jmdrake
11-20-2009, 12:34 PM
I thought about this last night. Some people have suggested ignoring Grayson's latest attack. That's not a viable option. Everyone here old enough to remember the "Willie Horton" ads should know what I'm talking about. Michael Dukakis had a significant lead over George H.W. Bush. And then Lee Attwater produced and released the infamous "Willie Horton" ad. Dukakis had a good response to this when it came up for debate but by then it was too little too late.
So how should Rand respond? Rand's biggest problem isn't the website. He can brush that off as a campaign faux pas. Nor is his biggest problem that he's taken a position different from his father. I know for a fact that Rand is trying not appear to be a "Ron Paul clone". He's also taken a different position from Ron on earmarks. (I actually like Rand's position on this better, although Ron's is easily defensible.) The problem is the earlier video and audio statements that appear to be in conflict with his latest position on Gitmo.
So what's the solution? Well first Trey Grayson edited those comments to the point where they changed the meaning. That's great news for Rand if he'll capitalize on it. The one thing people like less than a "flip flopper" is a manipulator. The key thing that Grayson left out is Rand's early statements only applied to people who cannot be convicted. Khalid Sheik Mohammed is obviously not in that category. Note that I'm not saying he's guilty. I do think there is a strong possibility that there was a false confession. But that is a question that has to be settled by some sort of judicial process. Some want that process to take place in New York. Others prefer it to take place at Gitmo. I only care that it's fair, which I suspect won't be the case wherever it happens.
So Rand could point out that he clearly wasn't talking about KSM. So who was he talking about? The Uighurs maybe. He mentioned Hamad Kharzai's cousin, although I might not bring that up due to all of the recent Kharzai family corruption scandals. Basically anyone who has never actually been charged with anything. If you have solid evidence to try someone as a suspect then do that at Gitmo. If you don't then process them out of their. I'm not saying that's my position, but it's a position Rand might be able to work with at this point.
Regards,
John M. Drake
So how should Rand respond? Rand's biggest problem isn't the website. He can brush that off as a campaign faux pas. Nor is his biggest problem that he's taken a position different from his father. I know for a fact that Rand is trying not appear to be a "Ron Paul clone". He's also taken a different position from Ron on earmarks. (I actually like Rand's position on this better, although Ron's is easily defensible.) The problem is the earlier video and audio statements that appear to be in conflict with his latest position on Gitmo.
So what's the solution? Well first Trey Grayson edited those comments to the point where they changed the meaning. That's great news for Rand if he'll capitalize on it. The one thing people like less than a "flip flopper" is a manipulator. The key thing that Grayson left out is Rand's early statements only applied to people who cannot be convicted. Khalid Sheik Mohammed is obviously not in that category. Note that I'm not saying he's guilty. I do think there is a strong possibility that there was a false confession. But that is a question that has to be settled by some sort of judicial process. Some want that process to take place in New York. Others prefer it to take place at Gitmo. I only care that it's fair, which I suspect won't be the case wherever it happens.
So Rand could point out that he clearly wasn't talking about KSM. So who was he talking about? The Uighurs maybe. He mentioned Hamad Kharzai's cousin, although I might not bring that up due to all of the recent Kharzai family corruption scandals. Basically anyone who has never actually been charged with anything. If you have solid evidence to try someone as a suspect then do that at Gitmo. If you don't then process them out of their. I'm not saying that's my position, but it's a position Rand might be able to work with at this point.
Regards,
John M. Drake