Poll:
Did the GQ article change your opinion of Rand Paul?
E-mail me at jarnold@whas11.com or leave a comment.
Ben writes:
A couple of points worth noting I believe:
1. The author (Jason Zengerle) has written extensively and negatively about Rand Paul. Even calling him a "wacko". This man is not trustworthy or objective when it comes to Rand Paul. See: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/75252/paleo-wacko
2. The story is completely unsubstantiated and is baseless conjecture, contains no tangible proof and only cites one anonymous person. It's disturbing that a story with such little teeth can make news anywhere, especially in mainstream media (blogs I expect this tripe from.)
3. If Conway is indeed spreading it around, how would he feel if something was said about him from nearly three decades ago that were wild-sounding, had no proof but he (Conway) couldn't disprove it?
This is a dangerous road. It's sickening too that Conway is doing this. It reeks of desperation. It's amoral and repugnant and Conway deserves to lose the election based on spreading this alone.
