Posted on 04/10/2015 7:58:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
At this point, I am mighty bullish on Sen. Ted Cruz but I very much like several other possible GOP presidential contenders, and I have to say that Republicans can learn a valuable lesson from Sen. Rand Paul's recent handling of the ambush media.
Often when Republicans are ambushed, they fumble around, grow defensive and apologetic, and shrink to a point just short of the fetal position. They just can't seem to take the heat of the accusations that they are bigoted or uncompassionate. Instead of striking back, they raise one arm up in defense, get further bludgeoned and descend into retreat.
We are right on the issues. We are the champions of liberty. We advocate colorblindness and equal treatment under the law. But we end up groveling to people of smaller numbers with bigger megaphones. No wonder we're losing the culture war. Yes, politics rolls downhill from culture to a great extent, but political leaders have a unique opportunity to impact the culture upstream. Sadly, our side usually doesn't even recognize this opportunity.
Rand Paul sat down for interviews just one day after he announced his presidential candidacy. Associated Press reporter Philip Elliott, presumably vying for liberal media ambush champion of the week, asked Paul what exceptions, if any, should be made if abortion were to be banned.
Paul tried to answer honestly: "The thing ... about abortion -- and about a lot of things -- is that I think people get tied up in all these details of, sort of, you're either this or this or that or you're hard-and-fast one thing or the other. ... In general, I'm pro-life. So I will support legislation that advances and shows that life is special and deserves protection, and that has been both legislation with and without" exceptions.
After the interview, the Democratic National Committee circulated a press memo on the exchange as ammo for the next media ambush competitor lying in wait for Paul. It didn't take long. NH1 reporter Paul Steinhauser, referring to the DNC missive, pointedly asked Paul, "Should there be any exemptions for abortion or not?"
Paul didn't cower. He didn't slink down or fumble around at the podium stalling for time to think of some answer that wouldn't marginalize him and damage his candidacy. Instead, he shot back, "What's the DNC say?" And it got better from there.
Paul continued: "Here's the question: You know, we always seem to have the debate way over here on what are the exact details of exemptions or when (life) starts. Why don't we ask the DNC, 'Is it OK to kill a 7-pound baby in the uterus?' You go back and you ask (Democratic National Chairwoman) Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she's OK with killing a 7-pound baby that is just not ... born yet. Ask her when life begins, and you ask Debbie when she's willing to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, come back to it."
That response had to stun the reporter, who is part of a group that believes it has a monopoly on ethics and is used to making the rules. How dare Rand Paul?!
But kudos to Paul for finally turning this issue around and pointing out, through a series of very simple statements, who the real extremists on abortion are. What abject absurdity for liberals to prance around wagging their fingers indignantly at conservatives over questions on which their own positions are so far out there as to be morally indefensible and darn near incoherent.
ABC News' George Stephanopoulos used this gambit on candidate Mitt Romney in an interview following a presidential debate in 2012, asking him, "Do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?"
Romney pointed out that it was a ludicrous question, but the Democrats nevertheless used the incident to advance their phony "Republican war on women" meme. The real extremists on that issue, as well, are the Democrats, who subscribe to the contemptible position that the government should subsidize abortifacients and that if you disagree, you hate women.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, by the way, responded to Paul's question. "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story," she said in an email to CNN. Then she continued with questions back to Paul about exceptions for rape and the like.
Are any reporters pointing out that Schultz dodged the question? That her implicit answer is that she favors abortion on demand up to the point of birth? Are they showcasing her deceit, which surrounds the leftist stance on abortion, that we ought to evaluate abortion only in terms of the extreme situations?
The extremists in this debate are the ones who so casually dismiss the killing of an innocent child in the womb as if it were a piece of lifeless tissue instead of a life, without even addressing the overriding moral issue involved in killing a human being. The pro-lifers, even those who wrestle with the exception questions, are engaged in a serious weighing of moral issues.
Kudos to Rand Paul for providing a free clinic on how you handle the ambush media and a blueprint for how conservatives should begin to reframe issues to bring them back to reality and show who the real extremists are.
Is Mitch the problem or the solution?
That should answer your question.
Paul says that he believes that life begins at conception.
From Breitbart:
When Hannity asked him to clarify if he meant that he believes that life begins at conception, Paul answered, “I do truly believe that, but I also understand that there can be a range of opinions, and that to make life better, and to protect more life, I’m willing to go for all kinds of ‘in between’ solutions.
Why go on a network you know will be biased against you?
And expose your John McCain like nastiness.
You have to be kidding. If the 2008 ticket had turned on itself for 2010, it would have dominated that election cycle in the news and the narrative and would have destroyed our history making gains of the 2010 election, and McCain would still have easily won.
On the other hand, Paul cut off the tea party in 2013.
March, 2013—”Rand Paul endorses Mitch McConnell in 2014 Senate race, won’t back tea party challenge”
That is a bald faced lie, no one claims such a thing, and that is the already existing position of the republican party platform and the pro-life movement.
Rand Paul sees all kinds of exception and is pro-choice.
And welcome to your second day here paulbot.
You will have to do better than that though.
I think the GOP has been a 'limited' pro-life party for years. JMHO. They have always supported the rape, incest, life of mother exceptions, iirc. That makes them 'limited' pro-life. I've never agreed with the 'incest' exception, unless it's 'rape', so that really is redundant.
There was a time I vehemently argued for the rape exception, and I still have great sympathy for victims of VIOLENT rape. I'm not talking statutory rape, and never considered that the discussion, but I initially turned against the rape exception because it is so fuzzy. Anyone can claim anything, and there's absolutely no way to prove it one way or another.
Probably wagglebee nailed me to the wall with a requirement to decide when life begins. God says in the bible about Jeremiah "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
It's hard NOT to see that as even before conception, so in biological terms one can only conclude conception.
So, my sense is that unless you nail down a person's belief on when life begins, you can't understand them or any contradictions they're espousing. In that regard, the GOP is schizoid. Their base is pro-life, and their establishment leadership is pro-choice....limited pro-life at best.
If he's talking about 'abortion', then that's one thing. If he's talking about legislation, then that's another.
I support legislation that forbids abortion after 20 weeks, but it means I'm acknowledging abortions that take prior to that. Some would say that it means I'm supporting them. I don't think that's the case. I'm using all means to limit as many as I can.
And what did you expect Cruz to do? Spit on Thad? Kick him in the balls? Call him names?
No they haven't.
Why do you make these kind of arguments?
August 27, 2012 CBS interview with Scott Pelley:
PELLEY: Well, the platform as written at this convention for the Republicans does not allow for exceptions on abortion with regard to the health of the mother or rape or incest. Is that where you are?
ROMNEY: No. My position has been clear throughout this campaign. I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother.
Wow, you are always there for Rand and his abortion positions.
Some of us have spent at least half a year trying to get you to change.
How did you get that out of what I wrote?
Post 68 is yet another defense of Paul on abortion.
let’s go down the list:
GHW Bush: And I have had a couple of exceptions that I support – rape, incest and the life of the mother
Dole: rape, incest, life of mother
McCain: “On “Meet the Press,” McCain said he had “come to the conclusion that the exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother are legitimate exceptions” to an outright ban on abortions. “
Romney: Was cagey. His ‘health of mother’ comment betrayed his true position.
GW Bush: Bush opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life.
No it isn’t. How can you conclude that?
By misrepresenting what you're saying...the same way he misrepresents what Rand Paul is saying.
If he’s talking about ‘abortion’, then that’s one thing. If he’s talking about legislation, then that’s another.
I support legislation that forbids abortion after 20 weeks, but it means I’m acknowledging abortions that take prior to that. Some would say that it means I’m supporting them. I don’t think that’s the case. I’m using all means to limit as many as I can.
68 posted on 4/10/2015, 9:58:31 AM by xzins
Your argument with me on this thread, is that I am wrong about Rand Paul’s position on abortion, and you keep spinning and trying to explain away Paul’s position and statements.
Rand Paul’s overall campaign is to move the GOP left on abortion and social conservatism, and into libertarianism.
“”Evolve, adapt or die. That is the fate of our current Republican party. We must evolve as a party and find a way to attract millennials to the conservative movement or we will never succeed in realizing our ideals of individual freedom and freedom from government interference.””
“I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues,” Paul advised. “The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues.”
This (below) sounds like a pro-life warrior to you? Or does it sound like the guy speaking above, who wants us to grow and “evolve” on abortion.
CNN:
BLITZER: So, just to be precise, if you believe life begins at conception, which I suspect you do believe that, you would have no exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother, is that right?
PAUL: Well, I think that once again puts things in too small of a box. What I would say is that there are thousands of exceptions. You know, I’m a physician and every individual case is going to be different, and everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what’s going on with that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother.
I would say that after birth, you know, we’ve decided that when life begins, we have decided that we don’t have exceptions for one- day-old or six-month-olds. We don’t ask where they came from or how they came into being, but it is more complicated because the rest of it depends on the definition of when life comes in. So, I don’t think it’s a simple as checking box and saying exceptions or no exceptions.
And there are a lot of decisions that are made privately by families and their doctors that really won’t — the law won’t apply to, but I think it’s important that we not be flippant one way or the other and pigeon hole and say, oh, this person doesn’t believe in any sort of discussion between family. And so, I don’t know if there’s a simple way to put me in a category on any of that.
BLITZER: Well, it sounds like you believe in some exceptions.
PAUL: Well, there’s going to be, like I say, thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved and other things that are involved.
So, I would say that each individual case would have to be addressed and even if there were eventually a change in the law, let’s say, the people came more to my way of thinking, it’s still be a lot of complicated things that the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family.
Rand Paul is campaigning on, and is devoting this year and presumably the next year, to selling pro-choice to the rank and file republicans and conservatives.
He doesn’t just have a personal view at odds with the party platform and the base, he is working to once and for all, overcome and end that pro-life platform, are you going to aid that effort, or fight to expose it?
“But Mr. Romney would hardly be the first Republican nominee at odds with his party’s more absolute opposition to abortion. Just four years ago, the Republican Party adopted a platform with a similar plank seeking an unconditional ban on abortion, even though its nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, had urged the party in the past to allow certain exceptions. George W. Bush also supported outlawing abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the pregnant woman was in danger.
After this year’s abortion plank language was approved with little debate, the chairman of the platform committee, Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, praised the committee for “affirming our respect for human life” and for doing so expeditiously.”
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.