Jack Conway, Post-Mortem

And I do mean "mortem." PublicPolicyPolling has Rand Paul up 53-40 on Jack Conway in the Kentucky Senate race, an increase from a 7-point lead in September. Pretty clearly this is because of Conway's "Aqua Buddha" ad, in which he seemed to question Rand Paul's Christianity. I am, at this point, pretty damn mad at Conway about that ad. Not, mind you, because of anything intrinsic to the ad; while I do see what's problematic about it, I also think there's a reasonable defense of the ad; see here.

What I'm mad about is rather how sublimely and almost incomprehensibly stupid the ad was, and also how unnecessary it was to have been that stupid about it. As the people at PPP say, the ad harkens back to Elizabeth Dole's attack on Kay Hagan on grounds of irreligiosity, which, uh, kind of backfired. Furthermore, while I think there is a fairly valid defense of the ad on its own terms, that defense is distinctly complex and sophisticated. When's the last time you won a media cycle taking the complex and sophisticated side of the argument? Never, that's when. Maybe before the modern media cycle was invented. The argument against: "He attacked Rand Paul's religion!" or, more left-wing, "He attacked Rand Paul for not being Christian!". The argument for, well, it took a whole blog post to expound. A long one. My post in defense of Conway was a lot longer than other people's posts condemning him. It was, therefore, reasonably predictable that there would be one hell of a backlash against this ad. Moreover, in airing this ad, Conway has actually provided an annoyingly valid anecdote for anyone interested in making a "but both sides do it!!!1!!!1!!" argument in the near future, thus damaging the cause even more than by letting Rand Paul become a Senator that much easier.

And this ad was, as I said, blindingly unnecessary. I could've written the same ad in such a way as to have no backlash, and probably some positive effect. The changes go like this: drop the stuff about mocking Christianity. Mention Aqua Buddha, if you want to, but don't focus on that side of things. Mention that it was in college, because it can be argued as sleaze not to do so. And as for what the major point of the ad should be, since I've stripped the previous point? "When he was in college, Rand Paul kidnapped a woman, tied her up, blindfolded her, took her into the woods, and forced her to smoke marijuana while worshiping 'Aqua Buddha.'" I defy anyone to have trouble with that ad, since a) it's true, and b) it's really the kind of thing that makes you question a man's character, legitimately so. Now, yes, it was in college, and that's a plausible defense for Paul, but you could also mention that rather than come forward and explain this as a youthful indiscretion, Rand Paul has tried to cover this story up, etc., especially if there's evidence that he actively did try to cover it up. Notice, by the way, that anyone who wants to find Mr. Paul's unorthodox behavior vis-a-vis religion still has plenty of opportunity to do so: I don't think there would be anything wrong with mentioning the Aqua Buddha thing in this instance, since it's pretty germane to the story, but a properly conservative Christian voter might decide to object to that part rather than, say, the kidnapping part. If Conway had run this ad instead, I guarantee you he wouldn't be down 13 in the polls.