so far beyond "compassionate" conservatism it has gotten scary...

[acroyear]

Rand Paul Supporter Stomps on MoveOn Activist's Head (Video) | Focal Point | Big Think:

The Paul campaign is equivocating about something as basic as a curb stomping caught on video, issuing this smarmy statement:

We understand that there was an altercation outside of the debate between supporters of both sides and that is incredibly unfortunate. Violence of any kind has no place in our civil discourse and we urge supporters on all sides to be civil to one another as tensions rise heading toward this very important election.

The campaign is blaming the victim. The head stomp wasn't an altercation, i.e., a two-sided conflict. This was an attack. It wasn't just uncivil, it was criminal.

A candidate with a shred of integrity would denounce the attackers and apologize sincerely to the victim. Instead, Rand Paul is covering for his thugs.

Any campaign event can attract loose cannons. It's not necessarily the candidate's fault if someone wearing a campaign button gets violent. However, if this happens, it's the candidate's responsibility to unequivocally denounce the violent supporter and make it absolutely clear that his twisted values do not reflect those of the campaign. Paul isn't willing to do that. So, if they weren't his thugs before, they're his thugs now.

So, Rand Paul thinks that curb stomping is on par with street theater. Good to know.

As Mike The Mad noted, if this had been a Democratic party supporter being violent, it would have been the lead news item for a week (and probably killed the election for that candidate).  But this has barely gotten a footnote in the news...

The media had given the "real americans" who are violent, abusive, ignorant, hypocritical, and utterly self-righteous beyond any sense of normality a total free ride for the last 10 years, and because of that, they've merely gotten MORE violent, abusive, ignorant, hypocritical, and utterly self-righteous.

And quite frankly, I'm f'in' sick of it.

I just hope this free ride they've gotten ends sometime in my lifetime.

Comments

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

... if this had been a Democrat party supporter being violent, it would have been the lead news item for a week (and probably killed the election for that candidate).

Proper usage is "Democratic party" supporter. The only reason I get peeved about this is that the usage you used is yet another example of GOP pollster Frank Luntz and Newt Gingrich's "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" project, where even refusing to call the party by its proper name is a political tool.

Aside from that, I completely agree with you.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

edited and fixed - my slip. i'll leave the comment here as a personal mnemonic to quit being lazy. ;-)

[jaythebarbarian.livejournal.com]

Blaming the victim? No notice of charges pressed, and what of the video I've seen was NOT a curbstomping. One guy holds her down (and either she's not resisting or he's not going to much effort.) and the other doesn't even bother with a kick. He just rests his foot on her shoulder and pushes. She's putting up little or no resistance there. Didn't even knock her glasses off. I don't even know if there IS a victim, and neither does the Paul campaign. The Pauls pointed out that violence at their campaign ain't cool, and that's all they needed to say.

I wouldn't be suprised if this was street theater. It looks like the kind of bullshit Moveon would try to pull. I'm not saying it is, just that I wouldn't be suprised.

Free ride, my ass. Conservative supporters doing something stupid ensures a media frenzy. I've seen this one in three news feeds since breakfast. Liberal supporters doing the same, it gets quiet all of a sudden. Unless it's a slow day on Fox.

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

Um, dude—she had a concussion

. That was her head getting stomped on. And shoving a woman to the ground and stepping on her is assault, plain and simple.

[jaythebarbarian.livejournal.com]

Assault, maybe. Curbstomping, no.

Look at the video. His foot never touched her head.

And approaching a political candidate while wearing a wig and carrying an anonymous gift is a good way to get yourself jumped, but security or otherwise. Try doing something similar at an Obama rally and see how many teeth you have left in the morning.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

fine, if licensed security wants to handle it, that is their job. mob vigilantes (even if just a handful of them) is not how one should handle their dislike of someone else's use of free speech.

i'm not buying this "she asked for it" crap. people can "ask" for a heated conversation and REAL security stepping in and resolving it as best befits the situation, but assault is assault, and is still against the law. by not condemning outright the assault, regardless of the heated words that led into it, Rand Paul still effectively condones it.

That isn't libertarianism, it is an open statement that anarchy is to be the ideal, and that is not someone who should ever hold ANY office in this nation.

[jaythebarbarian.livejournal.com]

I didn't say she was asking for it, I said she was stupid to do so.

I also never said assault isn't assault, and I know what laws are.

What I have said is: it does not look like the beating being described. it looks like (to someone who stages violence for a living) it could have been staged.

What part of "Violence of any kind has no place in our civil discourse" condoned anarchy?

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

slippery slope on my part? perhaps, but the message was still clear: if you want to be violent but on MY side, that's just fine. i've seen nothing from the Paul campaign to say otherwise.

it is anarchy when people can get violent against those they disagree with (politically) and not become immediate subjects to the law. it is the encouragement of anarchy when the (potential) leader to whom the violent allegedly support does not condemn that violence.

i don't care if one side intentionally provoked it from the other.

i really don't.

i actually don't even care if the entire thing was a fake by Paul-haters.

I really don't.

this is all about Paul's statement, his effective condoning of the situation. He basically said, by his non-statement, that violence in HIS society is now acceptable.

and THAT is what I (and others) are really complaining about.

the media, by their non-attention to this, has basically said now violence in political discourse, to silence your opponents, is now acceptable

and THAT is what I (and others) are really complaining about.

[jaythebarbarian.livejournal.com]

Where in the upright fuck did you see him advocating violence by his supporters?

"We understand that there was an altercation outside of the debate between supporters of both sides and that is incredibly unfortunate. Violence of any kind has no place in our civil discourse and we urge supporters on all sides to be civil to one another as tensions rise heading toward this very important election."

Funny, cause it looks like he said the same thing you're claiming. Maybe you and others just want to see him condoning violence.

Because he didn't jump to conclusions about what happened (probably because he didn't have enough evidence to say for sure what happened) and instead broadly said "Hey, being violent isn't the thing to do here."

And you and others complaining wanted him to fall over himself with apologies.

Lemme be blunt: tough shit.

Children and animals look at the first thing they see and react.

Adults take a closer look and weigh their options before acting or speaking.

The Paul campaign acted like adults over this. I wish the clowns at MoveOn had done the same.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

What would have been better accepted by, well, me would have been a statement much more firm, such as what he issued later today:

"The Paul for Senate campaign is extremely disappointed in, and condemns the actions of a supporter last night outside the KET debate. Whatever the perceived provocation, any level of aggression or violence is deplorable, and will not be tolerated by our campaign. The Paul campaign has disassociated itself from the volunteer who took part in this incident, and once again urges all activists -- on both sides -- to remember that their political passions should never manifest themselves in physical altercations of any kind."

Merely saying "please be nice to each other" really was a very weak attempt at staying out of it, and by staying out of it, it implies that it can and will likely continue and he was merely trying to side-step the blame game. Stepping in and saying violence will not be tolerated is showing leadership.

That is what he should have said in the first place, regardless of waiting for the investigation to determine who started what.

[zombie-dog.livejournal.com]

I still don't understand why you're pointing out that it could have been staged, if not to suggest that it probably was.

I still don't understand why you're pointing out that it was stupid to stage a peaceful-but-aggressive protest designed to put a candidate on the spot, if not to suggest that the victim deserved the violence done to her.

I still don't understand why you're fervently trying to assign as much blame and culpability as possible to MoveOn, Valle, and liberals in general, except that you're playing the part of a Tea Party apologist.

[zombie-dog.livejournal.com]

Yeah, she was asking for it, wearing that dress wig.

You may want to stop and consider what point you're trying to argue here, because now you ARE victim-blaming for a case of nigh-indisputable assault.

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

Try doing something similar at an Obama rally and see how many teeth you have left in the morning.

Oh, please, my friend: people were showing up to protest at Obama rallies carrying guns.. Whereas, when W was president, they hauled people away for wearing snarky tee shirts and bumper stickers..

Hello?



And excuse me, even though this is sad that there's a woman who was shoved to the ground and we're debating about the difference between getting your head stepped on or your shoulder, it's still assault. As in a FELONY. As in these people are CRIMINALS.

[jaythebarbarian.livejournal.com]

Actually, it's assault and battery, which is usually a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions in the U.S. Not sure what the Kentucky statutes are.

And again, that's assuming it's an assault and battery in the first place, and not a staged incident, which i'm starting to think it may be the more times I see the video.

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I'm stunned you continue to argue this, but okay—let me go through this again.

All the people around her are Paul supporters. They're wearing his apparel and stickers.

They push her to the ground, tearing her wig off in the process. She has been to all appearances, peaceful—not one of the video crews has said anything about violence from her side. When she is ON THE GROUND, with the Paul supporters all over her, the goon with the blue shirt and baseball cap lifts his foot and stomps on her, his heel (which by the time it makes contact, is covered by the back end of his jeans) hitting her square in the head.

So you're arguing that all of those people were pretending to be Paul supporters, so as to reflect bad on the candidate? Really? Really?

Plus you argue that she is putting up "little resistance?" Might I remind you that there is a protest technique called "creative non-violence" which had been used historically going back to Mohandas Gandhi and some minister guy from Atlanta who got shot back in 1968?

Jay, please stop. You're going to all sorts of lengths to justify a blatant and violent attack on a woman who was guilty of nothing more than wearing a wig and carrying a sign. You've made the "she asked for it" defense, you've [falsely] claimed that if conservatives did this at an Obama rally, they'd lose teeth when in reality, right-wing protesters showed up—in any number of times, not an "isolated incident"—carrying weapons.

And let me remind you that I have worked for more than a few political candidates and campaigns, and carrying protest signs and wigs is not an invitation to violence in the America I live in. Of course, as I pointed out above, under the Republican president, people claiming to be Secret Service agents would gets protesters arrested and removed from public events, even when they had legitimately-procured tickets.

I won't even go into the right wing Senate candidate in Alaska, who used active-duty military personnel to "arrest" a credentialed journalist, violating both the law and (in their case) the UCMJ. And these are all candidates who claim [loudly and often] to respect the Constitution.

Please stop, Jay. You can't defend this one. Don't try.

Conservative supporters doing something stupid ensures a media frenzy. I've seen this one in three news feeds since breakfast. Liberal supporters doing the same, it gets quiet all of a sudden. Unless it's a slow day on Fox.

You're right—I haven't heard a single word about that Juan Williams guy. Not a word. No media firestorm, nothing.

[jaythebarbarian.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I'm stunned you continue to argue this

Then why are you encouraging me?

They push her to the ground, tearing her wig off in the process.

Actually her wig was off long before she made it to the ground.

the goon with the blue shirt and baseball cap lifts his foot and stomps on her, his heel (which by the time it makes contact, is covered by the back end of his jeans) hitting her square in the head.

No kick, no stomp. Watch it again and pay some attention, Diego. He places his foot on her shoulder and pushes down. And he's not using a lot of force to do it.

So you're arguing that all of those people were pretending to be Paul supporters, so as to reflect bad on the candidate? Really? Really?

I'm saying it's a possibility. Moveon has done that kind of crap before, it could happen again.

Plus you argue that she is putting up "little resistance?" Might I remind you that there is a protest technique called "creative non-violence" which had been used historically going back to Mohandas Gandhi and some minister guy from Atlanta who got shot back in 1968?

Remind me all you like. Doesn't change that she doesn't look to be resisting all that much.

Jay, please stop.

No.

You're going to all sorts of lengths to justify a blatant and violent attack on a woman who was guilty of nothing more than wearing a wig and carrying a sign.

I'm saying that grainy, several-second long videos rarely tell the whole truth, no matter what it shows. I'm not justifying, I'm questioning.

You've made the "she asked for it" defense,

No I haven't. You and Zombie have put words in my mouth. Rather tacky of you.

you've [falsely] claimed that if conservatives did this at an Obama rally, they'd lose teeth when in reality, right-wing protesters showed up—in any number of times, not an "isolated incident"—carrying weapons.

None of the weapon-carriers tried to deliver a package to the candidate in question. You going to read everything I write or just pick and choose what you want to argue about?

Please stop, Jay. You can't defend this one. Don't try.

Watch me. So far you've given me strawman arguments, not paid attention to details I pointed out, and taken my comments out of context.

Right now all you're doing is feeding me crap in the twisted hope of turning me into a troll. I'm doing my best to resist (and trust me, I'm being far more polite than I normally am)

You're right—I haven't heard a single word about that Juan Williams guy. Not a word. No media firestorm, nothing.

You call that a firestorm? One, it's not, and two, it's a different topic entirely.

[mandrakan.livejournal.com]

I'm saying it's a possibility. Moveon has done that kind of crap before, it could happen again.

If MoveOn was able to get one of their operatives* installed as the county volunteer coordinator for the Paul campaign, do you really think that the best use of that sleeper agent* would be to stage an assault on another MoveOn protester?

*Spy language used ironically.

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

I'm saying it's a possibility. Moveon has done that kind of crap before, it could happen again.

Prove it. Please. I'd like to see some evidence of this, even a citation.

I can see you're going to parse every statement. By saying that MoveOn supposedly pulled this crap before, you are, whether you use the exact words or not, claiming that their behavior warranted the response from the Paul supporters. Which is why we say you are arguing for blaming the victim. Just because you don't use the specific words, "I, jaythebarbarian, BLAME THE VICTIM," doesn't mean that you are not making the argument, my friend. Nothing warrants people pushing down a woman and then stepping on her. Stomping, stepping, "pushing down" or "putting"—it's arguing nits. It's battery, period.

Whether or not she resists matters? In what universe? Non-violence training tells you not to resist, because if you do, you get injured worse. Your argument here seems to be, "So what?" Which puts you in the position of defending the bullies. I doubt that's the position you want to be in.

None of the weapon-carriers tried to deliver a package to the candidate in question. You going to read everything I write or just pick and choose what you want to argue about?

Package or not is immaterial. You just made another argument ("approaching a political candidate while wearing a wig and carrying an anonymous gift is a good way to get yourself jumped, but security or otherwise") that it's her fault for getting jumped because she was carrying "an award." Said "award" was a sign, not a package. By your langage, "gift," you're painting it worse than what it was, which gives you license to say that she might be taken down for cause. People had less when Bush was president; I repeat, they had tee shirts and bumper stickers. In many cases they weren't even allowed to be within blocks of the president. And now you say that under Obama it would be worse than that, when they were showing up with guns? You still haven't yet made a case. You're projecting.

Already the dude who did it (whose heel contacted her head; I've watched the video more than a dozen times now), has been identified as the Bourbon County coordinator for the Paul campaign, who the campaign has already cut loose (which tells me that he's guilty as sin—why fire him if he didn't do anything wrong?).

Right now all you're doing is feeding me crap in the twisted hope of turning me into a troll. I'm doing my best to resist (and trust me, I'm being far more polite than I normally am)

I'm not trying to "turn you into a troll," and I'd prefer you not characterize my motives, and I'll try to do the same for you. :)

You call that a firestorm? One, it's not, and two, it's a different topic entirely.

This is called, "providing an example to buttress my argument." I find it would be hard to describe what might be a firestorm without giving some sort of example. Especially if it were on another topic. But I guess what constitutes a "firestorm" is probably a judgment call, subject to one's viewpoint.

[jaythebarbarian.livejournal.com]

ok, since you're a fan of caps, let me spell it out.

I, JAYTHEBARBARIAN, DO NOT FUCKING KNOW FOR SURE WHAT HAPPENED!

By bringing up the mere possibility that this incident could be more than what it seems, you seem convinced that I'm blaming the victim.

Speaking as someone who's been shot at more times than anyone in this thread has had good sex, any violent incident can and often does contain more than meets the eye. I'm pointing that out. Nothing more.

Nothing warrants people pushing down a woman and then stepping on her.

The fuck it doesn't. Mitigating circumstances happen. They might not have here (and most likely didn't) but it's still a possibility.

why fire him if he didn't do anything wrong?

Two words: ass covering.

If this is what it seems, then yeah, fuck this guy and the other one, throw the book at them both.

As far as citations, I wish I still had mine lying around from during the campaign, but I deleted most in disgust as bigger things came up in my life. And not to be offensive, but I don't think stubbornly trying to prove a point to you is worth the effort it would take for me to dig them up again. Ditto the citations on what's been done to protesters under Bush Vis-a-vis Obama, respectively.

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

I dunno.

I've had a lot of good sex in my almost-forty nine years.

;)

[zombie-dog.livejournal.com]

I was 'bout to say. I'm not even THIRTY yet and I challenge that statement.

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

And, here in MD, aggravated assault and battery is a felony.

[mandrakan.livejournal.com]

Assault, maybe. Curbstomping, no.

Goalposts? Moved out of field goal range.

Update from the Post

[zombie-dog.livejournal.com]

UPDATE at 2:04 p.m.: Paul has released another statement on the incident.

"The Paul for Senate campaign is extremely disappointed in, and condemns the actions of a supporter last night outside the KET debate. Whatever the perceived provocation, any level of aggression or violence is deplorable, and will not be tolerated by our campaign. The Paul campaign has disassociated itself from the volunteer who took part in this incident, and once again urges all activists -- on both sides -- to remember that their political passions should never manifest themselves in physical altercations of any kind."

Slightly better. Slightly.

Re: Update from the Post

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

but still slightly late.

Re: Update from the Post

[zombie-dog.livejournal.com]

Well, and it still does the "on both sides!" bullshit as though the violence weren't completely one-sided.

Re: Update from the Post

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

A standard tactic to try and minimize one's fault in the matter.