Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Jack Conway campaign denies ad questioned Rand Paul's faith

The Jack Conway campaign, which has taken heat today from some Democrats and liberals who say his new ad slamming Rand Paul crosses a line into questioning his religion, sends over a statement asserting that this wasn't the intention of the ad at all, and that the spot merely questioned Paul's "actions, not his faith":

"Rand Paul can huff and puff all he wants, but he needs to answer for his actions, not his faith: Why he joined a secret society after the President of Baylor University banned it because it 'made fun of not only the Baptist religion, but Christianity and Christ.' Rand Paul needs to answer why a woman said Paul 'blindfolded me, tied me up...told me their god was 'Aqua Buddha' and that I needed to bow down and worship him.'"

The Conway ad quotes from my article interviewing the woman who was the victim of that whole "Aqua Buddha" affair, and holds up that episode as one of its key examples. So, a couple of quick points.

First, Rand Paul is now essentially claiming that this episode never happened, but in fact, the woman in question did allege it to me and to GQ's Jason Zengerle. At the Kentucky Senate debate yesterday, Paul lectured Conway as follows: "Don't make up stuff about me from college."

But this stuff isn't, as it happens, really made up. The narrator in Conway's ad says: "Why did Rand Paul once tie a woman up, tell her to bow down before a false idol, and say his God was Aqua Buddha'?"

The woman who claimed to be the victim of this hoax did tell me that she was tied up by Rand and a partner, adding that they "took me out to this creek and made me worship Aqua Buddha." She didn't tell me she was asked to "bow down," or that he referred to Aqua Buddha as his God, but she did say those things to Zengerle.

So Paul is clearly wrong to be accusing Conway of making up this episode. That said, I don't see how anyone can claim the ad -- particularly its claim about a "false idol" -- is not an effort to raise doubts about Paul's faith. The innuendo seems absurdly clear.

Now, maybe you think that in a hard fought campaign season, particularly one in which Republicans have lobbed no shortage of sleazy claims, it's defensible to pull out all the stops, as Conway has done here. But anyone who wants to defend the ad is also in effect defending the ad's clear intent, which seems overwhelmingly obvious.


By Greg Sargent  | October 18, 2010; 3:10 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Many Chamber ads attacking House Dems contain debunked falsehoods, distortions
Next: Sharron Angle: My ads aren't referring to Mexico, except when they clearly are

Comments

This has been the most amazing year for campaign advertisements. I have never seen anything like it.

Posted by: sbj3 | October 18, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

"Now, maybe you think that in a hard fought campaign season, particularly one in which Republicans have lobbed no shortage of sleazy claims, it's defensible to pull out all the stops, as Conway has done here."

That's entirely defensible. It's just good to keep in mind that not all negative ads are created equal. Simply slinging mud doesn't do any good if it doesn't hit its intended target. And given the implicit "You idiots care about this stuff, right? Well, here you are, hayseeds. Now, vote for me. Morons" may just be something I detect . . . but it may also be something some Kentucky voters detect, as well. Negative ads work--that's why politicians use them--but they can also backfire.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 18, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Steve Benen weighed in on this yesterday, bemoaning that Conway wasn't instead attacking Paul's insane support for a 23% VAT. I'll say the same here that I did there: you campaign on the "issues" your voters care about, not the ones they SHOULD care about or the ones you WISH they cared about.

The fact is, you can't reach someone who's thinking about voting for Rand Paul with a logical or reasonable argument, because they aren't logical or reasonable. If they were, they wouldn't consider voting for Rand Paul.

I agree it would be nice if campaigns were about things that mattered. Unfortunately, for a wide swath of the populace in this country, they aren't about things that matter but rather about who agrees to hate the same people and make their lives a living hell or who believes in the same unprovable things the voter believes in. This ad is clearly intended to raise doubts about Paul in the minds of religious voters.

Gee, what a shame. Maybe it would be out-of-bounds if Paul's party hadn't been reading from the same playbook for the past 30 years. Since they have, they've got no reason to complain when the same tactics are turned against them.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 18, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I agree with you, Greg. The ad could raise questions about Paul's maturity, his disregard for rules, his treatment of women, his lack of seriousness. But Conway elected to go for the ignorance vote, hoping that the phrase "false idol" would scare a few bible thumpers out there into thinking he was a crazy paganist rather than a stoned frat boy. (As if his god were really Aqua Buddha! They were on a swim team, right?)

Maybe Conway's move will help him a bit, but I doubt it. Its an unimpressive move, though if it works and he wins, I'll be happy no doubt.

Posted by: mercerreader | October 18, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

re 23% VAT:

"Democratic lawmakers struggling to find support from a skeptical electorate are using a Republican tactic to win votes by claiming their opponents will raise taxes if elected into office.

"... Many of these ads neglect to mention the levy is essentially a national sales tax that would replace the current federal tax system... FactCheck.org recently slammed the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) for running ads that omitted this fact.

“... It’s misrepresenting by omission of the FairTax idea,” FactCheck.org director Brooks Jackson told The Hill."

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/124583-dem-ads-against-gop-not-accurately-portraying-fairtax-proposal

Posted by: sbj3 | October 18, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

54465446

She is right - the black boxes have been installed at the New York Stock Exchange.

In fact, the split-seconds are so important to these supercomputers, the speed of the electrons and light in the fiber-optic cables has been at issue.

Those with the black boxes have asked to be closer to the main computer of the New York Stock Exchange.

What to do ???

You may not believe this, but the New York Stock Exchange has moved to a place called Mahwah, New Jersey. Mahwah does rhyme. It is an old indian name. It is also the home of a wild indian-black tribe called the Jackson Whites, descendents of freed slaves and native Americans who live in huts in the woods.

Yes, it is all true.

In Mahwah, New Jersey, the New York Stock Exchange has placed its main computer, and they have started to rent out spaces in the same building to owners of black boxes seeking to get as close as possible to the main Exchange computer.

The main floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Wall and Broad is now pretty insignificant.

The center of the financial universe, the center of world capitalism, is now Mahwah, New Jersey.

I suppose the original idea was the terrorists could bomb the Stock Exchange building and the trading did not have to miss a beat.

Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 18, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

sbj: LOL as if the US is going to enact a national sales tax.

FairTax = pablum for dum-dums.

Posted by: Observer691 | October 18, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

This ad is an admission that substance is irrelevant. In an age where 50% of Republican voters can be frightened into supporting the interests of multi-nationals over America, when those folks believe that Obama is a Muslim, and that we were attacked by Iraqis on 9-11, there is no way to talk about issues. You have to out-con the con-men. Bottom line is that unfortunately, your message can never be too base, and you can never-never, overestimate the intelligence of the 2010 voter.

Posted by: whereareweandwhatarewedoinginthishandbasket | October 18, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

@Observer: "sbj: LOL as if the US is going to enact a national sales tax."

LOL - I know! And the Dems are spending money running against it! Dum-dums.

Posted by: sbj3 | October 18, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Jenn from Arkansas writes:

I agree it would be nice if campaigns were about things that mattered. Unfortunately, for a wide swath of the populace in this country, they aren't about things that matter but rather about who agrees to hate the same people

_______________________________


This is basically correct. However the reason for this is the democratic party, which has done nothing but this for over a hundred years.

The democrats are the ones who aligned themselves with the KKK, and wrote the Jim Crow laws.

The democrats allowed the KKK to control delegates at the Democratic National Conventions.

That is all true.

The democrats have only changed WHO they hate. Now they hate anyone who does not agree with their far-left agenda.

The name-calling and the hostility is way out of control.

Unfortunately, your postings are evidence. Why in the world do you comment the way you do? You are not mature. You are rude. And you are showing a complete lack of class.


Thank you for reading.

Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 18, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

I'm of two minds on this. On one hand I deplore nasty attacks and this one clearly is. Yet OTOH in a campaign season where the Repubs have lied about just about everything under the sun (death panels, Obama marxist, Obama muslim, Obama BC, they are taking away your medicare, unemployed people are lazy...), I find it hard to muster much sympathy for the Tea Party ilk this year. IMO, if you make a bed of fleas don't be surprised if you have to sleep in it.

Posted by: Alex3 | October 18, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

While generally sympathetic to this line of reasoning, I have to ask where is all the media outrage when conservative attack ads make equally, if not more, outrageous claims on even flimsier evidence, if any at all? Conway's ad is weak sauce comparatively and is only news because it came from a Democrat.

Posted by: kmy042 | October 18, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

With the exception of one ad where his mother spoke kindly of him.."He's a good boy" Rick Scott has run NOTHING but negative ads both in the primary and the general. The ENTIRE CofC and Rove campaign coffers have been emptied on NEGATIVE advertising. Do the R's really expect the D's to simply say...OK..you take the low road and sleaze your way into office while we take the high road and lose? Politics has become sleazy...and until we the people simply hit the mute button for ALL POLITICAL :30 & :60 TV and radio ads it will remain that way.

I accept that Conway's ad plays on a % of the populace's fear of "false idols". If they are stupid enough to fall for that...shame on them. The salient point is that Paul had some critical lapses in judgment as a young man. Again some people will be moved by that..others will forgive and forget.

The point that is being overlooked however is that this race has always been Paul's to lose. Conway may have baited Paul into a silly confrontation that he could have simply ignored. Certainly Conway is getting a HUGE amount of publicity and Paul came across as a snotty little wimp who got his feefees hurt. A "normal" R would have won this race by double digits...let's see what happens election day.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 18, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Jack tried last night saying he wasn't questioning Rand Paul's faith, too, and got hooted by the crowd. No one is buying that.

Posted by: sailingaway1 | October 18, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I see STRF has changed his name once again.
At least he is no longer triple spacing, that's an improvement. And when Adam posts Joke stays away...another MAJOR improvement.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 18, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Also, Paul never said whether the 'episode' occured he said the ad, in its entirety is a lie. You just confirmed that you agree.

Posted by: sailingaway1 | October 18, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Paul is an acolyte of Ayn Rand who was an atheist, and presumably named after her as well. These two guys are campaigning in a state that still have fundamentalist Christian snake handling cults in the eastern part of the state. Conway putting out doubts about the sincereity of Paul's faith seems to me SOP for Kentucky, whereas it would fall flat in CA or MA.
Go get em Jack!

Posted by: filmnoia | October 18, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

whereareweandwhatarewedoinginthishandbasket

Please re-read Obama platform from 2008 and tell me who the con man is.

Obama stood up at the debates and clearly stated he would fight the Afghan War.

Obama then spend months trying to get the Pentagon not to fight the Afghan War, but to get out of the Afghan War.

And the list can go on and on.

Obama went to West Point, of all places, and supplied the enemy with a pull-out date. Pretty stupid. The cadets in the room were amazed that they would have to put their lives on the line when they could clearly see from one speech that Obama had no idea what he was doing.

Yea.

Needless to say, Al Queda is reportedly now going back into Afghanistan, taking up positions and waiting for Obama to leave.

Same for Iraq, Obama has been undoing all the progress made by Bush's Surge. Obama is purposely undoing all the advances.

This is as if Obama ordered Patton to stop his advance on Germany, and instead demanded that the American troops head by to Normandy and leave the continent.

Obama is retreating. Al Queda can see it.

Times Square on May 1 was a warning. As with the Massachusetts election, Obama doesn't listen to the obvious.

Obama continues to make the same mistake.

Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 18, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

ALSO, how do you defend Conway doing this because some other candidate somewhere else did something? Rand has run a completely clean campaign. For months the press would report near daily 'Rand Paul never mentioned his opponent by name or inference.....'

Posted by: sailingaway1 | October 18, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

@sailing "and got hooted by the crowd."

No one here...left or right has ever disputed that the teabaggers have the loudest mouths in any room.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 18, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Just amazing. the lefties here continue with their condescencion.

I think Eric Hoffer can explain this. True believers reach the conclusion that their dogma explains everything.

Liberal true believers firmly believe that the liberal agenda explains everything. central to that dogma is the belief that liberalism is the result of enlightened thought. Therefore those of us who reject the liberal dogma, in whole or even in part, are viewed as unenlightened.

The dynamics of this are interesting.The liberals need an explanation. Why would America reject their agenda? It can only be because of some mental defect. Why? Because the dogma explains that liberalism is the result of enlightened thought.

it is bigotry at its finest. Especially because liberals don't even realize how bigoted they are.
so when the public turns on them

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 18, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

The crowd that was explicitly told and reminded multiple times to keep quiet during the debate to let the candidates speak. Not surprisingly, the TP'ers think manners are an unconstitutional mandate.

To the specifics. (1) The advertisement does not attack Rand Paul's religion, but a few things he did during college. Paul's defense is as deceitful as the ad. (2) The ad is a low blow. He joined a frat during college. That doesn't make him anti-Christian anymore than having been in the Boy Scouts makes one anti-gay. The other thing is odd.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 18, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

"Paul is an acolyte of Ayn Rand who was an atheist, and presumably named after her as well."

That's what I thought, too, but Rand Paul was not named after Ayn Rand. Though, naturally, I can't remember where his name (Rand) did come from. Anyone know?

Posted by: wbgonne | October 18, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

"The fact is, you can't reach someone who's thinking about voting for Rand Paul with a logical or reasonable argument, because they aren't logical or reasonable. If they were, they wouldn't consider voting for Rand Paul."
-------

Same thing I said about the morons who voted for Obama; but he still won. In this case, Paul handed Conway his head in the debate and went home with a double digit lead in the polls. Conway went home in shame, with his finger up his arse and a big smile on his face. Typical lying D-bagger.

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Someone asked on an earlier thread for someone to identify the core beliefs of the tea baggers. Kevin Drum posted what seems to be a pretty good answer:

The modern, tea party-inflected conservative movement is based on a few core principles. Global warming is a hoax. Income inequality hasn't been growing. Tax cuts don't increase the deficit. America has the best healthcare in the world. Evolution is a myth. The economy is weak because of regulatory uncertainty. Barack Obama is a socialist.

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/10/life-bubble

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 18, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of having one's arse up his head:

RCP Average 9/21 - 10/6 -- 47.0 41.7 Paul +5.3
CN|2/Braun Research 10/4 - 10/6 826 LV 43 40 Paul +3
Rasmussen Reports 9/29 - 9/29 500 LV 49 38 Paul +11
SurveyUSA 9/21 - 9/23 611 LV 49 47 Paul +2
See All Kentucky Senate - Paul vs. Conway Polling Data

Rasmussen keeps trying to pull up that poll average. He keeps failing.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 18, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

"Same thing I said about the morons who voted for Obama..."

Yeah, but the difference is, you were wrong.

Voting against one's self-interest is both irrational and illogical. Kentucky is a poor state. Poor people who vote for a candidate who thinks we need to do away with Social Security and Medicare are not voting in their own self-interest. Hence, they are irrational and illogical.

People who voted for Obama did so because they agreed we needed reform of the health care system, more investment in education, etc. Those things are in the interests of middle class and low-income voters; hence for them to vote for someone who advocates for those priorities is NOT a vote against their own self-interest and is neither irrational nor illogical.

Not that you would be able to tell the difference, being neither rational nor logical yourself.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 18, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

mercerreader wrote,
"I agree with you, Greg. The ad could raise questions about Paul's maturity, his disregard for rules, his treatment of women, his lack of seriousness. But Conway elected to go for the ignorance vote."
------

In your case, he seems to have hit the mark. Why would anybody believe the babblings of this woman? Was she related to Lucy Ramirez? Did she present any supporting evidence? How did Conway's campaign find her and how much was she paid? This is simply an unsubstantiated charge that only a partisan idiot would believe without some corroboration. Paul denies it.
Compared to this, the swiftboat charges against John Kerry, unrebutted by Kerry, were pure, unvarnished truth in every respect. Unfortunately for Dems, the charges against Kerry stuck. Conway's ad only makes him look like a petty, hateful fool---which is what he probably is. Certainly a perfect illustration of the word "loser."

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

"I can't remember where his name (Rand) did come from. Anyone know?"

I think his name is "Randal" and he has chosen (as an adult) to use Rand.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 18, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Off topic.

Two pieces I bumped into this morning reveal pretty blatantly how phony Dick Armey and the Tea Party rebranding project really are.

First, from Cato...

"Taking his cue from Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe’s claim in their new book, Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto, that tea partiers “just want to be free, … so long as we don’t infringe on the same freedom of others"
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/overstating-differences-within-the-tea-party/

And this blog noting what Armey said last night on Hannity...

"On Sean Hannity's show last night, Dick Armey listed Mitch Daniels, Mike Pence, and Jim DeMint as fiscally conservative Presidential candidates he could back."
http://www.gop12.com/2010/10/armeys-army.html

Jim DeMint as "don't infringe on others' freedoms" paradigm. DeMint who wants to ban gays and unwed mothers from teaching. DeMint who's a member of C Street which supports an African regimes plans to execute gays.

Now there's a freedom-loving, non-impinger-on-others'-rights guy if I ever saw one.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 18, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

FairTax = pablum for dum-dums.

Posted by: Observer691 | October 18, 2010 3:44 PM
-----

Right up your alley, huh?

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

GOOD FOR YOU, JACK CONWAY!

Right now, the Republicans write the rules but only the Democrats have to follow them. Eliot Spitzer's out of a job, but David Vitter is sitting pretty. John Edwards is a pariah, but John Ensign is Nevada's junior senator.

I'm a democrat who can never run for office because I can't pass these litmus tests. But if I were a Republican, I'd be fine. It's ridiculous that we are allowing the other side to write rules that only we have to follow!

Good for Jack Conway! He's demanding that Rand Paul be held to the same standard he is being held to. If you think it's an unfair standard, take it up with the freaking Republicans!!!

Posted by: theorajones1 | October 18, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

This seems sort of weak as far as negative ads go. I mean there's negative and there's then there's down right ugly. Consequently I've added Jack Conway to our actblue page. LOL

http://www.actblue.com/page/plcommunity

Posted by: lmsinca | October 18, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Sorry about the extra there's :)

Posted by: lmsinca | October 18, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

When did Paul deny the Aqua Buddha story, Brigade? The only denial I ever saw was a complaint regarding the term "kidnapped."

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 18, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

This ad is an admission that substance is irrelevant. In an age where 50% of Republican voters can be frightened into supporting the interests of multi-nationals over America, when those folks believe that Obama is a Muslim, and that we were attacked by Iraqis on 9-11, there is no way to talk about issues. You have to out-con the con-men. Bottom line is that unfortunately, your message can never be too base, and you can never-never, overestimate the intelligence of the 2010 voter.

Posted by: whereareweandwhatarewedoinginthishandbasket | October 18, 2010 3:46 PM |
------

Do you ever find it a bit strange or ironic that Republicans, ostensibly the party of the rich, have so much money and so much power and yet are continually called stupid by the left? On the other hand, the welfare recipients and inner-city po'folks, who vote overwhelming Democratic yet never have a pot to pee in, are among the enlightened ones. Go figure.

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

IMO, if you make a bed of fleas don't be surprised if you have to sleep in it.

Posted by: Alex3 | October 18, 2010 3:52 PM
------

And that's right where Conway will be sleeping. Dingy Harry too, judging from the latest poll.

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

How long until Angle denies this ever happened:

As more of the video surfaces from GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle's meeting last week with Rancho High School's Hispanic kids, the more bizarre it gets. Elsewhere on this blog, I have posted the video of her claiming an infamous still she and Louisiana Sen. David Vitter used in an ad, an incendiary image of Hispanic thugs, may not have been an image of Hispanics. That was nutty enough. But at the same meeting, according to video I have obtained and taken by one of the Hispanic students, she said some of the kids looked more Asian.

Strange? You be the judge.

"So that’s what we want is a secure and sovereign nation and, you know, I don’t know that all of you are Latino. Some of you look a little more Asian to me. I don’t know that. [Note: it's the Hispanic Student Union. The whole room is Hispanic teenagers.] What we know, what we know about ourselves is that we are a melting pot in this country. My grandchildren are evidence of that. I’m evidence of that. I’ve been called the first Asian legislator in our Nevada State Assembly."

That last comment, about her being called the first Asian legislator? I have no idea what she is talking about

UPDATE: The Angle campaign says she made that remark about being the first Asian legislator because "a reporter thought she looked Asian." OK.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2010/oct/18/angle-hispanic-children-some-you-look-little-more-/

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 18, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Those welfare recipients and inner-city po'folks at least have enough sense to know who's against them, which is better than I can say about the redneck welfare recipients and rural bufords who continue to vote for people who rape them.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 18, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Overheard on the phone this morning...a frantic call from Christine O'Donnell's campaign advisors to the Paul campaign.

"You need to run a TV spot immediately! Simply start off...I did not worship Aqua Buddha...I'm you.......

Of course in good ole Ky. Rand would be better off saying...I'm you and yeah I did inhale when I took that hit from Aqua Buddha. Ky. grows some of the finest recreational hemp in the land up in them thar mountains. It's replacing moonshine as the "drug" of choice. Alas Meth labs are beginning to overtake both "shine" and pot.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 18, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade -- PJ O'Rourke said it best in a recent column:

"Also, why are liberals so convinced that poor people are stupid? Is it because poor people vote for liberals? That is a fair point. But if smart liberals want to find out if poor people are stupid, I suggest that smart liberals go to the worst neighborhood they can find and get in a craps game."

Can't wait to see the exit polls in this race that show this "issue" and the associated ads influenced about 0.0% of voters.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | October 18, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Sure, the Conway ad QUOTES this part of the article


"The whole thing has been blown out of proportion," she told me. "They didn't force me, they didn't make me. They were creating this drama: `We're messing with you.'"

The woman said that much of the subsequent coverage of her allegations missed a key nuance: As a participant in a college ritual, where lines between acquiescence and victimization are often blurry, she was largely playing along with the notion that she was being forced to follow Paul's orders.

"I went along because they were my friends," she said. "There was an implicit degree of cooperation in the whole thing. I felt like I was being hazed."


________________________________

This is the problem with half-truths, and then walking them back - and forward.

Greg, you are now being used by a negative ad campaign - you are now the story

Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 18, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

kmy042 wrote,
"I have to ask where is all the media outrage when conservative attack ads make equally, if not more, outrageous claims on even flimsier evidence, if any at all?"
-----

We certainly know where all the media outrage is directed when fairly well substantiated claims are made against liberals, such as those of the Swiftboaters: its directed at conservatives in foaming-at-the-mouth defense of the liberal. Now when it's an outright lie directed at a conservative, say the Lucy Rameriz memo about G.W. Bush, then the media simply regards the story as true even after all the evidence is proved false.

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Certainly Conway is getting a HUGE amount of publicity and Paul came across as a snotty little wimp who got his feefees hurt. A "normal" R would have won this race by double digits...let's see what happens election day.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 18, 2010 3:58 PM
-----

Actually, Paul gave Conway a verbal bytch-slapping, and Conway just took it and grinned like a moron. And Paul is up by double digits.

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

here is another gem:
============
Those welfare recipients and inner-city po'folks at least have enough sense to know who's against them, which is better than I can say about the redneck welfare recipients and rural bufords who continue to vote for people who rape them.

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

and who is against them? could it be that the Democrat's long term game "rob Peter to pay Paul" is unraveling?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 18, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Paul is an acolyte of Ayn Rand who was an atheist, and presumably named after her as well. These two guys are campaigning in a state that still have fundamentalist Christian snake handling cults in the eastern part of the state. Conway putting out doubts about the sincereity of Paul's faith seems to me SOP for Kentucky, whereas it would fall flat in CA or MA.
Go get em Jack!

Posted by: filmnoia | October 18, 2010 4:02 PM
------

Probably the most telling thing about this race is what it has in common with most of the other 2010 races, an aspect that seems lost on the dimwitted. This race is all about Rand Paul. You never hear anyone give a good reason to vote for the laughing jackass (Conway), even Conway himself. This thread and Conway's ads are all: "I'm not crazy. Vote for me." Good luck with that. Not.

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Those welfare recipients and inner-city po'folks at least have enough sense to know who's against them, which is better than I can say about the redneck welfare recipients and rural bufords who continue to vote for people who rape them.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 18, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Rock on! And now we've got Snake Oil Salesman like Beck the Rodeo Clown and Grifter Mama Palin getting them to SEND their money to the people who are stealing their money on the other end. They do have their righteous anger. Unfortunately, it's directed the wrong way.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 18, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Emphasis Added)

U.S. Const., Art. VI, para. 3

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 18, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

On the integrity of Paul and his principled libertarianism...

"The fact is that Rand Paul, once a hardcore libertarian, condemned religion and certainly didn't believe in social conservatism. Tens of thousands of libertarians sent him money just this year believing that's the kind of Tea Partier he was. Now, like the rest of them he's changed his tune and he's become a Church Lady Bible thumper, excoriating Conway for saying the word "hell" at a political picnic. This is a bullsh*t game and Conway has every right to call him out as a hypocrite."
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/democrats-play-rough-bring-on-smelling.html

Posted by: bernielatham | October 18, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Just amazing. the lefties here continue with their condescencion.
...
(extensive right-wing projection here)
...
it is bigotry at its finest. Especially because liberals don't even realize how bigoted they are.
so when the public turns on them

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 18, 2010 4:05 PM
=================================

Which party has been running ads of scary looking Latinos and black people for the last year? Which party has been running a "Southern Strategy" since Richard Nixon's second term?
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 18, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

rukidding

Apparently you missed the entire discussion today. Ethan is Save The Rain Forest.

Ethan is only posting the OPPOSITE of what he means, like a bad version of a Seinfeld episode.

I posted that the orginal Ethan was actually the satire, and that Ethan became upset that no one realized the satire. Save the Rain Forest became his real thoughts, being posted the same way.

So, he started posting under a different name, posting the OPPOSITE.

Ethan was on before, and he didn't deny it. So it's pretty clear.

Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 18, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing28 wrote,
"The dynamics of this are interesting.The liberals need an explanation. Why would America reject their agenda? It can only be because of some mental defect. Why? Because the dogma explains that liberalism is the result of enlightened thought."
-----

Take two groups: (1)people so far in poverty that they depend on the government for their very survival (2) government workers, including teachers, at the state, local and federal level who depend on the taxpayer for their keep as well. Take away these two groups and Dems couldn't get 15% in an election for outhouse orderly. Which is why they're so interested in amnesty for illegal immigrants. More members of the first group to be added to the infamous 47% whose country the rest of us work to support. If they can just push that number above 50% . . .

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

FWIW

.

.

Politico thought that Conway was attacking Paul's religion too:

.

.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43744.html

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 18, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Is this some kind of sick MFing JOKE?

* Joe Miller On Securing The Border: 'If East Germany Could, We Could' (VIDEO) *

Alaska Republican Senate nominee Joe Miller was asked about illegal immigration at his town hall yesterday, and he said that the country's first priority should be to secure the border. "If East Germany could, we could," he said.

nchorage blogger Steve Aufrecht reports that during the town hall, he cited his time serving at the Fulda Gap, one point on the former border between East and West Germany during the Cold War.

During that time, he said, "East Germany was very, very able to reduce the flow" from one side of the border to the other. "Now, obviously, other things there were involved. We have the capacity to, as a great nation, obviously to secure our border. If East Germany could, we could."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/joe-miller-on-securing-the-border-if-east-germany-could-we-could-video.php

WTF is WRONG with Republicans?

This is disgusting.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 18, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

The democrats have made several unConstitutional points this year. The Constitution prohibits religious tests for the US Senate.

So, for Conway, who is supposed to be an Attorney General, such a point has been raised concerning a standard which, if applied would be unConstitutional.

Same with the witchcraft stuff.

All this stuff falls under college and high school kids activities.

The democrats appear to have absolutely NOTHING on the issues, so they have to bring up stuff from decades ago, which they know has no relevance to today.

Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 18, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade wrote,
"The crowd that was explicitly told and reminded multiple times to keep quiet during the debate to let the candidates speak. Not surprisingly, the TP'ers think manners are an unconstitutional mandate."
-----

Your blind partisanship is showing, my boy. I don't recall you on here fussing about D-bagger manners when the Reid supporters displayed their rowdiness and ignorance by disrupting Angle's speech a few weeks ago after Reid had finished his. Or when the pinkos were screaming, threatening violence and egging the buses of Tea-Party members at the Nevada rally a few months back. Do you have anything you'd like to add to sound less prejudiced?

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

BB, I had no idea that Conway was so close. This one looks like it will come down to the wire. It will be a shocker if Conway pulls this off.

It's kind of interesting to see the response to Conway's ad. Looks like the criticism is bipartisan. Obviously Rs hate it, but looks like Dems don't care too much for it either. Ezra Klein labeled it as the ugliest ad of the season. I think even Sargent was critical of it.

It's unfortunate how you don't see this sort of bipartisan pushback from both sides when the right pull out their stops. Other than McCain, did anyone from that side of the aisle hail Bush's swiftboating of a war hero as anything other than genius?

Posted by: DDAWD | October 18, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Take two groups: (1)people so far in poverty that they depend on the government for their very survival (2) government workers, including teachers, at the state, local and federal level who depend on the taxpayer for their keep as well. Take away these two groups and Dems couldn't get 15% in an election for outhouse orderly.
--------------------------------------
And your proposal is, what? The GOP should lobby for the poor and dependent government workers? Or, alternatively, the GOP should remove voting privileges from these two groups.

It's easy to be a critic. What is hard is to come up with alternative ideas.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 18, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

All, check this out, Sharron Angle's latest is pretty ridiculous:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 18, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Brigade:

I thought all these libs read the NYT?

"Mr. Paul was not, though, as some assume, named for Ayn Rand; his full name is Randal."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/us/politics/19paul.html

.

.

Or, at least HuffPo?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/PDinCA/rand-paul-two-mommies_n_764571_63977448.html

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 18, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

The modern, tea party-inflected conservative movement is based on a few core principles. Global warming is a hoax. Income inequality hasn't been growing. Tax cuts don't increase the deficit. America has the best healthcare in the world. Evolution is a myth. The economy is weak because of regulatory uncertainty. Barack Obama is a socialist.

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 18, 2010 4:08 PM
-----

No one's perfect. Looks like they got the last one right.

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Ethan

Do you deny that you are Save the Rain Forest?????

When you post as Ethan, it is really satire, is that correct????

Let's get all this straight. Who are you and why are you acting the way you do with such extreme sarcasm in every comment you have been making.

Why

Tell us why Ethan/Save the Rain Forest

Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 18, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

CoC Are you really that sick? Why do you simply take up our space. EVERYBODY on this blog KNOWS you are STRF.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 18, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

People who voted for Obama did so because they agreed we needed reform of the health care system, more investment in education, etc. Those things are in the interests of middle class and low-income voters; hence for them to vote for someone who advocates for those priorities is NOT a vote against their own self-interest and is neither irrational nor illogical.

Not that you would be able to tell the difference, being neither rational nor logical yourself.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 18, 2010 4:15 PM
-----

I think we've been through this before. Conservatives sometimes have priorities other than simply money. For libs, anyone considering anything other than an increase in their check or benefit from the government is voting against his/her self interest. I understand that. As a conservative, I can tell you we sometimes have other things on our minds. Some people would actually prefer the dignity of a job to a handout. Checked the unemployment rate lately? If you want a job, then voting for a Democrat is certainly a vote against your self interest.
Obama's priorities are hardly beneficial to the middle class and only wingers like you thought healthcare was the most important challenge facing the nation---as you're about to find out in the upcoming election. Not that you'll have the capacity to understand what happened after its over.

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

theorajones1 wrote,
"I'm a democrat who can never run for office because I can't pass these litmus tests. But if I were a Republican, I'd be fine. It's ridiculous that we are allowing the other side to write rules that only we have to follow!"
-------

Oh, go ahead and run as a Republican. You can still vote with Dems ala Arlen Specter. I don't even know who you are, but I'll put even money you're as smart as most of the people who vote with Dems.

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

When did Paul deny the Aqua Buddha story, Brigade? The only denial I ever saw was a complaint regarding the term "kidnapped."

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 18, 2010 4:24 PM
------

In the debate. He called Conway a liar to his face and refused to even shake his hand.

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

I've been listening to a lot of debates on C-SPAN radio. CO'D vs Coons. Reid vs. Angle. Rossi vs. Murray. Cali. The only one where supporters were disruptive was Kentucky. It may be blind partisanship, but I can still hear.

Besides, is there anyone around here who isn't a partisan? You seem to misunderstand the intent of a comments section on a political blog. Perhaps you should get your head…

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 18, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Like I said, "being neither rational nor logical yourself."

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 18, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Ethan - trust me. There's nothing to be gained by arguing with a wall. You know it's a wall. I know it's a wall. Greg knows it's a wall. He's just figuring out how large a sledgehammer it will take.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 18, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Those welfare recipients and inner-city po'folks at least have enough sense to know who's against them, which is better than I can say about the redneck welfare recipients and rural bufords who continue to vote for people who rape them.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 18, 2010 4:36 PM
------

By "against them", I assume you mean those who would like to see them work for a living instead of remaining on the dole, the price of being a good and faithful liberal.

"Rednecks?" "Bufords?" Isn't it about time for you to pick your afternoon snack out of your nose?

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

my goodness:
=======
Which party has been running ads of scary looking Latinos and black people for the last year? Which party has been running a "Southern Strategy" since Richard Nixon's second term?
======

Are you missing your binkie bunkie? What's with all the whining?

My view is very straightforward and based on the thoughts of a well respected author. What? You don't like Eric Hoffer? ain't that a pity.

and are your political opponents playing hardball for a change? Is that troubling you? No ACORN to rig elections? No NAACP to run nasty bigoted ads? Poor baby! Your own tools and techniques being brought to bear against your agenda.

boo frickin hoo.

Welcome to hardball. It is quite clear that the liberals simply don't know much about being on the receiving end of tough politics. Oh so sad for them!!!

I'm here to tell you that in my community even the die hard Democrats are fed up with the PC style hands off the illegals nonsense you guys are pushing. Why? Because they are out of work, that's why. They KNOW that illegals are taking their jobs and they KNOW who doesn't want the tide of illegals to stop.

One person I know plans to use his union influence to shut down a landscaping business here. Why? Because it employs illegals and his brothers and his friends are out of work.

it is survival mode now. And those whose survival depends on the liberal agenda should start hedging their bets. Americans are about to withdraw their consent to be governed by this pack of incompetent fools. Even Dennis the Menace is in trouble!

Look for government employees to start sharing the sacrifice of the economic down turn. Look for those who make a living on taxpayer largesse to start sharing in the sacrifice too. About time too.

If we make life here uncomfortable for the Mexican illegals they will head home. If there is no jobs at home let them do something about thier own corrupt government. We're not the Mexican safety valve. If it takes armed action, and it probably will, they'd better get to it. Once we stop the onslaught of illegals and send more of them packing the pressure will be on the super rich ultra corrupt Mexican politicians. There is no reason for vast poverty in Mexico, but why should they bother to fix it when they can easily screw the America taxpayer and survive here?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 18, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

one must consider the source. In this case the source is the mistress of snot, Jenn:
=================
People who voted for Obama did so because they agreed we needed reform of the health care system, more investment in education, etc
=================

did Obama feature Obamacare as a central theme in his campaign?

And how much more investment must we make in education? We already spend more on education than on national defense and the product gets worse and worse.

Is Obama really all about reform? then when will we see him to his Chris Christie routine and get in the face of the teacher's unions?

Oh yeah, that's right. The teachers spent millions putting the boy into office. He's not really going to be about reform at all. He's going to be about the status quo. And the status quo is this: the education system exists for the adults employed by it, and NOT for the teachers.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 18, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

sorry, got that wrong. Last sentence should read: The education system exists for the adults employed by it, and not for the children.

Skipsailing28 regrets the error.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 18, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Which party has been running ads of scary looking Latinos and black people for the last year? Which party has been running a "Southern Strategy" since Richard Nixon's second term?
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 18, 2010 4:59 PM
-------
Same party which wants to keep those scary looking border jumpers from coming into the country illegally. Richard Nixon? The affirmative action Richard Nixon? Same party which came together with Lyndon Johnson to pass the CRA in spite of attempted Democratic filibuster---see Robert Byrd.
Good thing you weren't around during WWII. The way Germans and Japanese were depicted in the media and cartoons would have made you wet your britches. People from south of the border were our good friends and allies in those days. Cuba too.

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Other than McCain, did anyone from that side of the aisle hail Bush's swiftboating of a war hero as anything other than genius?

Posted by: DDAWD | October 18, 2010 5:06 PM
-----

"war hero?" You must be drunk.

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

And your proposal is, what? The GOP should lobby for the poor and dependent government workers? Or, alternatively, the GOP should remove voting privileges from these two groups.

It's easy to be a critic. What is hard is to come up with alternative ideas.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 18, 2010 5:06 PM
-----

My point is that the government has no money aside from what it takes from the private sector. Is it any surprise that so many liberals are anti-business and that their answer to every problem is to take, take, take? Just looking after their own self interest no doubt.

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Greg Sergent: You have no Journolistic standards. If this woman is unwilling to talk on the record then you shouldn't be reporting her baseless lies. Rand Paul has said the incident didn't happen, your anonymous source (unless another liberal reporter wants access to her) won't even make her accusations publicly... why should any reasonable person believe your lies?

Posted by: nptalcott | October 18, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade,
"The only one where supporters were disruptive was Kentucky. It may be blind partisanship, but I can still hear."
-----

You obviously only hear what you want to hear. The examples I cited were very real. You couldn't have been on ANY blog at the time and missed them.

"Perhaps you should get your head…"

And you're one of the people always whining about how your delicate sensibilities are offended by insults. My, my. Personally, I enjoy a little mud wrestling, so let 'er rip.


Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

My point is that the government has no money aside from what it takes from the private sector. Is it any surprise that so many liberals are anti-business and that their answer to every problem is to take, take, take? Just looking after their own self interest no doubt.
-----------------------------
Generalizations fall apart pretty quickly. You are talking to a probusiness, pro free market advocate, who never worked in government. And prolife, to boot. I beg you to question your assumptions occasionally, when it is so easy to find the probusiness liberal.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 18, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

"did Obama feature Obamacare as a central theme in his campaign?"

Yes, he did. Not "Obamacare," which all honest persons recognize as a misnomer (which of course is why you do not), since he didn't write the legislation.

So, did you sleep through the '08 campaign? Because that's about the only way you could have missed that he set reform of the healthcare system as a - perhaps THE - central goal of his administration. And people agreed with him that it was important and voted for him.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 18, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Generalizations fall apart pretty quickly. You are talking to a probusiness, pro free market advocate, who never worked in government. And prolife, to boot. I beg you to question your assumptions occasionally, when it is so easy to find the probusiness liberal.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 18, 2010 6:07 PM
------

Stop and think about this. Pro-life; pro-business; pro-free market advocate; never worked in government. Young lady, I think you should be more careful about the company you keep. You and I have a lot in common---except I worked for the government when I was in the Army. I'm afraid you're in a small minority if you consider yourself a liberal. Do you recall why Bob Casey requested and was denied a speaking slot at the 1992 Democratic convention? Big tent indeed.

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

"The teachers spent millions putting the boy into office."

Stay classy, bigot.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 18, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

This "anti-business" liberal happens to own a business.

So much for talking points.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 18, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

I'm afraid you're in a small minority if you consider yourself a liberal.
================================
Not in Northern California. I'm in the mainstream--we are all the hi-tech, free market, probusiness kids. And socially liberal. In fact, I'm considered socially conservative out here.

My point is: generalizations are easily undone and should be questioned. Generalizations do not contribute to problem solving. Just my opinion, from long years building businesses when my assumptions were often the only obstacle I had.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 18, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

"You and I have a lot in common..."

Yeah, except that 12Bar isn't dishonest. Which pretty much means you have little or nothing in common.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 18, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

"You and I have a lot in common..."

Yeah, except that 12Bar isn't dishonest. Which pretty much means you have little or nothing in common.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 18, 2010 6:38 PM
-----

Tsk, tsk. That isn't very nice. How would you know whether or not I'm honest? I pay my bills. I believe you have a business. And I have berries that need picked. See, we were made for each other.

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

It was *YOUR* metaphor Briggie. If I'm going to wrestle with a pig, I'm going to get muddy and have a little fun too. Sorry if you can handle what the Blade is slicing (with apologies to the Rock and CC).

As for the example, you're off topic. I specifically cited debates, of which I've listened to a number and you apparently one. But hey, find a debate with some hootin' and hollerin' from the blues and I'll happily listen to it.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 18, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

It was in college and was a school prank or initiation. When will girlie-boys like Sargent get off the nanny wagon and actually point out what Dem Sen. McCaskill had the cojones to note, that Conway is a dangerous nutjob...! Get a pair of stones, Greg...

Posted by: djman1141 | October 19, 2010 1:56 AM | Report abuse

It was in college and was a school prank or initiation. When will girlie-boys like Sargent get off the nanny wagon and actually point out what Dem Sen. McCaskill had the cojones to note, that Conway is a dangerous nutjob...! Get a pair of stones, Greg...

Posted by: djman1141 | October 19, 2010 1:56 AM | Report abuse

How much does a Conway? About 2 pounds and it is composed entirely of sleaze and BS!

Posted by: wcochran60 | October 20, 2010 2:11 PM | 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