This page can be viewed at http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=rand_paul_1
A group of supporters of Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) and his nascent presidential campaign hold what they call a “tea party moneybomb” on the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, in an event dubbed “Boston TeaParty07.” Paul is a libertarian Republican with extensive ties to far-right organizations (see July 22, 2007 and August 4, 2008). According to the group Campaign for Liberty, the event raises $4.3 million, the most money ever raised by a Republican presidential candidate in a single day. (The previous record was also held by Paul, who raised $4.2 million on November 5, 2007, Guy Fawkes Day.) The donations come mostly over the Internet. Event spokesperson Rachael McIntosh says: “This basically shows that Ron Paul is a viable candidate. People are so engaged in this campaign because it’s coming from the grass-roots.” Supporters call themselves members of the “Ron Paul Revolution.” One supporter waves a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag while marching down Beacon Street. One participant, Linda Poole, came from her home in Macon, Georgia, to attend the rally. “I’ve been supporting Ron Paul since May and following him since 2005,” she says. If the “founding fathers” were alive today, she adds, “Ron Paul is the only person they would vote for.” The ralliers listen to speeches by Paul’s son Rand Paul, libertarian gubernatorial candidate Carla Howell, and others. At the end of the rally, participants re-enact the dumping of tea into Boston Harbor by throwing banners reading “tyranny” and “no taxation without representation” into boxes that were placed in front of an image of the harbor. “They’re trying to get the attention of the mainstream media, almost like a child that is acting up, trying go get the attention of their parent,” McIntosh says. His Campaign for Liberty will become one of the primary groups associated with the burgeoning “tea party” movement (see August 24, 2010), and this “tea party moneybomb” is later considered one of the earliest moments leading up to the foundation of the movement. (Smith 12/16/2007; Burghart and Zeskind 8/24/2010)
US Senate candidate Rand Paul (R-KY) is a featured speaker at an “open carry” rally held in Frankfort. “Open carry” advocates claim the right to openly carry firearms in public places. The rally includes groups like the Ohio Valley Freedom Fighters, an organization that has openly worked with and defended the Michigan-based Hutaree militia (see March 27-30, 2010). During his address to the rally, Paul calls the armed attendees, many of whom are wearing “I’m A Rand Fan” stickers, his “private security detail.” (Joe Sonka 3/29/2010; Sonka 5/17/2010) (Note: progressive news Web site Think Progress misidentifies the militia organization at the Paul rally as the “Ohio Valley Freedom Fights.”) (Sonka 5/17/2010)
US Senate candidate Rand Paul (R-KY), a favorite of the tea party movement, speaks out against the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA—see July 26, 1990) during an interview. (Sonka 5/17/2010) The ADA was sponsored by Congressional Democrats and signed into law by then-President George H. W. Bush. The ADA “prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodation, communications, and governmental activities.” Recently, it has been attacked by conservative pundits and candidates, largely because businesses have to spend money to comply with its mandates. (Media Matters 9/7/2010; US Department of Labor 2011) Paul says that he favors local governments being able to decide whether disabled people have the rights under the legislation; requiring businesses to provide access to disabled people, Paul argues, isn’t “fair to the business owner.” Paul says: “You know a lot of things on employment ought to be done locally. You know, people finding out right or wrong locally. You know, some of the things, for example we can come up with common sense solutions—like for example if you have a three-story building and you have someone apply for a job, you get them a job on the first floor if they’re in a wheelchair as supposed to making the person who owns the business put an elevator in, you know what I mean? So things like that aren’t fair to the business owner.” (Sonka 5/17/2010)
Fox Business Channel host and commentator John Stossel says a key portion of the Civil Rights Act should be eliminated, because, he says, “[p]rivate businesses ought to get to discriminate.” (Media Matters 5/20/2010; Media Matters 9/7/2010) The 1964 Civil Rights Act (see July 2, 1964), signed into law by then-President Lyndon Johnson, prohibits discrimination in public places, provides for the integration of public schools and other public facilities, and makes employment discrimination illegal. (Media Matters 9/7/2010; National Archives 2011) Stossel, a guest on Fox News’s America Live, tells host Megyn Kelly that he agrees with libertarian Rand Paul, a Republican candidate for the US Senate, in recommending that the portion of the Civil Rights Act mandating no discrimination in public places should be repealed. (Both Paul and Stossel argue that the Americans with Disabilities Act should also be repealed—see May 17, 2010 and September 1, 2010). Paul has said: “[Y]ou should let businesses decide for themselves whether they are going to be racist or not racist. Because once the government gets involved, it’s a slippery slope.” When Kelly quotes this comment from Paul, Stossel says he is “in total agreement” with Paul, stating: “[I]f a private business wants to say, ‘We don’t want any blond anchorwomen or mustached guys,’ it ought to be their right. Are we going to say to the black students’ association they have to take white people, or the gay softball association they have to take straight people? We should have freedom of association in America.” (Kelly is a blond anchorwoman, and Stossel wears a mustache.) Kelly says: “When you put it like that it sounds fine, right? So who cares if a blond anchorwoman and mustached anchorman can’t go into the lunchroom. But as you know, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came around because it was needed. Blacks weren’t allowed to sit at the lunch counter with whites. They couldn’t, as they traveled from state to state in this country, they couldn’t go in and use a restroom. They couldn’t get severed meals and so on, and therefore, unfortunately in this country a law was necessary to get them equal rights.” Stossel notes that those “Jim Crow” doctrines “were government rules. Government was saying we have white and black drinking fountains. That’s very different from saying private people can’t discriminate.” Stossel says that business owners should be free to discriminate, and if the “free market” punishes them by costing them customers, then that is a fair way to handle it. Kelly says the time of the Civil Rights Act “was a different time. Racism and discrimination was rampant. I’m not saying it’s been eliminated. But it was rampant. It was before my time, before I was born, but obviously I’ve read history, and I know that there is something wrong when a person of color can’t get from state to state without stopping at a public restroom or a public lunchroom to have a sandwich.” Stossel says: “But the public restroom was run by the government, and maybe at the time that was necessary.… And I would go further than he was willing to go, as he just issued the statement, and say it’s time now to repeal that part of the law.… Because private businesses ought to get to discriminate. And I won’t won’t ever go to a place that’s racist and I will tell everybody else not to and I’ll speak against them. But it should be their right to be racist.” (Media Matters 5/20/2010; Media Matters 9/7/2010) Stossel’s position provokes considerable criticism, and the civil rights organization Color of Change calls for a boycott of Fox Business until it fires Stossel. The organization writes: “Stossel’s position is an affront to black America and everyone in this country who believes in racial progress. It’s one thing to be a candidate with backwards views [referring to Paul]. It’s another to be employed by a supposed news network and to use that platform to push hateful ideas that our nation repudiated decades ago. It’s time that Fox drop Stossel.” (Salem News 5/22/2010) US Representative Bob Filner (D-CA), a veteran of civil rights protests, responds: “A ‘private’ business generally operates on a public thoroughfare, is protected by public police and fire departments, is served by public transportation, is staffed by people educated in public schools, is protected against fraud by the public justice system, may serve food or sell products protected by public inspection agencies, etc., etc., etc. Surely the public has a right to insist on non-racist policies! As a Freedom Rider in 1961, I rode on an interstate, publicly franchised Greyhound bus, and, as a member of an integrated group, was denied access to restrooms, lunch counters, and waiting rooms. The Supreme Court rightly ruled this was unconstitutional. Do Rand Paul and John Stossel want to take us back to a racist past from which so many people gave their lives to liberate us?” (Media Matters 5/21/2010) Andrew Grant-Thomas, deputy director of the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, says that Stossel has fundamentally misrepresented history, stating, “Market forces hadn’t exactly made anti-black discrimination disappear during the several centuries before the Civil Rights Act.” Even with the progress made since the legislation took effect, Grant-Thomas says, racial discrimination is still a major problem. “If you look at any market for which we’ve done extensive studies, significant discrimination remains,” he says. “It’s clearly better than it was. But there’s still discrimination.” There is a strong market for businesses that “currently, and legally, discriminate on the basis of race, or other grounds, in their membership. That hasn’t caused them to go under. Indeed… in some key arenas, like housing and schools, some people pay more for segregated settings.” He concludes: “The Civil Rights Act wasn’t passed on economic grounds, but on moral and ethical grounds. Suggesting that market logic would have sufficed to weed out discriminators is pretty much besides the point in that respect.” (McLaughlin 5/20/2010) A clearly aggrieved Stossel will respond to the criticism (see July 2, 2010).
Conservative columnist Ross Douthat, writing for the New York Times, attacks the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA—see July 26, 1990), calling it a “feel-good” bill that has not actually done anything to increase employment of the disabled. Its “benefits are obvious,” he writes, but its “drawbacks tend to be more hidden,” including “costs the [ADA] seems to have imposed on the disabled as well as the non-disabled.” (Douthat 7/29/2010) The ADA was sponsored by Congressional Democrats and signed into law by then-President George H. W. Bush. The ADA “prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodation, communications, and governmental activities.” Recently, it has been attacked by conservative pundits and candidates, largely because businesses have to spend money to comply with its mandates. (Media Matters 9/7/2010; US Department of Labor 2011) Republican candidate Rand Paul has made similar claims (see May 17, 2010).
Liberal New York Times columnist Frank Rich writes an op-ed focusing on the billionaire Koch brothers (see 1977-Present, 1979-1980, 1981-2010, 1984 and After, 1997, Late 2004, August 5, 2009, November 2009, July 3-4, 2010, August 30, 2010, and October 4, 2011), the oil magnates who are the driving force behind the tea party movement. Rich writes that “even those carrying the Kochs’ banner may not know who these brothers are.” Rich, using information from historian Kim Phillips-Fein’s book Invisible Hands, notes that the Kochs are the latest in a long line of behind-the-scenes corporate manipulators “who have financed the far right (see September 2010 and August 17, 2011) ever since the du Pont brothers spawned the American Liberty League in 1934 to bring down” the Roosevelt administration (see August 23, 1934 and After). “You can draw a straight line from the Liberty League’s crusade against the New Deal ‘socialism’ of Social Security, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and child labor laws to the John Birch Society-Barry Goldwater assault on [the Kennedy administration] and Medicare (see 1962 and November 1963) to the Koch-Murdoch-backed juggernaut against our ‘socialist’ president,” Rich writes. “Only the fat cats change—not their methods and not their pet bugaboos (taxes, corporate regulation, organized labor, and government ‘handouts’ to the poor, unemployed, ill, and elderly). Even the sources of their fortunes remain fairly constant. Koch Industries began with oil in the 1930s and now also spews an array of industrial products, from Dixie cups to Lycra, not unlike DuPont’s portfolio of paint and plastics. Sometimes the biological DNA persists as well. The Koch brothers’ father, Fred (see 1940 and After), was among the select group chosen to serve on the Birch Society’s top governing body. In a recorded 1963 speech that survives in a University of Michigan archive, he can be heard warning of ‘a takeover’ of America in which Communists would ‘infiltrate the highest offices of government in the US until the president is a Communist, unknown to the rest of us.’ That rant could be delivered as is at any tea party rally today.” Rich also focuses on FreedomWorks (see 1984 and After, May 16, 2008, February 16-17, 2009, February 19, 2009 and After, February 27, 2009, March 13, 2009 and After, April 2009 and After, April 14, 2009, April 15, 2009, June 26, 2009, Late July, 2009, August 5, 2009, August 6, 2009, August 6-7, 2009, August 10, 2009, August 14, 2009, August 19, 2009, August 24, 2010, September 2010, September 12, 2010 and August 17, 2011), one of the two “major sponsor[s]” of the tea party movement, along with Americans for Prosperity (AFP—see Late 2004, October 2008, January 2009 and After, February 16, 2009, February 16-17, 2009, February 17, 2009, February 19, 2009 and After, April 2009 and After, April 8, 2009, May 29, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 27, 2009, August 5, 2009, August 6, 2009, August 6, 2009, August 10, 2009, August 14, 2009, October 2, 2009, November 2009, February 15, 2010, April 15, 2010, July 3-4, 2010, August 24, 2010, August 30, 2010, September 20, 2010 and August 17, 2011). Both FreedomWorks and AFP are heavily funded by the Koch brothers. Rich writes: “Tea partiers may share the Kochs’ detestation of taxes, big government, and [President] Obama. But there’s a difference between mainstream conservatism and a fringe agenda that tilts completely toward big business, whether on Wall Street or in the Gulf of Mexico, while dismantling fundamental government safety nets designed to protect the unemployed, public health, workplace safety, and the subsistence of the elderly.” Rich writes that the Koch brothers’ agenda is “inexorably… morphing into the GOP agenda,” and points to Republican luminaries such as incoming House Speaker John Boehner (R-MO) and tea party candidates such as Rand Paul (see March 27, 2010, May 17, 2010, October 25, 2010 and After, October 26, 2010 and November 10, 2010), Sharron Angle (see January 2010, Mid-May, 2010, Mid-June 2010, June 16, 2010 and September 18, 2010), and Joe Miller (see July 19, 2010, July 23, 2010, October 17, 2010, October 17, 2010 and October 18, 2010). “The Koch brothers must be laughing all the way to the bank knowing that working Americans are aiding and abetting their selfish interests,” Rich concludes. (Rich 8/28/2010)
Fox Business Channel host and commentator John Stossel writes a column for NewsMax attacking the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA—see July 26, 1990), claiming that the legislation places an undue burden of compliance on businesses. (Stossel 9/1/2010) The ADA was sponsored by Congressional Democrats and signed into law by then-President George H. W. Bush. The ADA “prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodation, communications, and governmental activities.” Recently, it has been attacked by conservative pundits and candidates, largely because businesses have to spend money to comply with the act’s mandates. (Media Matters 9/7/2010; US Department of Labor 2011) Stossel makes some dubious claims, such as describing a restaurant having to allow a customer to bring in a “large snake” as a “service animal,” and saying huge lawsuits are being filed because mirrors are placed one inch too low or too high. Stossel calls the ADA “well-intentioned” and “popular with Republicans and Democrats,” but cites a study purporting to show that employment of the disabled actually decreased after the ADA went into effect, and explains that this occurred because “the law turns ‘protected’ people into potential lawsuits. Most ADA litigation occurs when an employee is fired, so the safest way to avoid those costs is not to hire the disabled in the first place.” Stossel cites Walter Olson of the conservative/libertarian Cato Institute as calling the ADA “unnecessary,” and, using Olson’s rationale, writes: “Under the ADA… fairness does not mean treating disabled people the same as non-disabled people. Rather it means accommodating them. In other words, the law requires that people be treated unequally.” Stossel also claims the ADA “unleashed a landslide of lawsuits by ‘professional litigants’ who file a hundred suits at a time. Disabled people visit businesses to look for violations, but instead of simply asking that a violation be corrected, they partner with lawyers who (legally) extort settlement money from the businesses.” Instead of helping disabled people, Stossel says, the law merely provides “[m]ore money for the parasites.” (Stossel 9/1/2010) Republican candidate Rand Paul has made similar claims (see May 17, 2010), as has conservative columnist Ross Douthat (see July 29, 2010).
Several supporters of Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul (R-KY) throw Lauren Valle, a supporter of Paul’s opponent, Jack Conway, to the ground and deliberately stomp her head. The entire incident, which takes place minutes before a debate between Paul and Conway, is caught on camera; videos of the incident are quickly posted on the Internet. The incident occurs shortly after Valle, a member of the liberal political activism group MoveOn.org, pushes her way through a crowd of Paul supporters to approach Paul while he is still in a vehicle approaching the debate. Valle is wearing a blonde wig and carrying a sign that reads, “Rand Paul Republicorps: Member of the Month,” and her intention is to either present Paul with a mock “employee of the month award” from the fake “Republicorps” (misidentified in some news reports as “Republicore”) for his alleged support of large corporations, or to be photographed holding the sign near him. Initially, Valle is blocked from approaching Paul by a security guard and several Paul supporters. Some of the supporters pursue Valle around parked cars, until one of them trips her and sends her falling to the ground. Another supporter yanks the wig from her head. While she is down, two supporters hold her to the ground while a third stomps on her head, shoulder, and neck. While the incident is occurring, others in the crowd shout, “Get the cops!” A Lexington police spokesman will later say his department had not anticipated any violence at the debate. The spokesman, Lieutenant Edward Hart, says, “She [Valle] worked for MoveOn.org—was a contract employee sent to the debate with MoveOn.org for the purpose of getting a picture with Dr. Paul with the sign.” Valle initially refuses medical treatment, but is later hospitalized and diagnosed with a concussion and multiple sprains. She will later file an assault charge against at least one of her assailants. (Maxwell 10/25/2010; Stein 10/25/2010; Gerth and Steitzer 10/25/2010; Shahid 10/26/2010; Beutler 10/26/2010; Gerth 10/27/2010) Joshua Green, a senior editor of the Atlantic Monthly, calls the attack “truly awful.” (Green 10/25/2010) Police spokeswoman Sherelle Roberts says, “[A]t this point there doesn’t seem to be anything to justify how this incident unfolded.” (Beutler 10/26/2010)
Lauren Valle's Account of the Incident - Valle later tells a reporter that she has been to other Paul campaign events, and says Paul’s staff members have “expressed their distaste for my work before.” She calls the assault “premeditated,” and explains: “[A]bout five minutes before Rand Paul’s car arrived they identified me and my partner, Alex [Giblin], who was with me. They surrounded me. There was five of them. They motioned to each other and got behind me. My partner Alex heard them say, ‘We are here to do crowd control, we might have to take someone out.’ When Rand Paul’s car arrived a couple of them stepped in front of me, so I stepped off the curb to get around them to get back out front. At that point they started grabbing for me and I ran all the way around the car with them in pursuit. The footage [referring to the video of the incident posted on a number of news Web sites and blogs] is after I’ve run all the way around the car and I’m in front of the car, and that is when they took me down. One or two people twisted my arms behind my back and took me down.… It was about two to three seconds after that that another person stomped on my head. And I lay there for 20 seconds or so, and my partner Alex came and got me up, and that’s the point where there is the media clip of me speaking.” Valle later says in response to reports that she was not struck on the head: “My memory of them is sort of that of a traumatized person. I think it was my head. My head is in a lot of pain today; my neck is kind of kinked. But I distinctly remember a blow to my head.” She says she was able to give interviews to reporters immediately after the assault because the pain started in earnest about 90 minutes later. “I was in severe shock,” she says. (Stein 10/26/2010; Shahid 10/26/2010; Sargent 10/26/2010)
Three Paul Supporters Directly Participate in Assault - Valle’s assertion that there were “five” assailants is either inaccurate, or she is including people who chased her around the parked cars but did not throw her down and stomp her against the curb. The day after the assault, new footage is posted that clearly shows an assailant’s boot coming down forcefully on her head, neck, and shoulders. One of the two men holding Valle to the ground is wearing a “Don’t Tread on Me” button, a symbol widely associated with the “tea party” movement. (Beutler 10/26/2010; Bob Layton 10/26/2010) This man is later identified by local police officials as Mike Pezzano, a Paul supporter and gun rights advocate. The other man holding Valle down is not immediately identified. (Gerth 10/27/2010; TPMDC 10/27/2010)
Stomper Charged, Identified as Paul Campaign Coordinator and Donor - The Lexington police later identify the man who initially stomped Valle as Tim Profitt, the Paul campaign coordinator for Bourbon County. Profitt will issue an apology to Valle, though he claims the camera angle makes the assault seem more violent than it was. He will state, “I’m sorry that it came to that, and I apologize if it appeared overly forceful, but I was concerned about Rand’s safety.” Profitt will later demand an apology from Valle (see October 26-29, 2010), and will also blame the police for not intervening to keep Valle away from Paul. Police confirm that Profitt is given a criminal summons. (Stein 10/26/2010; Stein 10/26/2010; Alford 10/26/2010) He will be charged with fourth-degree assault, a misdemeanor charge that carries a maximum penalty of 12 months in jail, a $500 fine, or a combination of both. (Kegley 10/30/2010) Profitt is also a campaign donor, having given approximately $1,900 to Paul’s campaign along with $600 from his wife. Paul’s campaign will later refuse to return the donation (see October 26, 2010). Profitt is later dropped as Paul’s campaign coordinator and banned from future events. Paul campaign manager Jesse Benton says, “The Paul campaign has disassociated itself with the individual who took part in this incident, and once again urges all activists—on both sides—to remember that their political passions should never manifest themselves in physical altercations of any kind.” (Alford 10/26/2010; Sargent 10/26/2010; McAuliff 10/26/2010) Profitt later tells a reporter that he did not actually stomp Valle, he was merely using his foot to keep her on the ground. He cannot bend over because of back problems, he says (see October 26-29, 2010). “[I]f she can hear this,” he says, “[a]ll I was trying to do was hold her until police could get her.” He goes on to state that he believes Valle was at the rally to “hurt Rand Paul.” (Dorsett 10/26/2010)
Statements Issued - Following the incident, Paul’s campaign issues this statement: “We understand that there was an altercation outside of the debate between supporters of both sides and that is incredibly unfortunate. Violence of any kind has no place in our civil discourse and we urge supporters on all sides to be civil to one another as tensions rise heading toward this very important election. We are relieved to hear that the woman in question was not injured.” Shortly thereafter, MoveOn issues its own statement, which reads: “We’re appalled at the violent incident that occurred at the Kentucky Senate debate last night. Numerous news reports clearly show that the young woman—a MoveOn supporter—was assaulted and pushed to the ground by Rand Paul supporters, where one man held her down while another stomped on her head. This kind of violence has no place in American society, much less at a peaceful political rally. Our first concern is obviously Lauren’s health and well being. She is recovering, and we will release more details as we have them. We are concerned that no arrests have yet been made, and we hope those responsible will be brought to justice quickly, and that Rand Paul will join us in condemning this horrible act.” The next day, Paul tells a Fox News interviewer: “We want everybody to be civil. We want this campaign to be about issues. I will tell you that when we arrived there was enormous passion on both sides. It really was something where you walk into a haze of lights flashing, people yelling and screaming, bumping up. And there was a bit of a crowd control problem. I don’t want anybody though to be involved in things that aren’t civil. I think this should always be about the issues. And it is an unusual situation to have so many people so passionate on both sides jockeying back and forth. And it wasn’t something that I liked or anybody liked about that situation. So I hope in the future it is going to be better.” Conway weighs in: “I was shocked to see video footage of a Rand Paul supporter stomping the head of a woman outside the debate last night. We can disagree on issues, and I don’t know what preceded the incident, but physical violence by a man against a woman must never be tolerated. It is my hope that steps have been taken to ensure this kind of thuggish behavior never happens again in this campaign.” (Stein 10/25/2010; Sargent 10/26/2010) The progressive news site TPMDC reports that Paul calls for civility, but refuses to explictly condemn the attack. (Beutler 10/26/2010) Conway later issues the following statement: “We are still waiting for Rand Paul to apologize to the victim of this attack. A boot stomp to the head of a woman is never appropriate. Rand should apologize to her, stop blaming others, and identify the others involved in this thuggish behavior and disassociate his campaign from them immediately.” (McAuliff 10/26/2010)
The Rand Paul (R-KY) Senate campaign takes out a full-page ad in the Lexington Herald-Leader. The ad features the names of several supporters, including Tim Profitt, the Paul campaign coordinator who stomped the head of a helpless woman at a debate the night before (see October 25, 2010 and After). (Barefoot and Progressive 10/26/2010) The Paul campaign will also refuse to return a $1,950 campaign donation made by Profitt. (Gerth 10/27/2010) Later, the campaign begins distancing itself from Profitt, who will be charged with assault in the incident (see October 26-29, 2010).
The man who stomped a woman’s head against the curb of a parking lot in the moments before a Senatorial candidate debate in Kentucky (see October 25, 2010 and After) calls for an apology from the woman he assaulted. Tim Profitt, a former campaign coordinator for the Rand Paul (R-KY) Senate campaign, is facing potential criminal and civil charges on behalf of the woman he assaulted, Lauren Valle. The campaign of Paul’s opponent, Jack Conway (R-KY), has called for Profitt to apologize. But Profitt tells a local television reporter: “I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. I would like for her to apologize to me, to be honest with you.” Profitt adds, “She’s a professional at what she does, and I think when all the facts come out, I think people will see that she was the one that initiated the whole thing.” Officials for MoveOn.org, the liberal advocacy group with whom Valle is affiliated, are outraged by Profitt’s position. MoveOn official Ilyse Hogan says: “I am offended and outraged by the words of Tim Profitt. Profitt said the attack was ‘not a big deal,’ that Lauren ‘instigated it,’ and that ‘she should apologize’—words that are eerily familiar to many women who have faced assault and abuse.” A spokesman for the Conway campaign, John Collins, says Profitt’s attempts to minimize the assault are inexcusable. “I think anyone who has seen the video could see that it was one-sided and that it was not a crowd-control problem but rather a sort of a mob, thuggish mentality of some of the Rand Paul supporters,” he says. Collins notes that the Paul campaign has not yet released the names of the two men that threw Valle to the ground and held her down as Profitt stepped on her, and continues: “Anyone who watched the video saw two men wrestle a young woman to the ground and then a third man, Profitt, come and stomp on the back of her head. I think the simple question we have is when is it ever okay… for two men to wrestle a young woman down to the ground, even without the stomping.” (Roxas 10/26/2010; Gerth 10/27/2010) Valle later refuses an apology. In an open letter to Profitt, she writes: “I have been called a progressive, a liberal, a professional agitator. You have been called a conservative, a Republican, a member of the tea party movement. Fundamentally and most importantly, you and I are both human beings. We are also both American citizens. These two facts, to me, are far more meaningful than the multitude of labels that we carry. And if these two facts are true then it means we are on the same team. I have not been for one moment angry with you and your actions. Instead I feel thoroughly devastated. It is evident that your physical assault on me is symptomatic of the crisis that this country is struggling through. And it seems that I will heal from my injuries long before this country can work through our separation. Only when we decide let go of our hate, our violence, and our aggression will we be able to communicate to each other about the issues that divide us. Right now, we are not communicating, we are stomping on each other. No one can ever win, no one can ever be heard, with violence. You and I, as fellow citizens, and we, as a country, have a choice. Either we choose to continue the cycle of inflicting violence upon each other, screaming at each other, insulting each other, and putting one another down or we find a way to sit down and start listening to each other. We’ll see how far we get. We are all viciously and vociferously feeding a fire that will only burn us down together. We must reach inside ourselves and make space for each other. We must forgive each other. We must believe in our capacity for transformation. The moment we choose compassion and reconciliation is the moment that we will begin to move toward freedom. There is no other way. I believe that you should be held accountable for your actions but I also recognize the incredibly negative impact that the consequences must be having on your life, and I wish you all the best as you yourself heal from this. Violence hurts everyone.” (McMorris-Santoro 10/29/2010) Profitt is charged with assault against Valle; he will plead not guilty, and his lawyer will claim that his assault was justified (see October 26-29, 2010).
Tim Profitt, a former campaign coordinator for Senate candidate Rand Paul (R-KY), admits to stomping the head of a protester after she attempted to be photographed with Paul at a recent campaign rally (see October 25, 2010 and After). Profitt has refused to apologize for his actions, and has suggested that his victim, Lauren Valle, owes him an apology (see October 26-29, 2010). Profitt and two other men affiliated with Paul’s campaign chased Valle when she approached Paul, threw her down, and stomped her head against the curb of the parking lot. Lexington police confirm that Profitt is the individual who stomped Valle: “Detectives identified the suspect involved in the assault as Tim Profitt,” according to a police statement. “Mr. Profitt is currently being served with a criminal summons ordering him to appear before a Fayette County District Court judge.” Valle has filed a fourth-degree assault warrant on Profitt. Profitt tells at least one local reporter that he used his foot to shove her head against the curb because his back problems make it difficult for him to bend over. “All I was trying to do was hold her until police could get her,” he explains. “I think she was there for a reason.… And that was hurt [sic] Rand Paul.” Though Paul has refused to return money donated to the campaign by Profitt, and touted Profitt’s support in a campaign ad that has continued to run after the assault (see October 26, 2010), the Paul campaign released Profitt from his duties as Bourbon County campaign coordinator, and says: “Whatever the perceived provocation, any level of aggression or violence is deplorable, and will not be tolerated by our campaign. The Paul campaign has disassociated itself from the volunteer who took part in this incident.” Paul appears on a Fox News broadcast this morning saying he dislikes the incident. Paul is popular with local and national “tea party” organizations; his father is US Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), considered by many to be an ideological forefather of the “tea party” movement. (Pierce 10/26/2010; Dorsett 10/26/2010) Profitt is charged with fourth-degree assault. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of 12 months in jail, a $500 fine, or a combination of both. The criminal summons alleges that Profitt “intentionally placed his foot on the shoulder/head region on the victim and applied a degree of pressure on the victim.” (Kegley 10/30/2010) Profitt will plead not guilty. His lawyer Michael Dean will tell the court that the assault was justified. “I’m sure he was doing at the time what he thought was necessary,” Dean will say. He later tells reporters: “Admittedly if you look at the video on the Internet and TV and don’t see anymore than what was shown it looks like he may have gone out of line. But if you look at the rest of the video of what she was doing before hand and get the whole story, I think you will see my client is justified.” (Schreiner 11/18/2010; McMorris-Santoro 11/19/2010)
Impelled by polls showing that Democrats may not do as badly as predicted in the upcoming November midterm elections, Republican political organizations pour vast amounts of money into tight Senate and House races in the final days, according to a Reuters analysis of data provided by the Wesleyan Media Project and from Democratic organizers. The controversial Citizens United Supreme Court decision (see January 21, 2010) has “opened the floodgates” for corporate money to be used in electioneering and advertising, much of that money going anonymously to political parties and operations (see September 13-16, 2010 and October 2010). Much of the money is targeting three Senate races in Colorado, Kentucky, and California. Republicans are confident that they will gain control of the House of Representatives, but must gain 10 seats to control the Senate, a prospect that is not as likely. Last-minute spending surges are common in elections, but experts say they have never seen so much spending in the last days of a race. Pollster Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center is not sure the last-minute surge of spending, almost all of which is going to advertising, will have a major effect. Most voters’ minds are made up by now, Kohut says. Data shows that organizations affiliated with Republicans have outspent their Democratic rivals by more than a 3-1 ratio. In Nevada, “independent” organizations are pouring money into attack ads against Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and in support of challenger Sharron Angle (R-NV). Late campaign spending is fairly equal, according to the data, and the polls for that race are very tight. In Colorado, “tea party” favorite Ken Buck (R-CO) is losing ground to incumbent Michael Bennet (D-CO), and in response, Republican groups have funneled money into ads supporting Buck and attacking Bennet to create a 2-1 spending ratio in favor of Buck. A similar instance exists in Kentucky, where another tea party favorite, Rand Paul (R-KY), is losing ground to Jack Conway (D-KY), and Republican spending on Paul’s behalf has made for a 2-1 spending ratio in favor of Paul. In California, where popular Democrat Barbara Boxer (D-CA) once had a 2-1 spending advantage over her opponent Carly Fiorina (R-CA), pro-Fiorina groups have recently outspent pro-Boxer groups 5-1. In Pennsylvania, pro-Republican groups are heavily outspending Democrats, largely to support Republican favorite Pat Toomey (R-PA) over Joe Sestak (D-PA). In Delaware, Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell (R-DE), whose campaign has raised large amounts of money from out-of-state financiers, has not received the lavish funding that her Republican colleagues have gotten to defeat her opponent Chris Coons (D-DE). O’Donnell has received some $300,000 from right-wing and tea party groups. But Coons is receiving virtually no support from independent pro-Democratic groups, possibly because polls indicate he will win the election and does not need the last-minute funding support. The elections will be held on November 2. (Hosenball 10/27/2010) The results of the massive spending are mixed. The Republican winners include Paul and Toomey. The Republican losers include Angle, Buck, Fiorina and O’Donnell. (National Public Radio 11/3/2010)
Columnist Katha Pollitt, writing for the liberal magazine The Nation, believes that the newly elected Republican majority in the US House of Representatives will do its best to restrict abortions. Pollitt notes that when the newly elected Congress members take their seats in January 2011, there will be 53 additional anti-abortion voices in the House and five in the Senate. Some, like Senator-elect Rand Paul (R-KY) and Representatives-elect Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Tim Walberg (R-MI) oppose most methods of birth control, in vitro fertilization, and stem cell research, and join Senators-elect Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) in opposing abortions even in the cases of rape or incest. Toomey supports incarcerating doctors who perform abortions. Pollit writes, “Supporters of reproductive rights are looking at the most hostile Congress since abortion was legalized in 1973” (see January 22, 1973). Pollitt writes that in 2011, Republicans in Congress will try to:
Reinstate the global gag rule, lifted by President Obama on his first day in office, which bars recipients of US foreign aid from so much as mentioning abortion in their work, and make it permanent.
Pass the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which will make the Hyde Amendment (see September 30, 1976) permanent and reinterpret it to forbid any government agency from funding any program which has anything to do with abortion. Pollitt writes: “For example, if your insurance plan covered abortion, you could not get an income tax deduction for your premiums or co-pays—nor could your employer take deductions for an employer-based plan that included abortion care. (This would mean that employers would choose plans without abortion coverage, in order to get the tax advantage.) The bill would also make permanent current bans like the one on abortion coverage in insurance for federal workers.”
Pass the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, which would ban federal funds for any organization that performs abortions or funds organizations that do so. Pollitt says the aim of this legislation “is to defund Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest network of clinics for family planning and women’s health, and in many regions the only provider within reach.”
Beef up so-called conscience protections for health care personnel and hospitals.
Ban Washington, DC, from using its own money to pay for abortions for poor women.
Revisit health care reform to tighten provisions barring coverage for abortion care.
Preserve the ban on abortions in military hospitals.
Pollitt says that the idea behind all of these legislative initiatives is not the banning of abortion, but the disallowing of taxpayer dollars to fund it. Planned Parenthood head Cecile Richards says: “This election was not about choice. The bottom line was jobs and the economy. But if you look at close races where the prochoice candidate won, and where women knew the difference between the candidates on reproductive rights, they voted prochoice and arguably made the difference.” Richards says that if Democrats want to successfully oppose Republicans on these and other legislative initiatives, they will need the active support of pro-choice women. (Pollitt 11/10/2010)
Except where otherwise noted, the textual content of each timeline is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike