Rand Paul's campaign refuses to return Profitt's campaign contributions.

[Barack_America]

Rand Paul's campaign won't return money from supporter involved in altercation

Rand Paul’s campaign said Thursday that it would not return $1,950 in contributions from a Bourbon County supporter involved in an altercation in which a woman was injured before Monday night’s U.S. Senate debate in Lexington.

The Paul campaign “disassociated” itself from Tim Profitt, 53, the day after he was caught on tape stepping on the back of 23-year-old Lauren Valle during a melee in which she was forced to the ground outside Kentucky Educational Television studios.

Valle had been hired by the liberal group MoveOn.org to work against Paul’s election.

Profitt who was Paul’s coordinator in Bourbon County, has been served with a criminal summons to appear in Fayette District Court. He could be charged with 4th degree assault, according to Lexington Police...

More:
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20101027/NEWS01/310270115/Rand+Paul+s+campaign+won+t+return+money+from+supporter+involved+in+altercation

Disassociate yourself but keep the money? Sorry, no. Accept the man's money = Accept the man's actions.

Edited: post title

[City Lights]

1. How fitting.

Assholery is the number one requirement for becoming a reTHUGlican.

I :puke: on all of them.

[Barack_America]

4. They are surely the party of principles and personal responsibility!

:sarcasm:

[jobycom]

2. Hell yeah, keep the money. Profitt shouldn't, um, you know, profit.

Spend his money, boot his butt to the curb.

Not like I'd Paul either way. :)

[JoePhilly]

3. If they had any decency, they'd donate it to a group who protects battered women.

[Barack_America]

6. "If they had any decency"

I'd recommend you not hold your breath.

This party hasn't shown any decency since Lincoln was President.

[dgibby]

5. forwarded to Big Ed and Keith. n/t

[Angry Dragon]

7. Has anyone checked if profitt is getting government money??

He said he stepped on her because of his bad back.
I was wondering if he was getting assistance or work comp.

[dalaigh lllama]

8. Ha! Now wouldn't THAT be ironic.

How would one find that out?

[Angry Dragon]

12. I do not know

but that was the first thing I thought of when he said he had a bad back

[Erose999]

27. He's probably getting SSI and some form of gov't healthcare too. lol

[Angry Dragon]

28. I called the newspaper in Lexington

and they interviewed him. He is according to them that he is retired and
only 53.

[Barack_America]

30. Certainly sounds like SSI to me.

Strong work, by the way.

[Caretha]

9. Good - I say keep it

that's less money for his defense. Maybe he'll just have to have one appointed by the court, one that doens't really give 2 shakes for his pathetic ass.

[txaslftist]

10. I bet he won't withdraw from the election either.

[Barack_America]

11. ?

Who has said he should?

[txaslftist]

14. You don't think he should?

One of his minions, his supporters, stomps a woman in the face, that's his responsibility.

He should realize that his violence and advocacy of violence to women is responsible, and withdraw from the race.

[Barack_America]

16. For me it depends if Profitt was there as a "supporter" or in an official capacity.

If the campaign suggested he and his fellow thugs act as crowd control, then yes, dropping out might be appropriate, as it shows a complete disrespect for the role of law enforcement.

[txaslftist]

18. I think he was some kind of county coordinator or something.

[thereismore]

13. Everybody should know this. Some people will like him all the more. Those cannot be reached. nt

[thereismore]

15. This individuum was working for Paul. He wasn't just some supporter. I think Paul should

catch unbelievable flak for this, but I don't know about Kansas.

[FirstTimeVoterAt37]

17. Teabagger = Money grubber

He's almost as bad a grifter as Palin. They'd stomp any woman's head for a couple bucks and call it a moral victory.

[JDPriestly]

19. Look. Proffitt is the poster-child for libertarianism.

The weak should be stomped on, and no one should have the power to protect them.

That's libertarianism in a nutshell. So why should Rand Paul give back the money?

After all, Proffit is the living proof that libertarianism works. Proffit did not end up in the hospital. The 23-year-old, very naive woman did.

Frankly, I would not have dared to do what that young woman was doing. But she had the right to do it. If they were the security detail, they had the right to ask her politely what she was doing. But they did not have the right to attack her as they did.

[affrayer]

20. This is nonsense...

Disassociate yourself but keep the money? Sorry, no. Accept the man's money = Accept the man's actions.

Million of people donate money to campaigns each election cycle. It's absurd to assume that the candidate becomes responsible for everything those people do because they gave him money.

No, Rand was responsible for Profitt's actions because Profitt acted in Rand's name and not because he gave Rand money...

[Barack_America]

21. Um, it's not the taking it that is the problem, it's the KEEPING it.

Rand cannot "disassociate" himself from this man while keeping his money. Verbally condemning the man, but keeping his money in your coffers? A perfect example of Republican hypocrisy and priorities (i.e. $ over principle).

[affrayer]

24. Then we disagree...

Rand cannot "disassociate" himself from this man while keeping his money.

So if I give money to Rand Paul and then run around flashing old ladies, Paul is responsible for my behavior because he kept the money?

Hmmmm, what if I only gave Rand $10 as opposed to $100? Am I only ten percent as responsible as the other guy or does a one dollar contribution put Rand 100% on the hook?

We're not talking about five or six contributors handing over $100,000 a piece. We;re talking about millions of contributors. Now how can we expect a candidate to be responsible for the behavior of all those people?

In Profitt's case, it's not the money that makes Rand responsible for his actions as one of his campaign organizer. It's the fact that he worked directly for Rand that does.

Verbally condemning the man, but keeping his money in your coffers?

What better way to punish Profitt then to keep his money. Certainly you don't want to reward his bad behavior by giving him money...do you?

[Barack_America]

25. I think you're confusing "responsible for" and "associated with".

No where did I say Paul is responsible for the man's actions because he's a political contributer. I said that Paul will remain ASSOCIATED with this man until he gives the money back.

In fact, I don't think Paul is responsible for Profitt's actions at all, unless the campaign requested that he provide Paul with some sort of security detail.

How Profitt is punished is not for me to decide. I'll leave that up to our justice system.

[affrayer]

29. Now that's confusing...

"I said that Paul will remain ASSOCIATED with this man until he gives the money back."

Okay, what does that mean? We're all Americans so we've all got some kind of association with each other.

I keep remembering Clinton who shock hands with a donor that turned out to be suspected of illegal drug sales. I argued at the time that just because this happened didn't make Clinton a criminal by association. Now it would be different if the guy worked directly for Clinton but what about such incidental contacts? This begged the question of what relationship must exist before an association between Clinton and the donor was something more than just a passing incident?

Look at it this way...Obama received millions of donations...even if only 1% were criminals or associated with criminals that would be 10,000 such people at least. It's just numbers but what is good for the goose is good for the gander. So as much as I dislike Paul I must treat him on the same level as I would some other politician I like. The mere fact that money changed hands is not enough...

Which leaves us with the "after the fact" question. Now that it is clear that Profitt is a thug is it enough for Rand to pretend to disassociate himself from him while keeping the donations? My answer is the same, the money wasn't the key ingredient of the bad behavior. It wasn't illegal money nor was the money given as payola or bribery. In other words I do not find any criminal association exists between the money and the fact that Profitt was a thug.

[naaman fletcher]

22. A stupid non-issue

Another example of a stupid non-issue. By and large we are better than the GOP, but this is a perfect example of where we too get caught up in the election BS. It's retarded. Someone gives you money because they are endorsing you for whatever reason and want you to win. The idea that if you accept the money you are endorsing them is stupid on its face. If Pat Buchanan gave me money I would take. Better promote a progressive campaign than be in his hands. Go ahead, get all worked up against me. Tomorrow on Free Republic the GOP will be making an issue of some animal rights terrorist who donated to Harry Reid and demanding that he return the money.

It's all sound and fury.

It serves a purpose.

All these a-holes looked the other way while the banks took massive risky bets. All of these a-holes let the banks pay out billions in bonuses while the banks did well.

All these a-holes, when the banks lost money, decided that it was too much to let said millionaires suffer and decided to bail out the banks.

That is the real issue.

They have us fighting over this stupid and trivial non-issue.

they have won.

[Barack_America]

23. "If Pat Buchanan gave me money I would take."

This is a fundamental difference between you and I and why we probably won't see eye-to-eye on this issue.

All of these "real issues" you speak of have a common root of corruption and political contributions. Who takes what money from whom is at the core of the collapse of our political system. Rand Paul is claiming to have disassociated himself with this man. I argue that is not possible if you still keep his political donations. That is true for personal donations to political campaigns as well as corporate donations.

[Erose999]

26. BENTON is a liar. Keeping the motherfucker's money is not "severing all ties". Money is a tie. nt

[Barack_America]

31. That's how I see it.

But, interestingly, even some within this thread disagree. So it's not as cut and dry as I had thought.