Will Rand Paul win in Kentucky?

[Ravenman]

After putting his foot in his mouth on the Civil Rights Act, Rand Paul seems to be playing defense in the press about another one of his principled stands.

This time, Rand Paul is trying to explain why he claimed he was a board-certified ophthalmologist, when in fact he never renewed his board certification after passing the exam in 1995. Briefly, (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/06/rand_paul_i_passed_my_opthamal.html) he felt the existing American Board of Ophthalmology was wrong on the principle of renewals, so he created a National Board of Ophthalmology.

On a larger note, very little of the criticism Rand Paul has received so far has to do with his positions on issues that are before the country, but seem to have the thread of taking principled, unpopular stands on unusual issues.

Polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ky/kentucky_senate_paul_vs_conway-1148.html) seem to have Rand Paul floating right under the 50% mark which are good numbers for election. Does the Democrat (I forget his name.. oh, yeah, Jack Conway) have a chance of winning? Will this whole election cycle go by without one story on Mr. Conway?

[ShibbOleth]

Considering some of the other people that Kentucky has put into office, I'd say Paul has good a chance as anyone.

[Jonathan Chance]

I'd say he has a very good chance. Republican in a red state, high name recognition, popular father. All good things.

Two negatives could work against him severely...both are, as yet, unquantifiable.

1. Foot in mouth disease. Does he spend a lot of his time 'clarifying' extreme positions that turn off voters.

2. Public perception of the Tea Party. As a strongly identified Tea Party guy if the Tea Party continues into the negatives Paul's negatives will increase as well.

[Yossarian]

The early view from here in Madison County is that yes, he's got a good chance of winning... but it's certainly not a lock. Kentucky is very, very, very socially conservative, and thus has all appearances of a "red" state--but recall that we did throw our electoral votes twice for Clinton, have a Democrat governor, a Democrat state house (Republican state senate, though), and one third of our US House delegation are Democrats. We are also mostly registered Democrats. Kentucky may be several times very socially conservative, but fiscally? Not so much. Running against federal spending might play in Texas, but it won't win you any votes here. Say as much ill as you'd like about Mitch, but he does bring home the bacon; if Rand Paul takes the Tea Party stand, it may certainly cost him the election.

(I'm a registered Democrat in Kentucky and am a vote for Jack Conway.)

[Jonathan Chance]

Aaannnddd...

Paul comes out in favor of mountain top removal mining. Or he did last year and it's being brought out now.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/13/rand-paul-mountaintop/

Regardless of what you think about MTR it's not particularly popular with voters right now.

[BobLibDem]

I think a lot will hinge on whether there are going to be debates and how he does in them. If not, and if he declines opportunities to answer anything but softball questions from his adoring fans, then he's got a very good chance. If he gets his ass handed to him in debate, then it could be a tight race.

[DoctorJ]

The biggest factor in Paul's favor is the fact that Kentucky Democrats could fuck up a wet dream*. They should have been hammering Paul nonstop these last few weeks, filling the coffers and spinning Paul's self-destruction into a loser narrative, but their response has been half-assed at best.

Paul is very beatable, but if it's going to happen Conway needs national Democratic muscle and money, and he needs it now.

* The only thing worse is Kentucky Republicans, but Paul's campaign braintrust stretches far beyond the state.

[DoctorJ]

Aaannnddd...

Paul comes out in favor of mountain top removal mining. Or he did last year and it's being brought out now.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/13/rand-paul-mountaintop/

Regardless of what you think about MTR it's not particularly popular with voters right now.
Sadly, this will help him here in the mountains. The coal companies and their astroturf campaigns (Friends of Coal, Coal Mining: Our Future, etc.) have successfully built the narrative that any attempt to rein in their excesses is an attack by outsiders on hard-working people putting food on the table. There's no possibility of middle-ground; if you say one critical word about protecting the environment or even enhancing miner safety, you're "against coal", and you might as well have just taken a dump on Adolph Rupp's grave.

I'd love to see their great-granddaddies who died unionizing those mines rise out of their graves and slap some sense into them, but I don't think it's gonna happen before November.

These same people are the social conservatives that would likely stay home if Paul seemed insufficiently opposed to abortion and gay rights (not that he has let his libertarian roots keep him from opposing either). So positioning himself as the "pro-coal" candidate is smart.

[BrainGlutton]

Apparently, in that Ol' Kentucky Home, the sun is the only thing the shines bright.

[Icarus]

Let's look at the raw numbers:

Kentucky 2010 Primary Election Results (http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/KY/15261/27843/en/summary.html)

Total primary voters:

R total = 352,275
Rand Paul = 206,986

D total = 521,657
Jack Conway = 229,433

IMHO it would be very surprising for Rand Paul to close the gap in pure numbers.


Let's say Paul gets all of those R votes 352,275.
Let's say Jack Conway get all his votes (229,433) plus only gets half of the D votes that he didn't get ((521,657-229,433)/2=146,112), that puts him at 375,545.

That scenario put Conway up by ~23,000 votes.

[Yossarian]

The biggest factor in Paul's favor is the fact that Kentucky Democrats could fuck up a wet dream*.

This should be emphasized. Right now, Rand Paul signs and bumper stickers are everywhere, he's in the news cycle, he's got both statewide and national attention. Conway? Nothing. If you were dropped into the middle of Kentucky (where I am) right now, you'd neither see nor hear ANY evidence that Jack Conway even exists, much less is running for Senate. Why the Democrats seem to even be shying away from the fact that they are running a candidate for Senate is just... odd.

[Simplicio]

@Icarus: interesting, but that sort of assumes the turnout in the primary is the same (or at least mirrors) the turnout in the general. I'm kinda skeptical that's true.

In anycase, I hear if he looses, Paul will just form his own State, make his wife governor, and declare himself senator.

[Duke]

In anycase, I hear if he looses, Paul will just form his own State, make his wife governor, and declare himself senator.

Then Carl "HORSE PORN" Paladino will supply him with all the Caligula-style accoutrements he needs.

I realize this post wasn't necessary, I just wanted to type down Carl "HORSE PORN" Paladino's name again.

[joebuck20]

This should be emphasized. Right now, Rand Paul signs and bumper stickers are everywhere, he's in the news cycle, he's got both statewide and national attention. Conway? Nothing. If you were dropped into the middle of Kentucky (where I am) right now, you'd neither see nor hear ANY evidence that Jack Conway even exists, much less is running for Senate. Why the Democrats seem to even be shying away from the fact that they are running a candidate for Senate is just... odd.

Yep, the Democrats have proven time and time again that they know how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Martha Coakley, anyone?

[Icarus]

@Icarus: interesting, but that sort of assumes the turnout in the primary is the same (or at least mirrors) the turnout in the general. I'm kinda skeptical that's true.

...well, you have to start with something, and the primary voter turnout is the most concrete information we have.......

[BobLibDem]

...well, you have to start with something, and the primary voter turnout is the most concrete information we have.......

I'm not sure how relevant the primary vote was. Paul was the overwhelming favorite and perhaps Republicans didn't believe the need to get out and vote as this primary was a foregone conclusion.

[DoctorJ]

This should be emphasized. Right now, Rand Paul signs and bumper stickers are everywhere, he's in the news cycle, he's got both statewide and national attention. Conway? Nothing. If you were dropped into the middle of Kentucky (where I am) right now, you'd neither see nor hear ANY evidence that Jack Conway even exists, much less is running for Senate. Why the Democrats seem to even be shying away from the fact that they are running a candidate for Senate is just... odd.
Jake from Page One Kentucky kind of went off today (http://pageonekentucky.com/2010/06/15/crazy-maybe-incoherent-rant-on-jack-conway/) about the whole thing. The bottom line is that Conway's campaign staff is not even close to ready for prime time, and there's a sense of loyalty keeping him from shaking it up. (Much of his rant is personal and inside-baseballish, but it gives you a good sense of how Conway's operation is running.)

He might still be able to turn it around, but I'm afraid he's missed too many opportunities, and that Paul is going to wise up and stop giving them to him.

[Yossarian]

Sadly, this will help him here in the mountains. The coal companies and their astroturf campaigns (Friends of Coal, Coal Mining: Our Future, etc.) have successfully built the narrative that any attempt to rein in their excesses is an attack by outsiders on hard-working people putting food on the table.

See, for example: http://www.wkyt.com/wymtnews/headlines/97204294.html

"Local leaders are upset by Ashley Judd's recent comments

Actress, activist, and eastern Kentucky native Ashley Judd calls mountaintop removal the 'Rape of Appalachia'"

[Mayo Speaks!]

Jake from Page One Kentucky kind of went off today (http://pageonekentucky.com/2010/06/15/crazy-maybe-incoherent-rant-on-jack-conway/) about the whole thing. The bottom line is that Conway's campaign staff is not even close to ready for prime time, and there's a sense of loyalty keeping him from shaking it up. (Much of his rant is personal and inside-baseballish, but it gives you a good sense of how Conway's operation is running.)

He might still be able to turn it around, but I'm afraid he's missed too many opportunities, and that Paul is going to wise up and stop giving them to him.

(emphasis added)

Bingo. I donated fifty bucks to Conway in the primary so I'm on the email list now, and all he ever asks me to do is sign some damn petitions that no one in America cares about. It's the dumbest thing I've seen out of a senate race in Kentucky, and I've seen some awfully dumb things.

I live in Lexington. There is basically no evidence that I've seen that Jack Conway is running for this seat. He's not on TV. He's not on radio. I don't see many web ads for him, and I read a ton of political and news sites, with both Kentucky and national focuses. He's just twiddling his thumbs, and hoping that the fact that his opponent is unpopular will let him win. That didn't work for Mongiardo in 04 and it didn't work for Lunsford in 08, but Conway's doing the same thing. He SHOULD be on the evening news and in the papers everyday hammering home just how nutso Rand Paul actually is, and basically doing everything in his power to establish the conventional wisdom description of the race as "Sane Jack Conway vs. Weirdo Rand Paul." That seems to be the developing consensus, basically in spite of Conway's (lack of) efforts. For this Kentucky liberal, it is incredibly disappointing.

That was kind of rant-y, but the Cliff's Notes are that I think Rand will win unless Jack Conway gets his act together and mounts a decent campaign, at which point it would be a true tossup.

ETA: I read the Page 1 rant when it was published and couldn't agree with it more.

[Zakalwe]

There is basically no evidence that I've seen that Jack Conway is running for this seat.Nor should you at this point. Money is limited and polls this far out are meaningless. If, in early October, you can say the same thing, then Conway is toast. But if, in early October, Paul is running tight on funds and Conway has a bankroll to spend, then Paul is toast. It's a marathon, not a sprint.

[RTFirefly]

Nor should you at this point. Money is limited and polls this far out are meaningless. If, in early October, you can say the same thing, then Conway is toast. But if, in early October, Paul is running tight on funds and Conway has a bankroll to spend, then Paul is toast. It's a marathon, not a sprint.It may be a marathon, but the first leg is simple name recognition and visibility. Conway doesn't have to spend a lot, but if he doesn't have some well-placed billboards in cities like Louisville and Lexington, he's fucking up. Similarly, he needs to be making public appearances that get him a few seconds of free TV on the evening news in those cities.

[Chronos]

It might make sense to conserve funds, but there's a lot you can do for cheap. Internet ads are cheap. Holding a small speech and inviting the local media is cheap. Bumper stickers and yard signs are cheap. Word of mouth is darned near free, if you manage it right. If Conway isn't doing any of those things, he's making a big mistake.

[Duke]

UPDATE!!! (Sorry, channeling Robert Stack's Unsolved Mysteries voiceover)

Rand Paul (http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-is-no-longer-leading-his-kentucky-senate-race-2010-7) no longer in the lead in Kentucky, now in a 43-43 tie with his opponent. Biggest problem for Rand: the more people in Kentucky know him, the worse he does in the polls.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Rand Paul also doesn't support his previous idea of the underground fence.

[Simplicio]

Rand Paul also doesn't support his previous idea of the underground fence.

Well, it sounds ridiculous when you call it an "underground fence". It was an "electric underground fence". See, much more sane sounding that way.

[Yossarian]

I made a 260 mile round trip through Eastern Kentucky today (Madison to Knott Co.), driving down the Mountain Parkway and back on the Hal Rogers Parkway. I saw exactly TWO political signs: one for Rand Paul...


...and one for Trey Grayson.

[Yossarian]

Speaking of bizarre tales of Rand Paul's past (involving his involvement in the NoZe Brotherhood at Baylor this time):

U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul's campaign says it is investigating its legal options but is not denying a report that the candidate while in college was involved in bizarre prank in which he and another student abducted a woman, tried to make her smoke marijuana and then forced her to bow down and praise a fictional god.

GQ magazine published the report on its website Monday quoting an anonymous woman who says that Rand Paul and a buddy kidnapped her while they were students at Baylor as a prank, making her try to take a hit from a bong and worship the “Aqua Buddha.”

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100809/NEWS0106/308090071

[Chronos]

I'm waiting until we get something a little more substantive than "not denying". After all, Glenn Beck still isn't denying what happened to that poor girl in 1991.

[DoctorJ]

Paul's campaign is going so far as to threaten legal action about this story which they haven't denied (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2010/08/09/rand-paul-considering-legal-options-over-gq-story.aspx). I'm sure they just haven't gotten around to it.

I loved this comment from the Editor-In-Chief of GQ:
We’ve vetted, researched, and exhaustively fact-checked Jason Zengerle’s reporting on Rand Paul’s college days, we stand by the story, and we gave the Paul campaign every opportunity to refute it. We notice that they have not, in fact, refuted it.

[Yossarian]

I'll be interested to see how (if?) this plays here in Kentucky. I grew up in the Dallas area, I'm a Baylor alum, and Kentucky* is still BY FAR the most openly, passionately religious place that I've ever lived. I heard this item on the Lexington news this morning--they were putting strong emphasis on the "FALSE IDOL" part of the story; if anything surpresses Paul support amongst the strong Social Conservative but Nominally Democrat population here, that might.

*Non-Lexington, Non-Louisville.

[jsgoddess]

That "kidnapping" story is just weird. They "kidnapped" her twice? Huh.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Last week, I visited the Great Comonwealth and drove from Glasgow to Burkesville (these are in the southern part of the state). I watched for them, but I only saw a couple of Ron Paul signs, so I'm gathering he's not very popular in that part of the state.
However, one of my relatives said he thought that this year would be a very good year for Kentuckian Republicans to make gains.

[DoctorJ]

The political ads have just started to take over in the past few weeks, and so far it's a bunch of mudslinging that no one is going to dig through.

I hate to be so cynical about the people of my beloved Commonwealth, but....this one is going to be decided in the last few weeks, and it's going to come down to something stupid. Conway's best chance is if Paul commits some huge gaffe late in the game (a good possibility) and the Dems are able to capitalize on it (not likely if he relies on the KY Dem establishment). Otherwise Paul has a small but consistent lead, and he hasn't even started the gay-baiting yet. (Oh, there will be gay-baiting. This is Kentucky.)

[BrainGlutton]

(Oh, there will be gay-baiting. This is Kentucky.)

The land of Lincoln, and, by association, the Log Cabin Republicans. ;)

(Boy, they ain't goin' for subtle. It's, like, "So, how many logs have you had in your cabin, Senator?" :D )

[SmartAlecCat]

I'm waiting until we get something a little more substantive than "not denying". After all, Glenn Beck still isn't denying what happened to that poor girl in 1991.

nit: I think all that stuff he didn't do to that poor girl was actually in 1990, not 1991.

Beck should really clarify these facts publicly..

[Gukumatz]

(Oh, there will be gay-baiting. This is Kentucky.)

The land of Lincoln, and, by association, the Log Cabin Republicans. ;)

(Boy, they ain't goin' for subtle. It's, like, "So, how many logs have you had in your cabin, Senator?" :D )

You know, whenever I see the phrase "Log Cabin Republicans," I think of a cozy outhouse.

[Boyo Jim]

I always think of the Captain's log, and that's one log I'd rather not see.

[Ravenman]

Just another story of Rand Paul's association with a fringe movement, the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons.

Among this association's beliefs are: “We just raise questions,” she said. “There is no settled science about anything. … If you are working on the wrong hypothesis, how are you ever going to get the right answer?”

So what are they "just asking questions about, man?"

But the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons published an article in 2007 saying “both official reports and the peer-reviewed literature afford substantive grounds for doubting that HIV is the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS and that anti-retroviral treatment is unambiguously beneficial.” . . . .

The paper claims to examine Obama’s speeches “word by word, hand gesture by hand gesture, tone, pauses, body language, and proves his use of covert hypnosis intended only for licensed therapists on consenting patients.” . . . The AAPS article notes that the Obama campaign logo “might just be the letter ‘O,’ but it also resembles a crystal ball, a favorite of hypnotists.” . . . .

The association included in its journal an article criticizing governmental efforts to encourage people to stop smoking as costly and ineffective and suggesting that the focus on the addictive nature of nicotine is wrong. . . .

But maybe these are just isolated incidents. It's not like they're saying that those liberal lawyers and the EPA are behind 9/11 or the Challenger disaster, right?

Uh....

In its fall 2003 issue, the AAPS journal published a report suggesting that the twin towers at the World Trade Center collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, because the New York City Port Authority, fearful of lawsuits and complying with new federal restrictions, stopped the use of flame-retardant asbestos midway through construction of the north tower. . . . Schlafly also contends in the article that the use of asbestos might have prevented the tragedies involving the Challenger and Columbia space shuttles.Now, I'm just relating this mostly for kicks. I'm not sure that any new story of Rand Paul's associations (short of a live boy or dead girl) could directly lead to him to lose, but there is some (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ky/kentucky_senate_paul_vs_conway-1148.html) evidence that the race is tightening. Is Conway finally starting to run a campaign or something?

[BrainGlutton]

SourceWatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons) on the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons:

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a group of conservative activist doctors who oppose the 2010 health care reform law, the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."[1] Members of the group also believe that President Obama may have hypnotized voters and that climate legislation is a threat to human health. Some of the group's former leaders were members of the John Birch Society. Mother Jones wrote of the group, "Yet despite the lab coats and the official-sounding name, the docs of the AAPS are hardly part of mainstream medical society. Think Glenn Beck with an MD."[2]

<snip>

False leprosy claim
The Spring 2005 edition of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons contained an article[4] by Madeleine Cosman, headlined "Illegal Aliens and American Medicine," claiming, "Suddenly, in the past three years America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy," citing a 2003 article in the New York Times as a reference. Among news outlets repeating this claim were WorldNetDaily[5] and CNN anchor Lou Dobbs. In fact, the 7,000 number in the Times article was an apparent reference to all then-current cases of leprosy in the U.S.; according to the National Hansen's Disease Program of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, there have been just 431 reported cases of Hansen's disease (leprosy) over the "past three years."[6]


Political contributions
Donations to political candidates by the AAPS' political action committee in 2000 and 2004 skewed rightward, with donations given to candidates registered as Republican, Libertarian or with the Constitution Party.[7][8]


Positions on health issues
Mother Jones, discussing AAPS's journal (called the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons), writes,

The publication's archives present a kind of alternate-universe scientific world, in which abortion causes breast cancer and vaccines cause autism, but HIV does not cause AIDS. Cutting carbon emissions represents a grave threat to global health (because environmental regulation would make people poorer and, consequently, sicker) ... The organization opposes some of the most accepted practices in health care, including mandatory vaccine regulations. Peer review, a long-standing hospital practice that helps doctors learn from and prevent errors, is viewed as the source of great injustice by AAPS, which fights attempts to micromanage doctors with such bureaucratic nuisances as medical evidence about what works and what doesn't. Computers, too, are an ominous threat. The organization has resisted the use of electronic medical records—which, naturally, represents an attempt by the government to acquire masses of private information about American citizens. (AAPS' executive director claims to keep all her patient notes in longhand.)[9]


Doctors for Disaster Preparedness
The website for the group Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (DDP) is registered to Jeremy Snavely of AAPS. [10] DDP and AAPS also share the same mailing address, in Tucson, Arizona. [11] [12]

DDP is skeptical of climate change, as the title of their web page on the subject suggests: "Ozone hole, Global warming, and other Environmental Scares." [13]

[Simplicio]

The AAPS certainly seems nutty, but what specifically is Rand Pauls association with them? I'm a little wary of reports that Candidate X is "associated with" whatever nutty organization, as they often turn out to be fairly tenuous links.

[BrainGlutton]

The AAPS certainly seems nutty, but what specifically is Rand Pauls association with them? I'm a little wary of reports that Candidate X is "associated with" whatever nutty organization, as they often turn out to be fairly tenuous links.

He has been a member since 1990 and boasts of using a lot of AAPS literature in his speeches. (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100924/NEWS0106/309240084/1008/NEWS01/Rand+Paul+part+of+AAPS+doctors++group+airing+unusual+views)

[Boyo Jim]

The AAPS certainly seems nutty, but what specifically is Rand Pauls association with them? I'm a little wary of reports that Candidate X is "associated with" whatever nutty organization, as they often turn out to be fairly tenuous links.

This Louisville newspaper (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100924/NEWS0106/309240084/1008/NEWS01/Rand+Paul+part+of+AAPS+doctors++group+airing+unusual+views) quotes Pal as saying, I use a lot of AAPS literature when I talk

Here is a Fox "news" clip (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/08/sharron-angle-rand-paul-association-american-physicians-surgeons) where Paul mentions his his association with the group. He is supporting their lawsuit against so-called "Obama care".

The same article mentions Sharon Angle as another AAPS supporter. She was a guest speaker (http://www.aapsonline.org/) for at least one of their events.

[BrainGlutton]

Also of interest: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons#Journal_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons)

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPandS), until 2003 named the Medical Sentinel,[33][34] is the journal of the association. Its mission statement includes "… a commitment to publishing scholarly articles in defense of the practice of private medicine, the pursuit of integrity in medical research … Political correctness, dogmatism and orthodoxy will be challenged with logical reasoning, valid data and the scientific method." The publication policy of the journal states that articles are subject to a double-blind peer-review process.[35]

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not listed in the major literature databases of MEDLINE/PubMed[36] nor the Web of Science.[37] Articles and commentaries published in the journal have argued:

* that abortion causes preterm birth later in life, and thus birth defects such as cerebral palsy to future children born to women with a history of abortion,[38]

* that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional,[39]

* that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution,[40]

* that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not caused global warming,[41]

* that HIV does not cause AIDS,[42][43]

* that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.[44]

A series of articles by pro-life authors published in the journal argued for the existence of a link between abortion and breast cancer.[45][46] Such a link has been rejected by the U.S. National Cancer Institute,[47] the American Cancer Society,[48] and the World Health Organization, among other major medical bodies.[49]

A 2003 paper published in the journal, claiming that vaccination was harmful, was criticized for poor methodology, lack of scientific rigor, and outright errors by the World Health Organization[50] and the American Academy of Pediatrics.[51] A National Public Radio piece mentioned inaccurate information published in the Journal and wrote: "The journal itself is not considered a leading publication, as it's put out by an advocacy group that opposes most government involvement in medical care."[52]

Quackwatch lists JPandS as an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.[53] An editorial in Chemical & Engineering News by editor-in-chief Rudy Baum described JPandS as a "purveyor of utter nonsense."[54] Investigative journalist Brian Deer wrote that the journal is the "house magazine of a right-wing American fringe group [AAPS]" and "is barely credible as an independent forum."[55]

So -- is Senator Doctor Paul gonna be an anti-vaxer?

[DoctorJ]

An update on this race.

First of all, Conway has been hammering hard on a statement Paul made repeatedly in the past that Medicare should have a $2000 deductible. Paul tries to claim that he was taken out of context and that he has never supported this, but that's hard to get from the multiple videos of him saying it. (Local bloggers have created Rand's Law: "Just because I repeatedly and passionately advocate for something does not mean I support it.")

I think this probably shifted the momentum in the race. Paul is on the defensive, and he has looked pretty silly trying to run away from this when it is something he clearly thinks would be a good idea (or at least thought so until sometime this year).

Then, on Friday, Conway released this ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BCa8xw9yGY&feature=player_embedded). It attacks Paul directly over his membership in a Christian-mocking society in college, as well as the whole "Aqua Buddha" story.

I haven't decided how I feel about this. I think the ad is dirty, for many reasons. I think undergraduate affiliations and shenanigans should generally be off-limits unless they're really horrible. I don't think it's right to question someone's faith on such distant evidence. I don't like the precedent that anyone whose faith has ever so much as wavered is going to have to run from it for the rest of his life. And there are far too many important issues out there to focus on something like this.

But on the other hand, this could work, and I think this sort of thing is what it's going to take to keep Paul from winning, which would be an unqualified good thing. I'm a little shocked Conway had it in him.

The ad hit on Friday, which meant Paul couldn't get response ads up until Monday. He used the occasion of last night's debate to pile on the Palin-esque butthurt, demanding an apology from Conway (who didn't offer one) and refusing to shake his hand after the debate. Unfortunately for him, he's no Palin.

I hope Conway can pull this off. My biggest fear is what the Republicans will do to retaliate--after all, they're much better funded this year. But it's definitely going to be an interesting few weeks.

[BobLibDem]

Whatever works is fine in my book. I'm sick of Democrats bringing sporks to a gunfight. Glad to see someone has the balls to do to them what they do to us.

[Zephyurs]

Mixed feelings about the ad, though I suspect that the reason the Republicans are going apoplectic over it is that it's effective, and it's showing. So +1 Conway.

There's a kernel of a valid point--I genuinely would be concerned by the facts contained in the ad, namely that Paul and a friend kidnapped a young woman and forced her to do things without her consent (no sexual innuendo is intended, though I'm guessing a fair number of the demographic the ad is aimed at would think the reality is even worse than rape). Charges were never filed, however, so it's unclear to the extent that this was a full-on kidnapping versus a relatively benign hazing. It's a question that deserves to be asked and answered.

Let's not kid ourselves, though--that's not the reason Conway released the ad, and it's not the reason the Paul team is in a rabid, angry froth over it. It's a nasty ad, with a nasty message, and premised on the principle that you win in American politics by appealing to stupidity and preying on genuinely held religious belief.

Yeah, it's rich that a Republican is screaming quelle horreur! over that. But the reality is that that premise is probably true, and Conway has an opportunity to significantly increase his chances of winning by using it.

Can't say I think this win should be a moment of pride for Democrats, though. They should be focused on the long game in advancing progressive principles, and this doesn't help that.

[BrainGlutton]

Mixed feelings about the ad, though I suspect that the reason the Republicans are going apoplectic over it is that it's effective, and it's showing. So +1 Conway.

There's a kernel of a valid point--I genuinely would be concerned by the facts contained in the ad, namely that Paul and a friend kidnapped a young woman and forced her to do things without her consent (no sexual innuendo is intended, though I'm guessing a fair number of the demographic the ad is aimed at would think the reality is even worse than rape). Charges were never filed, however, so it's unclear to the extent that this was a full-on kidnapping versus a relatively benign hazing. It's a question that deserves to be asked and answered.

Let's not kid ourselves, though--that's not the reason Conway released the ad, and it's not the reason the Paul team is in a rabid, angry froth over it. It's a nasty ad, with a nasty message, and premised on the principle that you win in American politics by appealing to stupidity and preying on genuinely held religious belief.

Yeah, it's rich that a Republican is screaming quelle horreur! over that. But the reality is that that premise is probably true, and Conway has an opportunity to significantly increase his chances of winning by using it.

Can't say I think this win should be a moment of pride for Democrats, though. They should be focused on the long game in advancing progressive principles, and this doesn't help that.

But, it is a very useful and truthful wedge to insert into the curious Libertarian-Theocon alliance that the Tea Party has become. Before they get too comfortable with their strange new bedfellows, the Tea Partiers need to be reminded that American Libertarianism has always been secular, rationalist, and indifferent to their conception of "family values." When Ayn Rand met William F. Buckley, the first thing she said to him was "You are too intelligent to believe in God." (Buckley replied, "I'm afraid you'll have to document that.") And if Libertarians hark back to Jefferson (whom they often quote), all should be reminded that the equivalent of the Religious Right of Jefferson's day reviled him as an atheist radical who was going to confiscate their Bibles.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Can't say I think this win should be a moment of pride for Democrats, though. They should be focused on the long game in advancing progressive principles, and this doesn't help that.
If by the "long game", you mean 500 years, I agree. 'Cause that's how long it will be before the voters of Kentucky vote for an open non-Christian for Senate.

[Chronos]

Then, on Friday, Conway released this ad. It attacks Paul directly over his membership in a Christian-mocking society in college, as well as the whole "Aqua Buddha" story.

I haven't decided how I feel about this.I don't actually have much problem with it. I don't think that religion should be important to the voters, but given that it obviously is, I don't see any reason why Conway shouldn't point out that his opponent doesn't match their ideals.

[Steve MB]

I think undergraduate affiliations and shenanigans should generally be off-limits unless they're really horrible.

You don't think that abduction is really horrible? :dubious:

[Merijeek]

Can't say I think this win should be a moment of pride for Democrats, though. They should be focused on the long game in advancing progressive principles, and this doesn't help that.

Would "Senator Paul" be a step forward or back in "advancing progressive principles"?

-Joe

[Procrustus]

"The trouble with Conway's ad is that it comes perilously close to saying that non-belief in Christianity is a disqualification for public office. That's a pretty sickening premise for a Democratic campaign." Jonathon Chait. I agree completely.

[BrainGlutton]

"The trouble with Conway's ad is that it comes perilously close to saying that non-belief in Christianity is a disqualification for public office. That's a pretty sickening premise for a Democratic campaign." Jonathon Chait. I agree completely.

See post #47. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13037576&postcount=47)

[Merijeek]

"The trouble with Conway's ad is that it comes perilously close to saying that non-belief in Christianity is a disqualification for public office. That's a pretty sickening premise for a Democratic campaign." Jonathon Chait. I agree completely.

It is sickening. However, seeing as how Rand Paul is part of the Official Jesus Party of the United States of America, it seems a good political move would be to actually seem to toe the line. Not to flaunt it.

I've seen more than a few speculations that "Aqua Buddha" is likely more likely a big bong. But if he were to admit that, Paul would have to actually publicly admit to another one of those Libertarian ideals that his party base would tar and feather him over.

-Joe

[DoctorJ]

You don't think that abduction is really horrible? :dubious:
The victim of the "abduction" backed off of her story (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/rand_pauls_accuser_clarifies_k.html), saying they didn't force her to do anything and she was going along with it. The whole thing seems more silly and immature than malicious--the product of being young, stupid, and high, as the undergraduate often finds himself.

If she had filed charges and he had weaseled out of them somehow, I'd feel differently. Or if someone had been hurt. But if stupid shit we did in college becomes fodder for campaign ads, we're going to be ruled by people who got through college without a single embarrassing story. And do we really want that?

[Chronos]

But if stupid shit we did in college becomes fodder for campaign ads, we're going to be ruled by people who got through college without a single embarrassing story. And do we really want that? I don't see why not.

[Algher]

I wish Paul would have just said something like, "Really? That is the best you have? Dragging up things I did back in college? It is sad that you have nothing to stand on, and instead are forced to dig into some of the fun I had as an undergrad."

[Algher]

I don't see why not.

Really? I would hate that. I knew people in college without a single embarrassing story - and they are the last people I want running things.

[Richard Parker]

The ad's overload of shadowy-voiced innuendo is almost funny if it weren't so nasty. Like an SNL skit gone bad or something. If the point was that Rand Paul has not been a lifelong Christian, so be it. The GOP has made religion a political issue, and if you're going to run on your faith, that makes it fair game. But all of the ridiculous innuendo and the reaching back into college is bad form. I hope it doesn't backfire, since Democrats tend to have thinner skins about these things (as evident by all the liberal handwringing over this ad).

Really? I would hate that. I knew people in college without a single embarrassing story - and they are the last people I want running things.

Totally true.

[Zakalwe]

Really? I would hate that. I knew people in college without a single embarrassing story - and they are the last people I want running things.You had the right answer the first time. Paul should have accepted the "attack" and blown it off - that's a fair win. The problem is that the guys that don't have an embarrassing story from college are *exactly* the guys that Paul's supporters want running things. Paul ain't one of 'em and it's fair to call that out. Now Paul wants it both ways, he wants to have been that guy and now be able to deny it to get elected. Too bad for him that Conway actually found a pair.

[BrainGlutton]

The problem is that the guys that don't have an embarrassing story from college are *exactly* the guys that Paul's supporters want running things. Paul ain't one of 'em and it's fair to call that out.

And exactly the same applies to Christianity. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13037576&postcount=47) They want conservative Christians running things. If Paul ain't one, it's fair to call him out -- him and, more importantly, all the Libertarians.

[DoctorJ]

There's another angle that hadn't occurred to me at first.

Even though Paul has been running as a social conservative, he still has a modicum of libertarian cred. A lot of the small but vocal and organized "Ron Paul crowd" holds on to the hope that the social conservative positions he touts are saying what he has to say to get elected.

Now, two weeks before the election, he's been forced into a Holier-Than-Thou pissing contest. I like to think that every time his response ad airs, in which he talks about how much he loves the Jeebus, a few of those Libertarians decide to stay home on the 2nd.

So it's possible that Conway's ad could make some of the hardcore Christians stay home, and Paul's religious posturing in response could keep some Lib votes away.

We won't really know how it's going to play until the polls start coming out.

[Zakalwe]

And exactly the same applies to Christianity. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13037576&postcount=47) They want conservative Christians running things. If Paul ain't one, it's fair to call him out -- him and, more importantly, all the Libertarians.This comes across as if you're making a point to me, when we agree.

[gonzomax]

This should be emphasized. Right now, Rand Paul signs and bumper stickers are everywhere, he's in the news cycle, he's got both statewide and national attention. Conway? Nothing. If you were dropped into the middle of Kentucky (where I am) right now, you'd neither see nor hear ANY evidence that Jack Conway even exists, much less is running for Senate. Why the Democrats seem to even be shying away from the fact that they are running a candidate for Senate is just... odd.

It is a reflection of the Supreme Court ruling. There will be 6 times as much money spent by conservatives in the last weeks of all campaigns. They do not have to identify who they are either. So the Repub advertising will get even worse the next 2 weeks.

[Frank]

It is a reflection of the Supreme Court ruling. There will be 6 times as much money spent by conservatives in the last weeks of all campaigns. They do not have to identify who they are either. So the Repub advertising will get even worse the next 2 weeks.
You're responding to a post from three months ago in a thread that was bumped three days ago to discuss an ad from a Democrat. Could you please at least try to be relevant?

[Measure for Measure]

A few things about that ad:
1. It's mostly accurate, unlike many other ads (source: Factcheck.com)

2. It hits a fair point: Rand poses as one thing (a Christian) while his older actions indicate something else. Now he could have blown this off as a youthful indiscretion. But that's the sort of thing you do in a seated interview, and Rand fled from those after he won the primary. So instead he blubbers on stage about attacks on his faith. (Wha? Attacks on aqua-Buddha?)

3. The ad raises policy issues vis a vis tax reform.

4. Given Rand's new found fear of interviews, the people of Kentucky know very little about him. "Why are there so many questions about Rand Paul?" is a well deserved attack. (A: Because he is a handler-muzzled loon.)

5. When Conway appeared on CNN he said that he's not questioning Rand's faith, he's questioning his actions. It's not wrong for a candidate to be skeptical about other religions, but it is wrong to mock other religions, according to Senate hopeful Jack Conway.

[DoctorJ]

The abductee in l'affaire Aqua Buddha speaks up again (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/aqua_buddha_lady_conway_ad_is.html).
"My whole point in sharing [the episode] was that Randy used to be a different person with different views that have radically changed, and he's not acknowledging that," she told me. "That is why I shared it in the first place."

She added that his college years and views should raise questions "as to how genuine he is about his beliefs now. I have a hard time seeing how someone who espouses beliefs that he used to would turn around and become a conservative Christian."

She confirmed the ad's accuracy, and wondered aloud why Paul doesn't just admit what occured and move on.

"Yes, he was in a secret society, yes, he mocked religion, yes, the whole Aqua Buddha thing happened," she said. "There was a different side to him at one time and he's pretending that it never existed. If he would just acknowledge it, it would all go away and it wouldn't matter anymore."

However, she also said that Conway's ad went too far in depicting college pranks as something frightening, and added that the topic wasn't consequential enough to drive the Senate race.

***

She concluded: "If he would just acknowledge that he had been a prankful and crazy college kid who at one point in time shared some different views, I think that would diffuse the whole thing."

Meanwhile, the latest Rasmussen poll has Paul at 47% and Conway at 42%, which means it's pretty much tied.

[Really Not All That Bright]

There's another angle that hadn't occurred to me at first.

Even though Paul has been running as a social conservative, he still has a modicum of libertarian cred. A lot of the small but vocal and organized "Ron Paul crowd" holds on to the hope that the social conservative positions he touts are saying what he has to say to get elected.
Apparently this "Ron Paul crowd" is not aware that Ron Paul is also a social conservative.

[Chronos]

Meanwhile, the latest Rasmussen poll has Paul at 47% and Conway at 42%, which means it's pretty much tied. That's one poll, and that's at the outside edge of "margin of error". I'd love for Paul to lose, too, but let's be realistic, here: 538 still gives Conway only an 11% chance of winning.

EDIT: I should also mention that, from what I understand of Silver's models, that 11% is probably mostly conditional on a strong nationwide surge for Democrats in general. So Kentucky still isn't really the place to watch, since such a surge would show up elsewhere first.

[Kolak of Twilo]

"The tone of voice sounds more ominous than it actually was," she said, referring to the ad's narrator. "The way the person is talking, it sounds like [Paul] is some kind of evil-worshipping person who's a little bit more threatening than perhaps he really is. The ad is over the top. I'm disappointed that someone is making this into a central issue."
She is voicing the same thing about this ad that has bothered me since I saw it online. I am a Baylor alumnus who entered the university in the same freshman class with Randy. I also knew him in passing before that because we went to neighboring high schools and had some friends in common. While we were at Baylor I also had several close friends in the Noze Brotherhood, though I don’t recall knowing that he was a member. Although I don’t know anything about the "Aqua Buddha" incident, there were plenty of other pranks I witnessed in my four years in Waco. Some of them were clever and pretty funny and others were juvenile and lame. The ad makes it sound like the Noze were a bunch of thugs. Has anyone seen how these guys dress up? I can't imagine how anyone could find a bunch of young guys wearing old bathrobes, Groucho glasses and wigs made from mopheads anything but ridiculous. Spending four years in Waco attending a Southern Baptist university could be mind numbingly dull at times. These guys at least livened things up from time to time.

Anyway, I do agree that it seems his views have changed significantly since his college days. I don’t live in Kentucky and wouldn’t be voting for him if I did since his political beliefs are so far from mine. I mostly find it incredibly bizarre that the Noze Brothers have figured into a race for the U.S. Senate.

[Steve MB]

The GOP has made religion a political issue, and if you're going to run on your faith, that makes it fair game.

Yep. I remember an analogy Spider Robinson made to the scene in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid where Butch is about to fight Harvey Logan. Butch asks Harvey what the rules are going to be, and Harvey disdainfully says, "No rules." -- so Butch immediately gives him a knee to the balls and (after a quick 1-2-3 count to start the fight) decks him.

If the GOP doesn't want to be hit with low blows, they need to start setting -- and following -- rules that put these things off limits.

[DoctorJ]

Apparently this "Ron Paul crowd" is not aware that Ron Paul is also a social conservative.
Can't explain that, either. His devotees I know personally tend to be pretty socially liberal. Mostly they like guns and weed and hate paying taxes.

[DoctorJ]

That's one poll, and that's at the outside edge of "margin of error". I'd love for Paul to lose, too, but let's be realistic, here: 538 still gives Conway only an 11% chance of winning.
This race hadn't been polled in a few weeks, not even since the $2K Medicare deductible ads, so Silver's predictions are behind as well.

A poll done for the DSCC in the last few days shows Conway up by two points, 49-47. You have to be suspicious of internal polls--not because they're inherently flawed, but because they don't get released unless they're favorable. But it's another piece of evidence that the momentum is in Conway's favor.

I think polls on this race are going to be tough, because it's going to be next to impossible to predict turnout. It will be relatively heavy in Lexington and Louisville because both cities have contested House seats (both held by Dems, both of whom will likely win, but neither is a lock) and hot mayoral races. They will vote heavily for Conway (especially in Louisville, where he's from). Local races elsewhere in KY are often foregone conclusions because counties are so slanted one way or the other, so Conway-Paul may be the only vote that makes any difference. If the religious right-wingers can't be sure that Paul is one of them, many of them may just decide to stay home.

I still wouldn't bet the farm on Conway, but I feel better about the race than I have in a while.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Can't explain that, either. His devotees I know personally tend to be pretty socially liberal. Mostly they like guns and weed and hate paying taxes.
That's the problem with the Libertarian movement in America; its leaders do not represent its membership. They either nominate Republicans who don't care about drugs, or crazy people.

[BrainGlutton]

That's the problem with the Libertarian movement in America; its leaders do not represent its membership. They either nominate Republicans who don't care about drugs, or crazy people.

I've been to many Libertarian-hosted social gatherings. I can tell you, there are plenty of crazy people in the membership.

[Simplicio]

Can't explain that, either. His devotees I know personally tend to be pretty socially liberal. Mostly they like guns and weed and hate paying taxes.

Ron Paul never really came anywhere close ot winning, so his devotees were free to subscribe to him whatever beliefs they wanted. His real beliefs were never going to matter anyways.

This seems to happen a lot with long-shot, outsider candidates.

[Really Not All That Bright]

He might not have come close to winning the Republican nomination for the Presidency, but he's been winning Congressional elections for decades.

[Simplicio]

He might not have come close to winning the Republican nomination for the Presidency, but he's been winning Congressional elections for decades.

True, but few of his supporters are from his congressional district. And his district is socially conservative, which I suspect is the reason why Paul himself votes as a social conservative.

[Measure for Measure]

True, but few of his supporters are from his congressional district. And his district is socially conservative, which I suspect is the reason why Paul himself votes as a social conservative. There's a pronounced relationship between voting record and district. For example, high tech districts (Dell, Silicon Valley, Washington State) tend to have reps that are socially liberal but for free trade. This is yet another strand of evidence suggesting that character and personality are way overrated.

[Chronos]

There's a pronounced relationship between voting record and district. For example, high tech districts (Dell, Silicon Valley, Washington State) tend to have reps that are socially liberal but for free trade. This is yet another strand of evidence suggesting that character and personality are way overrated. Depends on how you unravel the causation, there. I would interpret that not so much as those legislators voting that way because that's the nature of their district, as that they vote that way because that's what they believe, and the fact that they believe that is what enabled them to win in those districts to begin with.

[jsgoddess]

Depends on how you unravel the causation, there. I would interpret that not so much as those legislators voting that way because that's the nature of their district, as that they vote that way because that's what they believe, and the fact that they believe that is what enabled them to win in those districts to begin with.

Or that they are the product of their environments.

[calgreg]

I never been in KY but after watching his opponent yesterday, I would say Rand is a shoe in. I am ultra Liberal, in case you wondered.

[Measure for Measure]

Depends on how you unravel the causation, there. I would interpret that not so much as those legislators voting that way because that's the nature of their district, as that they vote that way because that's what they believe, and the fact that they believe that is what enabled them to win in those districts to begin with. That's a fair hypothesis, consistent with the facts as I presented them.

I don't buy it though. The nominating process is just too crude for such precision. I'm not saying that all pols are consciously cynical: most of us understand that we make a more persuasive presentation if we believe what we say, so we persuade ourselves to do exactly that. Besides, few congressional folk are especially wonkish: it's simply easier cognitively to represent your district than to think through every policy issue from first principles.

All that said, I trust that a good political scientist could at least qualify my stance in all sorts of ways.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Interesting news about Rand Paul's Tea Party Supporters.

Apparently they've taken to pinning down and stomping on the head (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/male-rand-paul-supporter-stomps-head-of-female-moveon-member-outside-debate.php?ref=tn) of female protesters whose message they don't like.

As the candidates arrived, a group of Paul supporters pulled a female MoveOn member to the ground and held her there as another Paul supporter stomped on the back of her head and neck.

The head stomper has been identified as Tim Profitt, Paul's (now former) (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/kentucky-stomper-identified-as-pauls-now-former-bourbon-county-coordinator.php?ref=tn) Bourbon County Coordinator.

The stompee, Lauren Valle was apparently known to the men, as she had protested at Rand functions before. She has reportedly suffered a concussion and multiple sprains in the assault.

Tim Profitt has said that the "camera angle made it seem worse than it was".

Ironically, one of the men who held her down so Profitt could stomp her head was wearing a "Don't Tread on Me" button

[gonzomax]

One of the big news outlets called it a scuffle. They knocked her down and Profitt stomped on her head. perhaps it was a light stomping and it is all right to do that to a woman in Kentucky? He was a big guy and she was a middle aged woman. I hope she presses charges. She spent the night in the hospital.

[Zephyurs]

Here's a handy enumerated list of excuse-making everyone in the thread should make use of when trying to justify/explain/excuse the stomping:

1) She had it coming by being disrespectful to the Clown Prince
2) Both sides are equally at fault
3) Camera angle made it look worse than it was
4) She's faking it
5) It was a setup by the Conway campaign to make Rand Paul look bad.

Did I miss any?

[jsgoddess]

Here's a handy enumerated list of excuse-making everyone in the thread should make use of when trying to justify/explain/excuse the stomping:

1) She had it coming by being disrespectful to the Clown Prince
2) Both sides are equally at fault
3) Camera angle made it look worse than it was
4) She's faking it
5) It was a setup by the Conway campaign to make Rand Paul look bad.

Did I miss any?

You forgot:

6) How could they know she didn't have a gun?

That's my favorite.

[Euphonious Polemic]

7) isolated incident, Profitt is not a true Tea Partier

[Euphonious Polemic]

You forgot:

6) How could they know she didn't have a gun?

That's my favorite.

Yes, I love that one.

"Say, there's that bitch from MoveOn again! She's got that fake award to give to Rand Paul again. Maybe she's got a gun this time!

[joebuck20]

7) isolated incident, Profitt is not a true Tea Partier

Or that he's actually a secret liberal out to undermine the movement.

[Robot Arm]

8) She started it, so it was legal for them to detain her.

[Boyo Jim]

Keith Olberman replayed an old Bill Hicks joke about the video of the Rodney King beating, and some comments by the defenders of the cops that it all depends on "how you look at the tape".

And when Hicks asks how you might look at the tape another way, the answer is, "Well, if you view the tape in reverse, the police help Mr. King up and send him on his way."

[Cisco]

7) isolated incident, Profitt is not a true Tea Partier

That'll be the winner.

Hell, Starving Artist could tell you that without even knowing who Profitt is, I bet.

[Chronos]

OK, so if the camera angle made it look worse than it was, what camera angle do you need to make it anything other than completely reprehensible and inexcusable?

And since when is it Republicans who encourage beating up gun owners? If the NRA had any balls, they'd be all over that one.

[BrainGlutton]

One of the big news outlets called it a scuffle. They knocked her down and Profitt stomped on her head. perhaps it was a light stomping and it is all right to do that to a woman in Kentucky?

Well, of course it is. It's not as if she were a horse.

[Measure for Measure]

Assault and battery pisses me off. The victim of the incident claims it was a a premeditated attack (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/kentucky-stomping-victim-says-assailants-recognized-her-premeditated-attack.php): the perpetrators had recognized the attendee from earlier events. "Rand Paul's car arrived, and as soon as it did, a couple of them stepped right in front of me and so I stepped off the curb to get around them, back out to the front, and at that point they started grabbing for me and I ran all the way around the car with them in pursuit, and the point at which they see the footage is after I've run all the way around the car and am in front of the car and that is when they take me down," Valle said. ...

"A concussion and mild sprains are not terrible injuries. I was certainly injured. And I think watching the video, if you have any questions about that, maybe watch it again," she said. This reprehensible behavior ought to result in jail time, IMO. The Rand Paul took its sweet time responding to the matter, but eventually did the right thing. The Paul for Senate campaign is extremely disappointed in, and condemns the actions of a supporter last night outside the KET debate. Whatever the perceived provocation, any level of aggression or violence is deplorable, and will not be tolerated by our campaign. The Paul campaign has disassociated itself from the volunteer who took part in this incident, and once again urges all activists -- on both sides -- to remember that their political passions should never manifest themselves in physical altercations of any kind. Um, yes. I hope they follow that up with confirming statements like, "Zero tolerance for violence" and the like. In the wake of calls for post-election military action (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=583060) in Texas if things don't turn out their way, this sort of violent criminality should receive more than a slap on the wrists.

[Zephyurs]

We missed the obvious

9) He used his foot to try and keep her down because he can't bend over because of back problems (http://www.wkyt.com/mobi?storyid=105818718)

[Boyo Jim]

1) Shove protester to the ground.
2) Stomp on protester
3) Profitt!

[jsgoddess]

We missed the obvious

9) He used his foot to try and keep her down because he can't bend over because of back problems (http://www.wkyt.com/mobi?storyid=105818718)

I'm speechless.

[Ludovic]

Do you know who ELSE --- awww shit, it's not even funny anymore :(

[DoctorJ]

The Rand Paul took its sweet time responding to the matter, but eventually did the right thing.
Paul lost whatever good will he might have been able to salvage from this with the "on both sides" comment. It also would have been classy to apologize to the victim, since the perpetrator was a member of Paul's campaign apparatus.

Also troubling is that Paul did more than one TV appearance about this before the media or the police knew who the perp was. (Local lefty blog Barefoot and Progressive and its readers figured it out.) The Paul campaign had to know who he was, but they don't appear to have told anyone. You'd think if they were genuinely contrite they would have come forward to identify the campaign worker.

[42fish]

Ironically, one of the men who held her down so Profitt could stomp her head was wearing a "Don't Tread on Me" button

What irony? The Paulites just wanted to make sure that the stomper didn't tread on the wrong person by mistake during the scuffle.

[StusBlues]

The sad part is that the stomping incident appears to have helped Paul in the polls (http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/senate/kentucky).

[joebuck20]

The sad part is that the stomping incident appears to have helped Paul in the polls (http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/senate/kentucky).

How so? The latest poll in that link was taken Oct. 24, before this incident occurred.

[joebuck20]

Now he's saying that SHE should apologize to HIM:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/27/rand-paul-supporter-tim-profitt_n_774614.html


"I don't think it's that big of a deal," Profitt told WKYT. "I would like for her to apologize to me to be honest with you."

While the victim, Lauren Valle, said Tuesday that she believed the campaign workers' violent reaction to her presence there was "premeditated," Profitt told WKYT that he thought Valle was following a strict protocol with the intent of creating controversy.

"She's a professional at what she does," Profitt said, "and I think when all the facts come out, I think people will see that she was the one that initiated the whole thing."

He then blamed the forceful downward motion of his foot on the head of Valle as a function of chronic back pain, a claim he has made before:

"I put my foot on her, and I did push her down at the very end, and I told her to stay down. I actually put my foot on her to -- I couldn't bend over because I have issues with my back," Profitt said.

Man these fuckers' shamelessness really knows no bounds, does it?

[Euphonious Polemic]

Next excuse (#9 I think) It's the fault of the police:

Lexington Police began an assault investigation identifying Profitt as a suspect. "Well I'll just say it, if the police had done what they were supposed to do, it would have never happened," Profitt said.

[StusBlues]

How so? The latest poll in that link was taken Oct. 24, before this incident occurred.

Good call. I saw the Oct. 28 date and thought it was a new poll. Ignorance fought.

[BrainGlutton]

In related news, Dem arrested at Eric Cantor (R-VA) event. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2010/10/eric_cantors_layers_of_defense.html)

And his refusal to debate his opponents raises questions about his newly found populism. One critic dresses up as a chicken and follows Cantor around as he campaigns claiming that the congressman is afraid to debate.

Cantor also has a tendency to surround himself with layers of defense, as was the case Monday when he appeared at a coffee shop in the small town of Louisa, supposedly to meet voters.

One man attending was John Taylor, a member of the Louisa County Democratic Committee and a backer of Rick Waugh, Cantor's Democratic opponent. Taylor and two others were asked to leave the coffee shop. County police then subdued Taylor, as can be seen in a video shot by his son with his cell phone.

[Euphonious Polemic]

In related news, Dem arrested at Eric Cantor (R-VA) event. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2010/10/eric_cantors_layers_of_defense.html)

As Taylor was asked to leave private property by the owner of the property (the coffee shop owner), there is nothing really you can pin on Cantor's campaign in this instance.

[StusBlues]

The sad part is that the stomping incident appears to have helped Paul in the polls (http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/senate/kentucky).

Update: this may not have been true when I posted it, but it certainly seems true now.

[BrainGlutton]

Update: this may not have been true when I posted it, but it certainly seems true now.

It's Kentucky, and it's not as if the lady were a horse.