Rand Paul-Part One

This is my second blog entry on my second blog site. The previous site was difficult to access for some which made a good excuse to discontinue for a time.
Hopefully, a better site will keep me motivated, but we'll see.

I wanted to comment on an article which appeared on the op-ed page in the Courier-Journal yesterday which was a repost of a Greg Sargent Washington Post story about the misunderstanding of Rand Paul's "underground electronic fence" between the U.S. and Mexico.
After some critics suggested that the idea was, well, kind of kooky, Rand Paul's spokesman, Jesse Benton "clarified" Paul's position by saying that the electronic fence wasn't meant to be underground. "That's a stupid word that was put in by whoever is writing for our website and we need to remove it."
That's the end of story, according to Mr. Sargent and the Courier.
Except, of course, that its not.
In an early interview by Mr. Paul as reported by Sam Stein of the Huffington Post on June 25, 2010, Stein wrote:

In a speech before a small gathering of supporters back in May 2009, Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul elaborated on his proposal to build an underground electronic fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, framing it as a cost effective and even respectful way of stopping the flow of illegal immigrants.

In a speech in downtown Paducah, Kentucky, Paul pegged the cost of his quixotic idea at somewhere between $10 and 15 million dollars (a relative pittance when compared to other border-fence proposals, and likely far too rosy a projection). The benefits of an underground fence, he argued, were that it would not have the symbolism of a Berlin Wall-like structure and it would be considered less offensive to Hispanic voters who are already fleeing the country.

"Where I disagree, maybe with some people on the immigration issue, I don't like the symbolism of a 15 foot fence going the whole border. It's extraordinarily expensive, and it reminds me of the Berlin Wall which was built to keep people in and from fleeing to the west," Paul said. "I think you could actually put an electronic fence under the whole for border for $10 or $15 million, which sounds like a lot to us but that's peanuts. And you could probably have helicopter stations in maybe five different locations, and I think you could have any breach of the border could be stopped at any point and we send them back."

Now, to me, "under the border" would mean underground. But that's just me.

In an interview with something called RT, Paul is asked point blank about the "underground electric fence" and he replies, "I think that would be one way..." and goes on with other high tech solutions to the problem. He doesn't say, "Oh, that underground stuff was put in by whoever is writing for my website." Rather, his lack of objection, to me, seems to acknowledge the underground fence as his idea.

Here's the link, the question appears right at 8:30 into the interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aILHHAJhqpM&feature=player_embedded

All I'm saying is this: Whether or not its a crazy idea, the evidence is that its Rand Paul's idea, not something placed into his website by "whoever."

The media used to be all over this stuff, but has in the past several years become stenographers to the politicians. No investigation, no nothing. "you talk, we type." Glen Greenwald at Salon.com writes frequently about this phenomenon and I wish the media would do a better job of actually investigating the facts behind the statements.

But for Greg Sargent, case closed.