders on willful ignorance in defense of a candidate. And for the record, Perry and Cain demonstrated themserlves ignorant on Constitutional issues at several points with such statements.

      Like

  6. Why was Vaughn the first to go negative? Isn’t that usually a last ditch effort to win?

    Like

    1. I don’t consider merely replying to a question from a reporter about the differences between you and the other guy “going negative.” That’s merely stating facts based on quotes already on record. However ad hominem attacks such as “My opponent is a liar.” Are negative. So who went negative first?

      Like

  7. Conservative Republican

    I understand the importance of the Second Amendment, but I think the gun issue is a bit of a distraction here. The Supreme Court has ruled, and I think Democrats have lost enough seats battling the NRA to think twice before they make any serious attempts to infringe upon our Second Amendment rights.

    On the other hand, I think there are big differences between the candidates on abortion. I think Perkins should be the choice of pro-lifers. Vaughn seems to think the federal government should do little with the issue. Perkins has agreed to support reasonable restrictions on abortion.

    Furthermore, I’m disturbed that Vaughn is willing to consider tax hikes. Our party base has long opposed them. Our government does not have a revenue problem — it collects $2 trillion a year — it has a spending problem. Our side has been tricked one time too many with tax hike/spending cut deals with Democrats. The tax hikes always take effect, but the spending cuts never happen.

    I’m not interested in bashing Vaughn. I think he’s probably a well-meaning guy. I just don’t think he can win. Keith Fimian’s social conservatism wasn’t embraced by the district even though he was a fantastic fundraiser and spent heavily. The district has only gotten worse with redistricting, and Vaughn’s tax-hiking/budget slashing fiscal policies will similarly be rejected by a district so dependent on federal money.

    For these and other reasons, I think Republicans should nominate Chris Perkins.

    Like

    1. I understand the importance of the Second Amendment, but I think the gun issue is a bit of a distraction here. The Supreme Court has ruled, and I think Democrats have lost enough seats battling the NRA to think twice before they make any serious attempts to infringe upon our Second Amendment rights.

      I have to disagree. Gun rights are always an issue, and while for now I think they’ve let up a little, it doesn’t help to have a representative in Congress who doesn’t see the importance of ensuring that no government on any level is allowed to violate our rights.

      On the other hand, I think there are big differences between the candidates on abortion. I think Perkins should be the choice of pro-lifers. Vaughn seems to think the federal government should do little with the issue. Perkins has agreed to support reasonable restrictions on abortion.

      Truthfully, I think THAT is the big distraction here, not gun rights. I know many social conservatives hinge their vote on this issue, and I can guarantee Vaughn is about as pro-life as they come. But he’s also aware of the law and of its limitations. Personally, that’s a non-issue to me.

      Furthermore, I’m disturbed that Vaughn is willing to consider tax hikes. Our party base has long opposed them. Our government does not have a revenue problem — it collects $2 trillion a year — it has a spending problem. Our side has been tricked one time too many with tax hike/spending cut deals with Democrats. The tax hikes always take effect, but the spending cuts never happen.

      If you look at Mr. Vaughn’s actual positions, you will see that his biggest goal is reform. Will that mean that some people who don’t pay anything at all currently will have to pay something? Yes. And frankly I’m sick and tired of paying out the nose to compensate for those who pay nothing. And I think it’s about time we had a representative in Congress who was committed to true fiscal responsibility. That person is Ken Vaughn. I don’t know enough about Perkins’ fiscal positions or plans to comment on them, so I won’t.

      If you notice, there are a lot of Perkins supporters coming over here to literally insult Vaughn and promote their candidate. Considering they don’t even know what he stands for, I find it quite a bit amusing.

      Like

  8. Conservative Republican

    I notice that you addressed all of the issues that I raised except those in my last paragraph — issues of electability. Even if I thought that Vaughn had all of the right policy views, which I don’t, I’d probably have to oppose Vaughn because I just don’t see how he could possibly win in this district this year. My reason for this is very simple: I want to see policy change, and very few policies change until we win elections.

    I’m sorry that some of my fellow Perkins supporters have been unnecessarily rude. I’d like to think that we could have a decent debate amongst ourselves about who should win our nomination without stooping to juvenile tactics.

    Of course, while you often complain about Perkins supporters swarming your blog, I find it interesting that there’s almost no supporters of Vaughn here (other than you and Rob).

    Like

    1. I notice that you addressed all of the issues that I raised except those in my last paragraph — issues of electability. Even if I thought that Vaughn had all of the right policy views, which I don’t, I’d probably have to oppose Vaughn because I just don’t see how he could possibly win in this district this year. My reason for this is very simple: I want to see policy change, and very few policies change until we win elections.

      I didn’t address it, because if I’m not mistaken, we have hashed this out before. I think Vaughn is very electable and personable. He’s not bombastic, but he’s genial and thoughtful and logical, and that comes through in every single moment of interaction with him. Your mileage differs, but I didn’t feel the need to rehash it, since we’ve discussed it before.

      I’m sorry that some of my fellow Perkins supporters have been unnecessarily rude. I’d like to think that we could have a decent debate amongst ourselves about who should win our nomination without stooping to juvenile tactics.

      Don’t ever apologize for the idiot behavior of others. I have decent conversations with people with whom I disagree all the time. Those who are asshats show themselves to be that with every word. No biggie.

      Of course, while you often complain about Perkins supporters swarming your blog, I find it interesting that there’s almost no supporters of Vaughn here (other than you and Rob).

      Just because people don’t comment on blogs, doesn’t mean they don’t read them. Vaughn supporters don’t attack Perkins on every article that’s written about him either. Doesn’t mean they don’t read. The first article I did on Ken Vaughn a few weeks back was obviously shot out to a whole bunch of Perkins supporters, because I got a flood of first-time commenters within the span of an hour, and most of them simply came to say, “Yeah, Vaughn sucks, and Perkins rules.” I believe you remember that blog entry. There was obviously an email dissem. I told one of the folks who came over here that she may want to tell the Colonel, whom she knows personally, that having his army of monkeys come to a site and stage an organized avalanche of pro-Perkins comments wasn’t doing anything to promote the candidate. I noted that the next article I did, the incident didn’t occur.

      Also notice, as I stated in the blog entry, the similarity between these people and Ron Paul supporters. They seek out articles related to the opposition and flood the comments section with RON PAUL! Just the couple of articles I pulled showed the same tendency on the part of Perkins supporters. Some even spammed my site with comments posted under different names – as if I can’t see the IP when I approve them from moderation! Vaughn supporters don’t do that. They’re grownups.

      I’m not trying to insult YOU personally, but this campaign seems to have quite a few of the obnoxious asshats.

      Like

  9. My two-and-a-half cents…

    There is a world of difference between governing idealogy and campaign idealogy. Gerry Connolly doesn’t act like a tax-and-spend liberal on the campaign trail, and accordingly he attracted enough moderates in ’08 and ’10 to win. He *votes* like a tax-and-spend, rubber-stamp liberal, but it’s (sadly) easy for a House member to get away with that.

    Ken isn’t campaigning as a right-wing firebrand, even while positioning himself to the right of Perkins by most people’s standards. That’s because Ken doesn’t see the debt as a left/right, Republican/Democrat issue; he honestly thinks it’s about morality and common sense. So he opposes the payroll tax cut gimmick, which explicitly raises the debt by postponing payments to Social Security for the sake of “stimulus”. Just because the words “tax cut” are involved doesn’t make it magic, and in this case it’s the kind of tax cut that does a minimal amount of economic good compared to something like permanent rate reductions (or eliminating a tax entirely).

    What Ken is saying isn’t the sort of red-meat verbiage that turns of slightly left-of-center voters. His approach is similar to that of Paul Ryan, who consistently wins by gigantic margins in a district that’s only a few points to the right of VA-11.

    I’m someone who cares about electability. For instance, I was telling anyone who would listen that Mike Castle should have been the nominee for Delaware’s Senate seat in 2010 even though Castle is a pile of mush on the issues. I backed Romney months ago based on electability. If Ken didn’t have a sense of how to present his message to voters, I doubt I’d be nearly as optimistic as I am about his chances in November.

    Accordingly, I think this primary should be about who would *govern* the best. And I believe that would be Ken Vaughn.

    Like

  10. It appears the Perkins clan is well-organized, but they are a tiny group of people and not really attracting more. Personally, I think there are enough members of Congress who represent the interests of defense industry, and we should send someone who will represent the interests of the people and honor oaths.

    Like

  11. […] Looks like he’s commented on this blog several times under different pseudonyms, including David Smalley, Jon Rigley, and the ever-unhinged Collegiate Conservative. And I had warned him to stop trying to […]

    Like

%d bloggers like this: