Image c/o Gage Skidmore Flickr
by the Left Coast Rebel
Here's why the alleged "head-stomping" incident is a leading topic by Soros-funded sites and other related moonbats at Memeorandum today.
Hot off the presses, a new Public Policy poll just released that spotlights the Kentucky senate race and Rand Paul's new surge. It's all about independent voters:
Independents have moved toward Rand Paul in droves over the last month and a half and as a result he's built his lead in the Kentucky Senate race up to 13 points at 53-40.In a September PPP poll Paul led by 7 overall while also holding a 7 point lead with independents. Now that advantage with independents is a whooping 39 points at 66-27. There's been virtually no movement among Democrats or Republicans over that period of time so most of the movement in the race can be attributed to that shift.And there's an Aqua-Buddha connection too:
There's little doubt the ad has backfired. 56% of voters say they think it was inappropriate to only 15% who think it was alright. Even Democrats feel by a 41/24 spread that it crossed the line and perhaps relating back to Conway's huge new deficit with independents they think it was wrong by a 68/7 spread.Discussion on this over at Memeorandum.
Updated: Gateway Pundit has lots of details on the moonbat behind the 'head-stomping' incident. She (he?) has a rap sheet that includes being a contract MoveOn employee, being booked in May on felony charges....
Updated x2: Ann Althouse weighs in on the 'head-stomping' incident:
AND: Perhaps the reason the crowd did not detain the men is that, in person, it did not look as brutal as it seems in the short video clip — a clip that has the words "head" and "stomp" near it. What was the woman doing before the men activated themselves to stop her? Also, look closely. There is no head stomp. The head is on the curb, but the foot presses down on the shoulder. That ends pretty quickly. That restraint might be a reason to speculate that the men were part of some Moveon.org theater, but it could also mean that the men felt they needed to stop her — because she was in disguise and rushing toward the candidate? — and they reacted quickly. There is force, but they soon back off. I'm not endorsing their judgment about what amount of force was appropriate, but perhaps I can see reason to think that they may have been motivated not by their preexisting propensity toward violence, but by the purpose of protecting the candidate.