Bevin to McConnell: \’Be A Man\’

by Categorized: 2014 Election, Washington Date:

Kentucky Senate candidate and government-assistance recipient Mathew Bevin turned up the heat at the annual \”Fancy Farm\” political picnic Saturday, telling incumbent Sen. Mitch McConnell to \”be a man\” and join efforts to block the new government health care law, according to a report in the New York Times.

Bevin, whose Bevin Brothers Manufacturing Co. in East Hampton famously accepted $200,000 in state money to help rebuild its burned-out factory, is challenging McConnell from the far right, promising to go to Washington and cut government spending. (That\’s Bevin below with Democratic friends Joe Courtney and Richard Blumenthal).

The National Journal reports:

\”I don\’t intend to run to the left of Mitch McConnell. I intend to run straight over the top of Mitch McConnell and right into the U.S. Senate.\”

\"bevin

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

23 thoughts on “Bevin to McConnell: \’Be A Man\’

  1. Billy Boggs

    “Bevin, whose Bevin Brothers Manufacturing Co. in East Hampton famously accepted $200,000 in state money to help rebuild its burned-out factory”

    Oh…oh…oh… HOLD THE PHONE

    did I just read what i just read. I lying, cheating, corporate welfare give-me government money execuctive turned Tea Party tea bagger. now towing a high moral standard?

    Is that what i just read?

    Will someone pa-leese tell me my eyes be a shuntin’ down or sumpthin.

    Conservative? No. Teabagger? Ah… yaaa.

    Ah but Kim the freako will find some way to justify this tea bagger’s change of heart.

    Right, Kim?

    1. Kim

      No one would expect you to understand this billy, but there is no hypocrisy or contradiction in being against government theft and distribution of funds, and taking some of those funds if offered.

      If I pay taxes (and I do) then I have a higher moral claim to whatever money the government has stolen and decided to dole out – I am well within my rights to take some of that money BACK from the government – more so than those who receive government money but DON’T pay taxes. If ANYONE deserves to take some of that money, it is the ones who have provided it to the government in the first place.

      Unless and until the government practice of robbing from one to give to another is halted, then those being robbed are within their rights to take some back – in fact, an argument could be made that they would be foolish NOT to take it.

      I realize that this is a little too complicated for your simple, one-track mind. But others reading this may find it useful when arguing with fools

      1. fred

        KimWit, Most of the people you accuse of getting “free stuff” have paid some taxes. Anyone who has bought a cigarette, liquor, or a gallon of gas, has paid federal taxes. To name only a few.

        1. Connecticut is Circling the Drain

          Really Fred? Of course we all pay the consumption taxes. Using your logic, we few working mules that are left should all quit paying income and property taxes and our troubles would all be over. Then the progressive utopia will have been realized, right?

          Get your progressive head out of your arse.

        2. Kim

          I’m guessing that you have a point in there somewhere, besides stating the obvious fred/billy. If a ‘recipient’ lives off my tax money, then buys cigarettes and pays the consumption tax with that tax money that was stolen from me, who do you think paid for EVERYTHING in that transaction? Try to follow the breadcrumbs, freddie

          1. fred

            Sorry, Kim, your logic of paying taxes entitles you to take from the government has been destroyed since everyone pays taxes. Find a new issue to spew on.

          2. fred

            To put it more simply, so that even you can understand it, Kim. Why are your tax dollars more valuable than taxes paid by a welfare recipient? He pays taxes and, by your own marginal logic, is entitled to take from the government. Maybe he bought the cigarettes first and his welfare payment comes from that tax money. Get it, nitwit?

          3. Kim

            keep trying, freddie, maybe you’ll eventually figure out what’s being said and a little light bulb will switch on. At least I hope so, for your sake

    2. Kim

      sorry billy, you’re not the person to have a discussion on ‘morals’ with, or about ‘being a man’ for that matter. You’re simply not qualified.

      You have plenty of personalities on these blogs to engage in your own conversation with – maybe you’ll find someone within to discuss this with. It generally makes for good entertainment

  2. Lawrence

    Kim, I think your argument is a bit simplistic. But most importantly, it misses three very relevant facts:

    1. Bevin is a hedge fund manager. He doesn’t NEED taxpayer assistance to re-build his company. He’s just making interest off of your and my taxes.

    2. Bevin’s building was uninsurable due to its age and condition. Now, a ‘smart’ businessman would have relocated his machinery to a modern, safer building that could be insured. But that would cost money, wouldn’t it? And what are the chances of an old, wooden industrial building burning down anyway? So, Bevin rolled the dice, eventually lost, and got a partial government bailout to help re-build.

    3. Bevin (and many Republicans) will talk to fellow GOPers about the evil of government subsidies and bailouts… then take them when the time is right. Has he publicly reconciled his fiscal conservativism and ‘bootstraps’ mentality with taking taxpayers funds he doesn’t need, and arguably might not even deserve? Not that I’ve heard.

    I’m sure you’ve heard the businessman’s maxim — privatize the profits, socialize the losses. That’s what Mr. Bevin did. That’s fine as far as it goes, but let’s all acknowledge that.

    Now, I know nothing of Mr. Bevin as a man, or as a candidate. He might be better than Mr. McConnell, I don’t know. He’s running in another state, so I’m really not paying attention. I do give him great credit for his military service and for keeping a historic CT company running, and employing people, even from far away. That is a tremendous commitment and cannot be overlooked.

    But I think he could have avoided some criticism and questions by using some of his own hard-earned money by rebuilding himself, no state assistance. It would have made for a stronger campaign and likely not even have dented his personal fortune.

    The issue of whether or not he ‘deserved’ to use some of his taxes is moot. I agree with you that he does. But THE MANNER in which those taxes was used appears to be at oddwith his fiscal philosophy. He took them anyway, which calls into question his core fiscal values… at least in my mind. YMMV.

    1. Kim

      Thanks for the reply Lawrence. But your facts don’t change anything that I said – in fact, they support what I said. Your only criticism of Mr. Bevin seems to be that you don’t agree with his choice to take money from the government even though you believe he has the right to make that choice.

      Sometimes simplistic is better and more to the point. I stand by my post

    2. Greg

      Lawrence: Well said and I agree.

      I’m of the thought that such handout programs should not exist and it does irrititate me when someone will take the exact handout they claim to oppose in the first place. I’m no political strategist but it doesn’t exactly help your image if you’re running on fiscal conservatism and an implied “free market capitalism” platform and quite frankly makes one look like a hypocrite.

      Then again, free money is free money due to whatever boneheaded public policy generated the program to give away free money. We all have the choice to take it or leave it and i would bet most of us would take it given the opportunity, but running for public office on an ideological platform does open one up to criticism that wouldn’t normally be present.

      Don’t scream “WELFARE STATE” in your campaign and then take free government money and not expect to get called out for it.

  3. Kim

    I seem to be once again under the censorship microscope even though my comment that is ‘awaiting moderation’ was in reply to very specific and nasty posts from billyboggs. AND my comment is not nearly as offensive or specific as any of billy’s.

    Is Rick Green playing the favoritism game again? How often do we have to dance this dance before the ‘moderators’ of these blogs start acting fairly and objectively? I’m stunned at the language in billy’s posts these days and outraged that the ‘moderator’ would block one of my responses BACK to him, especially when that response is tame compared to those I’m responding to.

    I guess the important question is: is the ‘moderator’ acting in this manner for billy’s benefit because they are acquainted with each other, or because…………well, what other reason could there be that would justify such blatant favoritism?

    1. Kim

      I just noticed that one of Billy’s remarks seems to have disappeared. If that is the case, perhaps some fairness might be forthcoming in the censorship game. I certainly hope so. I don’t agree with the censorship thing except when it comes to foul language, but if it must occur it should be imposed fairly and consistently.

      I am referring to the thread “Harp endorsed by cocaine-dealing felon” at http://courantblogs.com/capitol-watch/harp-to-be-endorsed-by-cocaine-selling-convicted-felon-who-turned-life-around/#comment-146104). It was one of his milder posts, however.

      1. Billy Boggs

        Kim; you seem to spend a lot of time analyzing who is being “moderated” and who is not. if you just stick to the issue at hand and stop going rogue and negative, than you might have my rewarding experiences on these blogs.

        1. Kim

          take your own advice before expecting others to listen to you, billy. Lead by example – no one needs you preaching to them from such a weak position, imploring others to act other than you do.

          Everyone’s experiences on these blogs would be more rewarding if you either cleaned up your act, followed the advice you’re so willing to spew out to others, or simply go away.

          1. Billy Boggs

            kimmie boy; I don’t preach I express and as for the majority on this site being conservative and ideologically remote, count yourself and the many different names that you use pretend to be as one and I think the numbers shrink.

            leave me alone and i will leave you alone. bother me and I will bother you. and I have quite a bit more on you.

Comments are closed.