Senate Poll Looks Good For Grayson

The Daily Kos (via Page One) has a new poll on Kentucky's U.S. Senate race, and Secretary of State Trey Grayson must be pleased:

In the Democratic primary, Dan Mongiardo beats Jack Conway 37 -30; "other" polls 15. For the life of me, I do not understand why Democrats prefer Mongiardo; I can only attribute this to hostility to Conway's hometown, Louisville.

For Republicans, Grayson beats Dr. Rand Paul 40 -25; "other" polls 18. This is a weaker showing for Paul than the last SUSA poll. This race may well tighten when Paul starts to spend some of the proceeds from his "money bomb."

In a general election race between Mongiardo and Grayson, Grayson wins 45 - 41. If Grayson opposes Conway, Grayson's lead improves to 46-40.

If Rand Paul wins the Republican nomination, Mongiardo wins 42 - 37 and Conway wins 41 - 37.

Therefore, at this point, Grayson looks like the GOP's best candidate for keeping this seat.

The poll has a four percent margin of error and was taken August 31-September 2.

Meet Charlie's Newest Angel: Ben Chandler

CBS News has dubbed Congressman Ben Chandler as one of "Charlie's Angels" -- as in Charlie Rangel. It seems that Chandler accepted campaign contributions from Rangel, who is being investigated by the House Ethics Committee. Chandler sits on the Ethics Committee that is investigating Rangel for failing to report $ 4 million in outside income.

The conflict of interest could not be clearer: Chandler needs to return Rangel's donation, or resign from the committee.

MR. YARMUTH MEETS HIS CONSTITUENTS

Last night Congressman Yarmuth finally met with his constituents at Central High School.

Cindy and I arrived about 5:05 and pulled in front of Central High School. We were greeted by a line going all the way down Chestnut Street to the next street east. The line was rather disappointing in as I thought we were already too late to gain entrance for the 6:30pm meeting. We both decided to see this through. I dropped Cindy off to hold our place at the end of the line and I parked two blocks away. Really no big deal.

I walked back with a man that was from Chicago and his brother was a good friend of “Barry” Obama and he had some interesting stories so I invited him to stand in line with us and we shared nice conversations. The line took about a half hour to get to security where we emptied our pockets and some were scanned while others were told to proceed on. At the next station we were told we could fill out forms to ask questions and then we could proceed to the auditorium. Filling out forms to ask questions before I had heard the Congressman speak seemed a little strange. In any case I passed since I had the chance of having one of my questions asked at another venue.

Once in the auditorium we were left to observe the people filing in. Above the stage was a banner “Working for Louisville by Listening to You”. I found this laughable after the several weeks of calling Yarmuth’s office, writing letters, calling his office, standing in protest in front of his office, calling his office, and inviting myself into meetings he held that I only caught whispers of their existence.

Interestingly enough there were a lot of union groups, in their appropriate tee shirts. Most of them were in the front of the auditorium and had good seats. Three members of SEIU were sitting behind me. Dressed in their appropriate tee shirts I heard them talking union talk and at one point one got up to take a picture of them and then stated “well now we have proof that we were here”. This implied to me that they were mandated to attend but I am accused of being a skeptic so form your own opinion.

There must have been many with my same experience since at 6:35 the crowd started clapping in unison calling for the meeting to start. They realized that not having a chance to meet with the Congressman they did not want to lose any valuable time and demanding their chance to meet with their Congressman.

John walks out on the stage to a round of applause but an equal amount of boos and people expressing their dissatisfaction. Now I don’t approve of booing a person or even a visiting team but it certainly set a mood for the evening.

Francene, the moderator, laid out the ground rules and asked the audience to hold their boos and yelling and to be respectful.

John starts out with an impromptu survey asking several questions that lead to a positive or yes response. Questions like should insurance companies cancel people once the come down with major problems. Of course everyone answered with positive responses but he did not ask the question “do you think the government can take care of this?”

I think John thinks he did a good job of “herding the audience” with his survey but the first question asked enforced the opinion that many in the audience were not in favor of this proposed bill. The first question was cheered by the audience and John’s response was booed. Now I need to mention that at this point I think booing is OK. In fact it was necessary to let the Congressman know how dissatisfied his constituents are. If we all sat very quietly and only applauded the items we agreed with and then sat silently while the others applauded the responses they liked then all the Congressman would hear is the applause and not any dissatisfaction. So this was an appropriate time for the American people from both sides to speak up and exercise their rights.

I actually witnessed one man get upset at a person that was being vocal and he confronted him. This is sad since in this venue you are bound to hear things that you don’t agree with but you can’t try to suppress others just because you don’t agree. If it aggravates you too much then you can either sit and steam or leave but not confront.

All in all it was an invigorating meeting, I left comfortable that those opposed to the Congressman’s view were heard. John had a very rough night. One that he had not experienced at the three prior meetings I had attended. I left the Town Hall meeting feeling that I have done everything possible to try to prevent this bill from happening. If it still passes and is a mess I can honestly say I did my best.

At the Democratic Club John basically stated that he is going to vote for this in one form or the other no matter how his constituents feel. (He stated they were misinformed by the media), we need to remember that American is a Republic, not a full democracy. We vote our representative in office to vote for us as they see fit. John is certainly doing this. He has every right to vote his heart instead of the opinion of his constituents. The only thing we can do now is to put someone forward that will beat John Yarmuth in the next run for the 3rd Congressional District of Kentucky.

Lets Roll!

An Honest Politician

When politicians are honest, they should be commended. Congressman John Yarmuth deserves a kudo for one of his answers at last night's townhall meeting at Central High School.

When asked how we were going to pay for healthcare reform, he answered: "I don't know".

Mr. Yarmuth, the truth will set you free....

Here's the YouTube clip.

Quick Reaction to Yarmuth's Town Hall

Congressman John Yarmuth has to be commended for entering the lion's den that was 1,400 people at Central High School -- roughly 70 percent of whom oppose the Democrats' plan to nationalize health care.

He had a few gaffes (more on that in the a.m.), but all in all, Yarmuth handled himself with humor, humility and patience with a crowd that I really wish had not booed (seriously, can't we show our displeasure with stony silence or something other than booing?) With the exception of a few hecklers (on both sides) and the booing (again, on both sides) the crowd was generally courteous.

Francene Cucinello did a superb job as moderator. She kept the pace moving, which allowed more people to ask questions, and she followed up when Yarmuth failed to answer.

The biggest story for Republicans was the reaction to a question about the need for the federal government to obey the Constitution. The point, in essence, is that we are a government of enumerated and hence limited powers. The crowd's reaction shows that there is a growing demand for limited government that obeys the Constitution as written, rather than as fantasized by those who see it as a "living document." The implication is the candidacy of Dr. Rand Paul and his ideological compatriots is no fluke. Establishment Republicans need to understand that there is a burgeoning segment of voters who will no longer tolerate using the Commerce Clause and the like as a jumping off point for all sorts of legislation.

Yarmuth is still wrong on health care and many other issues; more on that later. But I do commend him for showing up. It's too bad that Yarmuth's initial fear of town halls kept him from hosting one earlier. And it's too bad that he was worried enough about how it would all turn out that he wouldn't let ordinary citizens video tape the event -- just fancy media types.

Oh, Dear

U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has hired only one law clerk instead of the usual four clerks allowed to active justices. That almost certainly means that the 89-year old justice has decided to retire -- giving the Obama administration the opportunity to nominate another Wise [fill in the blank of your favorite identity group].

Marilyn Parker Will Run Against Yarmuth

Congressman John Yarmuth has a Republican opponent -- already. Marilyn Parker has announced she will challenge Yarmuth for the 3rd Congressional District. Mrs. Parker is a nurse and has been active in the "tea party" movement. She pledges on her website to serve no more than four terms.

You can meet her at this Saturday's "tea party," September 5th at 3:30 at Old Louisville's Central Park (4th and Ormsby).

H/t: Page One

Talking Points From Moveon.org For Tonight's Town Hall

Moveon.org apparently has given up on protesting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now that they are the Democrats' problem. In a last gasp effort to remain relevant, therefore, Moveon.org has turned to the health care debate.

But Moveon.org does not trust that it's members are smart enough to know what to say at the town halls: they might get out-Foxed by those birthers! So Moveon.org has helpfully formulated a script. In fact, Moveon.org does not even trust its members to know how to write a protest sign, so it has three on its website that the lazy protester can print out. Look for these tonight at Congressman John Yarmuth's town hall at Central High School (doors open at 5:00):

Here are some signs to print out and bring to a town hall:

"Public Option = Affordable Health Care" sign

"Public Option: Increases Choice, Reduces Cost sign

"83% Support the Public Option" sign

There's also a script of suggested questions:

Here are a few ideas you can use to ask a question at the town hall:

1. I'm here to urge you to push for passage of a health care reform plan with a real public health insurance option as soon as you head back to Washington. It's critical for controlling skyrocketing costs and guaranteeing security for all of us.


2. Our health care system is broken—costs are skyrocketing and too many people can't afford coverage. The heart of President Obama's health care plan—the public health insurance option—is the key to fixing those problems.


3. We need action now. The cost of inaction is too high—every day that we delay, 14,000 Americans lose their insurance¹and nearly 2,500 file for bankruptcy because of medical costs². And costs continue to spiral out of control: average family premiums will hit $22,000 a year in the next decade.³


4. With a real public option, costs will start to go down and millions of individuals, families, and small businesses will have access to high-quality, affordable health insurance. And no matter what happens to our jobs or our health, a public option will always be there for us. Will you fight to make sure a real public health insurance option is included in health care reform this year?

Note that numbers one-three are not even questions -- more like a slobbering kiss for a liberal Congressperson.

I am not including any fake signs for your to print out. Nor am I giving you any fake non-questions to ask. Unlike the Democrats, I have faith that Americans are smart; you know what to say.

Say Cheese for Yarmuth

Congressman John Yarmuth's office will require those who want to attend tonight's town hall meeting at Central High School to show identification to prove that they live in this Congressional district.

It is understandable that Yarmuth wants to make sure that his constituents aren't turned away because Cindy Sheehan and her friends (assuming she has some) have taken all the seats.

Now that Yarmuth has awakened to the utility of identification, it is time for him to support legislation that requires voters to show photo IDs before voting in federal elections. Democrats have stonewalled such legislation for years under the guise that it suppresses the vote of legitimate, qualified voters. To the contrary, Republicans don't want to prevent any legitimate voters from exercising their constitutional rights. We just don't want the poll workers to see dead people voting (over and over).

If showing ID is an appropriate safeguard for Yarmuth's town hall meeting, surely it is also appropriate for the even more important exercise of democray: casting a ballot.

Yarmuth meets the Doctors

Last night I was invited by Dr. Brooks Jackson, a local urologist, to attend a meeting with Congressman John Yarmuth and invited doctors at Baptist East Hospital’s auditorium. Dr. Jackson invited me and a mutual friend to attend. Unfortunately my mutual friend whom I won’t name at this time gave me a start time of 6:00 when the meeting actually started at 5:00pm. Now Stuart Haseker is generally a really nice guy so we can’t begrudge him too much for his intentions are always honorable and that is why I won’t mention his name.

So always being prompt, I arrived at 5:30pm for the meeting expecting to be early. I found the auditorium doors closed and the hallways empty so I knew I had made it on time. I pushed on the door to be greeted by one of Congressman Yarmuth’s staff and John speaking to the “good doctors”. At this time I am totally confused but realize the meeting has started so I to find a seat in the back.

In the two previous meetings, John has mentioned that he is not holding a lot of town hall meetings since they seem to be disruptive and antagonizing. He mentioned at the Democratic Club meeting held last week held at the American Legion that he can generally tell if the audience is receptive or not and they obviously were receptive at the Democratic Club. At the GLI meeting Friday, I could not tell how most of the crowd felt.

Last night was a different crowd John had to contend with. My First Impression was John was not in the presence of a friendly crowd.

As I sat down I could almost feel the tension in the room. There was a screen behind John with the slide America’s Affordability Health Choices Act. Quality Affordable Health Care with the bullet points:

. Provides funding to help, recruit, train, and retain
. Creates and expand new scholarships and loan repayment programs
. Doubles the National Health Service Corps
. Graduate Medical Education Act of 2007

But none of these items were in the discussion.

To be honest the Doctors were grilling him. I can’t say that this was the typical scene that you see at town hall meetings on TV but I can attest that most of the Doctors did not like what they were hearing. (Quite frankly I think Yarmuth didn’t like what he was hearing) Most of the doctors were stating their individual problems as examples of what they did not like about the bill and they were even making suggestions for the bill. At this point a frustrated Yarmuth asked “What would you like us to do?”

I bet the reader will have a hard time guessing the doctor’s most important suggestion. Well it was Tort Reform. When this was brought up John said, “Well we can look at that too”. I found this remark rather disingenuous since in 1100 pages of this bill there is no mention of Tort Reform. One doctor actually started quoting the problems by page number and paragraph items he had problems with. Yarmuth basically said “he is reading from a sheet of paper” which at this point the doctor raised up a stack of paper which was the whole bill. To say this doctor had not done his homework would be foolish. To be honest I think John was out of his league at this meeting. Several times after suggestions to change the bill John kept saying, “Well, we can do that too or we can look into that too”

One doctor actually brought up the point that this bill would override the many years of education that she had and the many years of experience she had and put the decisions in the hands of the likes of government bureaucrats and insurance companies. Who truly do not know the implications of the medical field. I believe it was the same doctor that suggested that they just do a little bit at a time and see how that works before revamping the whole bill. Like taking on catastrophic care first and watch that for a while and then trying something else etc. Again John mentioned “We can look into that too.”

John also brought up the support of the AMA (American Medical Association) and received an overall reaction from the audience which seemed to me to be laughable. John responded by saying he knew that the AMA only represented about 20% of the doctors population to which several calls from the audience stated more like 18 % and then 16%. One doctor also asked from the audience, by a show of hands, how many were currently actively involved or had been involved with membership to the AMA. Three doctors out of the 150-200 that I estimated to be there raised their hands.

I realize I am bias and I try to paint an unbiased report as I attend these meetings but I must say this meeting was the most negative meeting against the current Health Care Bill as proposed by Congress that John has attended. It is important to note that the doctors were very civil but were also demonstrative in their negative opinion of the bill.

See you tomorrow at Central High School. Arrive early and make sure you bring an ID.

C-J Disses Its Token Conservative

One would think that the Courier-Journal would be proud of the praise that John David Dyche has received for his new book, Republican Leader, A Political Biography of Senator Mitch McConnell. Dyche, after all, is a C-J columnist; his success reflects back on the paper for having the good sense to run his column.

Yet the C-J has failed to review the book, even though stores have been selling it for months. Perhaps the C-J is boycotting mention of the book because Dyche's biography flatters McConnell; the paper would no doubt give glowing reviews if the book skewered McConnell.

The C-J also failed to report that Dyche appeared on the Sean Hannity show. A native son gets flattering coverage on one of the highest rated television programs in the nation, and the C-J writes . . . nothing.

For years, Dyche's brilliant column has allowed the Courier-Journal editorial staff to feign an openness to opposing viewpoints. Conservatives knew it was a sham, of course. Still, Dyche has given the paper cover, and for the paper to not cover him shows that its hatred of all things conservative transcends even common courtesy and Kentucky pride.

Rand Won't Take $ From TARP Senators

Dr. Rand Paul's campaign announced today that he will not accept campaign donations from any senator who voted for the TARP bailouts. He called on his opponents to do likewise. Paul's press release states:

U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul on Monday pledged not to accept campaign contributions from any U.S. Senator who voted for the bank bailout and challenged his opponents to follow suit.

Dr. Paul issued this challenge after learning that Trey Grayson has scheduled a Washington D.C. fundraiser co-sponsored by several U.S. Senators, seventeen of whom voted for the so-called TARP bailout in 2008, which was then used to fund an auto industry bailout Congress rejected.

“This isn’t about holding politicians to an impossibly high standard of agreeing with everything one’s supporters say or do,” Paul said. “But a primary focus of my campaign is that we need Republicans in office who will have the courage to say no to federal bailouts of big business.”

“There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the government to pick winners and losers in the private sector and the Republican party platform specifically condemns bailouts,” Paul said. “I’m running for the U.S. Senate to stand up for true Republican principles and the Republicans I’ve talked to agree that is what we need.”

Paul's s primary opponent Secretary of State Trey Grayson will benefit from a fundraiser hosted by 23 Republican Senators, including Mitch McConnell, at the NRSC. In the unlikely event that Grayson accepts Paul's challenge to decline the money, he still has six Senators who opposed TARP on his host list.

Paul's response is a clever way to remind voters that he would have opposed the bailouts. Nonetheless, it's a somewhat hollow gesture given that (a) Paul doesn't need the contributions due to his "money bomb" and (b) the GOP establishment, as represented by the 23 Senators, probably wouldn't give him any.

Will Paul return "money bomb" contributions from anyone who collected their $4500 from "cash for clunkers"?

Tortured Logic

Eric Holder, the Attorney General, wants to investigate certain individuals for potential violations of law in the use of techniques that were used for getting information out of our enemies. Waterboarding is one of the techniques, amongst others, which many have labeled as torture.

It is fascinating that the supreme lawyer of the land is more concerned about prosecuting those who were trying to protect us than prosecuting those who want to hurt us, but that is another story.

There is much emotional outrage over the use of torture and we have seen the bumper stickers which say "Torture is UnAmerican".

Here is a hypothetical situation and question for those who oppose torture. Let us suppose that your child was kidnapped and that one of his or her captors were apprehended. Let us further suppose that by torturing that individual, the authorities could determine the location of you child and save them. In such a case, would you still oppose torture?

If one answers yes to this question, I suppose that you would have to respect the strength of their conviction. On the other hand, one would have to question the sensibility of someone who potentially sacrifices the life of an innocent person to prevent the pain and suffering of a criminal.

Grayson Kicks Off Senate Campaign

I could not attend Secretary of State Trey Grayson's campaign event yesterday, but Joe Arnold reports, quoting Grayson:

"We are in uncharted territory when it comes to our nation's fiscal health, and there is no end in sight," he said. "That's why we must enforce tough limits on our national debt, create a realistic plan for a balanced budget, reign in wasteful spending and end the unprecedented government takeover of the private sector."

"Our tax dollars are bailing out big banks and paying multimillion-dollar bonuses to people who ran their companies and our economy into the ground, and that's wrong," Grayson said, drawing applause from his northern Kentucky supporters. "The government has already taken over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, General Motors and Chrysler. Now this administration is intent on the government taking over health care and your doctor's office."

Grayson's appeal for limited government sounds pretty much the same as Dr. Rand Paul. Arnold notes, however, that Grayson is running as the GOP insider:

As Roll Call reported on Tuesday, twenty-three GOP Senators -- including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Bluegrass State's senior Senator -- are hosting a $500 per person fundraiser for Grayson at National Republican Senatorial Committee headquarters Sept. 23.

The NRSC has not officially endorsed Grayson but the location of the event and the fact that NRSC Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) is one of the hosts of the fundraiser is a good indication of where the committee's loyalties lie in the race.

According to Arnold, Dr. Dan Mongiardo's campaign responded by making fun of Trey Grayson's given name and attempting to tie Grayson to former President George W. Bush:

"Charles Merwin Grayson, III has been anointed by the same Washington Republican leadership whose failed economic policies have plunged us into the worst recession since the Great Depression. Fortunately for Kentucky's working families struggling during these tough economic times, Daniel Mongiardo is the one candidate in this race who they can count on to stand up and fight for them."

As Arnold notes, Mongiardo's strategy of running against Bush might look pretty stale by November 2010; voters will be assessing the Obama administration by then.

Rand Paul's Campaign Responds

Dr. Rand Paul's campaign has responded to my inquiry regarding Paul's position on U.S. support of Israel and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Christopher Hightower writes:

Our site received thousands of emails on August 20th, please forgive me for not quickly responding to yours. Dr. Paul looks forward to articulating his positions as the campaign develops.

Question number 1:

What is Dr. Paul's view on American support for Israel?

Answer:

Israel is a friend of America, he supports all allies with the United States.

Question number 2:

How about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Dr. Paul supports and would have voted for war against those responsible for the attacks on 9-11. The Taliban would not cooperate with us and turn over those responsible. Actions were taken that Dr. Paul would have supported. Looking back Dr. Paul feels we should have taken smaller strike forces in much faster to deal with the terrorist camps. It took so long to amass our forces many had time to escape.

Dr. Paul supports all troops serving in our Armed Forces, however, he would not have voted for the war in Iraq.

Hightower states that the campaign is in the process of developing the issues section of its website and asserts that it is more informative than other candidates' websites.

He is correct with respect to Grayson, who does not have an issues section on his website. However, Grayson just kicked off his campaign yesterday. We will check back to see Grayson's position on foreign policy and if the website does not so state or is unclear, we will ask, as we did for Paul.

Dr. Dan Mongiardo, who has been running for U.S. Senate for quite a while, has an issues section on his website but it only includes a video of Mongiardo talking about how his family's poverty inspired him to bring health care to Eastern Kentucky. There are a few platitudes about coal and economic development, but no specifics, and nothing about foreign policy.

Likewise, the campaign website of Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway includes an issues section that at this point is limited to a video of Conway. His video has its own share of platitudes: now is the time for "a belief that a brighter tomorrow is just over the horizon." (Seriously, yick.) Conway's video at least attempts to list what he sees as the issues, though with little or no detail on how he would solve the problems he identifies. For example, Conway calls for a foreign policy that shows that "strength and wisdom are not opposing values." I'm not sure what that means; perhaps it translates into something along the lines of appeasement is not wimpy.

The Paul campaign therefore is correct that at this juncture its campaign website offers the most specificity on where its candidate stands on the issues. The Paul campaign's format of listing the issues and Paul's position works much better than a video of the candidate. It allowed me to focus on the positions without the distractions of Hair and Eyebrows.

The election is 14 months away. Lots of time to fine tune these websites so they do not insult the voters of Kentucky with cliches but rather give us an informed basis to choose our next U.S. Senator.

McConnell Condemns Deficit

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell comments on the Congressional Budget Office's new numbers on the deficit. The newest numbers from the non-partisan CBO are the scariest yet.

“The alarm bells on our nation’s fiscal condition have now become a siren. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reports the deficit for this year alone is already nearly as high as the last five years—combined—and is only getting bigger. And, if anyone had any doubts that this burden on future generations is unsustainable, they’re gone. Spending, borrowing and debt are out of control. Even the President’s own advisors acknowledge that the deficit in the coming years will be trillions more than projected just a few months ago.

“The massive national debt threatens long term fiscal health as a nation, our national security and our ability to meet our commitments to seniors, veterans and working families. There are two immediate steps we should take. We should review the trillion dollars in borrowed stimulus money with an eye towards applying it to paying off the federal credit card. And we must take the bipartisan step of reforming entitlements to strengthen the fiscal state of our existing commitments.”

McConnell is right about the stimulus money: the sum was too vast for the Obama administration to spend quickly enough to actually stimulate the economy. Therefore, it's time to play Indian-giver and take the unspent money back.

Where Does Rand Paul Stand On Foreign Policy?

I wrote Dr. Rand Paul last week via his website to ask his position on U.S. support for Israel and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. So far, no reply.

Perhaps he is too busy counting dollars from his "money bomb." Still, for a campaign geared to fundraising from the Internet, it seems odd that he would not respond to an inquiry to his campaign website. That's my punishment for not including a credit card number.

Paul has energized a group of Americans who are outraged -- and frightened -- about government spending and its effect of ballooning the deficit and diminishing our liberty. He's passionate and articulate about the cause of limited government, and I agree with him on that issue.

What is less clear is where Paul stands on foreign policy. Is he an extreme isolationist from the Pat Buchanan wing of the party? His campaign website says he opposes surrendering U.S. sovereignty:

Rand Paul proposes that America can engage the world in free trade, develop lucrative commercial relationships with other nations, and defend its national interests without funding or joining international organizations.

To the extent that he means that U.S. courts should not apply foreign law and the like, I agree. Americans should only subject themselves to laws written by those whom we have elected.

But Paul doesn't go into great detail, and that worries me because I wonder if he is speaking in code. I agree that the U.N. has soaked America for every dollar we will give it. The U.N.'s lack of accountabilty has allowed it to use our taxdollars to fund corrupt schemes, like the oil-for-food scandal. I don't want to surrender sovereignty to the United Nations, but I am not at this point prepared to withdraw from it either, given the good work it does on disaster relief. Is he actually proposing that we stop funding the U.N. altogether?

Paul does indicate on his website that he supports free trade, which distinguishes him from Buchanan on at least that issue. It will be interesting to see if Paul hits the issue hard. He should -- free trade is a vital component of prosperity not just for America but for the world's poor.

Paul's position on foreign policy is of the utmost importance for a candidate who aspires to serve in the U.S. Senate, where he would be called upon to ratify treaties with foreign countries, confirm the appointments of ambassadors and maybe even declare war. So it is not enough for him to rest on his domestic platform.

Moreover, Paul's outlook on foreign policy may be the factor that distinguishes him in the Republican primary from Secretary of State Trey Grayson. I don't doubt that Grayson opposes government spending every bit as much as Paul, though he has been much less forceful in so stating. (Trey, you need to kick it up a notch here).

Grayson needs to watch how Paul discusses international relations and look for a way to distinguish himself. To that end, Grayson needs to make clear his unequivocal support for Israel and his opposition to appeasing an Iran bent on acquiring nuclear war heads to go with those missiles it has pointed at Israel. And he needs to opposes protectionism forcefully.

Grayson needs to state that Islamofascism is dangerous and immoral. Gitmo should remain open. Defense attorneys who "out" CIA operatives should be prosecuted, not the CIA agents who did the job they were instructed to do.

Grayson's website doesn't give any more guidance on where he stands on foreign policy than does Paul's. Nonetheless, I don't wonder if a Senator Grayson would introduce legislation to stop funding the U.N.

Because Grayson has a track record of elected service and has campaigned around the state, he is known and liked by many. For Grayson, the good news is that no one expects him to take any positions that will shock us. The bad news is that he probably won't take any positions that will awe us. For Paul, the expectations may be just the opposite.

That's why Paul must be explicit about where he stands on all issues including foreign policy, not just the issues that captivate him.

Ad Hominem, Ad Nauseum

Ad Hominem: adj. Directed at or appealing to one's hearer's or reader's personal feelings or prejudices rather than his intellect or reason (Webster's Third New International Dictionary)

In this era of political rancor and strife, the ad hominem attack seems to reign supreme. Idiot. Bigot. Nazi. Leftwing nutjob. Rightwing wacko. Fascist. Homophobe. Fatso. Fool. Jerk. Neanderthal. Racist. Whore. Communist....the list goes on and on. The problem with these attacks is that they get us nowhere. Even if a word accurately describes someone, if it is incendiary and confrontational, it is inappropriate to use it.

Let us suppose that we were to call someone a pathetic, incompetent fool. For many, this would be an accurate description of George W. Bush. For many, it would be an accurate description of Barack Obama. In neither case is the label productive or positive for the public discourse.

We would all do well to heed grandma's age old advice that if you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything at all.

When you launch a personal attack against someone that has ideological differences, it is proof that you either lack the ability, or as is more often the case, the information or facts, to confront your opponent on a rational, objective basis. The ad hominem argument is the last refuge of those who are not up to a rational debate, for whatever reason.

In these tumultuous times, those on both sides of the aisle would do well to keep the debate civil. Attack ideas, not people.

Krauthammer Deconstructs End of Life Counseling

Charles Krauthammer has turned down the rhetoric and increased the clarity on the Democrats' proposal for end of life counseling in H.R. 3200:

We might start by asking Sarah Palin to leave the room. I've got nothing against her. She's a remarkable political talent. But there are no "death panels" in the Democratic health care bills, and to say that there are is to debase the debate.

We also have to tell the defenders of the notorious Section 1233 of H.R. 3200 that it is not quite as benign as they pretend. To offer government reimbursement to any doctor who gives end-of-life counseling -- whether or not the patient asked for it -- is to create an incentive for such a chat.

. . .

So why get Medicare to pay the doctor to do the counseling? Because we know that if this white-coated authority whose chosen vocation is curing and healing is the one opening your mind to hospice and palliative care, we've nudged you ever so slightly toward letting go.

It's not an outrage. It's surely not a death panel. But it is subtle pressure applied by society through your doctor. And when you include it in a health care reform whose major objective is to bend the cost curve downward, you have to be a fool or a knave to deny that it's intended to gently point you in a certain direction, toward the corner of the sick room where stands a ghostly figure, scythe in hand, offering release.

Liberals win elections and then govern with the premise that people like it when the government gives them free stuff. There is a cost to these goodies beyond the taxes needed to pay for them: the cost is a loss of personal autonomy. I don't want the government to pay for my end of life counseling. If I need it, I'll pay for it myself or pass a hat to my loved ones.

Money Bomb Update

Dr. Rand Paul's "money bomb" has brought in $100,000 in the last two hours; he's raised $455,000.

Republicans are going to have a real primary. Let's keep it civil and remember the 11th Commandment.