1. TomSkylark says

    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.

  2. TANK says

    “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.

  3. craig says

    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.

  4. TomSkylark says

    @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.

  5. Jon says

    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.

  6. TANK says

    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.

  7. TANK says

    Jon, don’t you have hate crimes to deny and “gay agenda” memes to spread in freeping other posts and blogs?

  8. Greg2 says

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

  9. TomSkylark says

    @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.

  10. says

    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.

  11. TANK says

    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.

  12. Glen says

    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.

  13. kipp says

    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.

  14. TANK says

    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.

  15. jakeinlove says

    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.


  16. Hollywood, CA says

    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?

  17. Agcons says

    “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.

  18. walter says

    is thisthe start of the brownshirts here in the us? didn’t hitler use ruffians to both incite and control the crowds? his goons beat up the opposition.what is difference between what happened in alaska restraining
    a reporter because of his questions or stomping a women in kentucky. the repuks have shown they always must take th.e low road in politics.time to wake the right wing of the repuks will have us goose stepping away our liberties.

  19. CKNJ says

    Walter, you hit the nail on the head! I also had images of Brownshirts when I saw this and also the Miller Gestapo-like goons detaining that reporter in AK.

    And to those saying Rand Paul has sufficiently condemned the actions, please refer to AGCONS posting, it sums it up perfectly! Nothing short of outright condemnation will suffice.

    Of course we won’t get it from Paul, or any Tea-Bagger. They have proven to be awful, untrustworthy and freakish people.