Kentucky | News | Rand Paul | Tea Party | Teabagger

Watch: Rand Paul Refuses to Condemn Assault on Woman


Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul refuses to condemn a head-stomping attack last night on a female MoveOn activist by one of his supporters outside a debate in Lexington, calling it a "bit of a crowd control problem."

Said Paul to FOX News:

"We want everybody to be civil. We want this issue, the campaign to be about issues. We'll tell you that when we arrived there was enormous passion on both sides. It really was something where you walk into a daze of lights flashing, people yelling and screaming, bumping up, and it was a bit of a crowd control problem, and I don't want anybody though to be involved in things that aren't civil. I think this should always be about the issues. And it is an unusual situation, to have so many people, so passionate on both sides, jockeying back and forth and it wasn't something that I liked or anybody liked about that situation, so I hope in the future it's going to be better."

No arrests have been made in the incident.


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Talk about barbarians at the gate . . .

    Posted by: MT | Oct 26, 2010 2:27:03 PM

  2. Vile pile of shit.

    Posted by: Tralfaz | Oct 26, 2010 2:27:51 PM

  3. I can't believe the Fox twit calls it a "scuffle." That was an attack and a bashing.

    Posted by: Joe | Oct 26, 2010 2:35:10 PM

  4. Not to pick a fight here, Andy, but I think your headline is a bit misleading. While Paul could've been quite a bit more vociferous in responding to the question, his emphatic remarks that he wants everyone "to be civil"--a statement he makes twice, no less--seems condemnatory to me.

    To be clear, I don't like Paul, or his politics, or his followers--who have acted like thugs, and in typical Tea Party fashion are claiming over at The Atlantic Monthly that the assault was "staged"--but you're implying that has statement somehow excuses the assault, when he's pretty clear that he doesn't want this kind of thing happening. You can fault him for seeming blase about the incident, but you can't really imply that he somehow approved.

    Is there a follow-up clip in which he does, in fact, refuse to condemn the actions of his supporters? If so, then please post it--because that's simply not what happened in the clip provided. The reporter neither called on him to condemn the assault, nor did he refuse to do so.

    Posted by: TomSkylark | Oct 26, 2010 2:37:51 PM

  5. "when he's pretty clear that he doesn't want this kind of thing happening."

    Um, no. You can't infer that. He's plainly not condemning this incident, and his silence on the matter endorses it.

    Posted by: TANK | Oct 26, 2010 2:43:54 PM

  6. PLEAAAASE someone file charges against this idiot in the video. The guy stomping the girl and not Rand Paul (although he is sort of an idiot also)

    Rand, find you a gay man to make you up before your next tv appearance - ya look like hell dude.

    Posted by: craig | Oct 26, 2010 2:47:26 PM

  7. @Tank: There's no inference on my part. The direct quote, cited above and spoken in the clip is: "We want everybody to be civil ... I don't want anybody though to be involved in things that aren't civil."

    How is that "silence?" Again, I have no love for the guy, his politics, or his followers, but taking that quote as anything other than disapproval is a radical interpretation of the text.

    Again, please feel free to fault the guy for seeming pretty bored with the incident, which was itself absolutely reprehensible. But Rand is clearly responding to a question about the incident, not remaining "silent" about it, much less "refusing to condemn" it.

    Posted by: TomSkylark | Oct 26, 2010 2:59:29 PM

  8. Most of the people posting here are but a mere footstep away from the man in the video.. "Vile piece of shit", "ya look like hell", thank you TOMSKYLARK for stepping above the fray and you're right, the headline is anything but a true representation of the video.

    Posted by: Jon | Oct 26, 2010 3:01:18 PM

  9. Tomskylark

    Find us the proof with your link please.

    Posted by: Rowan | Oct 26, 2010 3:02:10 PM

  10. Because it doesn't explicitly condemn the incident, and also blames the victim for what this person chose to do. If you don't understand that what's not said is often just as important if not more important than what's said, you're a moron. I think, however, you're a teapartier. Bubye.

    Posted by: TANK | Oct 26, 2010 3:02:22 PM

  11. Jon, don't you have hate crimes to deny and "gay agenda" memes to spread in freeping other posts and blogs?

    Posted by: TANK | Oct 26, 2010 3:07:24 PM

  12. If you look at the clip from Huffingtonpost, the guy has Paul stickers on his hat, a Paul T shirt, and one of the Tea Baggers stickers, which is too ironic, 'Don't Tread On Me'.

    The local cops are passing around his photo, and she says she will press charges.

    Posted by: patrick nyc | Oct 26, 2010 3:11:47 PM

  13. Assault with intent to commit great bodily harm. Please sue his ass and let a "activist" judge rule over the case.

    Posted by: Greg2 | Oct 26, 2010 3:23:04 PM

  14. @Rowan: If you mean the Paul quote, the text is provided above--just read that. With regards to the statements made by Paul's supporters accusing folk of 'staging' the incident' (I think that's what you're referencing), look at the comment section under the Atlantic Monthly's article about the incident, available here:

    That was linked from TR earlier today.

    @Tank: I've already talked you through this, and actually provided evidence. You're willing to disregard what was actually said and then, in lack of any evidence, rant against what hasn't been said. I take your point about the importance of reading silences, but there's looking for erasure and then there's looking for something that simply isn't there in order to kvetch about it. The former is being careful; the latter is being paranoid.

    If your complaint is that Paul didn't say, verbatim, "I condemn this attack," then sure--he didn't use those exact words. But he expressed his disapproval in no uncertain terms, and clearly addressed the issue, rather than remaining "silent" on it, as you claim. Again, I think that Paul's nonchalance here is pretty deplorable--so fault him for that.

    You can call me names all you want--you've certainly done it to me before--but that doesn't make your case, and it isn't likely to convince others of it either.

    Posted by: TomSkylark | Oct 26, 2010 3:49:48 PM

  15. If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever -- George Orwell in 1984.

    The GOP is bringing it to life before our eyes.

    Posted by: Roscoe | Oct 26, 2010 3:51:26 PM

  16. That's right, tom. I have. You are a troll and a teapartier. He clearly didn't condemn this particular incident, and engaged in victim blaming and minimization of the severity of the incident.

    Posted by: TANK | Oct 26, 2010 3:54:23 PM

  17. This is the inherant problem with these tea party and wingnut people. They fuel people with a kind of mob mentaltiy and insight a level of frenzy to where violence is bound to happen, then absolve themselves of it. It's the Glen Beck school of thinking. Not to worry on these candidates, if they fail to get elected they will get 2 million dollar contracts from fox 'cough' news.

    Posted by: Glen | Oct 26, 2010 3:58:48 PM

  18. Really misleading headline, Andy. Paul didn't condemn, but he didn't refuse to condemn. "it wasn't something that I liked" - how is that a refusal to condemn? "Rand Paul Offers Tepid Disapproval" would be a fair headline. The headline you used is untruthful.

    Posted by: kipp | Oct 26, 2010 4:04:15 PM

  19. Only a teapartier would introduce the nuance that they refuse to extend their opponnents to the defense of themselves. It's sole purpose is to derail and confuse simple people with a host of informal logical fallacies, and most charitable "interpretations". All of a sudden, the trash starts to analyze their own words under an electron microscope to capitalize on any ambiguity. Fuck you people. This headline's "misleading" to a racist, homophobic, mob mentality teapartier.

    Posted by: TANK | Oct 26, 2010 4:11:09 PM

  20. Paul should have condemned the assault, not mentioning it was him trying to cover his ass. Well they have found the creep, who is not a volunteer, but a Paul supporter. He says that the camera angle makes it look worse than it is. Look at the size of the three men against this one woman. Scum.

    Posted by: patrick nyc | Oct 26, 2010 4:14:28 PM

  21. i think the headline is misleading too.

    Posted by: jgm22 | Oct 26, 2010 5:11:36 PM

  22. Amazing that there isn't one mention of the fact that he condemns this type of activity or was ashamed, embarrassed, or request that any of HIS supporters abstain from that type of activity.


    Posted by: jakeinlove | Oct 26, 2010 5:58:38 PM

  23. So, I guess the guy who stomped on her neck is going to be invited to join FOX NEWS now? I wonder if he'll get a 2 million dollar salary as well?

    Posted by: Hollywood, CA | Oct 26, 2010 6:17:24 PM

  24. "Word choice is so important", as one of my university professors used to say.

    I might say "it wasn't something I liked" when commenting on one of the main course selections at a buffet, not a stomping.

    However, if I wanted to comment on a stomping and downplay the incident as much as possible, for reasons best known to myself, using words to equate it with an unpleasing food choice would work.

    Posted by: Agcons | Oct 26, 2010 6:29:11 PM

  25. More bullshit insani-TEA

    Posted by: Brian B. | Oct 26, 2010 10:40:49 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Watch: Daft Punk's New 'Tron Legacy' Video« «