What is this all about? Apparently Rand Paul was part of some college hazing prank nearly 30 years ago, described as follows (from The Washington Post):
The woman said that much of the subsequent coverage of her allegations missed a key nuance: As a participant in a college ritual, where lines between acquiescence and victimization are often blurry, she was largely playing along with the notion that she was being forced to follow Paul’s orders.Here is the ad to which Rand Paul refers:
“I went along because they were my friends,” she said. “There was an implicit degree of cooperation in the whole thing. I felt like I was being hazed.”…
She reiterated that they took her to a room filled with pot smoke and told her to partake, but she emphasized that she hadn’t been forced. “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.
As an aside, it is interesting that in Kentucky, Jack Conway thought it prudent to tell people that Rand Paul was not Christian enough. In California or New York City, the ad would have not negative effect on the accused bad Christian.
Here is how Rand Paul ended th debate:
Remember at the end of the first clip, Jack Conway, when asked if a had no shame about the ad, said, "No, we're going to move on."
You decide: Is Jack Conway's ad the politics of scumbaggery? Or not?
Update: Jack Conway tries to defend the indefensible. He is the type of lawyer that no one wants to see in the courtroom, the type of person no one wants so see on one's life, because he is unable to admit when he is wrong. Narcissistic personality disorder maybe? Not the kind of guy you want in the Senate. Clip below:
No comments:
Post a Comment