FactCheck: Conway Ad "Well Documented"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 11:15:10 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I'm not invested in Jack Conway's run for Senate from Kentucky. Would he be better than Rand Paul? Obviously. But he'll just be a Blue Dog Dem. Russ Feingold's race is the one that matters most to me.

But I was amused by the Beltway Blogger storm over Conway's "disgraceful" Aqua Buddha ad. I think the ad is ineffective, but the idea that it was disgraceful is just plain funny. What world do these Beltway Bloggers live in? But I especially like the outrage ringleader's defense of his outrage:

[T]here's a difference between the role of the journalist and the role of the politician. [. . .] So even if Conway is right to kick Rand Paul in the groin, I'm also right for pointing out that's what he's doing.

But "the Left" is wrong to do it about Obama's policies and are idiots for doing so according to Chait. He's a "journalist" you see. What a clown.

Speaking for me only

< WaPo "Facts" About The Economy | The Phone Banking Call Voters Love to Receive >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

FactCheck: Conway Ad "Well Documented" | 53 comments (53 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

IOKIYAR... (none / 0) (#1)
by lilburro on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 11:24:39 AM EST

Dems always have to play by different rules with this crowd.

Im sure you meant that a snark (none / 0) (#21)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 01:41:29 PM EST

but they dont. they really dont.


thats awsum (none / 0) (#32)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 02:51:46 PM EST

whats the worst that can happen?

lets see, spending 200 million bucks and still losing?


: Ouch (none / 0) (#44)
by MKS on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 03:39:48 PM EST

What an empty suit Whitman is....
I almost feel sorry for Mike Murphy....If only he had a better candidate....

Makes Whitman sound like the incumbent (none / 0) (#47)
by MKS on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 03:53:08 PM EST

How cool is that?

Or Awsum......


Guess it is time to take a 10 minute breather (none / 0) (#2)
by BTAL on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 11:25:09 AM EST

Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake.

~ Napolean Bonaparte

"its a hit dog . . . (none / 0) (#3)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 11:32:46 AM EST

. . . that howls."

Bill Clinton


News today about Conway (none / 0) (#22)
by christinep on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 02:15:29 PM EST

In the past several days, the Democratic Conway has gained significantly, enjoying his best polling since early June. Per Rasmussen (no less), Conway has moved from being down 11 to down 5 from their most recent poll. 'Wonder if the tough ad is working?


more howling (none / 0) (#39)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 03:13:48 PM EST

Republican Rand Paul enlisted sympathetic Christian leaders Tuesday to denounce Democrat Jack Conway's controversial new ad that has dominated the final days of the heated race.
In a hastily arranged conference call, Paul's campaign aired concerns from Kentucky pastors, even from one who hadn't seen the much-talked-about ad,
---
"What would that ad look like if Rand Paul was a Jew and they used words like Christ and holy Bible and false God?" said Hershael York, professor at the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville. "The Democratic Party would not tolerate this it were coming from a Republican opponent, and they should not tolerate it coming from Jack Conway."
Asked to expand on his comments, York later said the ad unfairly implies that Paul is "either not a Christian and he ought to be, or he claims to be a Christian and is not living up to it. If he were running against a Jewish person, you wouldn't dare mention the names Christ, a false God or holy Bible, and rightly so, because it would amount to criticizing someone's religion."

Gee, that really is a shame (none / 0) (#41)
by MKS on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 03:28:11 PM EST

Using religious issues against a candidate....


I love the (none / 0) (#42)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 03:33:16 PM EST

"you could never get away with saying this about a jew" part


: "They" really control (none / 0) (#43)
by MKS on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 03:38:05 PM EST

everything....
Conserviatives playing with civil rights is like an infant playing with matches....Just too easy to betray their own bigotry at every step.

Or, typical of Rasmussen, (none / 0) (#40)
by MKS on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 03:27:16 PM EST

adjusting his polls back to the mean.

Rasmussen rides on the accuracy of his near-election day polls. But weeks-out, he is an outlier showing much more Republican support than anyone else....

But, abracadabra, voila!, Great Balls of Fire! the closer you get to the election, the closer the Rasmussen polls get to the other polls....

Translation: Conway was never as far behind as Rasmussen said, and Rasmussen's polls are now closing the gap so he can be accurate again on election day. There may be no Conway momentum at all.

You know, now that I think of it, the other poll that routinely did this on the Democratic side? The pollster Markos fired....Research 2000. Fancy that.


: Good point, MKS (none / 0) (#52)
by christinep on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 04:57:41 PM EST

Thanks for reminding me of the Rasmussen (apparent) historical approach to polling.

: Its hilarious to look at Rasmussens (none / 0) (#55)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 20, 2010 at 01:29:23 PM EST

polling history in races- he's usually not too bad a few days out (better than average even) but if you read the trends you'd think GOP political consultants basically all suck at their jobs as the Dems consistently make up/ gain between 5-7 points over the course of 3 weeks leading up to an election. Apparently Dems just about universally close well in Scott's world.

I would be indifferent (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 11:45:33 AM EST

except for the fact that there has been an effort over the past few months to paint him orange.

The money is now clearly better spent in PA (where Sestak is closing surprisingly strong).

not surprised (none / 0) (#5)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 11:46:52 AM EST

said months ago he would close strong just like the primary.


Sestak has the best Dem Media consultant: (none / 0) (#7)
by andgarden on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 11:49:15 AM EST

Neil Oxman.


Me too. (none / 0) (#9)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 12:26:31 PM EST

Can we pat ourselves on the back for saying that?


: I never counted him out (none / 0) (#17)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 01:11:08 PM EST

and still do not.

caught Conway with Tweety last night (none / 0) (#6)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 11:48:18 AM EST

he was not backing down an inch. I think some gutless dems could take a lesson.

Well, OK...but BTD is right (none / 0) (#10)
by oldpro on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 12:28:00 PM EST

that his ad is ineffective. Not only that, it spurred a response ad that is a haymaker. Talk about setting yourself up for an opponent's left jab followed by a right cross...


Don't live (none / 0) (#12)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 12:29:54 PM EST

in the south do you? Only the "elite" would think this is a bad ad. Actually, it makes Rand Paul look like some creepy pervert.


Guilty of residence in the NW! (none / 0) (#13)
by oldpro on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 12:36:08 PM EST

Good to know I've made somebody's "elite" list at last!

While I don't disagree that Rand Paul looks like a creepy pervert, do you not think the response ad is more hard-hitting and effective to the average Joe/Jane...even those residing in the South?


Well (none / 0) (#14)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 12:37:26 PM EST

I haven't seen the response ad so I can't say.


I have seen the ad (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 01:10:27 PM EST

and it sounds like whining to me. also from a guy like Paul things like "Christ in his heart" and "false witness" do not exactly have the ring of truth.

its a defensive ad.


: I agree. (none / 0) (#25)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 02:21:30 PM EST

It is a piss poor ad and apparently Conway drew blood with that ad. Paul pretty much concedes that everything Conway said is right and he's trying to hide behind his religion but then turns around and does does a personal attack. Very sloppy ad.

Factcheck.org story had this link (none / 0) (#15)
by oldpro on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 01:07:55 PM EST

"Paul is out with a counter advertisement accusing Conway of "attacking Rand Paul's faith," and saying that "Rand Paul keeps Christ in his heart."

The link is "counter advertisement"...


: Okay. (none / 0) (#24)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 02:20:02 PM EST

I've now watched the ad and it is bad. Rand Paul is pretty much conceding he did everything in that Conway is accusing him of doing. Apparently Conway drew blood with the aqua Buddha ad. His ad is nothing but a personal attack on Conway. Rand would have done better to concede that he did those things when he was "young and dumb" or something. He's trying to convince people that he's a "Christian" but at the same time conceding that he made fun of Christianity.

Tweety was sputtering in outrage, (none / 0) (#46)
by byteb on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 03:50:44 PM EST

not letting Conway get a word in and working up a sweat...Conway remained composed and held his ground. good for Conway


Never forget Tweety voted for Bush (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by MKS on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 03:57:08 PM EST

in 2000.

I can remember Bush schmoozing Tweety by telling him during an interview that Churchill was his favorite historical figure....And Tweety just ate it up....

Tweety has issues that pre-date the leg and tingling thing.....He can be so retro and clueless....


Tweety has more blind spots (none / 0) (#50)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 04:02:10 PM EST

than the Hellen Keller school. but the biggest is religion.


: I think that may be it.... (none / 0) (#51)
by MKS on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 04:13:23 PM EST

More help to Russ (none / 0) (#8)
by MKS on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 12:23:17 PM EST

Why the Left is focused on Conway is beyond me.

Feingold is clearly a progressive/liberal and in trouble....

Boxer is not out of the woods yet but she is savvy and tough.

Jerry Brown has run the smartest campaign I have seen....Meg Whitman spent $140 million (of her own money) to less than $10 million for Jerry Brown, and could not do better than a tie. Now, Jerry Brown has ads up and is doing great.

The Univision debate really was the turnaround point. They asked Jerry Brown about Latino issues and he said that as Governor he signed the first migrant worker bill and worked with Cesar Chavez. Wow. That makes sense but I forgotten about that.

Whitman fielded a question from an audience member who said she was validictorian of her high school class and was going to graduate from College with honors, but she came her illegally with her parents as an infact. Whitman basically told her, in so many words, to get lost. No Dream Act.

On the radio driving to work, I have heard the Spanish language ads for Meg Whitman--every slick--but now a joke. The ad I heard this morning for Jerry Brown mentioned his work with Cesar Chavez and said what a friend to Latinos he has been. I wonder how many people listened to that ad as they drove down Cesar E. Chavez Ave. in downtown LA this morning....

Whitman by all rights should win this. She is pro-choice. Brown is against capital punishment--a big no-no historically in California. Yet, he is pulling away. Smart, smart campaign.

Rope-a-dope, anyone?

Positive poll for Feingold (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by magster on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 02:18:09 PM EST

Hopefully not an outlier...
Just seems like po'd Dems are still going to end up voting as the prospect of some of these teabagger candidates actually being in the government draws closer.


Brown (none / 0) (#11)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 12:28:53 PM EST

hasn't run that smart of a campaign. He wet the bed when he took Meg's bait a while back but she shot herself in the foot and he was smart enough to take advantage of that.


my local friends (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 01:16:27 PM EST

say the the fact that she has outspent him like 10 to 1 is not setting well with locals.


also (none / 0) (#19)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 01:25:18 PM EST

I am starting to read that the saturation ad campaign tactic is not working that well. at some point after a few million they are just tuned out.

the democrats on the other hand are putting up ads but spending much more than the republicans in get out the vote which IMO is probably a more effective way to spend the money.


I don't recall any Brown mis-steps (none / 0) (#31)
by MKS on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 02:50:11 PM EST

To the extent you detect an error, it has not registered to any significant degree.

Statewide politics in California has been formulaic for at least the last 20 years:

You need to be:

1. Pro-choice;
2. Pro-environment; and
3. Pro-capital punishment.

A Republican who is good on #1 and #2 can win on an anti-tax platform. That is why we have had Republican governors including Pete Wilson and Ahnold.....Meg Whitman fits the profile.

She should be able to sell an anti-tax platform during this economy. Her campaign manager Mike Murphy knows how to appeal to independents...

Whitman finally has a death penalty ad up against Brown--but it seems too little, too late....

Whitman lags slightly behind Fiorina, who is terrible on the issues--anti-choice & for offshore drilling.

Just a big fail for Republicans....Tom Campbell would have beaten Boxer....But whacked-out Republicans voted for the more conservative of the candidates during the Primary.


attacking (none / 0) (#33)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 02:52:45 PM EST

Bill Clinton was a misstep


I do remember that (none / 0) (#36)
by MKS on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 02:56:42 PM EST

Didn't cause a ripple.....

Too much inside baseball--except for Clinton partisans....


: he was lucky I think (none / 0) (#37)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 02:57:31 PM EST

it was dumb

heh (none / 0) (#20)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 01:40:34 PM EST

The Conway ad does contain a claim we find to be misleading. It claims that Paul wants to "end the [tax] deduction for religious charities." That's based on Paul's supposed support for the FairTax proposal, which would replace the federal income tax with a broadly based sales tax on nearly all purchases -- and thus eliminate the need for any deductions. And Paul's campaign is now denying that he supports the FairTax anyway, according to The Associated Press.

sounds like what we want him to be doing to me.

: Yep. (none / 0) (#27)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 02:28:07 PM EST

It's the reason the Fair Tax is never gonna happen.

Related question re: "Teapartiers" (none / 0) (#28)
by christinep on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 02:41:46 PM EST

During their primaries a number of Republican candidates with direct or close ties to "Tea Party" groups reportedly stated their opposition to the 17th Amendment and voiced support for its repeal. Those candidates included Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, and--right here in Colorado--Ken Buck.

My mind jiggled back & forth when I first heard about a call to repeal the Amendment which has been there since 1913 and which provides for the popular election of US Senators. I first heard about it in terms of Rand Paul; then, Ken Buck (who earlier had supported repeal) started the infamous backpedal. The REAL QUESTION: Why? Why would that be an issue now? Did these extremely conservative candidates wake up one night and decide that something was horribly amiss about the 17th Amendment? And, then, why would ostensible populists--"Tea Party" types and others--support taking away the election of US Senators from election by popular vote, thereby allowing the process to devolve to earlier times in American history when Senators were appointed permanently or selected by State Houses? Finally: Whose interest is most served in jettisoning the 17th Amendment--a notion that seemed to hit all these people at once?

Maybe at the root of all the Great 17th Amendment Mystery we will find the sources of the unnamed advertising $$$$....maybe? (Heck, the sources would save a lot of $$$$$ for a lot of reasons if they could directly buy the individual Senators?) Has anyone seen any press analyses?

Same reason Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by MKS on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 02:54:00 PM EST

wanted term limits in '94: To give them an advantage in winning Congress.

Back in '94, the power of incumbency was seen as an impediment to gaining back the House.

Now, the Republicans can't win the Senate in straight up elections, so just do away with the elections.....

I think (none / 0) (#35)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 02:56:13 PM EST

Elvis is more likely to return for a comeback tour


True, and truly weird position (none / 0) (#38)
by MKS on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 03:12:25 PM EST

It fits my theory that Republicans really don't care about policy....

It is all about beating liberals and Democrats as some sort of cultural vindication--which they often refer to/conflate with religion.

Reihan Salam said it well on the Chris Matthews Show a few weeks ago: The Palin/Beck crowd are not about defending the "have nots" but rather the "are nots." Brilliant, pithy analysis. And Reihan defended the "are nots" with some passion.

For most Republicans, politics is a cultural statement (often couched as religion)....The protest of the "are nots" against modernity....and irrelevency....Conservatives often have conversion stories of when they became conservatives.....It is always about the huge cultural chip on their shoulder. This is why they reflexively dispute the evidence of global warming....Just to oppose Al Gore and the liberals.....

For a minority of Republicans, the big boy money Republicans, it is all about taxes. They would vote for Donald Duck if he would lower their taxes. The minority-monied Republicans use the majority-cultural-chip-on-the-shoulder Republicans to get their agenda through. Diabolical really.

They have convinced the cultural Republicans to vote for the rich guy platform just to spite the Democrats....Thomas Frank knew the right question to ask--and the answer is about an existential defiance of modernity.


: Yep (none / 0) (#45)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 03:47:17 PM EST

It is all about beating liberals and Democrats as some sort of cultural vindication--which they often refer to/conflate with religion.

: "Modernity, . . . (none / 0) (#48)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 03:54:35 PM EST

. . . the child of the Enlightenment, failed when it became apparent that the good society cannot be achieved by unaided reason".
- Robert Bork

press analyses? (none / 0) (#29)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 02:43:44 PM EST

whats that?


: An oxymoron (none / 0) (#54)
by MO Blue on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 11:33:08 PM EST

well BTD, it depends on your (none / 0) (#56)
by cpinva on Wed Oct 20, 2010 at 07:05:38 PM EST

definition of "disgraceful". if, by disgraceful, you mean that the ad is factual, and you're simply upset that these facts are being publicized in the ad, then yes, it's "disgraceful".

on the other hand, if your definition of "disgraceful" is something that's, well, a disgrace, because the claims made are false, then no, the ad isn't "disgraceful".

you see, it all depends on what "is" is.