Rand Paul

Senator Rand Paul is facing charges of plagiarizing material used in an op-ed article. The Kentucky Republican has also had to explain in recent weeks how Wikipedia entries were used in his speeches without attribution.

Sen. Paul wrote an opinion piece about mandatory minimum prison sentences for The Washington Times that was published in September. An article posted on Buzzfeed points out that the Bowling Green Republican copied language contained in an essay published by The Week magazine.

Multiple lines in Senator Paul’s op-ed appear to be lifted verbatim from the essay written by Dan Stewart and published shortly before the Senator’s op-ed came out.

Aides to Senator Paul have declined to answer questions about the incident.

However, aides told the website Politico that they would be “more cautious in presenting and attributing sources” after it was discovered that Paul used word-for-word Wikipedia entries during a speech last week.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul warned a crowd at a religious college that scientific advances—coupled with abortion—could be used to eliminate those who are deemed to be undesirable.

Sen. Paul made the comments at Liberty University in Virginia, while campaigning on behalf of Virginia gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli. Paul, a Bowling Green Republican, said that those who are considered less intelligent or even overweight could be eliminated through abortion.

Paul was addressing an audience during the weekly convocation services at Liberty, the school founded by the late evangelical leader Jerry Falwell. Paul told his audience “in your lifetime, much of your potential—or lack thereof—can be known simply by swabbing the inside of your cheek. Are we prepared to select out the imperfect among us?”

Paul has become an active campaigner on behalf of other conservative Republican candidates across the nation, including Cuccinelli, who is taking on Democrat Terry McAuliffe in the Virginia Governor’s race that will be decided Nov. 5.

With a deal to end the debt ceiling debate and ongoing government shutdown apparently in place, a well-respected political column lists both of Kentucky’s Republican Senators as “winners” following the extended drama.

The Washington Post’s political column, “The Fix”, says both Senators Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul come out of the battle stronger than when it began. Post reporter Chris Cillizza says Paul benefited from appearing moderate compared to another Tea Party-backed Republican Senator, Ted Cruz. Both Cruz and Paul are believed to be strongly considering 2016 presidential runs, and both would try to capture much of the same electorate.

Cillizza says that by not leading the charge against the GOP establishment, Paul could come across as a kind of hybrid Tea Party candidate with at least some establishment backing.

Senator McConnell is once again being seen as one of the preeminent dealmakers in Washington, playing a central role at the end to come up with a deal after staying in the background during much of the debate.

Kentucky Republican Rand Paul is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and one of Congress' leading skeptics of U.S. military strategy, including possible strikes on Syria. On Tuesday, he offered a detailed response to President Obama's speech about the Syrian crisis. Paul joins Michel Martin of Tell Me More to talk about his opposition to military action, and what the U.S. should do.

Senator Rand Paul says a surgical military strike by the U.S. against Syria wouldn’t impact the outcome of the civil war being fought in that country.

Speaking to Fox News Sunday, the Bowling Green Republican said he’s horrified by the images of chemical weapons attacks in Syria. Senator Paul said those responsible for the attack “deserve death.”

Still, Paul says he’s worried that the kinds of missile strikes being proposed wouldn’t directly impact Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and could even further destabilize the country and increase the chances that chemical weapons end up in the hands of opposition fighters.

In a speech to the nation Tuesday, President Obama will make his case for a U.S. military strike on Syria.  Regardless of what the president says, some members of Kentucky’s federal delegation already have their minds made up. 

Republican Congressman Thomas Massie says he will vote against any resolution authorizing military force against Syria for its government’s alleged use of chemical weapons.  For one thing, Massie says he’s uncomfortable with the language in the president’s proposal.

"It's not limited geographically, it's not limited by type of engagement, and it's not limited by who we can engage, not just the Syrians," contends Massie.

Massie contends the civil war in Syria is not a matter of U.S. national security.  Massie is joined by Congressman Ed Whitfield as solid “no” votes.  U.S. Representatives Brett Guthrie, Hal Rogers, and Andy Barr, all GOP members, are still contemplating.

Voting in favor of war or military strikes has proved to have long-lasting political consequences for politicians angling for the highest office in the land.

Just ask former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose 2002 vote for the Iraq War resolution as a U.S. senator contributed to her failure to secure the Democratic presidential nomination six years later.

Kevin Willis

Kentucky’s senior U.S. Senator says while he hasn’t made up his mind on a possible U.S. strike in Syria, he’s certain American military forces won’t be placed inside that country.

Republican Mitch McConnell spoke to the Bowling Green Noon Rotary Club Wednesday, and said even those in Washington who are advocating for U.S. involvement in Syria are stopping short of calling for boots on the ground.

“I’m not just instinctively opposed to military action,” the Louisville Republican said. “I supported the Afghan war, and I supported the Iraq war. Certainly we need to be careful about doing it. I don’t think anybody supports putting any American military personnel there at all.”

McConnell said he would announce his position on Syria “in the coming days.”

The Senate Minority Leader said there’s no way to be certain which political or religious group would take over Syria if the current regime was toppled.

A WKU political analyst says the ongoing debate over possible U.S. military action in Syria comes at an opportune time for Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.

Political Science Professor and Warren County Republican Party Chairman Scott Lasley says Paul has long talked about the U.S. needing to adopt a less aggressive foreign policy. Sen. Paul--who is considering a presidential run--has been a vocal opponent of U.S. military involvement in Syria, saying it’s not in America’s interest to get involved in another nation’s civil war.

Professor Lasley says Paul’s position is something that could attract voters who wouldn’t normally side with the Bowling Green Republican.

“Particularly with younger voters, where Republicans have struggled the last couple of election cycles. A lot of time there’s not a huge difference between younger voters and older voters, but one of the areas that you do see a difference is the aggressiveness of foreign policy.”

U.S. Senator Rand Paul spoke to WKU Public Radio Friday about the possibility of U.S. military action against Syria following the regime's alleged use of chemical weapons.

The Bowling Green Republican talked about what the Constitution says about war powers, how the Syria issue is uniting those on the left and right, and he took a not-too-subtle jab at Hillary Clinton, in what could be a preview of a possible 2016 Presidential contest.

Here is the transcript of Sen. Paul's interview with WKU Public Radio's Kevin Willis:

Is a U.S. military strike against Syria inevitable?

"Maybe, maybe not. I'm trying very hard to prevent that from happening. The Constitution is very explicit. The Constitution says Congress gives the authority to declare war, not the President. The President, when he was a Senator, acknowledged this. He said no President should unilaterally go to war without Congressional authority."

Pages