There’s Something about an Aqua Buddha Man

My Keloland Colleague David Newquist warned us about a witch hunt in America, and boy was he ever right. Here is a commercial approved by Kentucky Senate Candidate and Attorney General Jack Conway.

Without even asking about the facts behind the allegations, isn't this an appalling piece of work? With talk of "a Secret society" that "called the Holy Bible a hoax," "that was banded for mocking Christianity and Christ," this sounds like something produced by Pastor Terry Jones. Jack Conway is pointing his finger at Paul and yelling "Witch!"

It gets better.

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.

Aqua Buddha? False idols? I have no idea what a watery Siddhartha might be, but does Jack Conway really know which idols are false? I know people who keep their gods in a kitchen cabinet. No doubt Attorney General Conway would eye these Hindus with pious suspicion.

The lines above, from the Conway ad, are based on an account by an anonymous source. The story was reported by GQ, which described what seemed to be a kidnapping committed by Paul and his roommate. That is the way much of the press reported it. Paul flatly denies the kidnapping charge. The Washington Post reports that the woman came forward and confirmed the events but made it clear that it was entirely voluntary.

"He did not drug me," she said. "He did not force me physically in any way."

She said they then "took me out to this creek and made me worship Aqua Buddha." And she added that the whole thing was so "weird" that afterwards she ended relations with Paul and his friends.

To say that the witness came forward, however, is not true. She did talk to the Post, but she remains anonymous.

Rand Paul has flatly denied the kidnapping charge, but not, I think, all the details of the account. In fact, he shouldn't have to. The woman telling the story may have good reason to want to remain anonymous. It is nonetheless the case that anonymous accusations are worse than worthless. A responsible press would leave this sort of thing to The National Inquirer or The Star. Anonymous accusations allow any party of ill-will and no scruples to blacken the reputation of anyone. Such accusations should stain the reputation of anyone who repeats them.

To base a negative campaign ad on an anonymous accusation is proof positive that Jack Conway is a man of no honor. He is a scoundrel, who will win at any cost.

If Conway's ad had left it at that, it would be enough to give us the measure of the man. He went further.

Why does Rand Paul now want to end all federal faith-based initiatives and even end the deduction for religious charities?

This is something much worse than a personal attack against Rand Paul. That line alone, if produced by a Republican campaign, would be regarded by Democrats as evidence of an American Taliban. Wouldn't it?

Conway's ad is clearly suggesting that opposition to government support for faith-based initiatives is evidence of sinister, unchristian motives. For Heaven's sake, aren't a lot, if not most Democrats opposed to faith-based initiatives? Isn't Conway, in effect, adding most of his party to a list of suspects for the inquisition? Like most Americans, I am comfortable with tax deductions for religious institutions. Should anyone who opposes such deductions be branded as worshiper of Aqua Buddha?

I am no big fan of Rand Paul. Like his father, he seems to me to be a bit of a wild card. I don't care much about what a wild and crazy guy he was thirty years ago as a college student. If I were registered to vote in Kentucky, I would only want to know whether he respected people of faith. Based on Conway's perfidious commercial, I would at least know who to vote against.

All year long Democrats and their allies in the Press have looked for evidence of intolerance in Tea Party signs. They have found nothing as nasty as Conway's ad. It represents everything they claim to oppose. If they are inclined to denounce it, they have mostly resisted the inclination.

Ps. Chris Matthews, of all people, took Conway to task. See the Daily Caller.

Comments

[Donald Pay]

Oh, come on. Religious conservatives have been running these sorts of campaigns for thirty years against liberals. Sometimes they're whisper campaigns, and you don't know who's behind them. Often they get a big push from the pulpit of conservative preachers on the Sunday before election day when there's no chance to answer them. At least Conway had the guts to put his name behind the ad and give Paul a chance to explain his position.

[KB]

Donald: find me one like this! You would be livid if this were done by the other side.

[SeriousLee]

Donald, do you know the great thing about the Internet? It provides proof at anyone's fingertips. Surely, you should be able to overwhelm us with a barrage of examples of ads on YouTube to support your position. I'll wait for your proof, but know that I won't be holding my breath.

[duggersd]

Here is another one over the top religionwise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWdyf9eSkqQ
Also, same clown, different attack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9M2I_1VynQ&feature=related
Last I heard, this clown is down about 20 points. Good riddance.

[Donald Pay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c10sce6oqCc&NR=1

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/global/story.asp?s=13108677

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/charles_c_haynes/2010/10/misusing_religion_to_bash_opponents_--_and_win_votes.html

Of course the Republican whisper campaign didn't work here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/20/AR2010062002062.html

[Jon S.]

Donald,

I am uncertain what these videos are supposed to prove. Admittedly, I did not watch the entire first video, but from what I saw it was a pretty benign discussion about Pakistan. The second news story is about the Democrat Mayor of Honolulu trying to use religion against Neil Abercrombie. The third story discusses the Rand Paul incident and quotes Christine O'Donnell saying she thinks more people side with her Catholic beliefs than the alleged Marxist beliefs of Chris Coons. This might be silly, but it doesn't strike me as being anywhere near the level of Conway using anonymous sources to smear Rand Paul. The forth story is about some Republicans waging a whispering campaign about another Republican, Nikki Haley of South Carolina. First, this is not about religion (it was marital infidelity). Second, this was Republican versus Republican (which doesn't quite make your point). And third, Haley won the primary and will be elected the next governor of South Carolina. It seems that a strong majority of Republicans in South Carolina rejected these tactics. I have no doubt that somewhere out there is a Republican who has stooped to pretty low levels to get elected (I noted Ben Quayle when I guest blogged here), but there doesn't seem to be any evidence so far that there is a sustained effort by Christian conservatives to run whisper campaigns against liberals. Besides, your argument essentially belongs to the "well you guys started it" category, which does not exactly exonerate Conway.

[KB]

Donald: Good work my friend! I didn't manage to view all the first one, but I will take the rest in order. The Hawaii ad has one line that is over the top: "He declares no religious affiliation." Attacking the Democratic candidate for governor in those terms is a violation of protocol. Everything else in the ad addresses specific political issues and criticizes Abercrombie's position. You're allowed to do that in a campaign ad. This doesn't come close to the Conway ad in loathsomeness. But if you think that the Hawaii ad is bad, you'd have to agree with me about Conway.

Renee Elmer's ad strikes me as much worse. The grand historical interpretation of Islam is something to think about around a table. To put it in a political ad is almost as irresponsible as Pastor Jone's Burn a Koran day. The attack on Bob Etheridge is vile, I think, for suggesting that disagreement on the Mosque issue is tantamount to siding with terrorists. Is this as loathsome as the Conway ad? Through in some anonymous personal accusations, and you're getting there. See? We can agree on something!

We also agree about the scurrilous campaign against Nikki Haley in South Carolina. I think Ms. Haley looks like a future Republican star, and she is going to be the next Governor of her state.

You haven't shown me anything that quite measures up to the depravity of the Conway ad, or the Grayson ads that Dugger links to. I don't agree that it is to Conway's credit that he put his name to the ad. That just means that he considers such conduct acceptable. Hiding in the shadows may be underhanded and cowardly, but it implicitly concedes the nastiness of the business and keeps the evening TV free from it.

You have produced enough that I will consider my challenge to be met. Perhaps we can then agree on a bit more. The fact that both sides do this from time to time doesn't make it any better. It is loathsome. Let's agree to condemn it whenever it happens, on your side or mine.

[Jon S.]

Whoops. I didn't see the anti-Etheridge ad for some reason. Reading too fast. I agree that it is below the belt. Not quite in the same way as the Conway ad, but a low blow nontheless. We have the "guilt by association" (plus some shoddy reasoning) ad versus the "anonymous smear" ad.

[Bill Fleming]

Oh come on. The Repubs have been FAR more egregious.
Please. Stop with the crocodile tears.
I'm about to throw up over here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8JDRiwoiZw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJQYAD7DKWE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngjUkPbGwAg&feature=related

[KB]

Bill: you say that Republicans have been far more egregious [in their offenses], and then give me three examples, none of which comes close to the nastiness of the Conway ad or the Grayson ads offered by Dugger. The first features a genuine dirty trick, exposed by Tim Russert. You do know that Russert died two years ago? Add an attack on someone's patriotism and a claim that the candidate hates Jesus, and you would be getting somewhere.

Next you show us the infamous Saxby Chambliss ad. Democrats have been whining like babies about that one for years, eight years to be exact, but in fact there is not a thing wrong with it. Cleland was criticized for his positions and his votes in Congress. That is what elections are supposed to be about. No where does the ad say that Cleland doesn't love his country or that he hates Jesus.

The last one is the worst of the bunch. The anti-Islam tone of the ad comes close to the religious based calumny in the Conway ad. Through in some anonymous accusations and maybe an Aqua Buddha or two, and you would get close.

[Bill Fleming]

Whatever, KB. Even Rand Paul's father has serious questions about Rand Paul.
He's a goofball. But to each his own I suppose.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014453-503544.html

[KB]

Bill: I am not defending Rand Paul here. I am condemning Conway. His commercial was contemptible.