He has been a member since 1990 and boasts of using a lot of AAPS literature in his speeches.
This Louisville newspaper quotes Pal as saying,
Here is a Fox “news” clip 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 for at least one of their events.
So – is Senator Doctor Paul gonna be an anti-vaxer?
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You don’t think that abduction is really horrible? :dubious:
Would “Senator Paul” be a step forward or back in “advancing progressive principles”?
-Joe
“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
The victim of the “abduction” backed off of her story, 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?
I don’t see why not.
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.”
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.
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).
Totally true.
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.