Special Report
A Religious Test for Rand Paul
Even liberals can’t abide by Jack Conway’s attack on his Republican opponent’s religious faith.
There’s a double standard when it comes to religion and politics. Many people who claim to want the former out of the latter really only object to conservative religion advancing conservative politics. They have no problem with liberal Democrats who invoke Jesus Christ, quote Scripture, are members of the clergy or even, in a pinch, oppose same-sex marriage.
Liberal Democrats can even claim that their conservative opponents’ aren’t true Christians. But Jack Conway is learning that even this old double standard has its limits. Conway is the Democratic nominee for Senate in Kentucky. With his campaign in desperation mode, he released an ad that suggests his Republican opponent Rand Paul is anti-Christian.
According to the narrator, Paul was “a member of a secret society that called the Holy Bible ‘a hoax’” and “was banned for mocking Christianity and Christ.” Paul also stands accused of tying up a woman and making her worship “Aqua Buddha.” Oh, and he also would “end the deduction for religious charities.”
Well, the source for this last claim is Paul’s support for the Fair Tax, which does indeed end the deduction for religious charities — because it eliminates the federal income tax. Mike Huckabeee also backs the Fair Tax and while Huckabee has been known to support economic policy prescriptions that are unwise, no sane person has accused him of being anti-Christian.
The whole episode has turned out to be a bit much even for most liberals, who are rightly calling Conway out on the ad. Blogger Josh Marshall said the commercial “registered for me as somewhere between a hokey Tea Party ad and an SNL spoof.” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) called the ad “very dangerous” and said it “came very close to the line.”
Jason Zengerle of the New Republic described it as “the most despicable ad of this political season.” Zengerle is no Rand Paul enthusiast. In fact, he is the reporter who broke the Aqua Buddha story in GQ. Paul’s NoZe membership and college pranks don’t mark him as any less Christian than the Wittenberg Door. “Although the Conway campaign makes the NoZe Brotherhood sound like a bunch of pagans who got together to sacrifice small woodland creatures in tribute to the anti-Christ,” writes Zengerle, “the group was, in reality, the closest thing Baylor had to the Harvard Lampoon.”
Zengerle’s TNR colleague Jonathan Chait opined that “Rand Paul harbors a private contempt for Christianity” based on really little more than college-era letters Paul wrote about Ayn Rand. But there are lots of people who have imbibed the objectivist thinker’s individualism and libertarianism without embracing her anti-Christianity, probably in greater numbers than radical liberation theologians who square Marxism with Chrisitianity.
Even Chait pronounces Conway’s attack “the ugliest, most illiberal political ad of the year.” It’s also worth noting, as Chait compares Ayn Rand to Karl Marx, that while Whittaker Chambers envisioned Rand issuing the command “To a gas chamber — go!,” Marx’s disciples actually sent people there in large numbers.
Conway didn’t back down in a candidates’ debate Sunday. “Values matter,” he said, reiterating the charge. “Why did he freely join a group known for mocking or making fun of people of faith? And secondly, when is it ever a good idea to tie up a woman and ask her to kneel before a false idol called Aqua Buddha?”
“You demean the state of Kentucky. You embarrass yourself,” Paul shot back. Declaring himself “a pro-life Christian,” he continued, “You know how we know when you’re lying? Your lips are moving. You’re accusing me of crimes. Do you know nothing about the process? You’re going to stand there and accuse me of a crime from 30 years ago from some anonymous source? How ridiculous are you? You embarrass this race.”
Paul faced similar charges in the Republican primary. His opponent Trey Grayson — who has since endorsed him for Senate, like most of his GOP detractors — attacked him on abortion and other social issues, employing caricatures of libertarianism. But those caricatures apply even less to him than they did to his father, prompting James Dobson to switch endorsements from Grayson to Paul once he learned the facts. Dobson called his initial endorsement “an embarrassing mistake.”
An even bigger defining moment in the primary campaign when Grayson tried to associate Paul with those who believe the United States is to blame for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Rather than defend his father’s views of blowback, Paul simply hit back: “Trey Grayson, your shameful TV ad is a lie and it dishonors you.”
As the polls tighten in the Kentucky Senate race, it remains to be seen whether Paul’s counterpunching can prevail again. But the political climate might prompt Conway to hedge his bets by praying to Aqua Buddha.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (80) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/20/a-religious-test-for-rand-paul
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Booger | 10.20.10 @ 6:14AM
From the desk of Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway:
Dear Voters,
Some of you seem to have taken a bit of umbrage with my completely legitimate questions about the faith of my heathen/pagan/wiccan(?) opponent Rand Paul. Specifically, some of you have asked how I can know what is the heart of the goat-worshiping voodoo practitioner Rand Paul, while simultaneously having the temerity to question MY religion. I suppose I will actually have to address the issue since I am currently, inexplicably, behind in the polls to the Baal worshiper Rand Paul.
First of all, as to Rand Paul's religion. It has come to my attention that a few decades ago the High Priest of Dagon known as Rand Paul was a member of a secret society on his college campus. Members of this society engaged in anti-Christian behavior. Since members of the society engaged in anti-Christian activity, and the demon-possessed tea-bagger Rand Paul was a part of this society, then we may safely say that Rand Paul is not a Christian. As you can see, my logic is utterly unassailable in this matter.
Now as to those other questions. Yes, I am a proud Roman Catholic, and make no secret of the matter. No, my support for abortion on demand, at taxpayer expense, which is directly antithetical to Catholic doctrine in no way affects the fact that I am a good Catholic and a good Christian. Abortion on demand is far too important a matter to allow such petty matters as religious faith to come into play when making decisions on how to vote. The primary decision on this matter must, of course, be defeating your primary opponent and shoring up your base. Some of you are so naive as to insist that being a Christian, especially a proud Roman Catholic, would mean that I should stand up to my base and support "unborn life". Indeed. I see that you are judging me. Judge not that ye be not judged. Bet you never heard that before, huh? You are probably a bunch of fake Christians just like that Zoroastrian nut job Rand Paul.
Additionally, some of you have taken me to task for my strong support for gay rights. Let me assure you, I can support gay rights all day long without violating any special tenets of my proud Roman Catholic faith. If you think I am wrong on this and question my Christianity, then you are obviously a bunch of Cthulu-worshiping, virgin-sacrificing, psychopathic lunatics.
Quite frankly, I and my Democratic colleagues are getting tired of this. It is beyond the pale that you would question our faith. If I say I am a Christian, and it helps me get elected, then that is just a happy coincidence. Nothing I do as a politician may be taken into account, because I must act for the Greater Good, which is, of course, far beyond such frivolities as "good" and "evil" on an individual basis. My social conscience is so great that it renders my personal conscience irrelevant. On the other hand, Republicans, with their opposition to the Holy Sacraments of Abortion on Demand and Gay Rights, have sacrificed their social conscience, and thus may be justly condemned as anti-Christian, even for offenses several decades old.
I hope this clears things up for you. If not, then you are obviously a tea-bagger animist looking for your future in a pile of chicken guts.
Sincerely,
Future Senator Jack Conway
the permanent newbie| 10.20.10 @ 11:33AM
Booger, the gods love you.
ygylkop| 10.22.10 @ 6:20PM
Perhaps God loves him, but I hope 'the gods' do not. As the Roman's warned, '' Quem Deum Diligunt Adolescens Moritur" - Whom the gods love dies young'. I guess we say 'only the good de young'.
But, a great post by the Booger.
Try not to die young.
Nunya| 10.20.10 @ 11:33AM
LOL!
I look forward to your postings, they always make me smile. :-)
Nate W.| 10.20.10 @ 7:44PM
Ab-Fab. (Seriously; how do you think of this stuff at 6am?)
Alan Brooks| 10.20.10 @ 9:09PM
A house of worship is a neutral zone; outside world is a shooting gallery.
Douglas E Brafford| 10.22.10 @ 9:26PM
Thank you so much Jack ! You have made the Huffington Post which is the kiss of the death (political death) that you so richly deserve.
A recent Rasmussen poll suggests that a Huffington Post endorsement is worth about $150,000 to the opponent of the endorsed ignorant left wing candidate.
Barbara| 10.26.10 @ 3:11PM
Conway's a Catholic? Paul should go at Conway for claiming membership in a religion but not following its rules. Hope Cardinal Burke gets his way and Conway, Pelosi, et al are denied the Holy Eucharist and a Catholic funeral until they repent publicly.
Ret. Marine| 10.20.10 @ 6:46AM
Creditability is an asset, honor is a virtue and honesty is a bitch for some anyway. This season has brought We the People a sense of where in the lanes of life certain things are beyond pale, Conway sure hit the door with both eyes open, and for this he probably will pay the price, and rightfully so.
This is actual entertainment for the masses, some get it some don't. The point here is who cares. Rand Paul is the better man for telling this gassbag where he can take himself in a polite way, the real funny thing was, Conway being a demonrat, an obvious looser of life's fundamental honor belief system, didn't even bat an eye over the obvious insult.
Alan Brooks| 10.20.10 @ 9:40PM
Why did AS gloss over Joe Sobran's anti-Judaic tendencies? mostly because of his affiliation with NR?
If Sobran had had his own magazine-- as Buchanan has American Conservative-- would Sobran have been easier to dislike?
Red Phillips | 10.20.10 @ 10:09PM
Buchanan is no longer associated with American Conservative. They post his column, but he has no editorial control or interest in the magazine. If you are going to smear people with the anti-Semitic charge you should at least get your facts straight.
Alan Brooks| 10.20.10 @ 10:44PM
Well, it WAS his rag- and why should I keep up with all the maneuvers of Pat Buchanan?.
But you evaded the question. Why is it rightwingers can dismiss religion (Ayn Rand called the Judeo-Christian deity a quote schizophrenic God unquote?
Why is it Sobran and Buchanan can be anti-Judaic, but are accused only of voicing their opinions, rather than being described as what they are: intolerant.
Alan Brooks| 10.20.10 @ 11:00PM
"But there are lots of people who have imbibed the objectivist thinker's individualism and libertarianism without embracing her anti-Christianity, probably in greater numbers than radical liberation theologians who square Marxism with Chrisitianity."
The above is where we disagree. You are minimalizing the antinomian character of libertarians.
Tim*| 10.21.10 @ 12:59AM
That's like smearing critics of France with being anti-Catholic, ObamaBoy Brooks.
Red Phillips | 10.21.10 @ 5:09PM
"Why is it Sobran and Buchanan can be anti-Judaic, but are accused only of voicing their opinions, rather than being described as what they are: intolerant."
Because I don't accept the charge you so matter-of-factly just assert. Without getting into everything Sobran and Buchanan have ever written, the thrust of both their concerns is that they support a non-interventionist foreign policy and believe that our excessive fidelity to Israel is a large part of what drives our counterproductive interventionism.
Agree or disagree, this is an entirely legitimate opinion that can be argued based on objective evidence. If people disagree then they should argue their case in good faith. Resorting to name-calling as a first resort when someone utters what the PC gatekeepers have determined to be wronkthink is intellectually thuggish and should be beneath anyone who aspires to reasoned intellectual debate.
Personally I would be embarrassed to resort to name-calling to attempt to thoughtstop my opponent. It is intellectual bullying and beneath most of the people who frequently resort to it. If I had to resort to that I would feel that I was either afraid to make a rational argument or incapable of doing so.
Alan Brooks| 10.21.10 @ 11:46PM
"when someone utters what the PC gatekeepers"
Then why do you 'name-call' Obama so much? And isn't being anti-Israel PC?
Red Phillips | 10.22.10 @ 2:07PM
"Then why do you 'name-call' Obama so much?"
Alan, you must be confusing me with someone else. I have never once that I can recall "name-called" Obama. I don't like his politics, but neither do I like the politics of most of the people in Washington. I stay away from that kind of stuff for reasons similar to the ones I stated above. I try to keep the debate high-minded.
In fact, I am more likely to use emotionally charged language against people who say they are conservatives but don't act like it (like McCain) than I am against honest liberals.
"And isn't being anti-Israel PC?"
Are you joking? I do think it is true that people on the left get more of a pass for being "anti-Israel" on human rights issues and such, but let any kind of conservative utter an insufficiently deferential word about Israel an the Nazi/anti-Semite charges come flying.
Mark Long| 10.20.10 @ 7:08AM
I actually attended Baylor in the 1980s (Class of 87, MA in 1992) and remember that the NoZe were a highly secretive and very selective group (supposedly only the smartest students were asked to join). They were irreverent and liked to mock the school administration and such. They were mostly funny but some of their pranks were a bit disturbing and could be labeled anti-Christian.
While all of these accusations are theoretically possible, in the end I think it is silly that the Democrats would be so desperate as to dredge up adolescent pranks as the only way to attack Dr. Paul. They are grasping at straws. They cannot run on their own record because it is so damning, so they engage in petty attacks.
Not to mention their hypocrisy: These are the same people that so easily dismissed Bill Clinton's numerous affairs (not to mention the entire Kennedy clan!) and crimes such as rape and perjury, Obama's (& others) extreme radical ideas & associations, and so on.
They are making much ado about nothing. I suspect it will not help them much at all. In fact, these kinds of attacks might help Paul, O'Donnell, Angle, Buck and the other Tea Party candidates win. I certainly hope so. It is time to drain the swamp in fact!
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.20.10 @ 7:34AM
Hi Mark,
I too went to Baylor. Did my work in Family Counseling. Did my thesis on Victor Frankl's work.
(1970)
We had the "Nose" if I recall correctly. Those guys were a hoot, and had "foot functions" rather than dances. Terribly avant guard in those surroundings.
Appleby| 10.20.10 @ 7:02PM
I went to a small Bible college in Tennessee for 3 years and I am sure we were MUCH more irreverent than Mr. Paul ever was -- but everyone knew it was in good fun, and the young man who declared himself Pope Winnie Pooh I and excommunicated the entire crew of the USS Private Enterprise later became a Bishop.
Somebody please send this nebbish a recording of Tom Lehr singing the Vatican Rag!
Alan Brooks| 10.20.10 @ 11:52PM
"The above is where we disagree. You are minimalizing the antinomian character of libertarians."
In fact, you are minimizing the antinomian tendencies of ALL rightists, rightists are materialists-- they are not Confucian/ Taoist/ Hindu/ Buddhist in their outlook.
Tim*| 10.20.10 @ 7:27AM
The Democrats attempt desperately, to keep The Discussion away from Unemployment , The Failed Economy , Taxes and The Health Scam
However, The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Kentucky shows Paul with 47% of the vote to Conway’s 42%, his best showing since June. Four percent (4%) favor some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided.
We Tea Party Rebels support Our Tea Party Candidate Dr.Rand Paul .
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .
Rise Up In Rebellion !
Sean| 10.20.10 @ 7:54AM
Conway didn't back down in a candidates' debate Sunday. "Values matter," he said, reiterating the charge. "Why did he freely join a group known for mocking or making fun of people of faith?
A group known for mocking or making fun of people of faith. Sounds like the Democratic party to me. Is Conway a member? I think so.
Mark| 10.20.10 @ 8:16AM
Karma for the constant attacks on Obama's religion, that haven't ceased to this day, perhaps? Something to think about. When you build a beast called the Christian Right (which by the way spits on everything Jesus preached) and exploit it election after election, be prepared to be eaten by it once in awhile.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, in other words. Or more bluntly, sweet poetic justice.
Steve A| 10.20.10 @ 10:12AM
Hey Mark, Exactly what is "Obama's religion??" If he is Christian, is he part of the Christian Left. If so, please enlighten me as to the dimensions of the Christian Left.
Mel Torme| 10.20.10 @ 10:32AM
Two men (Obama and Mark) say they're Jesus, one of 'em must be wrong .... they got protest singers singing protest songs ....
"Dr. Parkinson declared ' I'm not surprised to see you here.
You've got smoker's cough from smoking, brewers droop from drinking beer.
I don't know how you came to get them Betty Davis knees,
but worst of all, young man, you've got industrial disease....'"
gypsy| 10.20.10 @ 11:55AM
Obama's "religion" is best summed up in the creed he so clearly professed many many moons ago:
"WE are the ones we have been waiting for"
The "god" Obama worships is none other than Obama himself. All of history has been leading up to the moment He became the leader of the whole wide world.
btw Mark, send us your address and we'll all kick in with a nice check to help replace those knee pads of yours, which must be thoroughly worn out kowtowing to this grinning fool masquerading as an American President
Stephanie| 10.20.10 @ 10:45AM
Dude, what the hell is obama's religion? Never have gotten a straight answer on that one!
Mark| 10.20.10 @ 11:10AM
Stephanie, you've gotten the same straight answer from Obama dozens of times on this. You just don't want to accept it. I'll leave you to figure out who's problem that is, as I think you're capable.
cj| 10.20.10 @ 11:19AM
for the record, please tell us that are not as smart as you in understanding obama, what is his religion?
Texas Mom 2012| 10.20.10 @ 11:41AM
In the not-so-reverend Wright's church Obama professed to 'black liberation theology' which states that we 'collectively' must be saved. It does not believe in personal salvation like all other Protestant faiths. Instead it believes that we all must be forced to sacrifice for the collective salvation of all. It is frankly Marxism dressed up as Christianity although it is in reality the opposite of the teaching of Jesus. Jesus said that no one can come to the Father but through him. He did not acknowledge any other way to salvation. So no, technically, I would not call Obama a Christian because his faith of black liberation theology is not based on the teachings of Christ.
John II| 10.20.10 @ 1:19PM
The "collective" aspect of it all is particularly interesting, given the long track record of people who claim to be devoted to "collective" interests.
If you want a term for it, Professor Obama's religion appears to be Secular Narcissism.
John II| 10.20.10 @ 1:20PM
How about "Church of the Latter-Day Egos"?
RCV| 10.20.10 @ 1:42PM
You mean like the "community of disciples" described in Acts, who "believed they were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed any private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common," that kind of "collective interest."?
Back to my meditations on history. Sixty-three years today, the House Committee on Un-American Activities opened its hearings into communist influences in Hollywood, the group that produced all those sinister movies you adore.
All the best.
Margie| 10.20.10 @ 2:10PM
Nice try.. again.. Lefty lawyer, RCV.
Anyone who reads the Bible can see that the disciples did that voluntarily.
The opposite of your Marxist beliefs of tyranny, which are opposed to Jesus Christ and His gospel.
2 Cor. 11:4 & Gal. 1:6.
RCV| 10.20.10 @ 2:43PM
Of course they did it voluntarily. I never used the term Marxism ( a system I abhor) to describe the apostles, who were members of a voluntary collective. And good wishes and God Bless to you.
cj| 10.20.10 @ 3:11PM
recv: do you really believe in collectively sharing? have you given away all your money and possessions to anyone who needs them? if you are going to lecture the do it by deeds and not empty words, like a typical lefty liberal who wants to force others to "share" through the tax code. lead by example, and who knows, others will follow.
John II| 10.20.10 @ 4:49PM
I think the better historical analogy, Roberto, would be closer to home: I mean, the numerous collectives attempted here in America, especially in the nineteenth century, but stretching into the hippie communes and suchlike in our own era. Not exactly the image of, say, a Carmelite monastery.
The pattern is instructively recurrent. Instead of a cooperative arrangement of the sort advertised, the experiment morphs quickly into a cult-like arrangement with one or two dominant figures aggrandizing themselves at the emotional and (often) financial expense of the troubled people who drift into such desperate attempts at community. The late Alistair Cooke puzzled over this intermittent Americano thing in a country he otherwise loved, referring to it as "an odd pattern of asininity."
As to the commies-in-Hollywood theme (which strikes me as a topic out of left field, so to speak, but YOU brought it up), be sure to include in your historical survey a few recent explorations of that favorite of lefty myths regarding demon America: Lloyd Billingsley's "Hollywood Party" and Ronald Radosh's "Red Star Over Hollywood." If you too are a movie buff, you owe it to the memory of, say, Dalton Trumbo and Elia Kazan to put aside the sentimental kneejerk smugness and pursue the topic in some depth.
And now back to that great, great John Milius classic "Red Dawn" (1984), with Ben Johnson filling in for the recently deceased John Wayne.
RCV| 10.20.10 @ 5:14PM
Yes, John, those utopian experiments rarely end well. Israel had the same problem with kibbutzim. The initial all-for-one-one-for-all enthusiasm inevitably gives way to the "who ate my cottage cheese?"
I admit the Hollywood hearings were off-topic, but I'm starting a new "this-day-in-history" routine to compete with your ever-entertaining movie references.
I don't envy you sitting through "Red Dawn" again. I always shutter when my freedoms depend on Charlie Sheen doing the right thing.
John II| 10.20.10 @ 7:22PM
Points taken. (Charlie should have pursued his original ambition to play baseball, but he couldn't handle the steady routine of college classes and practice; I suppose one should make allowances, considering that he's the son of the insufferable Martin.) I look forward to a spirited competition with your future date-of-the-moment historical entries.
cuban pete| 10.20.10 @ 1:25PM
Obama needed "street cred" in the black community so he joined Rev.Wright's church to establish that. Recall when BHO began his ascent he was criticized by those such as Sharpton because he wasn't authentic. I'm sure he anticipated that when he began his Chicago career so he wisely joined a "black" church.
Helen Donnelly| 10.20.10 @ 3:25PM
Mark - We haven't gotten a straight answer from Obama since he was elected.
confused| 10.20.10 @ 3:51PM
mark, where are you? what is the same straight answer from obama?
Nunya| 10.20.10 @ 11:40AM
Mark, you obviously are not Christian (or have never read the Bible), nor do you know what Jesus preached or you would not have stated what you did.
We'll see what happens in a couple of weeks.
ds80| 10.20.10 @ 12:04PM
"Karma for the constant attacks on Obama's religion"
Tu Quoque
"the Christian Right ... spits on everything Jesus preached"
Petitio Principii
Your reasoning is laughable, Mark
David March| 10.20.10 @ 12:42PM
Please provide three concrete examples of how the Christian Right is violating everything Jesus preached.
Thank you
Nancy in NC| 10.20.10 @ 5:17PM
I surely need enlightment on his religion, as I wish to avoid it like the plague. I detest those who THINK they are so much wiser than the rest of us dopes, and that all would be wonderful if they had carte blanche power to make us behave.
My religion says I have personal choice and consequences for my acts. I prefer to leave others to their own devices, and prefer they leave me alone to prosper or fail, win or lose, live well or die early.
My real problem with the left is their arrogance and elitism. You can believe as you choose; but I will fight you to the last breath when you want to decide how I live...you're just not that smart.
Red Phillips | 10.20.10 @ 10:13PM
"which by the way spits on everything Jesus preached"
Oh really? So Jesus would have supported baby killing and gay marriage? What Bible verses do you use to support that contention?
Alan Brooks| 10.21.10 @ 12:00AM
"Karma for the constant attacks on Obama's religion, that haven't ceased to this day, perhaps? Something to think about. When you build a beast called the Christian Right (which by the way spits on everything Jesus preached) and exploit it election after election, be prepared to be eaten by it once in awhile."
Finally, a top-notch comment. and don't forget what Glenn Beck is doing linking Islam (rather than Wahhabiism) to the 9-11 attacks.
This is the extreme Right's thinking:
Islam= Wahhabiism
socialism= Communism
Obama= Communist
Obama= Islamic
Obama= soft on terrorism.
Extreme Rightists are demonizing both Obama and Islam... as if we were to equate religious abortion clinic bombers with Christians.
W. James Antle III | 10.20.10 @ 8:34AM
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander, in other words. Or more bluntly, sweet poetic justice."
What a Christ-like sentiment, Mark. Thank you for enlightening the rest of us!
confused| 10.20.10 @ 4:44PM
Mr. Antle, don't worry about mark. this site attracts many lefties from huffington and daily kos. they post idiotic comments to distract from the article that is the subject of the comments. these people are probably too sane for the dailykos so they wander here to cause problems. it is best to laugh and ignore.
Alan Brooks| 10.21.10 @ 12:06AM
No, Mark displays more than just a political bent; from his comment it would appear he is familiar with logic, and perhaps with the scientific method.
Religion without science is lame; science without religion is blind...
That is a quote: let's see if some of the knuckledraggers here have read it before-- or are even capable of comprehending its meaning.
confused| 10.21.10 @ 5:13PM
what is a knuckledragger?
Frank Drackman | 10.20.10 @ 8:47AM
"When is it ever a good idea to tie up a Woman" ummm like 2 or 3 times a week...
its my WIFE, and she likes it...
and even if future senator Paul DID tie up a woman against her will and make her worship some sacred cow, at least he didn't leave her to asphyxiate(not drown) like the late(thank god) Ted Kennedy did to Mary Joe Kopeckney...
too bad its not the 19th century so Rand could go all Aaron Burr on that slimy Conway or just beat him to within an inch of his life with a cane like Senator whats-his-name did ...
Frank
Mel Torme| 10.20.10 @ 10:04AM
Either the beater or the beatee was named Sumner, I'm pretty sure. I think a guy from South Carolina came out with the fewer concussions in that dealio.
Let me look it up.
I sure wish we did have more that behavior still. I could pick out a coupla dozen beatees out of the senate without even thinking hard.
Mel Torme| 10.20.10 @ 10:15AM
Yeah, I can cut-and-paste as good as the next guy. From:
http://www.senate.gov/artandhi.....Sumner.htm
*************************************
On May 22, 1856, the "world's greatest deliberative body" became a combat zone. In one of the most dramatic and deeply ominous moments in the Senate's entire history, a member of the House of Representatives entered the Senate chamber and savagely beat a senator into unconsciousness.
"The inspiration for this clash came three days earlier when Senator Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts antislavery Republican, addressed the Senate on the explosive issue of whether Kansas should be admitted to the Union as a slave state or a free state. In his "Crime Against Kansas" speech, Sumner identified two Democratic senators as the principal culprits in this crime—Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina.
..........
"Representative Preston Brooks was Butler's South Carolina kinsman. If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel. Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs. Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his "Crime Against Kansas" speech.
"Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner's head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended.
"Bleeding profusely, Sumner was carried away. Brooks walked calmly out of the chamber without being detained by the stunned onlookers. Overnight, both men became heroes in their respective regions.
"Surviving a House censure resolution, Brooks resigned, was immediately reelected, and soon thereafter died at age 37. Sumner recovered slowly and returned to the Senate, where he remained for another 18 years."
*************************************
18 more years! Yeah, I think Aaron Burr's method is probably the best.
Frank Drackman | 10.20.10 @ 8:52AM
from Wikipedia:
May 22, 1856 Represenative Preston Brooks(D, SC) beat Senator Charles Sumner (R, Mass) within an inch of his life for remarks Sumner made about one of Brook's relatives...
sounds like a Democrat I could support...
RCV| 10.20.10 @ 12:17PM
I'm sure you could. He was a pro-slavery, segregationist white supremicist.
The Big E| 10.20.10 @ 10:11AM
The irony. A member of a political party which seems to have the destruction of Judeo/Christian values as its number one priority, and which strongly supports the neo-paganistic religion of environmentalism, and which refuses to take any stance on anything which might offend a Muslim somewhere in the world, accuses an opponent of being secretly anti-Christian. Amazing.
I guess it would be fine with Mr. Conway if Rand Paul were openly anti-Christian, since that would certainly be more in line with the policies enacted by and espoused by the party of which Mr. Conway is a member.
Nunya| 10.20.10 @ 11:42AM
100% spot on!!
Excellent post.
1FreeMan| 10.20.10 @ 4:03PM
You said it Big E !!
Siegfried X| 10.20.10 @ 11:45AM
Smear attacks are a standard part of politics. Desperate losers throw everything including the kitchen sink in an attempt to turn the election around.
Republican candidates need to learn how to deflect these attacks, instead of dwelling on them. Any candidate who is explaining and defending is losing. The candidate who is attacked should quickly deflect the attack, then change the subject. He could counter-attack, return to his original "message", change the subject with humor, minimize the attack as meaningless, etc. Mild scorn and sarcasm are ok, but the candidate who is attacked should never sound defensive or guilty.
Rand Paul should not allow the debate to be about what his religion was 30 years ago. By not successfully changing the subject, he is letting Conrad win.
Perusha| 10.20.10 @ 1:11PM
Aren’t there at least two aspects of any candidate for public office?
Style and substance get to the essence of the dire situations we all face, as freedom loving Americans, in each of the electoral choices we are still privileged to make.
The Happy Warrior Ronald Reagan encapsulated it all in a singe remark that put the sour puss(y) fool Carter (or was it Mondale?) in his steaming place:
“There you go again.”
Well, of course Democrats are ALWAYS “going again”, as they lie and steal and cheat their way to absolute power, trying to become our totalitarian slave masters.
And, by being a joking “happy” truth teller, Reagan also lightened up all but the most dead and deadly viewers. He at once tickled his own supporters AND broke through the heavy armoring of those who were still able to change their minds.
Let’s face it---we want BOTH a leader of substance AND one with style.
That is, especially regarding the Big Brother-like position of president, who is inevitably atop the viewing news pyramid every day, we want a likeable fellah. But, as polls seem to indicate, with Obama putatively still more well liked than his policies, what they DO is ultimately most important.
However, my opinion of most mis-educated (keep in mind the ever worsening state of “graduates” of our failing public schools) and brainwashed (Keep in mind that the MSM is only now being challenged, and has decades of previously biased programming that provided “teachable moments” for its viewers) citizens is that they are most moved by STYLE, at first.
That is, in order to get elected, they MUST be more the happy than the warrior.
Usually.
Of course, in THIS most tipping point-like election, both style and substance matter, but the suicidal substance foisted on us by all the stylish smiling foolers, like Obama, has really focused more non-brain-dead voters, so the possibility exists for a very happy warrior type landslide.
Imagine myriad Reagan clones, competing with themselves to straightforwardly demolish all the pinched faces, like Reid and Pelosi!
Remember, laughter IS the best medicine.
So, when confronted by people who are earnestly trying to be oh-so-serious, like a botox faced, deer-in-the-headlight Pelosi, a supreme laugh, OUT LOUD, is quite adequate to knock them off their unholy act.
May we ALL laugh ourselves silly, as we throw into the dustbin of history such retrogrades as Pelosi and Reid!
Andrew| 10.23.10 @ 9:19AM
Nicely put. Brought back fond memories of our Smiler in Chief from the 80's. I loved that man.
WGMOW| 10.20.10 @ 1:51PM
Clearly, the left is in desperation mode and will do anything to smear and denigrate the opposition.
Redstateboy| 10.20.10 @ 3:29PM
Wow... when I think of all those College Papers and Newspaper articles I wrote when I was a young and stupid Leftist College Student and how they could come back to be used against me if I ran as a Conservative for office.
RCV| 10.20.10 @ 4:21PM
Please send me copies in case you ever do run!
cj| 10.20.10 @ 4:49PM
rcv: do you really believe in collectively sharing? have you given away all your money and possessions to anyone who needs them? if you are going to lecture then do it by deeds and not empty words, like a typical lefty liberal who wants to force others to "share" through the tax code. lead by example, and who knows, others will follow
Gary Gore| 10.20.10 @ 5:28PM
Help educate voters BEFORE they vote on Election Day! Click here and get Christian Coalition voter guides: http://www.cc.org/voterguides
John DuBose| 10.20.10 @ 5:56PM
I for one am glad if Rand Paul did some stupid things in college. Maybe he learned something to not do again. His opponent must be desperate.
Jeremiah| 10.20.10 @ 6:06PM
Conway, your main concern should be to find that Birth Certificate.
ghostwriter| 10.20.10 @ 10:22PM
Even in an idiotic accusation/denial situation such as this, we are left with Rand Paul's answering a "Yes/No" question with a dissembling, " You are shamefully questioning my Christian values . I will not respond to a question from 30 years ago by an anonymous source. . I will not shake your hand." (Well, boo-hoo, right there!) He said the same thing again on Sean Hannity's show last night and Hannity just lapped it up like honey, instead of saying, "Dr. Rand, you can lay this to rest by saying, "I don't know what crack-brain dreamed this up, but no I never tied anyone up and I don't know Aqua Buddha from Aqua Velva.."
He can't do that because deep down in the recesses of his Christian Values brain, he recalls this one act of irrational exuberance in all of his buttoned-down life, and it is eating him alive.
Frankly, I can't picture it, but we do have that song, "The only one who could ever move me, was the son of a preacher man...Yes, he wah-as!"
I would have liked it better if he had answered Conway with, "Yeah, I probably did, but I don't remember a whoole lot about parties 30 years ago. Hell, boy, I've probably spilled more beer than you ever drank. But I saw the Light. Have you heard the Good News?"
This is how superficial I am. I am not voting for a man who looks in the mirror every morning for 30 years and thinks his hair looks OK, as Rand Paul seems to think. I thought for awhile there he just had an ill-fitting "toop" - something maybe he had crocheted himself. Lucky for him I don't live in Kentucky.
John Pack Lambert| 10.21.10 @ 2:03PM
The Abortion Clinic Bombers misses many points.
First off, the claim that they are motivated by Christian ideology needs to be examined in more detail.
Secondly, even the Foot Hood shooter killed more than Abortion Clinic bombers in the post-911 era. The comparison becomes even more ludicrous if we consider Madrid, London, Mumbai, Bali, 911 itself and many other incidents.
That said, however, you are attacking straw men constructions. The attacks on people's religion have been much more common by Democrats against Republicans than the other way around.
Despite Democrats claims, it was their liberal allies in publications like the New Republic who attacked Romney on his religion long before Huckabee ever did. It was Democrats who tried to use Bobby Jindal's Catholicism against him. It is HuffPo that has mocked Mrs. O'Connell's religion, and even more so it is the Washington Post that has failed to understand that no true Catholic who understands the constitution will accept the words "seperation of Church and state".
That is a phrase that was inserted into legal discussion by a former KKK (the anti-Catholic, 20th Century KKK at that) member who was on the Supreme Court.
RCV| 10.21.10 @ 2:36PM
No, the phrase is from Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.
Andrew| 10.23.10 @ 9:23AM
Jefferson wrote a private letter that was never inserted into legal discussion. The first legal expression of this dogma is, I believe (though I am subject to correction) in the Soviet constitution.
Also, there is no Christian ideology.
Brian Dell | 10.21.10 @ 6:12AM
"once he learned the facts"
Kentucky Right to Life says Dobson did not learn the facts, rather he was lobbied hard by the Rand campaign and Rand himself for an endorsement and he took Rand's claims of social conservative bona fides at face value.
Upset Voter| 10.21.10 @ 12:31PM
{According to the narrator, Paul was "a member of a secret society that called the Holy Bible 'a hoax'" and "was banned for mocking Christianity and Christ."}
According to his own resume and records, Jack Conway was a member of a secret society that raped women and forced pledges to perform violent hazing stunts. That secret society Jack Conway belonged to at Duke was SAE, Sigma Alpha Epsilon. SAE was banned from Duke and from the national SAE organization for these illegal and disgusting acts. Fact, Jack.
RnBram| 10.21.10 @ 1:14PM
Is whomever wrote from Jack Conway's desk insane. The comment is incomprehensible nonsense. Of course, so is James Antles' article. But a politician should know better than to wrestle with such absurdity!
maryclaudia| 10.22.10 @ 11:23PM
Well, I feel much, much better now that I know Dr. Paul went to Baylor. We Baptists can have a bit of a wild streak sometimes. All that sexual oppression, don't you know.