Curbstomper identified, summonsed: Yes, he was with the campaign

This was no random act of a lone Ron Paul supporter; it was planned, and the leader was the Rand Paul coodinator for Bourbon County.

The big, brave man who stepped on a woman’s head as another man held her down last night has been identified: he’s the Rand Paul county co-ordinator for Bourbon County, whose endorsement is featured in a Rand Paul newspaper ad that ran today.

Here’s a pic Rand Paul wishes didn’t exist.

Stomper and friend

According to a detailed account by the victim, the assault was pre-meditated and coordinated. The coward issued a highly modified apology: he’s sorry “if it appeared overly forceful.” Yes, it would be too bad if it appeared to be “overly forceful;” the reality, of course, doesn’t count.

The campaign has decided to dump the perp. No word yet of any phone call from the candidate to the victim, who suffered a concussion. Note that last night, when the police were trying to figure out who the stomper was, people in the campaign certainly knew, but apparently didn’t bother to share that information; as of this afternoon, police were saying that they intended to ask the campaign for help in making an identification.

The police are treating this as a misdemeanor; I don’t know Kentucky law, but in Massachusetts a shod foot is a “weapon” for the purposes of the assault-with-a-deadly weapon statute. And there might be federal civil-rights charges, since making fun of a Senate candidate is certainly a federally guaranteed right.

Local police have issued Mr. Profitt a summons.

So this case isn’t parallel to instances where random people tagged as “supporters” of one side or another have committed assault. This was a group of men, one of them at least with an official connection to the campaign, deliberately assaulting a lone woman. In that regard, it’s more like the incident in Alaska where someone serving as a “security guard” for the Republican Senate candidate handcuffed an obnoxious journalist based on a “trespass” in a public building and an “assault” of which had no evidence.

When political groups begin to use violence against their opponents, it’s not a good sign for a republic. Just sayin’.

19 thoughts on “Curbstomper identified, summonsed: Yes, he was with the campaign”

  1. Mark, this is just pathetic. Are you saying that the SEIU's connection to Russ Carnahan's campaign isn't sufficiently close for you to feel the need to condemn the violence? Why is that relevant? (Have you investigated the closeness of their connection, or are you just making shit up to attempt to explain away your hypocrisy?) I find it puzzling why one would suggest that a campaign is more responsible for some of its volunteer supporters than others. In any case, that doesn't explain why you excused the attack on a tea partier last year, because it wasn't "brutal." And of course you haven't condemned the attack by a Conway supporter last night of a Paul supporter.

    There is a video of the "journalist" in Alaska confessing to a shove. I'm not sure why that's not sufficient evidence of assault–hell, I'm not sure why the confession isn't sufficient for a federal conviction, at least on your standards.

    Ed, why do you want to assault tea partiers? Keep your hands to yourself, and let's stop with this violent rhetoric.

  2. None of this surprises me at all. That's Conservative America for you. I'd be ashamed to be a teaparty conservative right about now. The group is exposed for what it is.

  3. Specifically, Thomas, Joe Miller looks to East Germany as a model for border security and has his private security forces "arrest," handcuff, and detain a private citizen on public property. He wants freedom for himself and expects obedience from you.

    You appear to be unfamiliar with proverbs in our traditional culture such as "Scratch a Russian and you find a Tatar," alluding to the mixed ethnic heritage of many Russian nationals but also having a pattern adapted for other applications. "Scratch a hippie and you find a Porsche" was Janis Joplin's saying. "Scratch a liberal and you find a fascist" or "scratch a liberal and you find a closet aristocrat" are other adaptations. "Scratch a Democrat and you'll find a racist" is yet another.

    Proverbs were once taught as part of our common heritage. "Don't cry over spilt milk" does not refer to dairy products. "The blind leading the blind" does not refer to visually impaired citizens. "A stitch in time saves nine" is not primarily about the mending of garments by tailors.

    Whatever do they teach in school these days?

  4. No, it's not a good sign for a republic when political opponents use violence, whether they be dirty hippies on the left or zealots on the right. But why is there any political violence in the Obama age? Where is the great uniter we were promised? Clearly that hasn't happened. Oh yeah, I forgot, it's Bush's fault right.

  5. Bux, Obama has been nothing if not a liberal moderate. The Republicans have been incredibly partisan and vitriolic. I'm not saying this in the sense that they shouldn't be. I think they're delusional, but to the extent that they actually believe what they do, they are clearly acting in a very logical, rational manner. For instance, if I believed Obama was a secret Muslim communist hell bent on Jihad against America I might be partisan and vitriolic too.

    OK, so anyway, those in power tend to be more mellow. During Bush the left was out on corners screaming bloody murder. So I think we can agree much of this is plain old political rhetoric. But to argue Obama hasn't tried to be a "uniter" I think is really off. Most of the heat he has taken from the right has been over pretty ideologically tame policy. He's been frugal with his political capital, making very sensible political considerations in his agenda. A large portion of the stimulus was tax cuts. Cap and trade was a conservative idea. So was the mandate. So is being cautious on DADT. So was ramping up in Afghanistan.

    I think you can make a strong case that the hostility to Obama on the right is over-blown, and to the extent that it is, it has sent the Republicans into full-stop, lock-down mode on bipartisanship. Much of the blame lies squarely on the neo-Birchian FOX news and its take-over of conservative thought. I'm not sure how any liberal president could have possibly united crazy like that. I mean, here you have a president doing things that *Republicans* would have proposed not long ago being seriously compared to communists and terrorists.

  6. Eli, they have pretty good prescription medicines that can control that paranoia of yours these days.

    Actually, I do not totally disagree. No liberal president could have united this country, but Obama did not campaign as a liberal and objected when he was characterized as such by his opponent. As for the policy choices you enumerate, we could have a long debate, but all conservatives are pretty much nauseated by the idea of putting troops in harm's way with an arbitrary deadline for pullout, environmental legislation that savages the economy, and command and control health legislation that was rammed through under reconciliation. No moderate would have done what Reid, Pelosi and Obama did to install an unworkable system that is designed to fail and leave no alternative but single payer.

    As for Fox News, they mainly preach to the converted and their influence has beeen exaggerated, I think. Like the networks, their presentation has a subtle (Ok, not always subtle) and often misleading bias, only in the opposite direction and serves as a welcome counter. Much more important has been the influence of talk radio, where the bias is overt but somehow compelling. I guarantee that turnout among Mark Levin's listeners will be 100% on Tuesday, not 98, 99, or even 99.5.

  7. Ain’t that supposed to be “pour encourager les autres” ? The Royal Navy executed admirals to this end, no?

  8. The evidence is that Proffit and the other Paul operatives knew Lauren Valle from prior events, they were aware that she was there to protest, and they collectively decided in advance to use force to prevent her from speaking and demonstrating. That makes what they did a federal offense, a felony punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment:

    18 U.S.C. Sec. 241, Conspiracy against Rights:

    If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or

    intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,

    Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any

    right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of

    the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same …

    They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than

    ten years, or both …

    The same statute would apply to the private security guards' handcuffing of the reporter in Alaska.

    Where is the FBI? Doesn't the Obama adminstration care at all about the protection of First Amendment rights?

  9. Ed,

    Yes, it's pour encourager les autres. The quote is from Candide, the context is the battle of Minorca. Admiral Byng was sent to relieve the garrison and didn't do even a half-assed job in his attack. Minorca fell to the French, and Byng was hauled back to England and court-martialed. He was convicted of negligence, having failed in his duty to attack the French fleet to his utmost. He was executed by firing squad on the HMS Monarch.

    The idea Voltaire was trying to get across (it's clearer in the full quote) was that the English occasionally find it useful to kill an Admiral to encourage the others to do their duty. In this case, I think we want a trial and conviction of Mr. Stomper to tell others of his ilk to cease-and-desist.

  10. I would have thought that the right time to crack down on political violence was when it began a year ago. And yet at that time Mark was saying that claims of a "brutal beating" were a hoax–it was just an ordinary beating, and so not anything to get worked up about.

  11. Thomas, I have no dog in this hunt, so to speak, but your exchange with Mark over the past 2 posts has me curious: leaving Mark's issue(s) aside, is there a line or threshold over which you would not cross? What is too violent? And in light of Proffit's apparent need for the victim of his assault to apologize to him, how far does this situation go? [should Nicole Brown's ghost apologize to OJ? Should African-Americans apologize to whites for slavery, because after all, if they had just stayed slaves, maybe Obama would never have been unleashed on unsuspecting corporations who can only have 1 major party do their bidding at a time?!] Where does the snark end and the reality come in?

  12. Rollah, I thought I'd been pretty clear that I thought this was clearly over the line, and that I'm opposed to violence in politics. I'll leave the hard line-drawing questions to Mark, who apparently believes that a beating is OK, but a brutal beating would be too much.

  13. Thomas: In any case, that doesn’t explain why you excused the attack on a tea partier last year, because it wasn’t “brutal.”

    This is a misrepresentation of Mark's prior post and leaves out significant differences between the two incidents, such as the tea party supporter admitting he had already gone after the SEIU supporter and threatening further violence against that supporter ("I'm going to beat the shit of out of that guy, if I catch him again.") and that the only available video shows an SEIU supporter merely dragging the tea party supporter away from an attempt to reengage the SEIU supporter – apparently no one ever strikes the tea party supporter on the video.

    Indeed, it is Kos that opines about the incident and he does not, as you suggest, state that the beating was acceptable because it was not brutal, but because it in fact never happened. No beating occurred, brutal or otherwise.

    If you can't see the difference between a single person preventing someone from committing further assault on a colleague and someone stomping another on the head while additional assailants hold that person down, then frankly you have no credibility.

  14. Redwave, I was going to add AM radio, but I'll have to take your word for it. I think your post illustrates precisely what I was talking about. Republicans have become so stubborn they don't even know what moderation looks like anymore. On every policy you mention, you're right that the right is nauseated. But not because they want moderation, but because they want complete self-gratification and zero compromise.

    Look, just take any issue and find the extreme right and left position, and ask where Obama is. On health care, it's doing nothing vs. single-payer. The ACA was, just like Romney's plan, a modest proposal. On Afghanistan, it's pullout vs. endless war. A deadline is a compromise. On DADT it's repeal vs. nothing. A review process is compromise. On CO2, it's nothing vs. heavy regulation. Cap & Trade is compromise. On education, it's vouchers vs. massive spending. Charters and merit pay is moderation (although hardly). On the stimulus, $300 billion in tax cuts was compromise.

    You can look at almost every issue and find serious moderation in the Obama position. The Republicans take extreme-right positions, and then claim that even liberal moderates are extreme. This just isn't serious. Many of us on the left feel like the right are almost being deliberately obtuse, and then look at what passes for discussion on FOX and AM radio and throw up our hands. What's gotten into you guys?!!

  15. Well, triangulation (setting up a straw man extreme solution) is a good tactic to make a less extreme position appear like a compromise, but we certainly don't see where we ended up as a compromise simply because Obama did not achieve a completely socialist result. We understand how he's playing the game, acknowledge he's good at it, but are not happy about compromises that do so much damage (and whatever compromise there was, was reached with the Blue Dogs, not with the political right). Those guys in the middle are the ones really being purged now by the base of both parties.

    The real problem is that this generation of leftists sees us as the enemy (Mark even uses that term!) where we don't see you as the enemy at all. Our enemies are Al Queda, the Iranian heirarchy, the Chavezistas and the Castro's and the North Korean Dictators who would do us harm. You are the guys we are trying to work with to come to the right solutions. But it's hard to work with you when you see us as the enemy and see the US as inherently "at fault." For a brilliant exposition of this viewpoint, read Shelby Steele's op ed in today's WSJ. He has you guys figured out to a T.

    Sometimes half way measures, as in Afghanistan, are worse than none at all. Then we have your supposed health care compromise, which is really a head fake that assures ultimately there will be single payer (unless we get it repealed) since it CAN'T WORK!! Hopefully, the damage is not irreversible. The fix begins Tuesday.

Comments are closed.