Aqua Buddha: Rand Paul's Macaca Moment?

maccaca Moments (0.00 / 0)

The teabaggers and their financial backers decided on a campaign strategy sometime long ago that would use the "overwhelm 'em with constant crap and they will ignore all of it".

Remember back to the late summer of 2009 and all the up roar and panty twisting going on over the racist, facist, hate mongering and lynching signs?  And, how after a few weeks of the constant stream of it the "news" channels stopped broadcasting it. Across out country the nuttiest and farthest right of the nut jobs became the talking point and those who were the slightest step away became acceptable.

We hear constantly about O'Donnell and her issues with the Constitution and Bill Of Rights (she really should read them some day) and not about Angle and Broden declaring armed conflict to overthrow our government if they are not elected.

And, because murdock owns about 1/3 of the broadcast news we are never going to hear the real news on that which he controls.

So what about Rand Paul? His hate and anti-American rhetoric is lost in the question of how does O'Donnell survive every day, how the racist homophobe and domestic violence user Gibson is going to survive not making a movie, and how a drug addict is going to be in front of a judge to have her immediate future decided, Hollywood rehab or Hollywood jail.

The psychotic behaviour of the far right extremist Republicans is now treated as near normal and anything that might be Progressive or Liberal is off the media.  

Is there an answer.  I think there is but the consequences of it are still going to the far right. That is re-elect and elect Dems.  They for the most part lack a spine and for some reason believe they need to do Republican legislation rather than Progressive or Liberal. But, at least it is not as far right as if the freaking nut jobs are elected.

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

---

by: blue bronc @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 12:58:59 PM UTC

Well (0.00 / 0)

First, Kentucky has been a toss-up virtually for the entire campaign. Even when Paul was leading in the polls, they were in the high single digits (except for Rasmussen and SurveyUSA). There's also no real evidence that Kentucky is closing just because of this one campaign story; Senate races across the country--PA, WI, CA, WA, MO, to name a few---seem to be closing in the final weeks.

Second, Allen's "macaca moment" happened on the campaign trail, in the final month of the campaign. Conway's attack on Paul is about something he allegedly did decades ago in college by an anonymous accuser. In campaign-speak, "macaca moment" refers to a fatal and unforced error made by the candidate or campaign, not something in a candidate's past (true or not) that the other campaign decided to make an ad about.

Third, Paul has repeatedly denied the charges.

Fourth, the reason Paul is upset is because Conway's ad is an attempt to scare Kentucky's voters that Paul is not Christian enough to be their Senator. It's a pretty shameful tactic, and one I'm surprised so many liberals are endorsing.  

---

by: VA Blogger @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 13:06:50 PM UTC

"Shameful" like this? (0.00 / 0)

IOKIYAR

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 13:08:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, not really. (0.00 / 0)

Kos is evoking the "IOKIYAR" rule to try and say that its a hard-and-fast rule that anything a candidate does in college is off-limits. It's a neat slight-of-hand trick, but that's not the core issue here. Conway's tactics aren't shameful because he's talking about Paul's college days, it's shameful because he's launching an attack ad based on an anonymous accuser that says Paul isn't "Christian" enough to represent the state.

Paul was making political hay of the fact that Grayon was a party-switcher, much like Joe Sestak did of Arlen Specter and everyone has done of Charlie Crist.

---

by: VA Blogger @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 13:59:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, it's only off limits (0.00 / 0)

if it's a Republican who did something heinous in college or their "youth" (e.g., George W. Bush's drinking and drug use through his 30s).  What Conway says in his ad is factual, has never been refuted by Paul or anyone else. What amazes me is that any conservative could be comfortable with Paul's heinous behavior and that he won't even own up to it. Utter hypocrisy.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 14:36:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have to disagree with that (0.00 / 0)

Conway has said the ad is not aimed at whether Paul is a good Christian, but rather at the fact that he mocked religious beliefs. I just want to dispel the notion that this ad somehow presents a religious test for office, either explicitly or implicitly, because it does not.

That said, I do think Conway is banking on the fact that for many religious folks, Paul's mocking of Christianity and, in effect, engaging in idol worship, is an unforgivable sin that is not excused by his youth.

But I have no problem with that. Voters have the right to decide for themselves what to base their votes on. But, they are entitled to the facts in order to make that decision.

For me, personally, at worst this Aqua Buddah think is just a college prank. It is fair game for a campaign, but if I were a Kentucky voter, it would not matter to me one way or another in my ballot decision.

Rand is unfit to serve because of his regressive and reductive reading of the U.S. Constitution that is inconsistent with documented history or common sense, not because of some college hijinks that, no matter how they look in retrospect, were in all probability acts perpetrated just for goofball effect.  

---

by: aznew @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 14:50:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It is not very subtle at all (0.00 / 0)

The first two prongs of Conway's attack are "belonging to a group that mocked Christianity" and "bowing down to a false idol". Both of those refer to the same event, and if were just those two, you could question whether they're trying to call into question Paul's past actions and questionable behavior.

But the last part of the ad (the part that has a church prominently in the background) says that Paul wants to end faith-based initiatives. Of course, this statement has absolutely nothing to do with the college allegations. The only tie between this and the "Aqua Buddha" segments is the notion of faith and Christianity.

At the end of the ad, it asks "Why are there so many questions about Rand Paul?" as an image of Buddha floats in the background. If this were simply an attack on what Paul did 20 years ago, the tag would hammer that point home. Instead, what they're hammering home is the message "we don't know what Paul believes, but whatever it is, its not what you believe."

You'd have a point if the ad didn't say anything about faith-based initiatives. Then it'd just be a matter of what Paul did or didn't do 20 years ago. But instead its now a larger questioning of what faith does Rand Paul belong to, and if its not Christian, do you really want to vote for him?

---

by: VA Blogger @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 15:35:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I see your point, but (0.00 / 0)

The ad just reads like a laundry list of why Christians might not want to vote for hm, to wit:

1. He belonged to a group that mocked Christianity;
2. He engaged in idol worship
3. He wants to end government sponsored faith-based initiatives; and
4. He wants to end tax deductions that benefit religious groups.

But no where does the ad question the validity or sincerety of Paul's own religious beliefs.

That Ron Paul chose to get indignant over this is absurd, and smells a little too much like a calculated response aimed at deflecting the factual allegations.

I suspect he was a part of this society, and did all of these things. I also suspect it was just stupid college hijinks, but he knows that admitting it now, and trying to explain it, will just make him look silly, so he is feigning anger and creating straw men in the hope that it deflects attention from the question of whether he in fact engaged in this stuff.

I wish out politics were more mature, and he could just say it was all a college prank and let people decide for themselves what it says about who Rand Paul is today.

But given the political standards in this country, the ad is fair.

---

by: aznew @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 16:05:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The ad is fine (4.00 / 2)

you're just pissed since you agree with the overall concept of Republican advertising- it's ok for Republicans to run ads like that, but when Democrats do it, it's wrong.  Just like any bully, it's ok for the bully to push people around, but when the guy getting pushed pushes back, it's all shock! outrage!! commie trickery!!!

Rand is a libertarian and as most libertarians tend to be, they're agnostic at most when it comes to religion, if not right-out athiest.  The libertarian creed of "you do your thing, I'll do mine, and lets not intrude on the other" is in direct contradiction to hard-core religious beliefs, which is "do what we do, since we're right and if you don't, you're going to burn in hell".  So, it is not surprising that he would do as accused.  

Of course, he's running in Kentucky, not Vermont or Rhode Island, so his goal is to look like a bible thumper to all of the fundamentalist christian Republicants, who he absolutely needs to vote heavy for him.

---

by: NotJohnSMosby @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 17:02:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

" . . .since then, I was Saved." (0.00 / 0)

is all Paul would have had to say to solve the problem that the ad has caused him in the evangelical community.

Here is the beginning of the one sentence response Paul should have released:

"In my youth, I dabbled with bongs, bondage and blue buddhas but . . ."

---

by: The Donkey @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 17:22:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not that (1.00 / 1)

Not that your comment screamed "credibility" when you use words such as "Republicants", but on what are you basing any of my motivations? Just because I'm a Republican?

Also, Paul and his wife have been members of their church since 1993. I'd say his actions trump any half-cooked theory you have on what religion he belongs to.

---

by: VA Blogger @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 18:48:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And what was he before 1993? (0.00 / 0)

You may think that just because he joins a christian church and is "born again", that means that everyone should forget or disallow what they did before their conversion.  I'm sure that plays well to the bible thumpers, and in their eyes that wipes away any sin they've done, but for many of us, it does not.  He may be in a church now, but he did the things he's done, and that stays with him.  Maybe his god will cut him a break, but that doesn't mean I'm going to.

---

by: NotJohnSMosby @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 20:14:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My point, which you missed (0.00 / 0)

You said:

Rand is a libertarian and as most libertarians tend to be, they're agnostic at most when it comes to religion, if not right-out athiest.

You're wrong on two fronts: First, Paul has specifically said he's not a libertarian; second, not all libertarians are atheist.

As for what you cut him a break on, who cares? You can't vote in Kentucky and even if you could, you'd never vote for anything but a Democrat. And I don't think anyone would think to look to you for spiritual salvation, either.  

---

by: VA Blogger @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 21:03:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Conway (4.00 / 2)

First time poster here but long time reader of the blog. Thanks lowkell for organizing this blog. First of all VABlogger you are mistaken my friend.

I do agree with you that KY has been a tossup/lean Republican race for much of the campaign even though every poll has shown a reasonable Paul edge. However, you are totally wrong when you say that Paul has denied it. He never ever totally denied it. He just says that the ad is "out of bounds". It definitely has gotten under Paul's skin and polling shows that it hasn't backfired. Even factcheck.org took a look at the charges and basically said that Conway is not lying in his ad and it is up to the voters to decide if they really care. http://www.factcheck.org/2010/...

Instead of just saying that it was a dumb prank he did 30 years ago and he regrets it and has moved on he acts like a child and refuses to shake Conway's hand.  

---

by: Cool_Arrow @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 13:19:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, he said its not true. Hence, denying it: (0.00 / 0)

http://www.wave3.com/story/133...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

He also said it was "out of bounds" because, well, it is.  

---

by: VA Blogger @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 14:03:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

False (as usual with VA Blogger) (0.00 / 0)

Paul denied kidnapping (that doesn't deny that it happened, only that he forced her to go along with it against her will) and forcing her to use drugs (again, doesn't deny it happened).

Rand Paul has very recently gone from being an atheist libertarian to a claiming to be a Christian Republican who now says he doesn't want to eliminate safety net programs like Social Security & Medicare. Voters deserve more than vague denials.

Read more at TheGreenMiles.com and follow me on Twitter

---

by: TheGreenMiles @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 14:18:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Typo (0.00 / 0)

Shouldn't "as usual" have been "as always?"

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 14:38:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Very recently"?? (0.00 / 0)

He and his wife became members of the Presbyterian Church in 1993, 17 years ago. His wife is a deacon there.

Without the kidnapping and the drugs, what is left? Aqua Buddha? Do you really think that's a salient attack? Of course, the crux of Conway's ad is (yet again, since everyone seems to be ignoring this part) that Rand Paul isn't Christian enough to represent Kentucky. I'm shocked that you endorse such a message. As you would ham-handedly put it, the voters deserve better.  

---

by: VA Blogger @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 14:38:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Man up" (0.00 / 0)

As Josh Green writes from Kentucky:

The thing that really seemed to bother [Kentucky conservatives], though--and this was also true of every talk-radio caller--was Paul's refusal to debate Conway Monday night. No one could understand why he wouldn't want to take the stage. As one of them put it, borrowing a line from Sharron Angle, Paul needed to "man up" and face down the aggressor. I came away with the sense that if he doesn't, he'll pay a steep price and maybe even cost himself the race. The issue isn't Paul's Christianity, but his manhood.

There's no crime. But there is a coverup. And voters know it.  

Read more at TheGreenMiles.com and follow me on Twitter

---

by: TheGreenMiles @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 14:51:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry but not true... (4.00 / 2)

Sorry but that is just not true. Paul isn't saying that the incident never happened and even factcheck.org who we can both agree on is a reasonable independent verifier of spin on both sides says that the ad is true. If you don't believe that then politifact another independent verifier of the facts says that its true what Conway is saying in his ads. http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Personally I don't think it will matter as Kentucky is a very red state and this is a very bad year to be a Democrat. Paul is likely to win but had the nominee been Trey Greyson it wouldn't have been close. Paul being a whiny brat about this makes it an issue. Keeping this stuff in the headline is what he does not need right now because as long as people talk about it, it reflects poorly on him. He should have said that he did a dumb thing as a prank but that was 30 years ago in college. I have moved on and learned and practice my faith through xyz examples. Paul has a history of not liking the facts. When he was caught on tape saying that he favored a $2k Medicare deductible he said that Conway was lying. He was caught on tape with it and Conway didn't Breitbart his speech those are facts. That said, Paul is likely to win because of the environment and where he is running but not due to his campaign's strength.

---

by: Cool_Arrow @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 15:18:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

On target (0.00 / 0)

Welcome, Cool Arrow, come by and post often.

You, and Miles, are right on target -- the candidate's reaction is a bigger story than the so-called scandal itself.  That's the way it works, like when the Watergate coverup became a bigger deal than the Watergate burglary itself. The challenges of politics reveal the candidate's character.

And voters do not like politicians refusing to shake their opponent's hand -- it looks petty. Think about Bill Clinton having dinner and joking with Repubs who called him a murderer and tried to impeach him. That's class, and may explain why even 30% of tea party members still like Bill.  

Impeachinelli! Now on Twitter.

---

by: kindler @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 14:35:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You could be right. (0.00 / 0)

We'll find out on Election Day if voters are more turned off with a candidate who questions someone's faith than a candidate who refuses to shake the hand of the person who questions his faith.  

---

by: VA Blogger @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 14:40:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If Paul Used A Lighter, More Nuanced, Touch (4.00 / 1)

in dealing with this issue, he could have made Conway look foolish for the over-the-top commercial, and benefitted from cross-overs by democrats who favor bongs, bondage, and bowing to blue buddhas.

Instead Paul is communicating to everyone that he is a self-righteous douchebag.

But lets call this what it is: a low blow that worked for the good guys.

This time, at least.  

---

by: The Donkey @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 15:19:55 PM UTC

"Instead Paul is communicating to everyone that he is a self-righteous douchebag. " (0.00 / 0)

Hard for him to be anything else, if the past year has told us anything.

---

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 00:12:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The real point, other than Paul's immature reponse... (0.00 / 0)

...is GOP hypocrisy. Repub candidates always pose as holier-than-thou prigs when in fact they're a bunch of spoiled rich kids fooling the common people into electing them so that they can get invited to more high class parties.

What Conway's ad does is reveal that, Paul, contrary to all the blather about a grassroots tea party rebellion, blah, blah, is just another cynical plutocrat frat boy.  

Impeachinelli! Now on Twitter.

---

by: kindler @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 18:00:44 PM UTC

It would be best to hear what Kentuckians have to say, and some say they've lost respect for Jack Conway (0.00 / 0)

because of the ad. I'm not sure this is a Macaca moment,just like every president who's down in the polls can successfully say this is their Dewey Defeats Truman Moment, because of little facts of the actual moment like the pollsters closed shop before election day even occurred. And I think its the fact that Conway had projected himself as the saner voice, an Attorney General elected to the state by voters, versus, the scion of a Representative who could not be where he is without his daddy, and that it showed on the campaign trail,not just with stuff like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but his refusal to address the states drug problem by saying it should be local law enforcement that does the crackdown. I do think it would be to the Tea Party's advantage if Ben Quayle says "yes, you know my dad he's all about morals and character and so I did the the Dirty Scottsdale because of that, in an act of rebellion." Or if Rand Paul says something similar with the Aqua Buddha.    

---

by: Brian @ Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 16:45:36 PM UTC