Share “Kentucky editorial roundup”

Kentucky editorial roundup

Published on NewsOK Modified: December 10, 2014 at 5:29 pm •  Published: December 10, 2014

Recent editorials from Kentucky newspapers:


Dec. 7

Daily News, Bowling Green, Kentucky, on Rand Paul:

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., won election to office in 2010 by the majority of Kentuckians who voted.

Paul, a Bowling Green resident, is a popular senator in our state and has done a very good job looking out for the interests of Kentuckians and our country since going to Washington, D.C.

It is no secret that Paul is eyeing a potential run for president of the United States. We believe Paul would be a viable candidate for the presidency if in fact he were to throw his hat in the ring.

We will wait and see what our junior senator does, but in the meantime we are hopeful that Paul and his team can find some way for him to run for re-election to the Senate in 2016 and for president, if he chooses to, in the same year. He is in a bit of a dilemma over the future of his Senate seat.

Currently, Kentucky law prohibits a candidate's name from appearing twice on the ballot.

A bill that would have allowed a candidate to appear twice on the same ballot if one of the offices is president or vice president was approved by the Kentucky Senate in the last legislative session, but it stalled in committee in the state House of Representatives.

It is no surprise that the bill stalled in the Democratic-controlled House. They don't want Paul on the ballot for 2016 because they know he would likely be re-elected.

In all fairness, though, if Republicans controlled the House and not the Senate and a similar scenario happened with a Democratic candidate wanting to be on the ballot twice, they likely would have stalled on legislation to change state law as well.

This may not seem fair either way, but that's politics for you.

Paul may not have won in the legislature, but he still has some options that could enable him to run for both offices.

Paul and his supporters are looking at ways around state law, such as changing the Kentucky Republican Party's presidential nominating process from a primary to a caucus, which would mean Paul could be on the May primary ballot in just his Senate race.

Paul could challenge the state law in court. Some have argued that the state statute doesn't apply to federal elections.

Only time will tell what avenues Paul will try in an effort to get on the ballot twice if he does indeed decide to run for president.

We believe that if Paul does decide to run for president that he should explore any and all avenues to get his name on the ballot in Kentucky for both offices.

If successful in getting his name on the ballot twice in Kentucky and he was unsuccessful in his bid for the presidency, Paul would still have the high honor of running for re-election to the U.S. Senate, and we believe he would have a very good chance of being re-elected if given the chance.



Dec. 10

The Courier-Journal, Louisville, Kentucky, on the Senate report:

Earlier in the week, there was barely a peep when the U.S. and NATO closed their operational command in Afghanistan, signaling the formal end of this nation's longest war. Training and supporting Afghan troops are now the main missions for the foreign soldiers that will stay in country for the next two years; they also will counter Taliban and al Qaida actions with force, which doesn't sound much like an end to anything.

Still, despite the protracted wind-down after this week's lowering of flags, you would have thought we might have noticed the transition of a commitment that has cost the lives of more than 2,000 U.S. soldiers (with thousands more wounded and thousands suffering lingering effects from injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder) and $1.65 trillion on the war operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But we didn't — and on Tuesday that blip of a headline was overtaken by a maelstrom of headlines about another aspect of that costly war, and its costlier, pre-emptive sibling, the war in Iraq.

That would be the release of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on the CIA's interrogation methods used on 119 detained terrorism suspects.

Bottom line to a more than 500-page public summary of the greater, 6,700-page classified study: "Enhanced interrogation" was more brutal than Americans — weaned on images from Abu Ghraib — already knew or were led to believe, its oversight was inadequate and flawed, elected officials were similarly misled about the tactics, and the methods — torturous means designed to elicit reliable information about terrorism — were ineffective.

Not surprisingly, the CIA and former officials cited in the damning study are fighting back against its contents, which are the result of a five-year effort based on 6 million of the agency's own documents. And, even before its contents were divulged and digested, it was decried by some as a partisan witchhunt whose release was reckless and would embolden enemies still not vanquished after a dozen years of war.

Continue reading this story on the...