The New Republic

I agree.

- Nusholtz

October 18, 2010 at 8:11am

But it's not a disqualification for hypocrisy, which I think is the actual underlying message here.

- timteeter

October 18, 2010 at 9:04am

Well, I'd prefer adds targeting his desire to dismantle social security, abolish civil rights legislaton, etc. However, given the kinds of adds the other side is using against democrats I can't get excited about this one if it will lead to Rand Paul's defeat.

- jdyer

October 18, 2010 at 9:57am

kudos to Chait for a principled stance but I tend to agree with timteer: candidates such as Paul can only win if they hide their belief system from constituents. It's the character issue: Who is Rand Paul, really?

- mozier

October 18, 2010 at 10:07am

If, under some strange set of circumstances, I wound up spending my undergraduate years at Baylor University, I would have almost certainly joined a "secret society" that mocked Christianity.

- bglidden

October 18, 2010 at 10:18am

The milquetoast Broderian side of my conscience completely agrees with Chait on this. This is the same side that would prefer to lose like Adlai Stephenson than win like Kennedy. But the side of my conscience that regards the rise of Dick Nixon as too high a price to pay for maintaining the purity of one's honor approves of the ad. Most conservatives already regard non-belief in Christianity as a disqualification for office, and yet across the country they have embraced overtly anti-Christian teabaggers like Paul and Glenn Beck. Since there's really no polite way to point out this contradiction, might as well go all in.

- rhubarbs

October 18, 2010 at 10:34am

sorry, but bullshit. Of course non-Christianity can be a disqualification for office. We are talking about Kentucky here, not Myanmar. It is not that the candidate has to be a Christian, but at least people have the right to vote for people who have Judeo-Christian values and Rand has nothing but contempt for Christians (and who the hell doesn't believe the aqua Buddha stunt of his youth?) If he had owned up to his youthful indescretion, then fine, but I would never vote for anyone who believes that greed is good and that religious people are fools. I also see nothing wrong with voting for someone who I think shares my moral outlook on life, religious affiliation is a shortcut to this, however not always. In Pa. Pat Toomey is ostensibly Catholic but is diametrically opposed to all the teachings of the Catholic church as to economic matters. According to the churches catechism it is a moral duty to pay workers a just wage. Toomey and Rand feel the right to exploit people is a fundamental right and their exploiting people proves their own superior value in society. These assholes, who view greed as virtue, represent everything evil in the Republican party, and for that matter, in the human soul.

- blackton

October 18, 2010 at 10:43am

Coming perilously close to saying something is not the same thing as saying it. As with all ads, this is designed to allow the viewer to interpret it in light of his or her own prejudices. One could easily read it as saying that utter contempt for religious persons (more than a stone's throw away from non-belief in Christianity) is a disqualification for office, a far less troubling claim.

- roessmw

October 18, 2010 at 1:17pm

Sorry, but the conflict in Christianity between good works (James, brother of Jesus) and piety (Paul) ended almost 2,000 years ago. Paul won. For those who think hypocrisy would be a disqualifier for political office by Christians (Jesus viewed hypocrisy as worse than most any sin - even tax collecting!), you have it backwards, for to evangelicals it's the sin and redemption that provides the path to eternal life; good works is irrelevant.

- rayward

October 18, 2010 at 1:37pm

Prisiness about Conway's ad is absolute nonsense. There is nothing illiberal about telling voters who, by large majority, deeply CARE about Christian belief that Rand Paul is probably playing them for fools. After all, pundits already know about his extreme libertarian views. Why keep voters in the dark? Conway is criticizing hypocrisy and misrepresentation on values that are core for most Kentuckians. Nothing wroong with that. Democrats have to learn to play hardball while others do. The same kind of public material would certainly be used against any Democrat.

- Skocpol

October 18, 2010 at 1:49pm

even while they were 'debating' this ad, Conway still sounded more reasonable and sane. It shall be interesting to see who Kentucky chooses to replace Jim Bunning, just so people keep Kentucky voters in perspective. Personally, I am far more appalled by the Obama administration continuing to demonize the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, using a guilty-until-proven-innocent attack on business. Obama broke the bank on non-disclosed 'small' donations in 2008. 2010 is the abyss of hypocrisy and fear-mongering by Democrats.

- K2K

October 18, 2010 at 2:15pm

Rayward, Hypocrisy is a work? I think your comment proves my point.

- timteeter

October 18, 2010 at 3:55pm

I knew when I read this thread that the comments would be mainly disgusting, and sure enough they are. As a thought experiment, just imagine if a Republican ran an ad against a Democrat as scurrilous as the one Jack Conway is running against Rand Paul; just imagine the red-faced hysteria that we would encounter out here, imagine the two-bit moralizing. You don't have to be a David Broder to react sharply against this. I fact, you can be Jonathan Chait, quod erat demostrandum. Broder is a mushhead, who often enough affects a pox-on-both-of-your houses attitude. I am a fiery liberal, but one who attempts to be fair. Besides the existence of a huge gap between J. Chait's intelligence and that of most commenters here, there also is a huge gap between the former and the latter in holding and consistently maintaining.standards, and it overwhelmingly redounds to Jonathan's credit. A lot of you would make great conservative Republicans, where the common attitude it, standards are only to be invoked for the port side.

- liberal reformer

October 18, 2010 at 4:43pm

Sorry, I am still at a loss to understand why this particular ad should be viewed as notably worse than all the other crap being shown endlessly on television screens around the nation, many of them sponsored by anonymous and unaccountable parties. If, as seems to be the case, such nonsense moves a critical mass of America's voters to wild political gyrations over a couple of election cycles, then we as a nation probably deserve what we get, and our scholars of political theory should be working on some alternatives to (this form of) democracy. But we already knew that. The Wise Bard (on a bad day)

- weisbardaj

October 18, 2010 at 4:47pm

LR, would you vote for someone who thinks L. Ron Hubbard is God and that Dianetics is the foundation upon which we should base our government? Do you think it is wrong to question the relative sanity of someone who thinks this way. How is it different from the lunatic Ayn Rand? Rand Paul has never held office, do you mean to say you only believe what he has said over the past few months but nothing he has been saying for most of his life? Sorry, but I reserve the right to question the foundational beliefs of everyone who runs for office. If they think chairman Mao or Ayn Rand is their hero, they will not get my vote, no matter if they might agree with me on long term capital gains tax rates. I have standards. Don't you?

- blackton

October 18, 2010 at 6:22pm

Am I fool to agree with Conway that this isn't about his beliefs, but about Paul's conduct? Not believing is fine, but mocking other religions is fair game for criticism. If you think mocking other religions is a good thing, Christopher Hitchens can teach you how to say so in public. Further, the Republican Party generally tries to corral the votes of evangelicals, fundamentalists, etc., on the hint they will enact religiously based laws--anti-abortion, anti-gay, whatever... Isn't it fair to alert these voters if a candidate actually mocks their religion? Last, that idiot Chris Matthews keeps screaming about "no religious test" for office. First, that's a constitutional bar on laws that disqualify people, not a bar on debate. Second, if it were a proposed standard for debate and electioneering, the folks who scream about their faith would be disqualified. Jeepers, now TNR agrees with the hysterical bromides (such a thing?) of Chris Matthews. One last point. If you grew up in Lake Jackson, TX, which I believe Paul did, you grew up in ground zero for the most idiotical and oppressive forced and constant religiosity, all Christian, of any place on the planet. It would make perfect sense to have a life long allergy to Christianity, although good taste would argue for avoiding mockery of these pious people.

- Walpole

October 19, 2010 at 10:30am

I watched the ad. It doesn't criticize Paul for non-belief in Christianity; it criticizes him for mocking Christianity and for abusing some woman in some kind of religious context that would fairly raise concerns about his behavior regardless of his religious beliefs. The ad doesn't mock his belief in Aqua Buddha, whatever that might be, but does question his apparent radicalism in an area most reasonable people prefer moderation and tolerance. The ad seems to suggest that Rand Paul might be a nutter, and a pushy one at that. What's unfair about that? If he does believe in Aqua Buddha, is it so bad to let people know? I wish religion would take a back seat in American politics -- better yet, just get it out of the car altogether -- but that is not the way it is. Nutjob religious types are determining whether science can be taught in the schools, and working to make sure that history textbooks get the story of the Crusades right (make sure those Muslims look like warmongers). Maybe we should be more mindful of the superstitions of candidates for office, if they are likely to write laws on the basis of their beliefs. Aqua Buddha, indeed.

- purcellneil

October 28, 2010 at 4:03pm