National Pundits Agree: Paul Won Debate

Note that the common theme in assessing last night's debate is that Rand Paul appeared more intelligent than Jack Conway. Conway is not dim, by any means. The problem for Conway, as Paul helpfully suggested, is that Conway oversimplified the issues -- repeatedly. For example, when Conway insisted that Paul wanted to raise taxes by imposing a 23 percent national sales tax, Paul called Conway out for his intellectual dishonesty: Conway failed to mention that a national sales tax would replace the federal income tax.

Here's a summary of national reactions to the debate -- and note that much of it comes from Conway's favorite network, MSNBC:

MARK HALPERIN: "I Thought Rand Paul In That Debate Was Calm And Cool, Even When There Was A Heated Exchange. He Stayed Looking Senatorial." (MSNBC's Morning Joe, 10/26/10)

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: "Rand Paul Was The Clear Visual Winner Here... This Guy Looked Centered, Focused..." (MSNBC's Morning Joe, 10/26/10)

EUGENE ROBINSON: "Rand Paul Is The One Who Has Managed To Come Across Sounding The Most Reasonable, Smartest. You Know, That Was A Very Reasoned Performance In The Debate." (MSNBC's Morning Joe, 10/26/10)

JOE SCARBOUROUGH: "I'm not comparing Rand Paul to Ronald Reagan here, but he's got a similar dynamic... people saw him debating Jimmy Carter, he looked... quite effective. And he ran away with it." (MSNBC's Morning Joe, 10/26/10)

JOE SCARBOUROUGH: "I Suspect In Kentucky They're Thinking, That Guy Actually Looked More Senatorial Than Conway." (MSNBC's Morning Joe, 10/26/10)

PAT BUCHANNAN: "Makes Rand Paul Look Like A Very Intelligent Thoughtful Guy" "He looked like a tutor. He's very professorial he's giving instructions basically on a complex issue sales tax, income tax. And he's sitting there with what looks like sort of a wiseacre pupil who's throwing smart aleck cracks and comments. There's nothing that Conway did in this segment that makes him look good and there's an awful lot in there that makes Rand Paul look like a very intelligent thoughtful guy who's trying to get across a point to a pretty slow student." (MSNBC's Morning Joe, 10/26/10)

All Eyes On the Bay State

The polls are all over the place. Zogby has Coakley winning but the DSCC has Brown up by five. Republicans have won just by turning this into a race. Democrats manifested their typical arrogance that the seat was an entitlement and didn't even see fit to campaign until it was too late. It is not, as Brown pointed out, "Teddy's seat." It is the people's seat and now it is their manifesto against Obamacare.

The most exciting thing about the Coakley - Brown race (other than the fact that it can defeat Obamacare) is it shows that the Reagan Democrats are not gone. There was no realignment in 2008. They are paying attention to this administration and they are angry.

Grayson Goes On Offense

Secretary of State Trey Grayson is finally drawing a substantive distinction between his positions and those of Dr. Rand Paul.

Earlier this week, Grayson sensibly condemned the Obama administration's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and his co-conspirators in a New York City civilian court, rather then in the military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay.

Paul quickly issued a release stating that he, too, thought the 9/11 mastermind and company should be tried at Gitmo, and criticizing the Obama administration. According to Paul,

Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution. These thugs should stand before military tribunals and kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.

Well said on Paul's part, though it was a bit of a surprise, given that some in the libertarian end of the party are not exactly aggressive about the War on Terror. Paul's statement tended to reassure that he would approach issues like the terrorist detainees with clear-eyed common sense.

But then the Grayson campaign trotted out three statements that Paul made last May -- statements that appear to contradict his condemnation of the Obama administration's decision to hold the KSM show trial in civilian court.

One such statement appeared on Paul's campaign site; it has since been removed, but is available by Google cache snap shot. That post said that Paul "couldn't agree more" with those who believe that Gitmo "significantly damaged the reputation of the United States" and should be "shut down." The Paul campaign now says that a volunteer posted the language without the campaign's permission.

Assuming, for sake of fairness, that the web site post cannot be attributed to Paul, we turn to two other statements that Paul spoke himself. In both, he asserts that the U.S. should just dump the terrorists back from whence they came.

On the Alex Jones radio show (May 21, 2009), according the the Grayson campaign, Paul said,

it's kind of unclear whether these people are guilty, not guilty. . . . So I really think deportation, sending them back to their country of origin might be the best way to go. And none of it's fair, because some of them have been held years and years.

Of course, that begs the question of what process is appropriate to determine whether "these people are guilty, not guilty." Deportation -- without an adjudication -- seems to give the suspected terrorists a pass; it's certainly not a conviction.

In Paducah (May 8, 2009), Paul said of terrorist detainees, "I think they should mostly be sent back to their country of origin or to tell you the truth I'd drop them back off into battle . . . you're unclear, drop them off back in Afghanistan. It'd take them awhile to get back over here."

The problem with Paul's approach is that it does not account for the recidivism rate among terrorists. What happens after we ship terrorists back to Afghanistan, as Paul suggests? Are these thugs more likely to wave American flags at our troops or set IEDs to kill them? If the latter, then we have just sent reinforcements to kill more Americans -- sort of a reverse surge.

Republican primary voters need to pay close attention to what Grayson and Paul say about Gitmo and the War on Terror. Grayson and Paul are virtually indistinguishable on fiscal issues: both support limited government and low taxes. Republicans must therefore identify those issues on which they differ -- such as what to do about foreign terrorists.