The pretty silver spoon boy has no substance.
Once upon a time a few years ago I was a fan of Jack Conway admittedly. I thought he had a lot to offer and could be a good elected official but then I had to start this whole investigative thing I do today and quite frankly Jack couldn't hold a candle to many.
Insider deals on energy he has benefited from, rumors abound about him and his personal life, and so many other things someone should write a book. Don't worry it won't be me. Yet anyway.
This campaign has been a stark contrast to what one would expect from Jack based on previous races. No Jack has never been the altar boy everyone thinks he is but he could sell himself as one until now.
Take this idiotic commercial against Rand Paul and the whole "aqua buddha" idiocy Conway is trying to make stick like it matters 30 years later. A little research goes a long way and shows Jack is desperate or stupid by using this ill advised campaign strategy.
Check this out for example: Conway ‘Lying’ About ‘Aqua Buddha’? FactCheck.org
It is very telling because it contrasts everything Conway is trying to claim. First, the article states this:
Those allegations stem from a GQ story published in August. A former classmate of Paul’s at Baylor — speaking anonymously — told a reporter that 30 years ago Paul and a friend tied her hands, asked her to smoke marijuana and then took her to a creek where they blindfolded her and told her to worship an "Aqua Buddha" as her God. Several media outlets repeated the GQ story, calling Paul a kidnapper. But it now appears that the incident was just a weird prank, not a kidnapping, at least according to the woman involved. Still speaking anonymously, she told the Washington Post that she was merely being "hazed" by her friends.
The whole anonymous thing is a real concern. No one has named the accuser yet everyone has run with the story. Does the media have no responsibility to prove a story of such magnitude?
Think about it.
I have gotten several "anonymous" tips with information accusing Jack Conway of being bi sexual, using cocaine, and a whole host of other things. Does that make them true when there is no proof offered? Do I have a responsibility to write about anonymous things if I cannot substantiate them?
One reason I have never wrote about these charges is because no proof has been offered. Yet anyway. Why would I discredit someone based on anonymous info that cannot be verified?
That is the biggest thing that concerns me with these charges.
Secondly, Conway has continually used the lie that Paul's college group the NoZe Brotherhood (weird name I know but hey this is Baylor) was banned and making the inference that Paul was somehow involved.
This is a lie as well based on this from the article:
Politico also reports that the group was indeed formally banned at one point by Baylor on grounds of "sacrilege." But that happened two years before Paul arrived. "They had ‘made fun of not only the Baptist religion, but Christianity and Christ,’ " Baylor President Herbert Reynolds told the student newspaper, The Lariat, according to Politico.
Two years before Paul arrived? Jack couldn't get the facts straight before he went down this road? If he couldn't get the facts straight, and he is a lawyer at that, then what can we expect from him as a Senator?
Conway has become so desperate, as has the whole Democratic party, out of fear of backlash because of Obama and the Democratic Congress and it is becoming apparent to many. To focus an ad campaign spending thousands of dollars of other people's money on something as asinine as this is incredible.
Wonder what his campaign donors are thinking. Seriously I can picture them drinking their morning coffee, reading the newspaper with the CJ article about this ad, then hearing it on the radio. I can picture them saying out loud "damn I helped pay for this idiocy?"
I know I most certainly would react similar and I know many are reacting that way.
If the best Conway can do is use a report about an incident from 30 years ago based on testimony from someone "anonymous" to use against Rand Paul he is in more trouble than he thinks.
Based on my experience in trying to deal with is office on several issues it is no surprise at all. Jack has always been a Democratic Party machine hack and this new way of campaigning for him is very telling in proof.
I, for one, will be glad when he is gone and I hope he stays out of politics from this point forward (I won't hold my breath as I know better) until he at least learns how to be a man and respect those of us that vote.
Dream world? Perhaps but one can dream in this Country at least until the government tells us we can't.
In the meantime ignore the idiocy of these tactics and vote against them.