PageOne slanders Ron Paul, slings mud at Rand Paul, plays the race card without reason, and struggles with reading comprehension or worse

I'm not sure what's going on over at PageOneKentucky (probably the #1 political/news blog in Kentucky). But my comment on an earlier post is still "awaiting moderation"-- even though a later comment by me and another person have since been posted.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

If I see that my response gets posted later-- or if there's an explanation for what seems to be garbage in PageOne's post-- I'll update this. While I wait, my response is still worth posting here...

UPDATE: It remains unclear why the posts could not get past the filter. To his credit, he linked to my post. But he is apparently unable to see the error or is unwilling to back off. Moreover, he insisted on harming his reputation further with rude and even silly comments...

His response:

Have you seen this nutbag “libertarian” who comments on like 800 blogs around the country and is a former candidate of some sort? Apparently I slandered Rand/Ron Paul? Haha. I love that none of these Paultards have an inability to comprehend written text.

PageOne (Jake Payne) took Ron Paul to task for casting the sole vote against the recent House resolution on Haiti.

What the living h*** is wrong with Rand Paul? The U.S. House passed a bill today expressing condolences to and solidarity with the people of Haiti. It passed 411 to 1. RON PAUL was the only person opposing the measure. Is he really THAT racist?

Rough stuff-- labeling him a racist! And trying to link this action to his son, Rand. The accusation might seem to have warrant given Jake's description of the resolution. Unfortunately, the resolution has far more to say and encourages far more than just words-- an array of American taxpayer and military actions. With that, it's a shame that only one Congressman would oppose the resolution.

For Ron Paul’s explanation of his vote, click this. Some key excerpts:

I rise in reluctant opposition to this resolution. Certainly I am moved by the horrific destruction in Haiti and would without hesitation express condolences to those who have suffered and continue to suffer…Unfortunately, however, this resolution does not simply express our condolences, but rather it commits the US government ‘to begin the reconstruction of Haiti’ and affirms that ‘the recovery and long-term needs of Haiti will require a sustained commitment by the United States’.

I am concerned over the possibility of an open-ended US military occupation of Haiti and this legislation does nothing to alleviate my concerns….[I] support and encourage the efforts of the American people to help the people of Haiti at this tragic time…already we see private US citizens and corporations raising millions of dollars for relief and reconstruction of Haiti.

Jake summarized the measure merely as “expressing condolences to and solidarity with the people of Haiti”. First, Paul expressed his personal condolences. Second, describing the resolution in terms of its words and not its prescribed actions is like describing a robbery by the words said but excluding its violence and the money that changes hands.

Jake criticized other commenters as having a reading comprehension problem. But his analysis is suffering from that or something else.