Tuesday, October 25th, 2016

Other reactions to Van Hollen’s terrorism statement


Jessica McBride (wife of Paul Bucher) notes this isn’t the first time Van Hollen has talked about terrorists living among us.

Deb Jordahl thinks this might be Van Hollen’s “Col. Flagg” moment.

Daniel Suhr of GOP3 defends Van Hollen by calling Bucher a liberal and attacking his desire to crack down on drunk drivers. (I think Daniel’s a bit drunk on the Van Hollen kool-aid.)

Jenna attacks the “rabid liberal media” and promises more to come.

Owen got the press release.

Update! More Reactions to Van Hollen’s claims that terrorists are training in our back yard:

Charlie Sykes interviewed Van Hollen this morning. I think Van Hollen read my blog post.

Jenna follows up with a first-hand account of yesterday’s press conference that started it all.

Stacy Forster’s article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has the following, The FBI’s Johnson said Van Hollen’s comment about the FBI was “completely inappropriate” because Van Hollen doesn’t speak for the agency.

Dad29 tells Paul Bucher to back off, and is still unhappy over Bucher’s positions on concealed-carry.

Seth Zlotocha wonders if Van Hollen is getting desperate. Do you think Zlotocha’s preference for Van Hollen (more fairly, anyone but Paul Bucher) can be used in a Bucher radio ad?

Nick Schweitzer also thinks Van Hollen is getting desperate, and accuses Van Hollen of playing “the terrorism card.”.

Marcus at Blogger Beer comments on threat assessments, but then notes that Bucher would also make a good Attorney General.

Be Sociable, Share!

Print this entry

Comments are closed.