David Hawpe Comes Out Of Retirement To Take One More Shot At Mitch McConnell -- And His Replacement As Courier Journal's Editorial Writer.
Conway's Aqua Buddha ad met McConnell's standards
By David Hawpe
As a sometime volunteer in Jack Conway's campaign for the U.S. Senate, I had the opportunity to see the now-infamous Aqua Buddha before it aired.
I thought it was rough but OK. I still do. As Mitch McConnell once told me, “You throw some mud in campaigns, and some of it sticks, and some of it doesn't”
Political historians will want to hear someone offer an opposing view on this iconic political artifact.
I'm not prepared to say whether using it was a good tactical decision, although I know the Conway campaign needed to change the conversation. Aqua Buddha clearly did that.
I do deny that the commercial was “odious,” as The Courier-Journal declared in a burst of self-congratulatory and self-protective moralizing. It didn't “cross the line,” unless one is talking about a line drawn arbitrarily by self-appointed arbiters of public purity.
The facts on which it was based were gauzily challenged by Rand Paul. His denials took a while to become hotly indignant. They never have been convincing.
Read the actual wording of the ad: “Why was Rand Paul a member of a secret society that called the Holy Bible a hoax ... that was banned for mocking Christianity and Christ? Why did Rand Paul once tie a woman up and tell her to bow down before a false idol and say his god was Aqua Buddha? Why does Rand Paul now want to end all federal faith-based initiatives and even end the deduction for religious charities? Why are there so many questions about Rand Paul?”
Valid questions, in my book.
One silly objection is that citing youthful indiscretions is “over the line.” Does anyone remember the national argument over whether Bill Clinton should have inhaled at Oxford? Former classmate William A. Fletcher, then a law professor at Berkeley, was at pains to explain, “We were at a number of parties together where pot was passed around, and I don't remember whether Bill partook or not. A lot of people, because they didn't want to feel out of it, took it and held it to their lips without inhaling. He probably did smoke, but I have no recollection of it. If he says he did, he did.”
Youthful indiscretions are relevant if they presage continuing reckless behavior. In Rand Paul's case, the Aqua Buddha incident was an early example of his libertarian belief that rules are not for him. He didn't like the ophthalmology certification process so he started one of his own. He promotes term limits but won't volunteer to apply them to himself. He wants Medicare rules changed, but not the program's proceeds for his medical practice.
Challenging someone's faith is “over the line?” John Kennedy had to explain how far his Roman Catholicism would reach in his service as President. He met the issue head on and eliminated it. Nothing unfair about that.
I long have said that a candidate's faith, whether religious or secular, is fundamental to understanding his or her values and predicting his or her actions. I have defended conservative Christians' insistence on voting with the Bible in one hand. For some members of my own family, the credibility of a candidate's Christian faith is the issue, and understandably so, given their own faith.
Is it “over the line” to wonder how a devotee of the atheist Ayn Rand can square that with Christian belief? I once wrote, “I'm not sure how, but for some, the Bible and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged sit easily on the same shelf. For example, those are the two favorite books of Gov. Ernie Fletcher, a Christian minister…”
What is over the line is equivocating, when your campaign supporters stomp the head of a woman on the opposition side. Rand Paul at first wouldn't really condemn that attack. Instead he said, “It's an unusual situation to have so many people, so passionate on both sides, jockeying back and forth and it wasn't something I liked or anybody liked about that situation. So I hope in the future it's going to be better.” He wouldn't give back the perpetrator's campaign donation.
That kind of ducking and diving is pretty odious in my book.
I stand with Harvard sociologist/political scientist Theda Skocpol, who said in Ezra Klein's washingtonpost.com blog, “I have a real problem with all the prissy condemnations coming from liberal commentators about Conway's ad. … People are acting as if it is some kind of political sin to point out to ordinary Kentucky voters the kind of stuff about Paul's extremist libertarian views that everyone in the punditry already knows. This does not amount to saying that Christian belief is a ‘requirement for public office.'… It is a matter of letting regular voters who themselves care deeply about Christian belief know that Paul is basically playing them. No different really than letting folks who care about Social Security and Medicare know that Paul is playing them.”
I'm sure Mitch McConnell, the ultimate practitioner of do-whatever-it-takes politics, was speaking only tactically when he declared, “I think Conway made a really big mistake by injecting religion into the campaign.” You want odious? How about McConnell's open pledge to make preventing Barack Obama's re-election his top goal for the next two years. Meanwhile, the nation reels. At least credit Mitch with honesty and directness.
If, as Rand Paul eventually told Fox News, the GQ
Aqua Buddha account is “absolutely not true,” even “outrageous and ridiculous,” then he should sue somebody. He said so himself. So do it.
The real turning point of the Paul/Conway campaign was not the Aqua Buddha ad but Paul's absolutely brilliant response to it. His campaign issued a statement that said “Rand Paul keeps Christ in his heart.”
Those words marked him immediately as one of the faithful. They were taken straight from the argot of Wednesday Night Prayer Meeting, Fellowship Hall and revival tent. They are as reassuring to conservative Christians as breathing. I have no reason to believe they aren't true.
I do wonder how it's possible to keep Christ in one's heart and put property rights before human rights … to have a problem with the government protecting a black family's opportunity to eat and sleep in public accommodations, or to think that government has gone too far in meeting the needs of the disabled … to believe, simultaneously, that “the greatest of these is charity “and “the free market knows best.”
David Hawpe retired in 2009 after 40 years with The Courier-Journal, during which time he served as both editor and as editorial director.
Editor's comment: I am surprised that: David Hawpe will Come Out Of Retirement To Take One More Shot At Mitch McConnell -- And His Replacement As Courier Journal's Editorial Writer.
And then again maybe I shouldn't.
He MUST really be HURT that jack CONway got BEAT; and to top it off, the "Aqua Buddah" ad he helped approve (and INFLICT upon us) was deemed ODIOUS by the person who replaced him as Editorial Writer at the Courier Journal.
I hope to see David Hawpe contribute BETTER to our discourse, but I've got to scream: What a DOUBLE slap in the face, for a man who I respect, for always defending his principled convictions, even if I don't agree with those principles, for the simple fact that I see the world more CONSERVATIVELY than he LIBERALLY does!
So SAD for him.
By David Hawpe
As a sometime volunteer in Jack Conway's campaign for the U.S. Senate, I had the opportunity to see the now-infamous Aqua Buddha before it aired.
I thought it was rough but OK. I still do. As Mitch McConnell once told me, “You throw some mud in campaigns, and some of it sticks, and some of it doesn't”
Political historians will want to hear someone offer an opposing view on this iconic political artifact.
I'm not prepared to say whether using it was a good tactical decision, although I know the Conway campaign needed to change the conversation. Aqua Buddha clearly did that.
I do deny that the commercial was “odious,” as The Courier-Journal declared in a burst of self-congratulatory and self-protective moralizing. It didn't “cross the line,” unless one is talking about a line drawn arbitrarily by self-appointed arbiters of public purity.
The facts on which it was based were gauzily challenged by Rand Paul. His denials took a while to become hotly indignant. They never have been convincing.
Read the actual wording of the ad: “Why was Rand Paul a member of a secret society that called the Holy Bible a hoax ... that was banned for mocking Christianity and Christ? Why did Rand Paul once tie a woman up and tell her to bow down before a false idol and say his god was Aqua Buddha? Why does Rand Paul now want to end all federal faith-based initiatives and even end the deduction for religious charities? Why are there so many questions about Rand Paul?”
Valid questions, in my book.
One silly objection is that citing youthful indiscretions is “over the line.” Does anyone remember the national argument over whether Bill Clinton should have inhaled at Oxford? Former classmate William A. Fletcher, then a law professor at Berkeley, was at pains to explain, “We were at a number of parties together where pot was passed around, and I don't remember whether Bill partook or not. A lot of people, because they didn't want to feel out of it, took it and held it to their lips without inhaling. He probably did smoke, but I have no recollection of it. If he says he did, he did.”
Youthful indiscretions are relevant if they presage continuing reckless behavior. In Rand Paul's case, the Aqua Buddha incident was an early example of his libertarian belief that rules are not for him. He didn't like the ophthalmology certification process so he started one of his own. He promotes term limits but won't volunteer to apply them to himself. He wants Medicare rules changed, but not the program's proceeds for his medical practice.
Challenging someone's faith is “over the line?” John Kennedy had to explain how far his Roman Catholicism would reach in his service as President. He met the issue head on and eliminated it. Nothing unfair about that.
I long have said that a candidate's faith, whether religious or secular, is fundamental to understanding his or her values and predicting his or her actions. I have defended conservative Christians' insistence on voting with the Bible in one hand. For some members of my own family, the credibility of a candidate's Christian faith is the issue, and understandably so, given their own faith.
Is it “over the line” to wonder how a devotee of the atheist Ayn Rand can square that with Christian belief? I once wrote, “I'm not sure how, but for some, the Bible and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged sit easily on the same shelf. For example, those are the two favorite books of Gov. Ernie Fletcher, a Christian minister…”
What is over the line is equivocating, when your campaign supporters stomp the head of a woman on the opposition side. Rand Paul at first wouldn't really condemn that attack. Instead he said, “It's an unusual situation to have so many people, so passionate on both sides, jockeying back and forth and it wasn't something I liked or anybody liked about that situation. So I hope in the future it's going to be better.” He wouldn't give back the perpetrator's campaign donation.
That kind of ducking and diving is pretty odious in my book.
I stand with Harvard sociologist/political scientist Theda Skocpol, who said in Ezra Klein's washingtonpost.com blog, “I have a real problem with all the prissy condemnations coming from liberal commentators about Conway's ad. … People are acting as if it is some kind of political sin to point out to ordinary Kentucky voters the kind of stuff about Paul's extremist libertarian views that everyone in the punditry already knows. This does not amount to saying that Christian belief is a ‘requirement for public office.'… It is a matter of letting regular voters who themselves care deeply about Christian belief know that Paul is basically playing them. No different really than letting folks who care about Social Security and Medicare know that Paul is playing them.”
I'm sure Mitch McConnell, the ultimate practitioner of do-whatever-it-takes politics, was speaking only tactically when he declared, “I think Conway made a really big mistake by injecting religion into the campaign.” You want odious? How about McConnell's open pledge to make preventing Barack Obama's re-election his top goal for the next two years. Meanwhile, the nation reels. At least credit Mitch with honesty and directness.
If, as Rand Paul eventually told Fox News, the GQ
Aqua Buddha account is “absolutely not true,” even “outrageous and ridiculous,” then he should sue somebody. He said so himself. So do it.
The real turning point of the Paul/Conway campaign was not the Aqua Buddha ad but Paul's absolutely brilliant response to it. His campaign issued a statement that said “Rand Paul keeps Christ in his heart.”
Those words marked him immediately as one of the faithful. They were taken straight from the argot of Wednesday Night Prayer Meeting, Fellowship Hall and revival tent. They are as reassuring to conservative Christians as breathing. I have no reason to believe they aren't true.
I do wonder how it's possible to keep Christ in one's heart and put property rights before human rights … to have a problem with the government protecting a black family's opportunity to eat and sleep in public accommodations, or to think that government has gone too far in meeting the needs of the disabled … to believe, simultaneously, that “the greatest of these is charity “and “the free market knows best.”
David Hawpe retired in 2009 after 40 years with The Courier-Journal, during which time he served as both editor and as editorial director.
Editor's comment: I am surprised that: David Hawpe will Come Out Of Retirement To Take One More Shot At Mitch McConnell -- And His Replacement As Courier Journal's Editorial Writer.
And then again maybe I shouldn't.
He MUST really be HURT that jack CONway got BEAT; and to top it off, the "Aqua Buddah" ad he helped approve (and INFLICT upon us) was deemed ODIOUS by the person who replaced him as Editorial Writer at the Courier Journal.
I hope to see David Hawpe contribute BETTER to our discourse, but I've got to scream: What a DOUBLE slap in the face, for a man who I respect, for always defending his principled convictions, even if I don't agree with those principles, for the simple fact that I see the world more CONSERVATIVELY than he LIBERALLY does!
So SAD for him.
Labels: General information
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 1:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home