Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Trey Grayson, Rand Paul and the politics of Sept. 11, 2001

Six weeks out from the Kentucky Republican primary for Senate, Secretary of State Trey Grayson and ophthalmologist Rand Paul are in a pitched battle over that most touchy of political subjects: the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Grayson, the underdog in the May 18 primary, began the back and forth with an ad that began airing over the weekend in which the narrator says that Paul "wonders whether 9/11 was our fault".

Grayson doubled-down on the attack today with a 90-second web video that splices comments from Paul, Texas Rep. Ron Paul (Rand's father) and, yes, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

The Grayson ad and web video seek to make the case that Rand Paul believes that foreign policy decisions made by the United States in the years preceding Sept. 11, 2001 are partially to blame for the attacks.

That position is, not surprisingly, a stone-cold loser in a Republican primary anywhere in the country but particularly in a state as conservative-leaning as Kentucky.

Knowing this, Paul has immediately launched a statewide television ad in which he expresses his "outrage at terrorists who killed 3,000 innocents" before accusing Grayson of a "lie" and a "shameful" tactic.

There is NO subject more fraught with potential political peril than the terrorist attacks of September 2001. The events of that day left an indelible mark on the collective consciousness of the United States -- changing the way we look at ourselves and the world.

Politics and politicians have struggled to adapt to that change.

Democrats pooh-poohed ads run by then Rep. Saxby Chambliss in 2002 that sought to question Sen. Max Cleland's (a triple amputee during Vietnam) commitment to national security. But they worked -- undermining Cleland's credibility on the critical issue of the election and handing Republicans a stunning upset victory.

Two years later President George W. Bush won re-election by running a campaign focused heavily on his track record of keeping America safe since the Sept. 11 attacks while raising questions about Sen. John Kerry's (Mass.) ability to deal with the threats to the country.

The years that followed saw the issue recede somewhat in the political arena as the lack of another major domestic attack took terrorism and national security from a top-of-the-mind issues to a lower profile in most voters' thinking.

But, terrorism generally -- and Sept. 11, 2001 specifically -- remain a huge emotional touchstone for large swaths of the American electorate.

By making it a major issue in the final weeks of the primary fight, Grayson is taken a risk -- albeit it a calculated one. Grayson is clearly behind in the race and needs a game-changer sort of moment. He (and his team) clearly believe this to be such a moment.

The risk? That Kentucky voters view the web ad as over the top -- particularly the use of the Jeremiah Wright footage -- and rather than damaging Paul it boomerangs back around to hurt Grayson. (We saw that boomerang effect in 2008 when North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole ran an ad questioning then state Sen. Kay Hagan's religious values -- an ad that, in retrospect, served as the death knell of Dole's political career.)

This is a high risk, high reward strategy for Grayson. Given Paul's momentum in the race, it may be Grayson's best/only way to fundamentally alter the calculus for Kentucky Republican primary voters. But, it could also backfire on him and make it far harder for him to emerge as the nominee.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 30, 2010; 12:20 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: RNC spending controversy: What it means for Michael Steele and the Republican Party
Next: Assessing John Thune's 2012 chances

Comments

I'm enjoying nunya's posts... in the same way I enjoy going to the zoo and watching monkeys pick fleas off each other and scratch their balls.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | March 31, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

For those who are arguing that Federal Income tax is somehow voluntary, you might want to contact Wesley Snipes and get his opinion on that and the results of his failure to pay. (you could also look up in the history books the way the government finally brought down Al Capone.)

Posted by: kmar20009 | March 31, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

For those who are arguing that Federal Income tax is somehow voluntary, you might want to contact Wesley Snipes and get his opinion on that and the results of his failure to pay. (you could also look up in the history books the way the government finally brought down Al Capone.)

Posted by: kmar20009 | March 31, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

You see - there USED TO BE a protocol - the incoming administration did NOT criticize the previous administrations.

Bush respected that protocol - that courtesy - that level of civility.

---

Really? So, what exactly were all of those stories about outgoing members of the Clinton administration trashing the White House.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 31, 2010 1:06 AM | Report abuse

"...you can't declare a part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional..."


You need to stop avoiding the work you have to do young man!

Don't reply.
You can thank me decades from now...

Posted by: shrink2 | March 30, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

16th amendment wasn't ruled unconstitutional. What the 16th amendment did was ruled unconstitutional until it was put into the Constitution. But you can't declare a part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 30, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Wasn't the Constitution adopted because it was problematic that the Articles of Confederation did not grant the power to levy taxes?

Posted by: DDAWD | March 30, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

An analysis of 9/11 requires that one look at the amount of intelligence resources which Bill Clinton had in the Middle East in the 1990s - these resources were steadily REDUCED during Clinton's term.

You see - there USED TO BE a protocol - the incoming administration did NOT criticize the previous administrations.

Bush respected that protocol - that courtesy - that level of civility.

Obama does not have that protocol - he does not have that courtesy - and Obama has spent much of the last year blaming Bush for everything, including the weather.

.


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 30, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

The 16th amendment was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court.

Posted by: nunya1 | March 30, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

---

Flash! The Supreme Court rules the Constitution unconstitutional.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 30, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Today's "conservative' repulican party:

"The staffer fired by the Republican National Committee for authorizing a $2,000 payment for a night out at a bondage-themed club was the head of the Young Eagles, a GOP program aimed at cultivating major donors under 45 years old, Republicans familiar with the details of the case said Tuesday.

Allison Meyers, the Young Eagles director, asked the RNC to reimburse a GOP consultant for the costs of a Jan. 31 after-party event for young Republicans at Voyeur in West Hollywood, Calif., which features topless female dancers wearing bondage gear and simulating sex acts. Meyers' identity was first reported by the National Journal's Hotline."

It's all about the family values, people.

Posted by: drindl | March 30, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

nunya1


You can't do that -


would be nice, huh?

The only way to get rid of an amendment is with another amendment - which has happened.

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 30, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Try Googling the 16th amendment to the US constitution.

BB

The 16th amendment was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court.

Posted by: nunya1 | March 30, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

IS the democratic party MATURE ENOUGH to handle having a black as President ???


Seriously folks.


This question has come up time and time again over the past two years - from the false charges of racism against Bill Clinton in South Carolina - to the false charges against Gerry Ferraro -


This is the democrats we are talking about.


IF the democrats are going to SCREAM "RACIST" EVERYTIME OBAMA GETS HIMSELF INTO POLTICAL TROUBLE - or over legitimate policy differences - THEN IT IS THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE NOT MATURE ENOUGH TO HAVE A BLACK AS PRESIDENT.


hhhmmmm


Think about it - is it actually the democratic party who is NOT READY FOR A BLACK PRESIDENT ???


THE OUTBURST LAST WEEK WAS DISGRACEFUL - IF OBAMA HAD ANY PERSONAL HONOR HE WOULD RESIGN - IT FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM AGAINST AN ENTIRE GROUP OF PEOPLE IS CERTAINLY GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT.


.


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 30, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

IS the democratic party MATURE ENOUGH to handle having a black as President ???


Seriously folks.


This question has come up time and time again over the past two years - from the false charges of racism against Bill Clinton in South Carolina - to the false charges against Gerry Ferraro -


This is the democrats we are talking about.


IF the democrats are going to SCREAM "RACIST" EVERYTIME OBAMA GETS HIMSELF INTO POLTICAL TROUBLE - or over legitimate policy differences - THEN IT IS THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE NOT MATURE ENOUGH TO HAVE A BLACK AS PRESIDENT.


hhhmmmm


Think about it - is it actually the democratic party who is NOT READY FOR A BLACK PRESIDENT ???


THE OUTBURST LAST WEEK WAS DISGRACEFUL - IF OBAMA HAD ANY PERSONAL HONOR HE WOULD RESIGN - IT FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM AGAINST AN ENTIRE GROUP OF PEOPLE IS CERTAINLY GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT.


.


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 30, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Googling. Darn spellchecker.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 30, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Did you know there is NO law that says we have to pay taxes? Go ahead Google it.
Posted by: nunya1 | March 30, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

---

Try Googline the 16th amendment to the US constitution.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 30, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler

Toddlers and infants just get stuck with paying for Obama's massive debt and interest payments, right ?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 30, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

This country was founded on freedom. What you just wrote does not sound like freedom. Also the constitution protects your freedom. Not the government.

==

What meaningless nonsense.

If this country was founded on any one principle it was religious bigotry. Various religious bigots came here to be free to practice their own brand of intolerance. Go read about Jamestown fer chrissake.

"This country was founded on freedom."

Were you home-schooled or something?

And in any case a requirement to pay taxes is in no way incompatible with any real notion of freedom, toddlers and infants excepted.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 30, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

"not remotely interested in your constitutionality quibbles"

Huh, I thought the contitution was law. Instead it is something to "quibble" about.

Well never mind then.

Posted by: nunya1 | March 30, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

It's not quite that simple, of course. By living here, you are agreeing to abide by certain rules and expectations, both formal and informal. But, in living by the rules, you are also granted certain privileges and freedoms.

If you say that government cannot tax you in return for protecting your freedoms, isn't it reasonable for the rest of us who do pay our taxes and are law abiding citizens to expect you to leave?

In other words, if you don't like the rules, go somewhere with rules that are compatible with your belief system. Of course, you could reasonably argue that you'd prefer to stay & change the rules here. That is fine too - but you still have to live by the rules we have today.

********************************************
This country was founded on freedom. What you just wrote does not sound like freedom. Also the constitution protects your freedom. Not the government.

Posted by: nunya1 | March 30, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Just because I feel it is theft does not mean I do not pay taxes. I can not go up aginst the IRS goon squad and expect to win with most people thinking like you 3.

==

not remotely interested in your constitutionality quibbles, they are pure hogwash and only enticing to the ignorant.

Government needs money to operate. It gets that money from taxation. If you feel so strongly about it there are 200 other countries you can move to, all with their own tax laws. Some with no taxes.

Don't expect the services you're accustomed to, though.

Try Somalia. A free market paradise with open carry too.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 30, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

...it is a ciminal offense to not pay your fed income tax...

Ok, show me the law.

Posted by: nunya1 | March 30, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1, Noacoler, bsimon1

Just because I feel it is theft does not mean I do not pay taxes. I can not go up aginst the IRS goon squad and expect to win with most people thinking like you 3.

Until 1914 there was no income tax.

If you people believe the income tax you, me and everyone else pays goes to infrastructure you need to go learn a little history.

Posted by: nunya1 | March 30, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Why can nobody even entertain the idea that our foreign political decisions can not have negative consequence?
Do we really believe that we are so good that we never make mistakes?

Political campaigns are pulling out the worst in people, applies to both candidates and constituents.

Can this be changed?

Posted by: jolandakp | March 30, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

nunya1 it is a ciminal offense to not pay your fed income tax not a 2 year old's shout out to your best buds.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 30, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Rand calls Greyson a liar for quoting, in context, Mr. rand?

wow!

whether you agree or disagree with rand blaming america for the attacks, that IS what he said.

Posted by: newagent99 | March 30, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

So a guy who would lie that way about an honest working man is okay to count the votes in an election he's running in? Where else would an "ethics committee" not demand reclusal? Where else is that even legal?

Posted by: jdadson | March 30, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

nunya1 writes
"Also what do you call it when someone takes something of yours with out your permission?

I call it theft."


It's not quite that simple, of course. By living here, you are agreeing to abide by certain rules and expectations, both formal and informal. But, in living by the rules, you are also granted certain privileges and freedoms.

If you say that government cannot tax you in return for protecting your freedoms, isn't it reasonable for the rest of us who do pay our taxes and are law abiding citizens to expect you to leave?

In other words, if you don't like the rules, go somewhere with rules that are compatible with your belief system. Of course, you could reasonably argue that you'd prefer to stay & change the rules here. That is fine too - but you still have to live by the rules we have today.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 30, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Also what do you call it when someone takes something of yours with out your permission?

I call it theft.

==

you, sir, are an idiot. You have implicitly granted your permission by virtue of your citizenship.

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html#theft

"# Taxation is theft.

Two simple rebuttals to this take widely different approaches.

The first is that property is theft. The notion behind property is that A declares something to be property, and threatens anybody who still wants to use it. Where does A get the right to forcibly stop others from using it? Arguments about "mixing of labor" with the resource as a basis for ownership boil down to "first-come-first-served". This criticism is even accepted by some libertarians, and is favorably viewed by David Friedman. This justifies property taxes or extraction taxes on land or extractable resources if you presume that the government is a holder in trust for natural resources. (However, most people who question the creation of property would agree that after the creation of property, a person is entitled to his earnings. Thus the second argument)

The second is that taxation is part of a social contract. Essentially, tax is payment in exchange for services from government. This kind of argument is suitable for defending almost any tax as part of a contract. Many libertarians accept social contract (for example, essentially all minarchists must to insist on a monopoly of government.) Of course they differ as to what should be IN the contract.

# If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will show up at your house, initiate force and put you in jail.

This is not initiation of force. It is enforcement of contract, in this case an explicit social contract. Many libertarians make a big deal of "men with guns" enforcing laws, yet try to overlook the fact that "men with guns" are the basis of enforcement of any complete social system. Even if libertarians reduced all law to "don't commit fraud or initiate force", they would still enforce with guns. "

Posted by: Noacoler | March 30, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: leichtman1

nunya1 I am a criminal defense lawyer you might want my business card when you refuse to pay your federal income taxes.
///////////////////////////////////////////

LOL I'll keep that in mind if I someday decide to not allow the theft of my money by the government anymore. :)

Posted by: nunya1 | March 30, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Just when you thought Grayson could not stoop any lower. He is a loathsome excuse for a human being.

Posted by: jdadson | March 30, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

The danger here was all Paul's and he blew it.
He could have come back to quickly condemn the attacks and then reaffirm and briefly extend his quoted concerns for the US presence overseas.
Instead he responded with 1) no emotion worthy of the moment and 2) "it's a lie"....when it is obviously not a lie but only a questionable gotcha.
His response was a crucial flip-flop -- or in other words: an obvious lie.
Big mistake.

Posted by: JimHale1 | March 30, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are soooo-nastahy.

This is much meaner than Halter jamming up Lincoln on the TARP.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 30, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

nunya1 I am a criminal defense lawyer you might want my business card when you refuse to pay your federal income taxes.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 30, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

to drindl

Getting funding from small donors all over the country who see one of the country's best candidates running in Kentucky is no more 'outsider' than having DC fundraisers by AIG's lobbyist and by 23 Senators, 17 of whom voted for the bailout.

National security is not the issue of this campaign, it is a smokescreen.

Posted by: sailingaway1 | March 30, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Also what do you call it when someone takes something of yours with out your permission?

I call it theft.

Posted by: nunya1 | March 30, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

* Louisville GOP Strategist Scott Jennings: “Rand Paul Says He’s Running As An ‘Outsider.’ I Suppose That’s Exactly What You Are When You Announce Your Campaign In New York City And Your First Several Fundraisers Are In Texas.” (Patrick Crowley, “Paul Defends TV Announcement,” The Cincinnati [OH] Enquirer, 8/7/09)

In Early August, Paul Announced Several Fundraisers In Texas. “Paul thinks he can raise $2 million for an effective primary campaign . . . . He said he has four fundraisers planned in Texas, three of which will be attended by his father who raised significant money online in his quest for the Republican presidential nomination.” (Ronnie Ellis, “Paul All The Way In Senate Race,” McCreary County [KY] Record, 8/7/09)

* On A Talk Radio Show, Rand Paul Said “We Hope The People Of Texas Will Try To Get Us A New U.S. Senator In Kentucky.” “RAND PAUL: And I think that’s sort of the question, and some of it will be shown by what we can raise through the exploratory committee. I was telling you earlier we plan on going to several different states. I’m working on coming to Texas in August, and we’re hoping to actually get down to your neck of the woods, to Austin. And we know we have a lot of friends in the Austin area – the Austin area was one of the biggest meet-up groups in the country. And we hope the people of Texas will try to get us a new U.S. Senator in Kentucky.”

Wonder if the people in Kentucky are annoyed that outsiders are trying to foist an ideological extremist on them?

Posted by: drindl | March 30, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul calls taxation "theft?"

As if he didn't have enough moronic positions already. Anyone wonder why libertarians can't get out of the starting gate?
//////////////////////////////////////////

What has this country come to? I blame public education.

Once you find out how, when, why the taxing of Americans happend. You will call it theft too. The fact that your prescious democrat leaders haven't told you the truth, may anger you enough to leave the dark side and come to the light.

Did you know there is NO law that says we have to pay taxes? Go ahead Google it.

Posted by: nunya1 | March 30, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

I am not a fan but respect Ron Paul. What makes no sense is Grayson using film footage of Ron Paul against his son Rand and 911 which is confusing and really makes no sense at all. I do not sense that there is actual footage that shows Rand himself making that statement about 911.Apparently Grayson is shamelessly trying to morph Rand to be Ron.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 30, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: drindl

just because you are not terribly bright, you assume the same of others. we can have smart government if we stop electing idiots like the current crop of do-nothing republicans.
///////////////////////////////////////////

You start by insulting me, wrongly assuming I am not bright, and then you claim only the republicans are idiots.
That's funny.

I will say it again. There has not been, and there will never be such a thing as smart government. It can't happen. It wont happen. Just like Communism can never happen. That's because of people.

So, keep government small and reduce the chance of corruption.

Posted by: nunya1 | March 30, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

HOW DARE HE QUESTION? BECAUSE THE TRUTH SHALL SET US FREE.

Rand Paul was right.

9/11 didn't have to happen. The U.S. had a heads-up, as evidenced by that summer 2001 threat briefing paper to Bush that Bin Laden was poised to attack the U.S. with commercial aircraft. A conscientious FBI agent was waved off when she tried to raise an alarm about flight training.

And then there were those early ties between Bin Laden and the CIA when he was considered a U.S.-allied Muhajadeen instead of a terrorist.

Maybe Rand Paul should have acknowledged the loose ends surrounding the 9/11 narrative, rather than try to deny his previously expressed doubts about the official story.

***

Health care reform is done. But -- FIRST, DO NO HARM.

ATTENTION HOMELAND SECURITY (Secret Service, FEMA) / FBI / PENTAGON / DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE / INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATORS-INSPECTORS GENERAL
(also members of Congress and the Obama administration):

Your immediate attention is directed to the following articles and appended comments by veteran journalist Victor Livingston:

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

These articles expose serious government wrongdoing, including apparent crimes against humanity and the Constitution.

Many in government know about this -- and knowingly let it continue.

Corrective action is immediately required. Thank you.

Posted by: scrivener50 | March 30, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul calls taxation "theft?"

As if he didn't have enough moronic positions already. Anyone wonder why libertarians can't get out of the starting gate?

Posted by: Noacoler | March 30, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: edismae

I knew he was an MD, but didn't know Rand Paul was an opthalmologist.
Has anyone asked him how many cataract surgeries he does a day and what is the Medicare reimbursement for these less than 10 minute procedures?

We have way too many maladjusted MDs in the Congress...
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

I can't speak of Rand, but his father Ron refused both medicare, and medicaid. He doesn't believe the Government should steal money from people. Instead he worked pro bono. So I don't believe his son would be any different. But, ya neva know.

Posted by: nunya1 | March 30, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

So let me see if I have this right.

The controversy is based on the belief that the attacks in 2001 were based on envy and resentment and pure irrationality, and it's unpatriotic to even speculate that the attackers might have had real greviances. Uh, yeah.

Since we're the only people in the world with fragrant feces it's simply inconceivable that our endless interference in the Middle East, including our unceasing support for that nasty little apartheid state and its settler movement, could have anything to do with hatred of our policies. Such hatred can only be irrational.

Gotcha. Would you like some lemon in your tea, Mr. Netahyahu?

Posted by: Noacoler | March 30, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

'You have got to be kidding. There has not been, and there will never be such a thing as smart government. All the better you learn this now.'

just because you are not terribly bright, you assume the same of others. we can have smart government if we stop electing idiots like the current crop of do-nothing republicans.

Posted by: drindl | March 30, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: sasha2008

Do any of them understand the difference between BIG GOVERNMENT and SMART GOVERNMENT?

You have got to be kidding. There has not been, and there will never be such a thing as smart government. All the better you learn this now.

Posted by: nunya1 | March 30, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I knew he was an MD, but didn't know Rand Paul was an opthalmologist.
Has anyone asked him how many cataract surgeries he does a day and what is the Medicare reimbursement for these less than 10 minute procedures?

We have way too many maladjusted MDs in the Congress...

Posted by: edismae | March 30, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

I was at Ground Zero on 9/11 and i'd prefer if they simply didn't even discuss it in Kentucky. I lost 35 friends that tragic day. Look around folks..the great experiment is tanking...China is breathing down our necks...too many wahoo's in the US...too many evangelicals and not enough thoughtful, educated, well meaning citizens...too much greed- far too much corruption...the teabaggers have crawled out from under their rocks strengthened by the poplularity of the palins and bachmans--they subscribe to fear and anti intellectualism...time to stand up seriously and demand better schools, more bank reform and some sort of restraint on the media outlets who simply lie. And these guys are debating the most important day in modern American history?

Posted by: tutnyc | March 30, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

"The Democratic party today is an interesting mix of naked opportunism, fearmongering, and insanity"

Huh? The subject of 9/11 may be broad, but this is two GOP candidates battling it out in a parochial election in Kentucky. Nevertheless, feel free to take the slurs labeled at Republicans and "cleverly" sling them back, ie "I'm rubber, you're glue" whenever the impulse strikes you.

Posted by: Koko3 | March 30, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Here's a pretty state of things, a pretty how-d'-do.

Rand Paul apparently was brave enough to say what every thinking person should know and his opponent -- who apparently espouses the know-nothing/anti-intellectual position that "they hate us because we are free" -- says that telling such a truth is incompatible with being a Republican candidate for Congress. Which seems to be the position of most of the Republicans in Congress now -- especially their leaders.

Posted by: DonAlbertson | March 30, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

This tells you everything you need to know about the current desperate and increasingly loony state of the repulican party.

Posted by: drindl | March 30, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

The Fix will surely want to pay attention to this little nugget, again from MN Post:

http://www.minnpost.com/politicalagenda/2010/03/29/16994/pawlenty_to_hold_a_facebook_town_hall_meeting_wednesday_make_major_announcement

MN Gov Pawlenty will make a 'major announcement' via his facebook page on Wednesday night.

I suspect it will have more to do with positioning himself as an A list party celebrity for the 2010 elections & thus sharing some of the spotlight with some of his presumed competitors for the 2012 nomination. I'll be surprised if it has anything directly to do with 1) being governor or 2) running in 2012.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 30, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

McCain- tell us about those VITTER EARMARKS that COBURN upheld for him on the FRIDAY before your RECESS

Exactly what are the VITTER EARMARKS that are blocking military nomination Brig Gen M Walsh?

HYPOCRITES!

Filibuster while we are in 2+ WARS- sir---- who is playing GAMES - MAVERICK?

Posted by: sasha2008 | March 30, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

She just took a swig from 37th's flask.

Posted by: JakeD3 | March 30, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

"Republican candidates looked backwards and attacked each other over what they saw.

The future must look too bright."


Ouch


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 30, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"If they get Rand Paul the likelihood that a Democrat will take over the KY senate seat will greatly increase. Especially if the economy continues to show signs of improvement."

for the record, it appears your working definition of the term 'improvement' is different from Merriam Webster's:

im·prove·ment
Pronunciation: \im-ˈprüv-mənt\
Function: noun
Date: circa 1550
1 : the act or process of improving
2 a : the state of being improved; especially : enhanced value or excellence b : an instance of such improvement : something that enhances value or excellence

Posted by: millionea7 | March 30, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Trey Grayson is clearly desperate. Most campaigns wouldn't dare touch this issue or risk political suicide. Trey Grayson may take that risk, but ultimately, when he loses in May he'll likely be ruining his chances of running for the KY governorship in 2011.

And let's be frank here: as Secretary of State, being Governor is what Grayson is best suited for. By weakening Paul come November and himself for years to come he's sacrificing far more than he may believe.

Posted by: Kiser10 | March 30, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic party today is an interesting mix of naked opportunism, fearmongering, and insanity

Posted by: leapin | March 30, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Sasha, I think you need to switch to Decaf.

Posted by: AndyR3 | March 30, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I think Grayson has seriously miscalculated this electorate. This is one of those situations where you have to catch the person in the act (see Medina in TX GOP primary). In that type of case you just sit back and watch the implosion occur. By trying to manufactor this controversy he is only going to alienate the independent voter. That being said this is good for the Democratic nominee in KY (whoever that may be). If they get Rand Paul the likelihood that a Democrat will take over the KY senate seat will greatly increase. Especially if the economy continues to show signs of improvement.

Posted by: AndyR3 | March 30, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

OH how the TRUTH hurts

The chickens have come home to roost

GOP TEA PARTY of HELL NO- what do they do?

Pretend they are vicitms- when they voted for the BUSH 8 years!

TEA PARTY is BUYERS REMORSE of GOP/BUSH 8 YEARS !

Do any of them understand the difference between BIG GOVERNMENT and SMART GOVERNMENT?

SHhhhhhh....might be an ELITE question!

Posted by: sasha2008 | March 30, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

OH how the TRUTH hurts

The chickens have come home to roost

GOP TEA PARTY of HELL NO- what do they do?

Pretend they are vicitms- when they voted for the BUSH 8 years!

TEA PARTY is BUYERS REMORSE of GOP/BUSH 8 YEARS !

Do any of them understand the difference between BIG GOVERNMENT and SMART GOVERNMENT?

SHhhhhhh....might be an ELITE question!

Posted by: sasha2008 | March 30, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

The Republican party today is an interesting mix of naked opportunism, fearmongering, and insanity.

Posted by: drindl | March 30, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

I know that radical Islam is, well, radical, but the entire Republican notion that American foreign policy is void of repercussions, no matter how intrusive and imperialistic, is totally insane. Republicans honestly seem to think that the United States can do no harm in anything it does because we were ordained by GOD to run the world as we see fit.

It's shocking that Republicans are so often surprised at international reactions to American foreign policy. I'll never condone violence against a nation for purely economic and diplomatic maneuvering, but that doesn't mean I expect fundamental religious zealots in the Middle East to share my opinion on this topic.

Posted by: thecrisis | March 30, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Another day, more good news for Democrats.
Republican candidates looked backwards and attacked each other over what they saw.
The future must look too bright.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 30, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul and Rev. Wright? Who knew!?

Posted by: JakeD3 | March 30, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company