Posted on 04/08/2015 1:42:38 PM PDT by cotton1706
On Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, made an appearance from Nashua, NH on NBC’s “Today” to discuss his candidacy.
Co-host Savannah Guthrie took aim at Paul, suggesting he had changed his foreign policy stances, which drew the ire of Paul who insisted she was improperly framing her questions.
“Why don’t we let me explain instead of talking over me, OK?” Paul said. “Before we go through a litany of things you say I’ve changed on, why don’t you ask me a question, ‘Have I changed my opinion?’ That would be sort of a better way to approach an interview.”
Guthrie referred to a 2007 statement attributed to Paul, which he said Iran wasn’t a nuclear threat. The junior Kentucky senator acknowledge he had changed, but pointed out that circumstances had changed as well.
“2007 was a long time ago and events do change over long periods of time,” Paul said. “So we’re talking about 8 years ago. We’re talking about a time when I wasn’t running for office and I was helping someone else run for office.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
But neither did Gingrich, and that didn't seem to help him.
“We’re talking about a time when I wasn’t running for office and I was helping someone else run for office.””
Ha!
He comes right out and acknowledges he is changing his positions as circumstances see fit.
When he wasn’t running for office but his Dad was, he was fine with Iran’s nuke program. Now he is running so Iran’s nuke program is bad.
I don’t think Paul meant to be so transparent.
I agree. He at least calls them on it and informs the audience that they are listening to a Lefty flak disguised as a “journalist”. I like it.
Another thing. Our bench is so deep and wide, I resent the media going on the low road every time our side makes the news. Real Clear Politics was full of cranked out hit pieces against Rand.
It makes me mad and want to defend Rand Paul, Scott Walker, etc., but not Jeb Bush— who has every intention of buying the nomination and exhaling the rest of the field on the ash heap of South Carolina.
opportunist, pragmatist, eclectic, anti-principles, no absolutes
Times may change, but the answer shouldn’t have to. The following would have worked eight years ago, and would still be operable today.
Iran is a rogue state. The rest of the world should band together and prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability. I don’t see a danger today, but if one should arise in the future, the world must stand up to Iran.
The United States should talk the lead to protect Western Civilization whenever there is a threat of this kind.
>> anti-principles
Rand DOES SO have principles!
And (with apologies to Groucho) if you don’t like those... well, he has *others*.
Ping
>> The following would have worked eight years ago, and would still be operable today.
Yes, the unvarnished truth is ALWAYS a great foundation upon which to build your position, isn’t it?
It’s a shame so few politicians take advantage of it.
Savannah Guthrie may have been one of those referenced in the title “Pretty Little Liars”.
Cruz and Paul both go for the jugular with the media-it takes them by surprise, and it makes me howl with glee...
I like Paul. Not my favorite as of right now but I like.
Don’t agree on several points, primarily foreign policy but we’ll see.
Senator Paul is a good addition to the candidate pool. He’s going to make the race much more interesting because the public in general wants the federal government reined in significantly and only he and Cruz are believable in that regard.
I like Walker, and he’ll rein in the Left if he’s elected, but not so much the crony capitalism on the Right, I suspect.
My guess is that Senator Paul will advance in the polling as his message resonates and as that happens one or two of the other candidates, possibly Walker, will begin shifting in Paul’s direction. And that will be a good thing.
Anything that lets the MSM know that their “business as usual” is over, is ok by me. Savannah ought to feel lucky he spoke to her at all. I wouldn’t.
Now he wants to increase military spending by 190 billion in 2 years?
Quite a big difference.
Paul is playing games, that is why his amendment only got 4 votes, and he wouldn’t vote for the amendment that had a chance of passing, and that Cruz voted for.
I agree. I have seen people who would lie when they’d be better served by just telling the truth. It becomes such a habit, they do it without thinking.
Good all the pubbie candidates need to be in your face to these libtards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.