Jonathan Chait got the ball rolling from the left wing elitists when he attacked Jack Conway's Aqua Buddha ad against Rand Paul when he wrote that he had sympathy for Paul. Many of us objected to this for many reasons, but how does Chait answer the criticisms? He makes shit up. Here's his defense of Paul:

Is Rand Paul misleading the electorate about his religion? Sure. But he's not running on a religious platform. It's Conway who's making religion an issue. I think an atheist, which is what I'm petty sure Paul is, ought to be able to run for office without having his belief system publicly interrogated.

Is he this naive about our current political system? When hasn't a Democrat's religion been question? John Kennedy's Catholicism was a big issue in 1960. The question of his electability because of his religious beliefs was a central question in that election. And since Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed injected religion into our mainstream political discourse beginning in the 1980s, it's only gotten much, much worse.

Chait admits that Rand Paul is probably lying about his belief in religion -- which I might agree with, but then he insists that even an atheist should be allowed to run for office. I agree with that completely -- except for one thing: Republicans don't believe in that assessment. Rand Paul doesn't believe that assessment. Republicans throw religion into every part of their party and into every debate we have, but for some reason others are forbidden to bring up the issue of religious values. Either Chait hasn't been following Baby Paul's campaign or is ignorant about what Rand has publicly stated about his views on religion. Paul did make religion part of the debate after he trumpeted his Christian faith -- evidently in contrast with Conway -- back in May, via Sarah Posner:

Appearing on The Brody File, Rand Paul, who believes that portions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act need "further discussion" and may violate private business owners' First Amendment rights, said that we wouldn't really need laws in this country if everyone were a good Christian:

I'm a Christian. We go to the Presbyterian Church. My wife’s a Deacon there and we’ve gone there ever since we came to town. I see that Christianity and values is the basis of our society. . . . 98% of us won’t murder people, won’t steal, won’t break the law and it helps a society to have that religious underpinning. You still need to have the laws but I think it helps to have a people who believe in law and order and who have a moral compass or a moral basis for their day to day life.

Although Paul attends a mainline Protestant church, in his comments one might hear an echo of Christian Reconstructionism. RD contributor Julie Ingersoll, an expert on Christian Reconstructionism, once described it to me this way: "Reconstructionists claim to have an entirely integrated, logically defensible Christian worldview. Reconstructionism addresses everything you have to think about." In other words, as a society we should follow (preferable) biblical law, and dispense with all but a small handful of civil laws.

Continue reading »

The media hissy fit over Conway's Aqua Buddha ad has really fallen off the cliff. Matt Lauer of The TODAY Show was the latest media elitist to go after Conway's ad over false pretenses. He harps on something that's not part of the ad at all as they all have (Do you believe Rand Paul has faith?) and then Lauer goes into bizarroland.

Lauer: ...do you think Mr. Paul is a man of faith?

Conway; I am not questioning his faith, Matt.

Asked and answered. Now comes the Monty Python portion of the interview.

Lauer: Does this foreshadow what kind of a Senator you might be in Washington and you're going to be a guy that goes there and continues the political divide or are you someone who can reach across the political aisle to make changes that are necessary for people that are in this country?

Has the media ever asked Tea Party candidates throughout this long midterm process if they are going to be bi-partisan and work with Liberals and Democrats in Washington? Hey Matt, has Rand Paul ever gone on the Today Show? Would you ask him the same question? This is pure Beltway political fetishism that only applies to Democrats. We had an election in 2008 and the Democrats won big, but because the media has this bi-partisan fetishism with Democrats, they obviously approved of the the tactics of 'Republican obstructionism' that began immediately after the election. Has FOX News ever asked Rand Paul if he'd be bi-partisan? OK, I had to say that. If any single member of the GOP filibusters a Democratic nomination or a piece of legislation, the media elitists almost never, ever call them out on it. And when I see the Beltway Broders come unglued over the Aqua Buddha, I wonder why they never, ever care about looking into all of the Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove's lying liar ads, don't you?

Greg Sargent has the details:

Last week I noted that the ads that have been bankrolled by Karl Rove's groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce against Senate Dem candidates across the country have been widely debunked by independent fact-checkers for their multiple falsehoods and distortions.

Turns out the same is true of the Chamber's ads against House Democrats. These Chamber ads, which are running or have run in multiple districts across the country, contain many claims that are demonstrable distortions or have been repeatedly debunked as false by independent fact-checkers. This is the side of this story that continues to unfold under the media radar. Much of the media focus has been on the high-profile Beltway spat between these groups and the White House and Dems over their undisclosed donors. But the ads themselves are not receiving anywhere near the high-profile media scrutiny that Dem claims about the Chamber have -- even though they constitute a massive national campaign flooding airwaves in multiple races that could tip the balance of power in Congress.

Here's a rundown of the Chamber ads attacking House Dems that contain the debunked claims:...read on

Once again the same double standard applies to Republicans. No matter how many times conservatives hurt the working class in this country or lie to the American people in their ads or in their actions, it's always just fine among the media elite for conservatives to stand with Big Corporations and hurt our country. The bipartisan fetish the Beltway Broders have always means one thing: give in to the demands of the GOP. Let's have a D.C. cat-food commission to investigate the media and how they operate on a day to day basis.

By the way, Rasmussen has a new poll out today that says Conway has caught up in the polls to Rand Paul so maybe this is why he's going ballistic over the Aqua Buddha ad. This is strange since Rasmussen always seems to be skewed to favor Republicans.

I will be voting for sure, and I hope you do too.

Chris Matthews had Jack Conway on Hardball Monday because he seemed very upset by the above ad. Many lefty pundits are also attacking it. Are you surprised that members of the left-wing punditocracy love to act all high and mighty and attack candidates and writers on our own side? It's quite revealing. Jonathan Chait leads the pack. I imagine they get off trying to show the Beltway media that they're above it all. You know, 'ain't I cool because I attack my own?'

Here's Chait@TNR:

The ugliest, most illiberal political ad of the year may be this one, from Kentucky Democrat Jack Conway. I actually don't doubt the implication of the ad, namely that Rand Paul harbors a private contempt for Christianity. He's a devotee of Ayn Rand, who is a fundamentally anti-Christian thinker. And much of Paul's history, which he is frantically covering up in an attempt to pass himself off as a typical Republican, suggests among other things a deep skepticism about religion.

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

OK, let's clear something up. Conway isn't attacking Paul's religion. He never mentions one word on that subject. All he does is call him out over his actions back at Baylor. I mean, who associates with a whacked-out group like The Noze Brotherhood? And if he didn't do anything, then why did the young woman cut herself off from Paul afterwards? Because it was sick. Here's the original story if you forgot some of the details.

It's also about Paul's hypocrisy. Let's not forget that it was Paul who brought up the subject of personal religious beliefs in the first place by attacking Conway's faith.

Back to Hardball, they promo the segment like this.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asks Kentucky Senate Candidate Jack Conway to defend his “Aqua Buddha” ad, and whether it’s fair to question opponent Rand Paul on his faith and organizations he joined in college.

Jack had to say over and over again that he wasn't attacking his faith and he never did -- he questioned his affiliation with a stupid group and then explained why it's relevant to the campaign. It's because Rand Paul has insane ideas about how America should be governed and has been involved with extreme people like white supremacists and he concocts phony medical boards. Simple, right? Not for the Beltway and not for some liberal pundits. What a shame.

Kos writes:

I can see why Chait and other progressives might be a bit upset, as the ad attacks Rand Paul for his irreligious beliefs.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. Voters are less concerned with issues than values when casting their ballots, and for many voters, religion speaks to the candidate's values. I may not like it, but it's a democracy, and the notion that the source of a candidate's values are off-limits is patently absurd.

Also, do any of these pundits know Kentucky politics and how they feel about such things? Interestingly, CNN's Paul Begala defended Jack Conway and the ad itself with Anderson Cooper last night and said that indeed voters in KY would relate to the ad itself. Paul is whining the night away. Did you know he was a deeply religious man? I thought he was some offshoot of a Libertarian. Well, in his response ad, that's the direction he takes. "False Witness."

Continue reading »

A sure-fire way to tell when someone is lying: A lot of noisy outrage while never denying the charge outright. That's what happened yesterday over and over again during the debate between Jack Conway and Rand Paul. While there were many memorable moments, the one above was one of the best, because it set the tone for the entire debate.

Jack Conway is one of the most unflappable debaters I've ever seen. He started out by very calmly pointing out in his opening statement that this is an election about values as much as it is about crime and the economy, and as such, Rand Paul should be held to account for his actions earlier in his life. Conway asked the question about why Paul thought it was all right to join a group condemned by the Baylor dean for holding views, and when it would be all right to tie a woman up and force her to pray to the Aqua Buddha.

Suffice it to say, that just rattled Rand Paul right out of the gate. There were two ways he could have handled this that would have been better. If it happened, he could simply have said "yes, it was stupid, I was in college, and college students don't always make good judgments', or if it didn't happen, he could simply have denied it outright, saying it never happened.

Instead, what we get is Rand Paul accusing Jack Conway of lying, of being outrageous, accusing the victim of lying while acknowledging that there is indeed a victim. It's quite a study in how to lie badly. Anyone who has raised a teenager sees right through Paul's response. Faux outrage; martyred victimhood.

It's the Republican way.

(Please support Jack Conway's candidacy by giving to Blue America on his behalf if you can. Rand Paul is receiving donations from all over the country and flooding Kentucky with negative ads -- Conway can use all the help we can give him.)

Bonus: Jack Conway's Aqua Buddha ad, which will send an interesting ripple across moral conservatives in Kentucky

Sometimes Rand Paul's anti-regulatory mouth gets him into trouble. Earlier this election season, he got into hot water with miners for suggesting the federal government shouldn't be involved in mine safety. He then later said he still "thinks miners, mine operators and mine regulators in Kentucky know what works best to keep Kentucky miners safe."

The problem is that state by state regulations, or lack thereof, create lax loopholes in the law big enough to drive a truck through. I don't doubt Rand "I'm not for the Civil Rights Act" believes that racist state legislators and officials knew what worked best when it came to voting laws, too.

So Blue America friend AmericansForAmericaPAC is going up on the Kentucky airwaves about it:

This ad is running on WXCC "Coal Country Radio" in the eastern Kentucky and in Madisonville, not far from the tragic disaster in the spring that killed 2 miners – which inspired Paul to say "Accidents Happen". According to the AP, there are 18,000 miners in Kentucky- plus their families and friends. AmericansForAmericaPAC is raising on ActBlue for it here.

This plays in Kentucky. Yesterday, the Lexington Herald-Leader just endorsed Jack Conway for Senate. Note the third paragraph:

Since riding the Tea Party wave to victory in the Republican primary as a relatively unvetted candidate, Paul has spent the summer and early fall revealing himself to be quite the ideologue who's long on simplistic slogans but short on understanding the drastic consequences of adhering to those slogans.

What came across as refreshingly candid in the spring proved to be distressingly extremist when Paul was pressed on issues ranging from civil rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

As a senator, his mission would be a chain-saw massacre of federal government that lays waste to farm subsidies, education spending, mine-safety regulations, federal aid in fighting the scourge of drugs and numerous other programs of significant benefit to Kentuckians.

Not only is mine safety a critical issue, but Paul's chain-saw approach to all regulations is winning support for Conway. Radio ads being among of the cheapest forms of political communication, $10 or $20 goes a long way. Blue America's partners at AmericansforAmericaPAC are taking every dollar and putting it into production and the buy- believe it or not, the admaker, a longtime colleague of mine, is actually working on the buy down the hall from me as I'm typing this. You can chip in here to keep reaching Kentucky miners.

Why is it that whenever a conservative is asked for specific ways to cut the federal budget, they always spout the same nonsense? In this snippet from the Conway-Paul debate, Rand Paul gives the usual non-answer, which as far as I can tell, boils down to "rules". We've got to have more "rules", because that's what smaller government is about -- rules, right? He also mumbles some things about unspent TARP funds (they've already been rolled back into the budget, Rand), a federal balanced budget amendment, and "putting everything on the table -- entitlements, defense spending, all of it." I could be wrong, but I thought the catfood commission was doing that very same thing right now.

Jack Conway steps up to the plate and knocks back the balanced budget amendment idea by pointing out that getting 2/3rds of states to ratify it won't take care of any budgets anytime soon. He then goes on to say that he's balanced his own budget, and gives several other specific ideas for how to get the budget in line.

One of the moments I most wanted to shout at the screen came in the rebuttals, when Rand Paul said that 33 states have balanced budget amendments. While that's true, it's also true that those states rely on Federal dollars to balance their budgets. Were it not for the stimulus bill, they would have had to make dramatic and awful cuts to programs like Medicaid.

I know it's death to say in an election year, but why is it that no one wants to even think about raising taxes? Perish that thought, but honestly, that's what needs to happen.

A new video today catches Rand Paul repeatedly supporting a $2,000 Medicare deductible on Kentucky seniors – despite his claims just last week that such a statement was a “lie.”

This video shows Paul's history with wanting to make sure the elderly and poor suffer as much as possible so his free market masters can rake in boatloads of cash. Are the people of Kentucky paying attention to his policies?

Apparently not, and that's why Paul has stayed off of TV as much as possible. Here's his latest outrageous policy idea.

Digby writes:

Just what in the hell does Rand Paul have against disabled people? First he said that he wouldn't have voted for the Americans with Disabilities Act because it inconveniences business, then he said that old and sick people should be forced to be more responsible by paying a huge 2,000 deductible and now he wants to balance the budget on the backs of impoverished sick and disabled people on Medicaid.

I sure feel sorry for his patients. He has all the compassion of a rabid jackal.
--
And here I thought you couldn't balance the budget by "cutting off the welfare queens." But, Medicaid is "intergenerational welfare," presumably because it creates a sense of dependency among the sick an disabled children who should be begging in the streets to pay for their medical care. (Or just dying --- that would be the most responsible of all.)
--

Keep in mind that if Rand Paul wanted to live his libertarian principles, he'd stop taking Medicare and Medicaid patients. But he believes he "deserves to make a comfortable living" and takes in hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer funded medical care each year. It's "other people" who have to sacrifice.

So true, so true.

Tea Partiers in KY and elsewhere have been for the most part, full of crap, because as Matt Taibbi observed in his lengthy article called Tea and Crackers, they sucking on the government teat, using Medicare and Medicaid and whatever else they can grab, while they trash it along the way.

But after lengthy study of the phenomenon, I've concluded that the whole miserable narrative boils down to one stark fact: They're full of shit. All of them. At the voter level, the Tea Party is a movement that purports to be furious about government spending — only the reality is that the vast majority of its members are former Bush supporters who yawned through two terms of record deficits and spent the past two electoral cycles frothing not about spending but about John Kerry's medals and Barack Obama's Sixties associations. The average Tea Partier is sincerely against government spending — with the exception of the money spent on them. In fact, their lack of embarrassment when it comes to collecting government largesse is key to understanding what this movement is all about — and nowhere do we see that dynamic as clearly as here in Kentucky, where Rand Paul is barreling toward the Senate with the aid of conservative icons like Palin...read on

If these Teabirchers do get into office because of the power of Republican propaganda and the hatred of anything that is progressive from their sycophants, then all these conservative pawns who voted for them will suffer tremendously by their own hands.

The DSCC have a new ad based on Paul's latest insanity.

Continue reading »

When Teddy Roosevelt first proposed a system of single payer insurance for the United States, it was popular and quite nearly a done deal. That is, until the AMA intervened and began a whisper campaign about how it would "socialize health care" and place patients under government control. During the 21st century battle for universal health care, President Obama was able to get the AMA on board with it, which is part of the reason it actually passed.

How did he do that? Well, part of the reason it worked is because the AMA has splintered into subgroups, sometimes according to specialty and other times according to political bent. One of the more prominent (and scary!) splinter groups is the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), of which Rand Paul is a member.

The AAPS just had a tea party on September 18th. Not only did Rand Paul attend, so did our favorite Nevada teabagger, Sharron Angle. And not only Sharron Angle, but Georgia's Paul Broun, also a doctor.

Continue reading »

It's always fun to watch Election Night on Fox, especially when they get their hopes all fired up and things kind of fall flat instead.

They wanted to get all excited about Rand Paul's big win in Kentucky -- but then there's the little problem with Paul's win being a big fiasco for the GOP establishment. So the excitement was a little muted there.

What was unmentioned: If you look at the complete Kentucky results, the liberal Democrat, Jack Conway, who Paul will face in the general election collected about 22,000 more votes than Paul, and Democrats in general garnered about 170,000 more total votes than Republicans. No one should start assuming that the seat is Paul's just yet.

It was also tough to spin Blanche Lincoln's almost-certain runoff with progressive Bill Halter in Arkansas as a conservative win, considering that Lincoln had screwed herself with the Democratic base by playing games with health-care reform and financial reform. Mostly that race went ignored.

And then there was Joe Sestak's win over Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. Again, it was a little difficult to spin this as a win for conservatives, considering that Sestak is a progressive Democrat and Specter had just switched parties after decades as a Republican. Instead we heard a lot of talk about "anti-incumbent sentiment."

But the biggest deflation of the Tea Bag came in Pennsylvania's 12th District, where Republican Tim Burns -- a Tea Party fave who got heavy media play at Fox for the past couple of weeks -- still couldn't pull off the victory against Democrat Mark Critz, a longtime John Murtha staffer who leaned heavily on his old boss' legacy to keep his seat. This was a race that had been touted on Fox and elsewhere as a likely pickup for Republicans. Quoth Tory Mazzola, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, which dumped $200,000 into the race: "The fact that we have a strong GOP candidate, Tim Burns -- committed to job creation and repealing ObamaCare -- combined with a favorable Republican environment has turned this historically Democratic seat into a swing district."

RNC chairman Michael Steele had even guaranteed a Burns victory. Ooops.

So of course, having invested heavily in promoting the "Mini Super Tuesday" election as a referendum on President Obama, Fox had to figure out some way to spin the results that way. This meant getting out their spinmeister "pollsters", Frank Luntz and Doug Schoen.

Luntz managed to turn PA-12 into an anti-Obama referendum by pointing out how Critz ran to the right during the campaign. (Um, OK, Frank, whatever. Tea Party Dude still lost.)

Schoen even more bizarrely tried to claim that Specter's loss was "anti-Obama," because the president had endorsed the converted senator. Um, so, lessee if we have this straight: In DougSchoenland, Pennsylvania Democrats rejected a conservative ex-Republican and replaced him with a progressive Democrat not because he was a piss-poor Democrat, but because he wasn't right-wing enough? Come again?

OK, you knew they had to spin it as a victory for the Tea Partiers somehow. It just took some ... imagination.