Early Wednesday morning, Charles Booker, the Democratic nominee challenging Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) showed just how desperate he is when it comes to trying to win. In an ad released on Twitter, in which Booker is actually wearing a noose around his neck, he calls out his opponent for supposedly opposing a federal anti-lynching bill. Not only is the shocking ad disgusting, it's also leaving out a whole lot of important context that changes the narrative, enough so that even USA Today got involved to point out how wrong Booker is.
For most of the ad, Booker speaks to the camera with a noose around his neck. Grainy footage from lynchings earlier in our country's history past are shown at one point. The begins with a gallows pole with a noose and the U.S. Capitol in the background, in reference to January 6, 2021, no doubt. "The pain of our past persists to this day," the ad begins with.
The part of the ad gaining particular attention is Booker's claim that Paul is "the person who single-handedly blocked an anti-lynching act from being federal law." As the camera zooms in on the noose, Booker makes the case that "the choice couldn't be clearer. Do we move forward together? Or do we let politicians like Rand Paul forever hold us back and drive us apart?"
Booker, who is until then was holding onto the noose around his neck, takes it off as he invites Kentuckians to vote for him. "In November, we will choose healing. We will choose Kentucky."
Lynching is a tool of terror. It was used to kill hopes for freedom. In Kentucky, it was used to kill three of my uncles.
— Charles Booker (@Booker4KY) June 1, 2022
In this historic election, the choice is clear. Rand Paul may want to divide us, but hate won’t win this time.
It’s time to move forward, together. pic.twitter.com/oYxuqKFdWR
By smearing Paul in such a way, it doesn't seem like Booker thinks "It's time to move forward, together," after all. In addition to being divisive, Booker is also misleading.
Here's what Morgan Watkins mentioned in her piece for USA Today:
The certain-to-be-controversial ad, which Booker's campaign released Wednesday morning, includes a content warning for "strong imagery."
It does not mention that Paul went on to co-sponsor a new (and bipartisan) versionof that legislation. The Senate unanimously voted this March to pass the updated Emmett Till Antilynching Act, which is now law.
Watkins also lays out the path of Paul's various actions on the bill that is now law:
Paul placed a hold on the original Emmett Till Antilynching Act in 2020 and later sought unanimous consent from the Senate for an amended version of the bill that he indicated would ensure it didn't apply to crimes that resulted in relatively minor injuries like bruises and cuts.
...
At the time, Paul said lynching is "a tool of terror that claimed the lives of nearly 5,000 Americans between 1881 and 1968" and defended his stance on the bill, saying: "I seek to amend this legislation, not because I take it or I take lynching lightly, but because I take it seriously — and this legislation does not."
Paul's amendment was blocked, and the original bill didn't advance in the Senate either.
Paul introduced his own proposal, the Marie Thompson Antilynching Act, last year. That legislation, named after a Kentucky woman lynched by a mob in 1904, did not advance in Congress either.
This year, he co-sponsored a new version of the Emmett Till Antilynching Act that Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Tim Scott, R-S.C., introduced.
He told The Courier Journal he negotiated with Cory Booker on a compromise that addressed his concerns, and he supported the legislation that has since become law.
Paul himself wrote an op-ed for the Courier Journal in March of this year, titled "The Emmett Till Antilynching act was worth taking the time to get it right." In it, he details how Marie Thompson, a victim of lynching who cut herself down but was ultimately shot to death, "has been an inspiration to me." He also laid out issues with earlier versions of the Emmett Till Antilynching Act, and the negative attention he got:
Officially designating lynching a federal crime is a powerful statement. But, when Congress creates new federal crimes, it has a responsibility to ensure that the law is just.
That is exactly what I attempted to do when, over a year ago, I offered an amendment to strengthen an earlier version of the Emmett Till Antilynching Act. That version of the bill would have labeled a conspiracy to commit a vast array of different hate crimes, including those unrelated to physical harm to a person–such as defacing a church–a lynching.
At the same time, protests across the United States were erupting to protest the killing of George Floyd. That summer, protestors calling for racial justice defaced St. John’s Church in Washington, DC. Ironically, had that version of the antilynching bill become law, those protestors could have been the first to have been federally prosecuted for committing a “lynching.”
That real-life example demonstrates why Congress must carefully craft legislation that creates new federal crimes. My amendment, which I named in honor of Marie Thompson, would have ensured that the crime of lynching would be severely punished, while those accused of lesser crimes are punished in a proportionate manner.
Taking the time to get the bill right was, for some, an unpopular decision. Consideration of my amendment would inevitably slow the process of enacting the law, and some people, who were not inclined to give me the benefit of the doubt, hurled vile accusations at me on social media.
Paul goes on to mention his work with Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) on the legislation:
Sen. Cory Booker recognized my sincerity and agreed to work with me to make the bill stronger. Sen. Booker and I have collaborated to fight other injustices, such as mass incarceration. Our partnership worked because of a profound mutual respect for one another and a shared goal to right historic wrongs without inadvertently creating new victims.
All too often, news coverage portrays our nation as hopelessly divided and our government as broken. The intense debates, the contentious votes, and the partisan signing ceremonies may get the most attention from news organizations. But what the cameras cannot capture is the careful deliberation and cooperation that is required of public servants to faithfully fulfill their charge.
And so, a Republican and a Democrat from different backgrounds, different parts of the country, and different perspectives, sat down and did the hard work entrusted to us by our constituents. Our exchange of ideas was at times passionate, but always respectful and with our common goal sharply in mind. In short, we came up with a compromise. That compromise took over a year to finalize. But the result of that compromise will be a historic law that finally recognizes lynching as a federal hate crime.
With regards to the ad, which certainly received attention, Jake Cox, Paul's deputy campaign manager told Townhall in a statement that "Dr. Paul worked diligently to strengthen the language of this legislation and is a cosponsor of the bill that now ensures that federal law will define lynching as the absolutely heinous crime that it is. Any attempt to state otherwise is a desperate misrepresentation of the facts."
Sen. Booker, in March, also referenced and thanked Sen. Paul, along with Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) in a press release highlighting their partnership on the legislation. "I am proud to announce Senators Paul and Warnock as cosponsors of the Emmett Till Antilynching Act. Their support underscores the bipartisan backing that we have to finally meet this moment and help our nation move forward from some of its darkest chapters," Sen. Booker mentioned.
Our friends from Twitchy took notice of the ad earlier on Wednesday, as well as the fact-check, and also included the statement from Cox in an update of theirs.
According to prognosticators, the Senate seat is regarded as "Solid Republican" or "Safe Republican," the most sure ratings there are.