Rand Paul Supporter Tim Profitt Wants Stomping Victim To Apologize To HIM

Rand Paul Supporter Tim Profitt Wants Stomping Victim To Apologize To HIM

The Huffington Post |  Nick Wing First Posted: 10-27-10 10:30 AM   |   Updated: 10-27-10 11:24 AM

Tim Profitt, the Rand Paul supporter behind the white sneaker that notoriously stomped on a MoveOn activist’s head in Kentucky, sought to play down the importance of the incident Tuesday, and went so far as to ask the victim for an apology.

“I don’t think it’s that big of a deal,” Profitt told WKYT. “I would like for her to apologize to me to be honest with you.”

While the victim, Lauren Valle, said Tuesday that she believed the campaign workers’ violent reaction to her presence there was “premeditated,” Profitt told WKYT that he thought Valle was following a strict protocol with the intent of creating controversy.

“She’s a professional at what she does,” Profitt said, “and I think when all the facts come out, I think people will see that she was the one that initiated the whole thing.”

He then blamed the forceful downward motion of his foot on the head of Valle as a function of chronic back pain, a claim he has made before:

“I put my foot on her, and I did push her down at the very end, and I told her to stay down. I actually put my foot on her to — I couldn’t bend over because I have issues with my back,” Profitt said.

Profitt, who was once touted proudly by the Rand Paul campaign as its Bourbon County coordinator, has since been cut off from the Tea Party-backed Republican Senate candidate.

VIDEO HERE

Read Full Post »

AZ-03: Shocking Democratic Pickup Opportunity

Daily Kos- by kos

Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 11:20:03 AM PDT

Public Policy Polling for Daily Kos. 10/16-17. Likely voters. MoE 3.8% (No trend lines)

Ben Quayle (R) 44
Jon Hulburd (D) 46

Yeah, that was a real WTF moment for us in this open seat being vacated by conservative icon John Shadegg. Completely unexpected. Sure, the idiot son of the idiot former vice president is a bit of a joke, but this is a solidly conservative district, one in which McCain won 57-42.

Now there is no intensity gap here. Or better put, there is a gap, but it goes the other way — the composition of this sample is 52-40 McCain, or three points more Democratic than in 2008. That’s likely part of the “favorite son” gap we’ve seen in polling in Illinois, Delaware, Hawaii and Alaska — in which the presidential ticket boosted partisan performance for the home-state candidates.

In any case, Democrats have a legitimate and serious pickup opportunity in this district. The reason is that Quayle is having a bitch of a time locking down moderates and independents.

Hulburd is winning independents 50-36, and moderates 66-27. While only eight percent of Obama voters are defecting to Quayle, 18 percent of McCain voters are going with Hulburd. And even 19 percent of Republican voters are choosing the Democratic candidate, likely an artifact of a nasty primary. In fact, Quayler’s favorable/unfavorable rating of 34/52 is shockingly bad for a first-time House candidate, and incudes 30 percent unfavorables from Republican voters, and 29/51 from independents. Hulburd is at 33/20, including 37/16 from independents. Yet given that half of voters have no idea what to think of Hulburd, he may be benefiting from an “anyone but Quayle” dynamic.

John McCain is winning this district easily in his current bid for re-election, 53-39, further suggesting that the sample isn’t too Democratic. And most undecideds come from 18 to 29 year olds, suggesting Hulburd has the best chance to grown his support past 50 percent.

Those of you who voted to poll this district last week, great call. I wouldn’t have chosen this one, but I’m glad you did.

• Discuss (182 comments)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/18/911384/-AZ-03:-Shocking-Democratic-pickup-opportunity

Read Full Post »

12 Of America’s Most Crooked Candidates On The Ballot In The 2010 Election

12 of America’s Most Crooked Candidates on the Ballot in the 2010 Election

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Here are some of the absolutely least deserving candidates for high office.

September 16, 2010 |

Since 2005, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), has compiled a list of the dirtiest, most corrupt critters to scurry across the halls of Congress. The annual report shines some light on the double-dealing and back-scratching of some shady characters, and its release generally gets good play among political reporters.

But 2010 is the year of the upstart, insurgent candidacies — with dozens of “outsiders” on the scene dedicated to “cleaning up Washington,” “taking our country back,” etc. It’s the year of the Tea Parties, and no incumbent is safe. So it’s entirely appropriate that CREW should release a new list this year, one that looks not at the worst sitting members of Congress but at the dirtiest candidates — the people most likely to rank among the most corrupt in Congress if they go on to win their elections.

From James Traficant, running as an independent candidate in Ohio just 14 months after his release from prison on charges of bribery, racketeering and filing fraudulent tax returns, to Alvin Greene, an unemployed and apparently indigent Democratic Senate candidate out of South Carolina who can’t explain how he came up with the $10,000 fee required to file — here are 12 of the absolutely least deserving candidates for high office.

Roy Blunt — Running for U.S. Senate, Missouri

Roy Blunt is a candidate in the Republican primary for the United States Senate in Missouri. For the last 14 years, Rep. Blunt has served in the U.S. House of Representatives in the state’s 7th congressional district. As a member of Congress, Rep. Blunt came under fire for a variety of issues including employing the same corrupt tactics that forced his mentor, former Texas Rep. Tom DeLay, to resign. Rep. Blunt’s ethical issues were documented in CREW’s 2006 report on the most corrupt members of Congress.

In 2003, Rep. Blunt divorced his wife of 31 years to marry Philip Morris (now Altria) lobbyist Abigail Perlman. Before it was known publicly that Rep. Blunt and Ms. Perlman were dating – and only hours after Rep. Blunt assumed the role of Majority Whip – he tried to secretly insert a provision into Homeland Security legislation that would have benefitted Philip Morris, at the expense of competitors. Notably, Philip Morris/Altria and its subsidiaries contributed at least $217,000 to campaign committees connected to Rep. Blunt from 1996 to 2006.

Also in 2003, Rep. Blunt helped his son, Andrew Blunt, by inserting a provision into the $79 billion emergency appropriation for the war in Iraq to benefit U.S. shippers like United Parcel Service, Inc. and FedEx Corp. Andrew Blunt lobbied on behalf of UPS in Missouri, and UPS and FedEx contributed at least $58,000 to Rep. Blunt from 2001 to 2006.

Family connections have also helped another of Rep. Blunt’s sons, former Missouri Governor Matt Blunt. Gov. Blunt received campaign contributions from nearly three dozen influential Missouri lobbyists and lawyers when he ran for governor of Missouri in 2004, half of whom had provided financial support to his father. Earlier in 2000, when Matt Blunt was running for Secretary of State, Rep. Blunt was involved in an apparent scheme, along with Rep. DeLay, to funnel money through a local party committee into Matt Blunt’s campaign committee.

MORE HERE

Read Full Post »

Rand Paul On ‘Maddow’ Defends Criticism Of Civil Rights Act (VIDEO)

Rachel Maddow Corners Rand Paul On His Extremist Views Of Civil Rights

Crooks and Liars- By Nicole Belle Thursday May 20, 2010 6:00am

Normally, I’d cut this video down from its full 19 minutes, but truly, to appreciate the wonderfulness of Maddow’s approach and the sidestepping Rand Paul attempts to avoid the corner Maddow in which deftly places him, you really must watch the whole thing.

And boy, does Rand Paul squirm under the surgical questioning of Rachel Maddow. He never answers her questions, and how can he? His stance makes no sense. Taylor Marsh:

It’s the nakedness and naïveté of Mr. Paul’s views on civil rights laws, that legislation should not impact businesses, that is not only evidence that he’s unfit for Congress, but that he’s actually dangerous. To think that the United States would no longer require laws to protect minorities is just ignorant and lacking in experience in the real world.

As for his anti-women’s rights views, especially on individual freedoms, it’s absolutely discriminatory against women. It’s appalling in this day and age that a doctor would believe that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will. The editorial board found his views “repellent” and they are correct. To say that the unborn has “equal” rights to the woman is simply wrong.

I think Taylor hit it on the head: his naïveté is dangerous. Like many–if not most–“isms”, libertarianism may make sense on an academic level, but only when conceived in vacuum of intellectual exercises. In the gritty friction of the real world, the exercise falls apart. To say that only publicly owned entities should be legislated from discriminating ignores centuries of oppression and injustice. Glibly dismissing any real examples such as the Woolworth’s lunch counter by claiming his “abhorrence of racism” and saying that people would vote with their dollar to not patronize those business is laughably naive.

Obviously, the tea party adulation, in all its authoritarian and uncritical glory, did not prepare Rand Paul for prime time. He’s clearly uncomfortable with follow up questions and being confronted with his own stances. Even though he brought it on himself by telling the Louisville Courier-Journal and NPR that he thought the Civil Rights Act should be done away with, Paul whines about “red herrings” and that the act is forty years old, so why is anyone asking him about it? Joan Walsh:

You’ve got to watch the whole interview. At the end, Paul seemed to understand that he’s going to be explaining his benighted civil rights views for a long, long time – but he seemed to blame Maddow. “You bring up something that is really not an issue…a red herring, it’s a political ploy…and that’s the way it will be used,” he complained at the end of the interview. Whether the Civil Rights Act should have applied to private businesses – “not really an issue,” says Tea Party hero Rand Paul.

Methinks Paul better get used to having to answer for his tacit endorsement of racism and oppression of minorities, especially if Tweety’s outrage is any indication of the larger media response. That may play well with the teabaggers, but they’re not going to win Paul the elections. If I was Jack Conway, I’d be smiling right now.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

##############################

Rand Paul On ‘Maddow’ Defends Criticism Of Civil Rights Act, Says He Would Have Worked To Change Bill (VIDEO)

Huff Post- First Posted: 05-20-10 02:13 AM   |   Updated: 05-20-10 02:21 AM

Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul believes that the federal government blurred the lines between public and private property when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and made it illegal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race.

Paul explained his views on “The Rachel Maddow Show” Wednesday, just one day after wholloping his opponent in Kentucky’s Republican primary.

Maddow focused on the Tea Party-backed candidate’s civil rights stance after he publicly criticized parts of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Paul told Maddow that he agrees with most parts of the Civil Rights Act, except for one (Title II), that made it a crime for private businesses to discriminate against customers on the basis of race. Paul explained that had he been in office during debate of bill, he would have tried to change the legislation. He said that it stifled first amendment rights:

Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that ‘We don’t serve black people?’Paul: I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. But do discriminate.

But I think what’s important in this debate is not getting into any specific “gotcha” on this, but asking the question ‘What about freedom of speech?’ Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things that freedom requires is that
we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it…

MORE HERE

Read Full Post »