I suggested that Rand Paul might be pushed into doing something stupid, but I missed an obvious point, one that Talking Points Memo‘s Josh Marshall got, which was that by making the attack, and by Paul responding with indignation, “How dare you,” rather than a strong denial and push-back, “My opponent is a liar,” he has shown himself to be weak, and the voters hate weakness.

He calls it the, “Bitch slap theory of electoral politics“:

Let’s call it the Republicans’ Bitch-Slap theory of electoral politics.

It goes something like this.

On one level, of course, the aim behind these attacks is to cast suspicion upon Kerry’s military service record and label him a liar. But that’s only part of what’s going on.

Consider for a moment what the big game is here. This is a battle between two candidates to demonstrate toughness on national security. Toughness is a unitary quality, really — a personal, characterological quality rather than one rooted in policy or divisible in any real way. So both sides are trying to prove to undecided voters either that they’re tougher than the other guy or at least tough enough for the job.

In a post-9/11 environment, obviously, this question of strength, toughness or resolve is particularly salient. That, of course, is why so much of this debate is about war and military service in the first place.

One way — perhaps the best way — to demonstrate someone’s lack of toughness or strength is to attack them and show they are either unwilling or unable to defend themselves — thus the rough slang I used above. And that I think is a big part of what is happening here. Someone who can’t or won’t defend themselves certainly isn’t someone you can depend upon to defend you.

Rand Paul was bitch slapped by Jack Conway, and now he’s acting like a bitch, not shaking hands and implying that he will skip the last debate.

Josh Green at The Atlantic notes, “The issue isn’t Paul’s Christianity, but his manhood,” and that his talk about skipping the final debate is all anyone is talking about.