Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Aqua Buddha prank victim: Jack Conway ad is "over the top," but accurate, raises legit questions

Dem Jack Conway's new ad hammering Rand Paul over his college excesses is accurate on the facts, and it's legit to raise questions about his past views as a way of probing whether his current posture as a conservative Christian is genuine, the victim of Paul's Aqua Buddha prank just told me in an interview.

But the woman, who recounted the prank in interviews with GQ's Jason Zengerle and with me in August, also took issue with the ad's overall tone, claiming it depicted the episode as more ominous than the "hazing prank" warranted.

The woman, who again asked for anonymity because she's a clinical psychologist who works with former members of the military, including Tea Partyers, said she was surprised that Paul is still refusing to acknowlege his past views and the college antics they spawned.

"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.

"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 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."

By Greg Sargent  | October 19, 2010; 10:27 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans, Tea Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Morning Plum
Next: Joe Miller, tear down this wall

Comments

Perhaps the most damaging thing for Paul in all of this, in terms of his Tea Party base, is the revelation that he went to college.

That's a stigma he'll have a hard time living down with that crowd.

He might as well have been a ballet dancer.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 19, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Kinda like Dan Rather's TANG memos were "fake but accurate"? When will you JournOlisters learn? By the way, anonymity is just fine for this woman but not Chamber of Commerce donors?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 19, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

OK, so let's be sure we've got the context right. We have a self identified cocaine user in the white house, yet the left is undies in a wad about a college prank.

I think that accurately describes the situation.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 19, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

To me the issue is that Rand Paul is a phony and is counting on low-information voters to provide him with victory. This ad is aimed at lowering the turnout of low-information voters.

Do I care what "Randy" did in college? Heck no! But then I'm not the target demographic.

If you are trying to make a pitch to the "Dumber than thou" crowd the only way to do so is by putting up really stupid ads. In that light this ad makes sense.

***********

OT - This made me laugh:

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," said Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone, adding that he thought it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101902501.html


Posted by: PaciolisRevenge | October 19, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

"By the way, anonymity is just fine for this woman but not Chamber of Commerce donors?"

Man, this is false equivalence raised to the level of self parody. Comical.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 19, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Pacioli, you can just hear her thinking to herself, in a panic, "How does everyone KNOW so much??!!"

I wonder if she could pass the citizenship exam?

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 19, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

So much for the Washington Post using multiple sources for stories, now turning that on its head: the woman recounted the prank in interviews with Jason Zengerle AND Greg Sargent, so that's now "independent" confirmation right there.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 19, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Paul has a sick character! - and refuses to accept responsibility for his own actions. He's even flip flopped on several issues since he began campaigning.
And most young male college students don't force women into humiliating situations.
But - IOKIYAR.

Posted by: angie12106 | October 19, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

But Mr SArgent, you have no obligation to explain why you believe this:
==========
Man, this is false equivalence raised to the level of self parody. Comical.
=====

We are to believe that this is false equivalence simply because you say it is?

Why should we do that?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 19, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Conway's next ad should hit Paul for saying he bore "False Witness" by repeating a story that was true.

He could easily make an ad that this proves how big of a fraud Paul is as a "Christian Conservative", becuase he doesn't seem to even understand what baring false witness means and that he's just using the term - as well as the Christian Conservative label - in a cynical political ploy to trick the voters of KY into voting for him.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | October 19, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

skip, please quit while you're behind.

Unbelievable.

Since Paul hasn't denied anything the woman says, it's not even an issue who she is.

Moron.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 19, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Rand Paul is an immature fool. I have a tough time getting exercised over an ad which is, at worst, a bit silly. Almost *any* tactic that would keep this knucklehead out of the Senate is OK by me. The few exceptions I can think of are vote suppression, hate- or fear-mongering, threats of violence, and racism -- you know, Republican tactics.

Posted by: hellslittlestangel1 | October 19, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

PaciolisRevenge, please point to the Article and Section of the U.S. Constitution where it says "separation of church and state." The First Amendment only keeps the government from establishing a religion and from enfringing on the free expression thereof, not the other way around. While there is no "religious test" for public office, the voters can legitimately refuse to vote for a non-Christian. Thanks in advance.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 19, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

"We are to believe that this is false equivalence simply because you say it is?

Why should we do that?"

We're to believe 2 + 2 = 4, just because you say so? We're to believe that the Earth orbits the Sun, just because you say so? We're to believe that dinosaurs once roamed the earth, just because you say so?
Why should we do that?

It's impossible to have a rational discussion with a crazy person, Greg. Don't even bother trying.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 19, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

TheBBQChickenMadness - Not only that, but he is a huge fan of the "teachings" of Ann Rand. And her teachings and the teachings of Jesus have zero in common. In fact, wasn't she a renowned atheist?

*******

As an atheist who rejected faith as antithetical to reason, Ayn Rand embraced philosophical realism and opposed all forms of what she regarded as mysticism and supernaturalism, including organized religion. Rand wrote in her journals that Christianity was "the best kindergarten of communism possible." Rand also argued for rational egoism (rational self-interest), as the only proper guiding moral principle. The individual "must exist for his own sake," she wrote in 1962, "neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Rand

Posted by: PaciolisRevenge | October 19, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

"She also said... that the topic wasn't consequential enough to drive the Senate race... I'm disappointed that someone is making this into a central issue."

Can we *please* stop posting about this non-issue?

Posted by: sbj3 | October 19, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

BGinCHI, Paul denied it all (three times) in the debate.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 19, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

"Substitute Barack Obama for Rand Paul, tweak a few of the allegations, and you would have an advertisement as to which the mainstream media and left-wing blogosphere would scream ‘Racist!!!’ and ‘Islamophobic!!!’ But it’s Rand Paul, so there is a mix of opinion on the left, with many taking the view that all is fair in politics, including questioning someone’s Christianity."

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/10/substitute-barack-obama-for-rand-paul.html

via Campaign Spot

Posted by: sbj3 | October 19, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

clawrence, just like Peter denied Jesus?

Now we're getting somewhere.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 19, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

sbj, that's so full of BS I don't know where to start.

One negative ad at Rand Paul compared to all the signage, including billboards, and racial/religious/personal attacks on Obama and you want to suggest they're the same?

Man, the right can dish it out but it sure can't take it.

Bullies and crybabies. What a surprise.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 19, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

You'd better hope Paul wins. That's six more years of daily updates on this non-issue. He and Angle will keep you productive for some time. I suppose it's a job saved.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | October 19, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

@bg: So your basic argument is that two wrongs make a right?

Posted by: sbj3 | October 19, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Yes, we are getting somewhere; the following is false "Since Paul hasn't denied anything the woman says, it's not even an issue who she is.". I won't call you a moron however.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 19, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

@PaciolisRevenge: The tragically funny thing is that Christine O'Donnell's self-proclaimed "Number One" qualification to be a U.S. Senator is the one-week course that she took in Constitutional Government. I guess they didn't have time to cover the Establishment Clause.

Posted by: QuiteAlarmed | October 19, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

"Substitute sbj3 for Rand Paul, tweak a few of the allegations, and you would have an advertisement as to which the Mad Magazine would scream ‘Poopy pants!!!’ and ‘Green eggs and ham!!!’

****

"Tweak a few of the allegations?" Isn't that like saying, "Change everything and everything will change?" Duh!

Posted by: PaciolisRevenge | October 19, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

PaciolisRevenge, please point to the Article and Section of the U.S. Constitution where it says "separation of church and state."

By the way, did you know that Jesus Christ is referred to as "our Lord" in said Constitution?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 19, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from various documents of several of the Founders of the United States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Posted by: PaciolisRevenge | October 19, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

@clawrence12: Read the article. She didn't know that the ***ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE*** is in the Constitution.

Posted by: QuiteAlarmed | October 19, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

The hits just keep on coming! Now we are to believe that name calling is an acceptable substitute for valid argument.

apparently this is the best the lefties here can muster. It is small wonder that America is turning their backs on the liberal agenda. Liberals have proved themselves to be insufferable boors propounding a failed approach to civil society.

Neither response was a valid argument. Both contained nothing but ad hom name calling. That's just childishness.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 19, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

"You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

HAHAHA!

You've gotta be KIDDING me.

But we gotta save Teh Constitooshun from the muslim (*ahem* black) cokehead who pals around with turrists in "fake" America.

Tea Party = Ridiculous lunatics

OT:

Sestak full steam ahead

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/poll-sestak-posts-big-gains-in-pa-sen.php

Watch the latest awesome ad from the Sestak campaign, "Belle":

"My family loves Belle. But she can make a mess. And we have to clean it up. I think about Belle when I see Congressman Toomey's ads attacking me.

"It made me sick to bail out the banks. But I had to bail out the banks left behind by these guys," Sestak says, referring to photos of Toomey and former President George W. Bush. "They let Wall Street run wild. Now Pat Toomey is attacking me for cleaning up his mess."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/sestak-ad-features-bag-of-dog-waste-video.php

Magnifique.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 19, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Has Rand Paul being bringing up his "Christian Values", while he is campaigning? If he has, then he has brought it upon himself. If he has not, then it is not fair to try and expose him as not being a real Christian.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 19, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

New Adam Serwer post on Joe Miller's Berlin wall craziness:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/joe_miller_tear_down_this_wall.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 19, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

I'm actually more interested in Joe Miller's campaign unlawfully handcuffing a citizen at a rally advertised as "open to the public."

I think the legal term for that is "false imprisonment" and it ranks as a felony.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 19, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

"By the way, anonymity is just fine for this woman but not Chamber of Commerce donors?"

Man, this is false equivalence raised to the level of self parody. Comical.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 19, 2010 10:47 AM
........................

This is par for the course for Clawrence. He recently claimed that Palin deciding to not complete the term she was elected to, was merely the equivalent of why JFK did not complete his term as President.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 19, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Jesus Christ is not mentioned in the Constitution of the United States, claw. Perhaps you were reading the constitution of some other country?

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 19, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

So, you admit that "separation of church and state" (just like the word "abortion") is not in the Constitution? Good, that's what she said, nothing more.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 19, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

skip, you write moronic things and so you get called a moron. That's not childish; it's logic.

Be smarter and voila, you won't be a moron.

Glad I could help.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 19, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

"By the way, anonymity is just fine for this woman but not Chamber of Commerce donors?"

Man, this is false equivalence raised to the level of self parody. Comical.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 19, 2010 10:47 AM
........................

This is par for the course for Clawrence. He recently claimed that Palin deciding to not complete the term she was elected to, was merely the equivalent of why JFK did not complete his term as President.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 19, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

pragmaticstill, read my post again.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 19, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

clawrence, you ever heard of this guy?


To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 19, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

So, you admit that "separation of church and state" (just like the word "abortion") is not in the Constitution? Good, that's what she said, nothing more.

*********

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

**********

You should probably work on your reading comprehension. "...that's what she said, nothing more." Actually, no, try reading slowly. It may help if you spell the words out one at a time. Some inexperienced readers actually mouth the words silently as they read. If that doesn't work try asking someone you know who finished high school to read this to you, if you know anyone like that.

Posted by: PaciolisRevenge | October 19, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing, just ignore the name calling and point out what they say is false, like the following "Since Paul hasn't denied anything the woman says, it's not even an issue who she is."

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 19, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence12: Read the article. When Coons quoted **THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE** to her, O'Donnell responded: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

She didn't know that **THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE** is in the Constitution.

Posted by: QuiteAlarmed | October 19, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Conservative Christian used to be all for separation of Church and State, back when JFK was running for President. Now they are all for having the Pope refuse communion to Senators who will not violate their oath of office.

Of course, the Pope is also against the Death Penalty, but his Bishops never refuse communion to the Politicians who support it. Didn't the previous Pope declare the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq, an unjust war. Did he order the refusal of communion to all those elected catholics who voted for, and supported the invasion and occupation? Of course not. The Vatican is now The Religious version of Fox News.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 19, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Clawrence,

Tell us all once more, why you believe that Sarah Palin quitting during her elected term, was no different than JFK not completing his term?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 19, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI, I am aware of who Thomas Jefferson is. Are you going to argue that he wrote the Constitution from France too?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 19, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

"please point to the Article and Section of the U.S. Constitution where it says "separation of church and state." The First Amendment only keeps the government from establishing a religion"

Well that sure was fun.

Are there any other issues you'd like to discuss with yourself, Clawbrain?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 19, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

My question to the media is why is this ad so out of the realm or beyond the pale? Why is it okay to question the President of the United States on his Christianity and accuse him of not being Christian or even a citizen of the US, but it's not okay to question Rand Paul's Christianity in a campaign ad? LOL. If it weren't so pathetically lopsided in the double standard department, it would be funny.

Posted by: denise4925 | October 19, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

@BGinCHI: "Perhaps the most damaging thing for Paul in all of this, in terms of his Tea Party base, is the revelation that he went to college."

If nothing else, I will certainly find a huge Republican sweep in November (if it happens) very satisfying emotionally.

According to CNN, in 2006, 46% of college graduates (of those actively voting) voted for Republicans. 53% of college graduates voted for Democrats. The exact same number of folks with no college degree that voted for Democrats, actually. 45% of voters with no college degree voted for Republicans.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 19, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Is Christine O'DoDo looking for some way to turn America into A Theocracy? It sure sounds like she is.

Which wacko preacher will she want elevated to the position of Grand Ayatollah?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 19, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

QuiteAlarmed, asking a question does not necessarily mean one does not already know the answer (for instance, I actually do know that Thomas Jefferson did not write the Constitution).

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 19, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

"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."

She is right. Which means that Paul is hiding something. (along with many of his positions such as Social Security, MediCare, etc.)

Posted by: AMviennaVA | October 19, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

"By the way, anonymity is just fine for this woman but not Chamber of Commerce donors?"

Man, this is false equivalence raised to the level of self parody. Comical.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 19, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse
=======================================
OMG!! Are you SERIOUS? You are actually compairing these two totally different issues? First, SHE'S NOT A Lobbying Firm, Second, she's NOT making donations in vast amounts! Does that clear it up for you?

Posted by: Angryman | October 19, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Jack Conway is a clown and the ad he approves should point voters to the truth during this election cycle: Democrats are not willing to run on health care reform, cap and trade or the amnesty for illegals agenda.

Posted by: dacyzyn | October 19, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Angryman, I am not the one arguing for "full disclosure" in every political ad.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 19, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

* Educational Attainment and 2004 Vote *

Of the 17 states (including DC) with an above average percentage of citizens with advanced degrees, 13 (76.5%) voted for Kerry. Of the 34 states with a below average percentage of citizens with advanced degrees, 27 (79.4%) voted for Bush.

http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_education_vote.htm

* Education Level Linked to Party Affiliation, Poll Suggests *

Mr. Wolfe points to a new poll by Washington Post/ABC News that found that white people without a college degree favor John McCain, the Republican candidate, by 17 percentage points, while those with a college degree prefer Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, by 9 percentage points.

That split could have broad implications for higher-education policy, Mr. Wolfe argues. “A divide such as this suggests that Democrats will continue to expand access to higher education while Republicans will oppose it,” he said.

http://chronicle.com/article/Education-Level-Linked-to/43433/

Go to the first link, Kevin.

Look at the chart.

Almost ALL of the red-voting states in 2004 were below the national average in advance degrees.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 19, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

pragmaticstill, did you find it yet? Here's a hint: Article VII. http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html

To whom do you think the words "our Lord" are referring to if not Jesus Christ?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 19, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence12: All fluent speakers of the English language know what it means when someone prefaces a question with: "You're telling me..."

In this case, it means that Christine O'Donnell didn't know that the ***ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE*** is in the United States Constitution.

Posted by: QuiteAlarmed | October 19, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Soooo...the comments are true! It may be a college prank but the fact that this tea party candidate thinks so little of women that he would do such a thing is the point. Republicans regularly go after Democrats who had an affair in college before they married someone else but that is OK meanwhile they try to protect a guy who actually tied someone up? My God what a double standard!

Posted by: AZdave | October 19, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing28 wrote: OK, so let's be sure we've got the context right. We have a self identified cocaine user in the white house, yet the left is undies in a wad about a college prank.

I think you just made the anonymous woman's point--President Obama admitted it and moved on.

Posted by: amaikovich | October 19, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

The hits just keep on coming! Now we are to believe that name calling is an acceptable substitute for valid argument.

apparently this is the best the lefties here can muster. It is small wonder that America is turning their backs on the liberal agenda. Liberals have proved themselves to be insufferable boors propounding a failed approach to civil society.

Neither response was a valid argument. Both contained nothing but ad hom name calling. That's just childishness.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 19, 2010 11:37
==========================================
Yeah, because we ALL know the Right never called anybody (The President) names! Marxist, Racist, Muslim, Socialist, Mao and, wait for it...........HITLER!!

Now go get over yourself!

Posted by: Angryman | October 19, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

You're telling me that I am not a fluent speaker of the English language?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 19, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Everyone keeps saying, "why go back 30 years, and go over crazy pranks that happened in college...." Wellllll...why is it that we can 'count' the good stuff, like Student Council, lacrosse star, valedictorian....but NOT count the crazy stuff? Why not just own up to it and be done? Because Conway drew blood, and we true Dems (not those pesky pretend McCaskill types) know it, and we have his back. Paul has to NOW say, oh yes, I am a pious man.....ok, but what about that thingy in college? Ya know, the one where you tied a girl up? Oh yea, she agreed, but just what were you all doing?

Posted by: LAB2 | October 19, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

thanks for the advice clawrence, but I prefer to point out the vacuuity of the liberal position while highlighting their nastiness.

neither person could provide a defense of Mr Sargent's assertion. Mr Sargent clearly can't be bothered. So we're left a typical liberal statement. something like this:
"It is what I said it is because I said it it is, you moron."

that's the best the liberals here have. If they had better they'd use it. since name calling is all they do, it is right to conclude that it is all they can do.

It is small wonder that people are walking away from these nasty small minded folks. Jenn is among the ugliest commenters here. and the chicago guy is in the same category.

Yanking their chains is easy and fun, so I do it all day long. After all once a dog is programmed to pavlovian response any old bell will start the drooling.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 19, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

The hits just keep on coming! Now we are to believe that name calling is an acceptable substitute for valid argument.

apparently this is the best the lefties here can muster. It is small wonder that America is turning their backs on the liberal agenda. Liberals have proved themselves to be insufferable boors propounding a failed approach to civil society.

Neither response was a valid argument. Both contained nothing but ad hom name calling. That's just childishness.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 19, 2010 11:37
==========================================
Yeah, because we ALL know the Right never called anybody (The President) names! Marxist, Racist, Muslim, Socialist, Mao and, wait for it...........HITLER!!

Now go get over yourself!

Posted by: Angryman | October 19, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

My question to the media is why is this ad so out of the realm or beyond the pale? Why is it okay to question the President of the United States on his Christianity and accuse him of not being Christian or even a citizen of the US, but it's not okay to question Rand Paul's Christianity in a campaign ad? LOL. If it weren't so pathetically lopsided in the double standard department, it would be funny.

Posted by: denise4925 | October 19, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse


------------------------

I AGREE! This guy Rand Paul's a fruitcake.

Now we are supposed to treat him like a real politician because he says he has "grown up" sine then?

Looks like Paul joined the Omega's ("Thank You Sir, May I have Another?") in college. Now he wants us to forget it.

Ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: trenda | October 19, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence12: Your words, not mine.

BTW: Why do you think the fact that the authors of the U.S. Constitution used the contemporary dating system (Anno Domini or, in English, "In the Year of Our Lord") tells us anything useful about the fact that Christine O'Donnell didn't know that the ***ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE*** is in the Constitution?

Posted by: QuiteAlarmed | October 19, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Thank you so much Mr. Sargent for once again clarifying the issues in a way that helps us all see the real issues. by the way will you do anything about charlie the democrat, immortalized by tom hanks and the fact that his unsealed divorce records indicate he was a wife beater or do you just do this to republicans?

Posted by: harbinger317 | October 19, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

I was simply asking a question (and got some very interesting responses).

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 19, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Maybe she said "defuse." I think it will go away, and probably faster if he ignores it. Most people who've been to college quickly become different people on entering the real world, and in many cases, it's a good thing. Seems like a non-story to me.

Posted by: washingtonpostviewer | October 19, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

It's also relevant to the topic of what supposedly well-informed voters think is (or is not) in the Constitution.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 19, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

@skipsailing: I haven't watched the video of the debate between Rand Paul and Jack Conway, and I haven't been able to locate an online transcript of it. My understanding from the accounts that I have read, though, is that Rand Paul offered only classical "non-denial" denials. In other words, he denied characterizations of the events, without ever explicitly denying the alleged facts. Could you provide text of the statements (with context) where you feel that Rand Paul expressly denied the allegations? I would be interested in reading them. That would also make it much easier for commentors here with opposing viewpoints to respond to your assertion that Rand Paul denied the facts (or to concede the point if warranted).

Posted by: QuiteAlarmed | October 19, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

It's not the Aqua Buddha thing that matters (really, who cares?), but rather his response. He should have responded: "Yeah, so what? I think we've all done stupid things in college." Instead, he got all defensive, weird, and opaque.

Heck, my response would have been "College is the place to do stupid things before you are an adult. I think it's important to get 'stupid' out of your system early."

Posted by: steve1231 | October 19, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

this kind of dirty campagining is going to come back to bite the party in the years ahead. nothing that the so-called "people on the fringe" or "kooks" of the right have done has gone unmatched by "mainstream" figures on the left. the media has been treating this as a legitiate if off-topic issue, that imprimatur of the media is transferable.

Posted by: dummypants | October 19, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

s Christine O'DoDo looking for some way to turn America into A Theocracy? It sure sounds like she is.

Which wacko preacher will she want elevated to the position of Grand Ayatollah?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 19, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

As I stated clawrence, the left is simply unarmed in this battle of wits. Look at the quality of responses to my post.

this is from the well named angryman:
=============
Yeah, because we ALL know the Right never called anybody (The President) names! Marxist, Racist, Muslim, Socialist, Mao and, wait for it...........HITLER!!

Now go get over yourself!

=====================

Not only does this make absolutely no sense we are once again treated to the arrogance of the left. Naked, unashamed nastiness rears its ugly head.

Yo, angryman, you want me to do something? Then make me pal. In the meantime, thank you for proving my point about the intellectual vacuuity of your side in this debate.

then there is this:
================
I think you just made the anonymous woman's point--President Obama admitted it and moved on
====================

You missed my point. I'm not surprised. It is not whether he admitted it or not that is at issue. It is the fact that the liberals who supported Obama didn't have a problem with Obama's past and yet have their undies in a wad about Paul's college pranks. it is just plain stupid. Admitted or not, if Paul's past speaks to his current character, so does Obama's.

Mr Sargent, is that, in your august opinion, moral equivalence?

What about Charlie Rose's past? Will we hear from that on this blog?

Just too funny.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 19, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Angryman, I am not the one arguing for "full disclosure" in every political ad.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 19, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse
******************************************************************************************
LOL, neither is anyone else.

Posted by: denise4925 | October 19, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

1. Both the Left and Right get fuzzy on morals, so enough with the tired "yeah but Obama did something worse" or "Paul is just like O'Donnell" rants. Its childish and misses the point.

2. I was in college 25 years ago. There are many groups that I could have joined. I never joined one who thought Christianity was a hoax, so I do wonder what he was thinking. Even on college campuses, some groups are outside the mainstream


3. I don't live in KY, but if I did I wouldn't think this is a big deal. However since the story seems to be confirmed by the source, I also don't see why Paul just didn't diffuse it by saying "it happened in college" or not saying anything at all. All he did at the debate was elevate the charge.

Posted by: tgaylord1999 | October 19, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Why does the press continue to respect this woman's anonymity? This is no longer a leak of a reported event. She has decided to intrude herself into a campaign by offering her opinion and spin on the event. That is fair, but then it is wrong for the press to facilitate such drive-by libel. They should now identify this woman and allow us to judge her life and her veracity.

Posted by: krush01 | October 19, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Yep. All he had to say was, I don't remember it just like that, but I was your typical immature guy, in college.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 19, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse


If the Journolistas investigated Obama's past as thoroughly as they have Paul, O'Donnell, Palin and other conservatives, they would make these revelations seem hardly worth reporting.

Obama's past/present ties to questionable people/entities and dealings, if reported in 2008, would have made him unelectable.

But with the complicit Journolistas protecting Obama, what America got was an inexperienced, incompetent President pushing a radical, economy-destroying agenda.

Government takeover of over 70% of our economy and counting.

Posted by: janet8 | October 19, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

the copy editor in me can't help wondering if 'aqua buddha woman' might have said 'defuse' rather than 'diffuse' in the last sentence of her final quote.

Posted by: carlbyron | October 19, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

@BG: Thats was hilarious what you said about Rand Paul**Perhaps the most damaging thing for Paul in all of this, in terms of his Tea Party base, is the revelation that he went to college.That's a stigma he'll have a hard time living down with that crowd.******

Oh I needed a good laugh today, thanks...LOL!!!!

Posted by: Realistic5 | October 19, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

janet8,

Any more misinformation you would like to spread? Government take over of 70% of our country? Please, i guess you dont read, because the past week numerous media outlets have spoken of the DOWNGRADING of the government under Obama. Oh by the way just when is Dubya going to release his military records since your so interested in a candidates past?

Posted by: rharring | October 19, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Voters have every right to learn about candidates' past activities.
And certainly tying up women and humiliating them is not an activity most young male college students engage in.
And here we all thought Paul had been a Christian ALL his life.
jeeeeeez

Posted by: angie12106 | October 19, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Conway is not trying to determine Mr. Paul's posture as a Christian, and he has made that clear. He was questioning Mr. Paul's predilection to mock other people's faiths and to use coercion against people in order to impress his ideological beliefs. Is this the kind of person we expect to elect to a position of representation? I don't think I want a Senator that's going to remind me of Joseph McCarthy.

Posted by: ThereIsStillHope | October 19, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

WaPo is so BIASED it is pathetic. O'Donnell, Palin, Paul - any and all charges, proven or not, from 30-40 years ago are all discussed and debated in WaPO's own fake-intellectual style.

Why no discussion of Cuomo's sex with the family nanny? The Biden family's drug issues? Blumenthal's constant lies about being in the Armed Forces? Nothing?

Posted by: pgr88 | October 19, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

I love a good smear campaign by the democrats to get off the economy. Avoid the issues and smear, lie, etc.

Posted by: quillerm | October 19, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Presumably Paul's acknowledgment would defuse "the whole thing," as well as "diffuse" it.

Posted by: jernst58 | October 19, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

pgr88,

Those have been discussed, but when candidates cant remember what they read, what is in the constitution and struggles to name a founding father, that is a little more important that sex scandals. If you like we can rehash Larry Craig trolling for gay sex in airport mens rooms, or about David Vitters love of diapers. Why is the GOP only interested in sex? Because they impeached Clinton for an extra marital affair while Newt who was leading the impeachment hearings was doing the exact same thing. But when Dubya was in charge the GOP somehow couldnt be bothered to investigate the following REAL issues:

1. What the White House knew before the September 11th attacks.

2. Abu Ghirad
3. Authorizing Torture
4. Illegal wiretapping, including wiretapping a sitting member of Congress (Rep. Jane Harmon)
5. The outing of an undercover CIA agent
6. The no bid contract to Halliburton.

So step aside and let the adults work.

Posted by: rharring | October 19, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I worship the Aqua Buddha with my tied up girlfriend & resent these insidious attacks on my faith!

Posted by: skinky_1999 | October 19, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Aqua buddhas, witches, headless bodies, Putin's head -- no, I can see why all you tea partiers get so offended at being called crazy.

Posted by: donquixote3 | October 19, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

what nonsense for rharring. Clinton wasn't impeached for an affair. Anyone who says that is either ill informed or lying. Clinton was impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice and malfeasance in office.
Please note that the billy jeff was forced to give up his law license after he completed his second term. As far as I know, the bar association doesn't strip someone of the right to practice for having an illicit affair.

Also please note that he was found in contempt of court for his failure to be truthful in teh Paula Jones case.

So which is it pal are you ignorant or lying?

Here's a hint: wiki BEFORE you post.

and methinks you should take your own advice. When you find the ability to be either better informed or more honest you may find room at the adult table. In the mean time back to the kiddies with your mac and cheese.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 19, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

@Rharring: Gov't is taking over or has taken over 70% of our country? Really? Please enlighten us if you can..70%, wow thats a lot. I wonder if they have taken over the infrastructure to and our military and our space program. I wonder if they have taken over our money supply and only they can print money, did they take over the Fed Reserve? please say its not so. I wonder if they have taken over our foreign policy to? Oh my, we are in trouble(insert sarcasm). Oh no they have taken over GM and credit lending agencies.No wait, they lend them money and we are getting paid back at a profit, poor tax payers, dumb gov't, making money for us through investments..I wonder if TARP was also doner under a democrat? Geez, people the gov't is taking over, run for the hills. I guess president Obama will release his when record when he can forge em' like he forged his Birth Cert. It takes time to find someone who can forge documents(insert sarcasm). Geez, we should have Obama removed at once and put Palin in charge so she could make nice with our friends in the country of Africa(Yes she called Africa a country..Shakin my head) and maybe we should add another few trillions to the deficit to give the rich more tax breaks because we all know whats a few more trillion to the deficit. And we should also attack more nations and Rharrin I bet you will be first in line to join up, right? @Rharrin you should stop buying all the garbage from the right but than you would have to think for yourself.

Posted by: Realistic5 | October 19, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Realistic5,

Read much? I was responding to someone who claimed the government was taking over 70% of the country. Read my post again.

Posted by: rharring | October 19, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

by the way will you do anything about charlie the democrat, immortalized by tom hanks and the fact that his unsealed divorce records indicate he was a wife beater or do you just do this to republicans?

Posted by: harbinger317 |
++++++++++++++++++

Nice display of ignorance, harbinger317!!!

Tom Hanks portrayed Charlie Wilson, a former Democratic Congressman from Texas. THAT Charlie Wilson died in February. The Charlie Wilson with the allegations of abuse (in 20 year old divorce papers, the allegations of which were never proven), is a Democratic Congressman from Ohio. Tom Hanks has not portrayed him (yet).

You are so anxious to find a scandal involving a Democrat that you can't even identify the right person. Typical.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 19, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Why is everyone pandering to Rand Paul's college day antics, but no one is talking about Jack Conway's old classmates talking about his sick obsession with young Black boys. Are Racist Pedophiles like Conway, more acceptable to White Racist so-called Christians? Are all White Christians, Racist Pedophiles, or just all the ones in Kentucky? Does this mean that all of Conway’s supporters are Racist Pedophiles, or just sexually perverse?
ARE THE VAST MAJORITY HERE RACIST PEDOPHILES AS WELL, or just Mr Sargent?
After all, there is just as much evidence supporting Conway as a Racist Pedophile as there is supporting these claims against Paul.
If this person has kids CPS needs to remove them before this pervert molests them too!

I can't believe how truly gullible the readers of the Post have become.

Posted by: africanwarrior1 | October 19, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

"It's impossible to have a rational discussion with a crazy person, Greg. Don't even bother trying. "

It's also impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who accuses anyone else as crazy.

Posted by: princeps2 | October 19, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

The JounaListas are still at it!

Destroy the enemy.

Guess they never took Journalism 101.

You have ONE source who refuses to come forward, accusing a candidate about something that happened 30 years ago?

Shame on you and WAPO!

Posted by: beecheery | October 19, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing28 wrote: "Clinton wasn't impeached for an affair. Anyone who says that is either ill informed or lying. Clinton was impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice and malfeasance in office. Here's a hint: wiki BEFORE you post."
-------
Um, according to wikipedia, impeachment proceedings were brought against Republicans on a straight party vote in a lame duck session. There were two charges: perjury and obstruction of justice. There's nothing about "malfeasance in office."

IN short, methinks YOU should take your own advice. When you find the ability to be either better informed or more honest you may find room at the adult table. In the mean time back to the kiddies with your mac and cheese."


Posted by: donquixote3 | October 19, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Give me an f*ing BREAK...you have some ANONYMOUS woman that is AFRAID to be identified??? Afraid of WHAT?? Does she think that maybe the TRUTH might trump her petty hiding so she can keep getting government paychecks? Is she a psychologist like the Muslim that Shot and Killed all the Ft. Hood soldiers...she is a graduate of BAPTIST FUNDAMENTALIST BAYLOR UNIVERSITY....so WHY should anyone BELIEVE HER without some OTHER classmates confirming her ranting foolishness.

Clearly this is a Washington Post SMEAR by a junior grade reporter with no morality or ethics, trying to make points with the Democrats.

SARGENT...you are a coward, a liar, and a rabble rouser for your OWN income and "fame"....disgusting.

Posted by: joelevin | October 19, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Give me an f*ing BREAK...you have some ANONYMOUS woman that is AFRAID to be identified??? Afraid of WHAT?? Does she think that maybe the TRUTH might trump her petty hiding so she can keep getting government paychecks? Is she a psychologist like the Muslim that Shot and Killed all the Ft. Hood soldiers...she is a graduate of BAPTIST FUNDAMENTALIST BAYLOR UNIVERSITY....so WHY should anyone BELIEVE HER without some OTHER classmates confirming her ranting foolishness.

Clearly this is a Washington Post SMEAR by a junior grade reporter with no morality or ethics, trying to make points with the Democrats.

SARGENT...you are a coward, a liar, and a rabble rouser for your OWN income and "fame"....disgusting.

Posted by: joelevin | October 19, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Ken Starr could not get Clinton on anything else, so he started snooping into his sex life. Remember that woman Linda, who got Monica to confide in her, then Linda taped the private conversations for Ken Starr.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 19, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing,

Ah just like all the other GOP posters, to lazy to do your own research so you use Wiki. Lets see it started out in 92 investigating a land deal in Arkansas and 7 years 42 million dollars later we found out he lied under oath about his relationship with an intern. So he was impeached for lying, lying about an affair. I notice how tight lipped you were on the hypocrisy of Newt presiding over the impeachment while at the same time committing adultery himself. Or the 140 hours of testimony the GOP thought was so needed about the Clinton xmas card list. Again why didnt the GOP investigate their own from 01-08 when there were ACTUAL high crimes and misdemeanors, i await your and Wiki's answers..........

Posted by: rharring | October 19, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

I love a good smear campaign by the democrats to get off the economy. Avoid the issues and smear, lie, etc.

Posted by: quillerm | October 19, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse
******************************************************************************************
We can talk about the economy. We can talk about the job gains that we've had since the Obama administration took over. We can talk about the Stimulus Bill that President Obama promulgated and that lies that the Republicans told about it not working or creating jobs, but in the same breath writing numerous letters behind closed doors to the agencies to get funding from the same stimulus bill to create jobs in their states and stimulate the economy. I thought it didn't work. I guess it did, because otherwise, the Republicans wouldn't trying to be jumping on that bandwagon of job creation.

We can talk about the economy and how the Republicans denounce and want to repeal the Healthcare bill and but behind closed doors only intending to repeal the portion of the bill that mandates citizens to purchase health insurance (even though the numbers don't add up), but not the rest, i.e. literally stealing and hijacking the President's idea to make it look like their own.

Yes, let's talk about the economy and how the Republicans want to increase the deficit by extending the Bush tax credits for the wealthy and holding the tax credits for the middle class hostage until they get it.

Yes, let's talk about the economy and the Wall Street Reform bill and how good it was for Main Street American, putting in place safeguards and protection for the consumer, and for the industry so that we will never have another "too big to fail" situation.

Yes, let's talk about the economy and what the Republicans in Congress did to help the America people out of this recession. Oh yeah, we can't talk about that, because they did NOTHING. Every time the Democrats came up with a bill to help solve the problem, they said "NO". So, yes let's talk about how irresponsible the Republicans have been and how hard the Democrats have tried and succeeded against all odds, i.e. the Republican Party of No, to get us out of this economic recession and help create jobs.

Still want to talk about the economy?

Posted by: denise4925 | October 19, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Like most bullies, these Tea folks have very thin skins. Paul's AquaBuddha friend confirmed the facts. The tone of Conway's ad is normal fare for right-wingers, who should follow their own advice, STOP WHINING!

Posted by: BBear1 | October 19, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

"It remains puzzling to us why the drive-by media continues to focus on an alleged 30 year old teenage prank when our nation faces high unemployment, a thirteen trillion dollar debt and are threatened with a Cap and Trade national energy tax."

Of course the GOP and its followers are puzzled. After all, they created these problems, why would they want to accept responsibility for them? That would be too honest, and they do not profit from honesty. And they are relying on 30+ year old tricks inherited from the original Trickster himself, Tricky Dick Nixon, trying to fool the public into believing they have "America"'s best interests in mind. Keep flashing those peace signs old Richard. "Surely our hearts and minds will follow when you got us by the balls, right?" (Hunter S. Thompson).

Posted by: Snahtantevenp | October 19, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

This writer is obviously a left leaning amateur. To makes these unsupported claims as if they are backed up by any kind of fact just shows how desperate this rag is to stay relevent.

So he's protecting her "patients", sure... Have some balls, support your story with facts.

Posted by: cfcook | October 19, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

"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."
My dear lady - if it were just a prank - why in the world did you surface then? Much to do about nothing.

Let's recap - we have a tooter in the WH..aka cut me another line..but the dems are questioning a college prank as per the same women who opened her mouth to begin with?

Posted by: short1 | October 19, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

look boy, you made a factually inaccurate statement. Now you're dodging.

Not even a nice try.

Grow up. Soon.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 19, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Crazy Randy Paul is trying to appear as if he is calm and in control, but he clearly can't answer these questions and his attacks are obviously passive aggressive attempts at buck passing.

The whiny voice really doesn't help Paul either. You have got to sound manly if you are going to tell your opponent that he should be a man, Paul sounds like a pipsqueak.

Paul came off as being totally defensive. He attacked his opponent for lying while refusing to answer the questiona being asked.

If Paul had been a man of his convictions he would have come clean weeks ago and said that he did this and that his action was wrong and he regrets it. But Paul isn't man enough to make that sort of statement so he projects his own cowardice, dishonesty and weakness onto his opponent.

But first and foremost, Conway did not attack Paul's religion. He asked a series of questions about Paul's religion. Conway is not making up these stories about Paul at Baylor. All Paul had to do is say that he never was a member of that group or that it was youthful indiscretion (which I think he has already said). The next question, not shown in this clip of the debate where about Paul's stand on Tax exemptions for Churchs. When put together, it doesn't look good for Paul, not that the Teabagger nutbags are able to make those discernments, but everyone else will.
.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 19, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Damn! I was about to convert to the Aqua Buddha, pot smoking faith! It was a hoax? Damn!

Posted by: johng1 | October 19, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

It is all Bush fault.
What a bunch of wusses. Only those who were not in college could take any of this seriously. Elect socialist because an opponent knows how to have fun and ideas

Posted by: igorkh | October 19, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

attention leftie blowhards rharring and donquixote. this is directly from wiki:
"The charges, perjury, obstruction of justice, and malfeasance in office, arose from the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the Paula Jones lawsuit."

got anything else you wanna lie about?

I didn't think so.

As others have noted you guys would rather talk about anything other than the dreadful state of America today.

why not man up and admit that liberalism has failed us and that the American people, an impatient lot to be sure, are throwing your bums (and some RINOS too) out?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 19, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

The most interesting revelation is that, well, Rand Paul is actually Randy Paul. That is fun.

The second most interesting thing is this: Conway's people -- or at least most mainstream Democrats -- don't care about Randy Paul's college behavior so much as they care about damaging Randy Paul with his religious base.

And if you can convince these people that Paul is a fraud who thinks Christianity is a cult, you can get 'em to stay home. It's very Rovian. I'm not saying it will work but I do think it reminds me of Rove and the 2004 Kerry campaign.

Posted by: teoandchive1 | October 19, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing,

I got your boy hanging son. Again dodging the question, i didnt lie. So why dont you answer why the GOP didnt do any investigations of their own from 01-08, or is that Wiki link broken???

Posted by: rharring | October 19, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing says:

"why not man up and admit that liberalism has failed us"

If you knew what liberalism was i might take you serious. But since your only form of research is Wiki, which by the way ANYBODY can update, your post has about as much substance as you do, which i ZERO.....

Posted by: rharring | October 19, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

The Kennedy family humiliated and even drowned women - but it never kept them out of public office. People frequently change after twenty years. Quite a few even mature.

Kentucky politics sure do to get awfully nasty, especially when the U.S. Senate is up for grabs.

Posted by: alance | October 19, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

IF you read the GQ article you get a better flavor of the context of this prank.

It was role play, acting out, a prank; not something evil. But the fact are correct in the ad even if the tone is off.

Randy was a nerdy libertarian wise guy atheist probably following after his name sake Ayn Rand.

Posted by: erik1 | October 19, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

When it's Obama running for president, then the Democrat dominated media wants his past whitewashed or hidden. When Rand Paul runs for Senate, we get treated to 24/7 discussion on MSNBC about how an insignificant college prank reveals a serious and lifelong character defect.

Actually, Aqua Buddha sounds kind of creative and cool. Rand should have put it on a T-shirt or started a cult which couldn't have been any dumber than Christian Science or Islam, doctrinally speaking.

But I digress. The election is all about the economy, you big silly.

Posted by: greg3 | October 19, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

OK, so let's be sure we've got the context right. We have a self identified cocaine user in the white house, yet the left is undies in a wad about a college prank.
I think that accurately describes the situation.

Posted by: skipsailing28
________________________________________
Yes, the President "divulged" his cocaine use in a book he wrote in his early 30's. He made some mistakes, so what? Alcohol (a la Bush Jr.) is just as dangerous as cocaine. The problem is that Rand has not, in the vernacular of the far right, "manned up" to his "college excesses."

Posted by: seaduck2001 | October 19, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

The relevance of the ad? I don't know, but at least it is based in reality- e.g. information- as opposed to the Swift Boat campaign of flat out lies- e.g. disinformation- that unseated Kerry and directly resulted in 8 years of policy that has nearly sunk the nation.

Posted by: alika | October 19, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

She says, "I have a hard time seeing how someone who espouses beliefs that he used to would turn around and become a conservative Christian."
-------------
Is she saying that people's views do not change? What about St. Paul who used to be extremely anti-Jesus? What about St. Augustine who asked God for chastity but "not yet"?

Radical changes in beliefs are quite common. But certainly Rand Paul should acknowledge his.

Unfortunately we have got used to not looking at good things about politicians in the present, but at bad things in their past.

If this is our criterion, then why not just elect heads of lettuce for the Senate and the House? No virtues, but no vices either.

We should be asking more often what is good about a candidate NOW, and ask less often about what silly thing they did 20 years ago.

Posted by: rjpal | October 19, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Radical changes in beliefs are quite common. But certainly Rand Paul should acknowledge his. Unfortunately we have got used to not looking at good things about politicians in the present, but at bad things in their past. If this is our criterion, then why not just elect heads of lettuce for the Senate and the House? No virtues, but no vices either. We should be asking more often what is good about a candidate NOW, and ask less often about what silly thing they did 20 years ago.
Posted by: rjpal
______________________________________
Let me preface this comment with a disclaimer - I'm not making fun at all of what you said. I just about fell off my chair, however, laughing at your "heads of lettuce" reference. Good one.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | October 19, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

I would have to go along with the woman that was there. My personal views have changed over the years too. I used to be a republican until I finally put the pieces together and discovered they speak very little truth and run on a hidden agenda of special interest. I can best describe their position with this famous Quote from Gingrich on the campaign trail against Clinton and the best TRUE economic gain in the history of the country, fuel by a responsible economic plan and president. And I Quote, "American's are just going to have to learn, their not going to have it so good". unquote. By Newt Gingrich with B.Dole at his side on the campaign trail to unseat President Clinton from a second term.
And then along came Bush and now American's will never have it so good again! But then the republicans can always put the spin on it and blame it on the democrats like they always do!
You want to get on with the real depression? Vote the republicans back into control!

Posted by: kimkimminni1 | October 19, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Separation of Church and state as such is NOT in the constitution.

The constitution only talks about not establishing a religion. Whether we want to say that it also implies no CONNECTION between the state and religion, then that is stretching it. Some of us may have now come to think of that stretching as legitimate just as they have come to think of Jefferson as the sole author of the constitution.

But in fact the constitution did have other authors, and Jefferson's views are merely ONE way of interpreting it.

Certainly the constitution would forbid the US to be like Pakistan (our "ally") which declares itself an Islamic Republic.

But what about milder examples like Germany which collects taxes from its citizens on behalf of various churches?

From the Wikipedia: "Church tax is a tax imposed on members of some religious congregations in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Sweden and some parts of Switzerland."

Perhaps such a practice could be held compatible with the US constitution since none of these countries have a single established church.

American liberals have come to acquire the belief that the US constitution is their property and only their interpretation is legitimate. But perhaps they are mistaken.

I do not want assert that O'Donnell is a constitutional scholar - it seems rather unlikely. But her particular views here do not conflict with the constitution, only with the liberal interpretation of it.

Posted by: rjpal | October 19, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Separation of Church and state as such is NOT in the constitution.

The constitution only talks about not establishing a religion. Whether we want to say that it also implies no CONNECTION between the state and religion, then that is stretching it. Some of us may have now come to think of that stretching as legitimate just as they have come to think of Jefferson as the sole author of the constitution.

But in fact the constitution did have other authors, and Jefferson's views are merely ONE way of interpreting it.

Certainly the constitution would forbid the US to be like Pakistan (our "ally") which declares itself an Islamic Republic.

But what about milder examples like Germany which collects taxes from its citizens on behalf of various churches?

From the Wikipedia: "Church tax is a tax imposed on members of some religious congregations in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Sweden and some parts of Switzerland."

Perhaps such a practice could be held compatible with the US constitution since none of these countries have a single established church.

American liberals have come to acquire the belief that the US constitution is their property and only their interpretation is legitimate. But perhaps they are mistaken.

I do not want assert that O'Donnell is a constitutional scholar - it seems rather unlikely. But her particular views here do not conflict with the constitution, only with the liberal interpretation of it.

Posted by: rjpal | October 19, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, like the rest of the tea baggers, all he has to do is answer the question. Taht he will take that advice, especially coming from a woman, UNLIKELY!

Posted by: 2Funny | October 19, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Pleaseeeee,
Who hasn't done mischeivious, stupid things in college or highschool. People change dramatically after either of these. Beliefs change, you can have liberal idealogy in college and hs and then become a staunch conservative once you've matured or visa versa. Once you have a family you change. You grow up and see the world in a different light. Give Paul a break, I'd like to know who paid the Budda woman off, just in time for elections.

Posted by: drestarre | October 19, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

rjpal says:

"But her particular views here do not conflict with the constitution, only with the liberal interpretation of it."

Funny how the US Supreme Court has upheld the separation of church and stated time and time again. I guess they were liberal also.

Posted by: rharring | October 19, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Jack 'rat' Conway is a sleazy lawyer, Vote the Scum out and keep him away from the checkbook

Posted by: VoteThemOutPlease | October 19, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

How bright can this woman be. She wants to remain anonymous, but reveals that she was on the swim team at Baylor and is now a clinical psychologist. Hopefully, someone with an above-average IQ (a.k.a.. not a liberal) will be able to ID her.

Posted by: TraderB | October 19, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI made me laugh out loud ("HA!") with that first post: "Perhaps the most damaging thing for Paul in all of this, in terms of his Tea Party base, is the revelation that he went to college. That's a stigma he'll have a hard time living down with that crowd. He might as well have been a ballet dancer."

Posted by: dognabbit | October 19, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

1st: Who is this woman, we ought to know her name!

Posted by: houston123 | October 19, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Hey, journolista....hahaha this is just like you unethical writer wantabe's....ok if this raises questions then so does rev write and obama....lets see you write a scathing article about them....oh you can't... because you don't want to bring attention to your guy...no matter how unethical and untruthful you are....geezzzz

journolister journolister liar liar...

Posted by: tinkerthinker | October 20, 2010 12:52 AM | Report abuse

This came from a Politico piece on October 12,2010:
A fellow NoZe brother, William John Green, said he couldn't recall whether Paul made specific contributions to the group's newsletter, The Rope � which he called a "collective effort." But he said Paul would have been involved in its production and familiar with its stance toward religion, including "a strong subversive anti-Christian strain."


"Randy smoked pot, he made fun of Baptists, none of us ever heard him pontificating about religion," said Green. "Fundamentalists didn't join our group."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43495.html#ixzz12fcxQaQM


Posted by: baltimorecaudills | October 20, 2010 2:27 AM | Report abuse

It was a college prank! Get over it, lunatic lefties. By the way, MANY people mock Christianity as unbelievers and later embrace Christianity. This is a VERY COMMON EXPERIENCE, not anything sinister. Been happening since Christ walked the earth. This is not news, it is just a mud-slinging fest and Conway looked ashamed when Rand Paul called him out during the debate. This whole story is just lame.

Posted by: lisaaitken | October 20, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Watergate: It wasn't the break in as much as it was the cover up, denials and lies that took Nixon down.

AquaBuddhagate: It wasn't the act 29 years ago as much as it is the cover up, denials and lies that are taking Rand Paul down.

While Paul throws the female victim under the bus, where are all the TP women to defend her? Where is Sarah Palin????

Posted by: DMDMD56 | October 20, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Rand Paul to Laura Ingram:
We did a lot of pranks and things in college. Everybody thought we were nurds.
I really have no memory of this AquaBuddha incident.
No memory of this incident?! So it did happen.
No memory, as in Short Term and Remote Memoory loss from hitting the bong? How about selective memory loss? What about "blocking"?
Try a definitive, "It never happened!" Of course that ultimately may prove to be a lie. Right?
Why won't you stand against ALL acts of violence against women regardless of the situation, Rand Paul? Why won't you publically condemn all mysogenous acts of violence or hazing?
My daughter takes the Bully Pledge every morning.
Were you a bully, Rand Paul? Are you one now?

Posted by: DMDMD56 | October 20, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Paul like so many other politicians have not learned it is the cover up that will bring you down. You lied Paul,it did happen and now you want to make it all go away without being accountable and say you are sorry. You are unfit to be A U.S. Senator

Posted by: johnnyk1 | October 20, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Paul like so many other politicians have not learned it is the cover up that will bring you down. You lied Paul,it did happen and now you want to make it all go away without being accountable and say you are sorry. You are unfit to be A U.S. Senator

Posted by: johnnyk1 | October 20, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Rjpal wrote:
"Unfortunately we have got used to not looking at good things about politicians in the present, but at bad things in their past."

What good things are you talking about from Rand Paul? Isn't he kind of a far right wing, the government is always wrong type of guy? Isn't his response to the market failure in health care to give the insurance companies even more market power? Wasn't he saying that we were wrong to use government solutions to combat racial discrimination?

All I've really heard about him is that he took some far out stands in the primary and now he is walking them back for the general election--not an odd occurrence, but one that makes him a typical politician. Now we here that he is kind of slippery on religious beliefs.

What this all seems to add up to is the social condition that rj called lettuce head or may dung brain is a better description either way it's not a way to change things for the better.

Posted by: ThomasFiore | October 20, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Kentucky Senate (Bennett Petts Normington--D):
Jack Conway (D) 49%, Rand Paul (R) 47%


This reflects the first poll lead for Conway in the entire race.

Posted by: DMDMD56 | October 20, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

If Kentuckians cannot figure out that this Ayn Randian objectivist could not possibly have done an extreme 180 and become a conservative Christian, they deserve everything they get from him.

Some people want so badly to be lied to that it's painful to watch. Anyone with a clue can see how "heartfelt" his play at being one of them is. Sad to watch how easily gulled these conservative Christian voters are. And all so that Paul can get in office and enact policies that hurt them financially.

Posted by: B2O2 | October 20, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse


Look how the Media are in PANIC MODE grasping at straws to hurt Paul. They're turning over every rock to find his college classmates and find out all they can about a school prank.

But Obama's past ? Nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.

PLEASE DISCOUNT THESE MEDIA VERMIN.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Posted by: notinga | October 20, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

I agree the add was accurate but over the top in context. Instead of Rand Paul refusing to shake hand after the debate and show self righteous indignation, he should have said "It's OK Jack (Conway), don't worry, I will not make you pledge to Aqua Buddah". Most people would have had a good chuckle, and most people would have went forward". Instead, everyone looks like a bunch of kooks.

Posted by: Madsenms | October 21, 2010 1:07 AM | Report abuse

I know people would like to forget the past as if it does not matter but that is only convenient. We all do dumb things but most dumb things are done to other people. Those people often time remember those things that were done to them and it shapes their adult lives and often for the worse. Anyone remember what Bush did to John McCain during the 2000 campaign (fathered illegitimate child crap) election. Did anyone notice how he has changed since then? Democrats will probably lose many seats because they do not hit as hard as Republicans do.

Republicans have been calling the President all kind of names since he was elected. I understand they wanted their guy to win but he lost fair and square (with no smears). There is no reason the disrespect (Joe Wilson “You Lie” outburst) the office of the President. Both parties have done things but it has gotten much worse since Barack Obama. Now Jack Conway is willing to hit as hard as the Republicans have and Republicans want to cry foul and below the belt. How often have they said that when it was their colleague doing the same things? Does "Death Panels" ring a bell? Did Rand Paul denounce that false mis-characterization, Nope? No Republicans did, they just parroted the words for political gain (hey it's working). Sometimes you have to fight "Fire with Fire". Republicans are trying to manipulate the “Tea Parties” anger but the only problem is they are losing their “Good Ole Boys” seats in the process.

If they keep the Tea Pot too hot they will get burned or should I say are getting burned. If both partied do not learn to work together for all the people this country is doomed. If the Republicans get what they want they will also have to share the blame of the country failing. A losing party should not expect to be able to control the Presidents agenda, but they can help guide it. A 49/51 mix sounds good to me. Now all you politicians get in the “Sand Box” and learn how to play/work together. Either we all win or we all lose cause we are only Nation. We all know a divided Nation will fall. Right now we need every helping hand on board.

Posted by: Casuall | October 21, 2010 1:14 AM | Report abuse

Casuall, I agree.

I remember back in the election of 2002. A republican, Saxby Chambliss, was challenging then Senator Max Cleland. Chambliss ran an ad with the pictures of Hussain & Bin Laden and asserted that Max Cleland lacked courage in the face of Hussain, Bin Laden, & terrorism.

It did not make a difference to the republicans and Chambliss that Max Cleland give three limbs on the battlefield for his country in Vietnam.

Posted by: Madsenms | October 21, 2010 1:26 AM | Report abuse

Rand Paul, do you remember 1989?
Google David Duke, Grand Wizard of the Knights of the KKK, and enter Duke's STORMFRONT's web site to familiarize yourself with your core supporters. Back in 1989 you and your dad actively campaigned for Duke in Baton Rouge, Louisiana during Duke's campaign for the LA House.
Look up Adam Kokesh and the videos of Kokesh and you. Ain't pretty. The conduct is downright seditious. Tie it all together at Liberty Forrest which reveals East European Aryan nationalist support for your dad and you.
Do you remember 2010, in your primary campaign, when White Supremacist supporters freely passed out their literature while you spoke in Frankfort and your dad held his little fundraiser for you at the KY Expo Center?
If your memory is so poor for such significant details of your life then I find you incompitant to hold the office to which you aspire.

Posted by: DMDMD56 | October 21, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Rand Paul, do you remember 1989?
Google David Duke, Grand Wizard of the Knights of the KKK, and enter Duke's STORMFRONT's web site to familiarize yourself with your core supporters. Back in 1989 you and your dad actively campaigned for Duke in Baton Rouge, Louisiana during Duke's campaign for the LA House.
Look up Adam Kokesh and the videos of Kokesh and you. Ain't pretty. The conduct is downright seditious. Tie it all together at Liberty Forrest which reveals East European Aryan nationalist support for your dad and you.
Do you remember 2010, in your primary campaign, when White Supremacist supporters freely passed out their literature while you spoke in Frankfort and your dad held his little fundraiser for you at the KY Expo Center?
If your memory is so poor for such significant details of your life then I find you incompitant to hold the office to which you aspire.

Posted by: DMDMD56 | October 21, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Rand Paul, do you remember 1989?
Google David Duke, Grand Wizard of the Knights of the KKK, and enter Duke's STORMFRONT's web site to familiarize yourself with your core supporters. Back in 1989 you and your dad actively campaigned for Duke in Baton Rouge, Louisiana during Duke's campaign for the LA House.
Look up Adam Kokesh and the videos of Kokesh and you. Ain't pretty. The conduct is downright seditious. Tie it all together at Liberty Forrest which reveals East European Aryan nationalist support for your dad and you.
Do you remember 2010, in your primary campaign, when White Supremacist supporters freely passed out their literature while you spoke in Frankfort and your dad held his little fundraiser for you at the KY Expo Center?
If your memory is so poor for such significant details of your life then I find you incompitant to hold the office to which you aspire.

Posted by: DMDMD56 | October 21, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

I apologize for the triple posts above. I'm just getting used to your system.
Here's an interesting analysis of Rand Paul's attack on Conway's family.
http://www.lisagraas.com/2010/10/jack-conway-didnt-attack-anyones-family.html

Posted by: DMDMD56 | October 21, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company