Posted on 04/11/2015 4:46:32 PM PDT by Kaslin
Although I'm extremely excited for the 2016 election even without having a particular GOP candidate in mind as my hoped-for annihilator of Hillary Rodham, Rand Paul really ticked me off this week. I mean REALLY ticked me off.
It looks like he is not going to play ball with the press. And that's a huge mistake.
So what happened?
He tussled with Savannah Guthrie, the 'Today' host, over her editorializing rather than simply questioning him. She was pressing him on whether or not he'd changed opinions on foreign aid to Israel and he not only objected to her talking over him and rendering an opinion in the process, he also gave her a suggestion as to how better to interview him.
He also had a couple of irritation-revealing interactions with journalists over questions about abortion. In both cases, the journalists were unhappy with the way Paul responded and Paul was even more unhappy with their reactions to that.
He even had the temerity to question the assumptions behind the interviewer's abortion question, saying:
“Here’s the deal — we always seem to have the debate waaaaay over here on what are the exact details of exemptions, or when it starts. Why don’t we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus? You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman-Schultz if she’s okay with killing a seven-pound baby that is not born yet. Ask her when life begins, and you ask Debbie when it’s okay to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, get back to me.”
It was as if he didn't even respect their importance and influence enough to respond the way they wanted. How in the world can he expect to win their approval that way?
He attempted to explain himself several times, firstly to Wolf Blitzer in a television interview on CNN, then to Megyn Kelly on Fox News, and finally on Mark Levin's radio show, by acknowledging that he does get short-tempered and doesn't like it when simple direct questions aren't asked of him. He even went further on Levin's show, stating that he (and other conservatives) get tough questions whereas people like Hillary get asked how their vacations were or if they recalled being at a party together in the Hamptons.
What a strategic error he is making.
Doesn't he understand that pleasing the media should be his number one priority? Being someone they like and with whom they agree is the way to get the "What's your favorite color?" questions. Maintaining principle and attempting to dictate the rules of the game may please the masses and scratch an itch conservatives have had for years, but it certainly won't win friends and influence MSNBC people. And how else will he win their votes?
There are lessons that can be learned from the past and he'd do very well to study them.
Imagine, for a moment, had Mitt Romney spent time wooing and gaining the approval of Candy Crowley. Would she have been so energetic in her defense of President Obama during their debate? Perhaps she'd not have incorrectly opined in the middle of their discussion and that could've made a difference in the election.
Consider if John McCain had made a sufficient impression on Chris Matthews so that even an inspiring speech by Barack Obama wouldn't have sent a thrill up his leg. Would Matthews have spent so many countless hours beating the drum in support of the President had Republicans spent more time being what Matthews wanted them to be? It might be a completely different political world.
One might consider thinking it would be wise to directly fight to the media. But that would require recognizing they're as much of a political opposition to conservatives as are liberals and Democrats. Before going down that lonely road, it would have to be realized that such an approach won't get you invited to Andrea Mitchell's cocktail party or a big thumbs up from Rachel Maddow. And that would be a tragedy, wouldn't it?
I agree with that. Rand is better than any Democrat or RINO out there.
But we can probably do better.
I don’t have a problem with how rand responded. You can’t make friends with some “journalists”
“I’m not wild about Cruz but would vote for him against Clinton.”
We all want to know what you don’t like about Cruz...
Poorly written sarcasm.
Especially Guthrie. She is a bitch on wheels.
You and others act as if Paul is unaware what awaits him when he
interviews with biased liberal reporters.
No one forced Paul to do these interviews.
If you can’t handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Yes.
I'd vote for a three legged dog before Clinton. Get wild about Cruz. He's actually one of our best hopes to save the nation....
You're repeating yourself but I get your point.
Thing is the writer's an idiot for saying "...pleasing the media should be his number one priority..." and actually meaning it. Back on Planet Earth the goal is not pleasing the media. I just loved the way Reagan would skip Presidential press briefings and afterward he always had a loud helicopter handy as an excuse for not 'hearing' the questions.
Not necessarily. I’ve noticed that many politicians talk a good fight but either are insincere or are ineffective. Cruz has had trouble being effective. He makes a lot of smoke but produces very little fire. Admitted he did make Senator from Texas which is a plus.
It's funny as hell. He just snorts at them, they stare back in disbelief (don't you know I'm the most important person on Earth?!), and he stalks out having destroyed them.
They deserve every bit of dripping contempt he's dishing out.
See my later post. I admit he says the right things but have little trust in any politician’s words. I would advise every person on this Forum to be just a little skeptical. I’m not saying ‘cross him off.” Just be careful. Lastly, Cruz must win a good number of Independents and some Democrats. He does not seem to pull in significant numbers of those people.
For purposes of full disclosure at this time I support Walker.
well he is only one Senator. The problem is not Cruz but the rest of them. If you are waiting for one person to come along and just fix things I am afraid you will be disappointed for a long long time
Here are parts of the write up of Cruz’s interview with CNBC’s Harwood.
“Harwood: The first president of your adulthood was a Texan, George H. W. Bush. What is your evaluation of his presidency now?
Cruz: I think he did an effective job when it came to managing the demise of the Soviet Union. He was the right person at the right time. Domestically, I disagree with what he did. When you tell the American people, “Read my lips. No new taxes,” that should mean no new taxes. That was a mistake. And it’s a mistake that cost him the election.
Read MoreSen. Ted Cruz blames the media for distorting his image
Harwood: You worked for his son. Was he right to expand Medicare to cover prescription drugs?
Cruz: That was a policy fight I was not engaged in at the time. I’ll tell you what wasn’t right. When George W. Bush entered office, the national debt was $5 trillion. When he left, it was $10 trillion. I think the administration spent too much money. Now, I also think you’ve got to give George W. Bush some real credit—he showed remarkable courage...
in the beginning of the second term taking on Social Security reform and personal accounts. It was the right thing to do. Sadly, congressional Republicans ran to the hills and abandoned him.
Harwood: A third Texas president, L.B.J., created Medicare in the mid-’60s. Your hero Ronald Reagan campaigned vigorously against that, saying it would lead to socialized medicine, would end liberty in the United States. Who was right: L.B.J. or Reagan?
Cruz: It’s not worth tilting at windmills. I don’t know. I wasn’t alive then. What I do know is that today, we have got to preserve and reform Medicare. There is a broad, universal consensus that Medicare is a fundamental bulwark of our society. Look, it’s one thing to have asked 50 years ago should we have created it. It’s another thing when you have a generation of seniors who paid into it 30, 40, 50 years who have been made promises. We need to honor those promises.
Harwood: You announced your campaign at Liberty University. You’re appealing to Libertarians. The Libertarian Party platform in 2012 calls for Social Security to be phased out. Are they wrong as a matter of philosophy?
Cruz: Oh, I understand why they call for that. But I don’t agree with them. What I would like to see is several things. Number one, for those on Social Security or near retirement, no changes whatsoever. Honor the commitments. But for younger people, people in my generation, we should gradually increase the retirement age. Secondly we need to change the rate of growth of Social Security benefits so they match inflation rather than exceed inflation. Those two reforms on their own take Social Security from bankruptcy into solvency. But the third piece,
and it’s what Bush fought for, is personal accounts. I think it is transformative to allow younger workers to put a portion of their taxes into a personal account that they own, that they control, and that they can pass onto their heirs.
Harwood: I read an anecdote that said you asked a friend at Harvard Law School her IQ, and then when she didn’t know her IQ, asked her SAT score. What was that about?
Cruz: That was a silly story that appeared in a magazine. I have no recollection of ever having had any such conversation. So, I can’t respond.
Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas grew famous nationally through his zealous attacks on President Obama’s health law. Shortly after entering the 2016 Republican presidential race, Cruz sat down with me at Ninfa’s, one of his favorite Tex-Mex restaurants in Houston. What follows is a condensed, edited transcript of our conversation.
Harwood: First of all, what happened to you in your childhood that you do not like guacamole avocado?
Cruz: My Dad grew up with an avocado tree in his backyard. My entire family, my wife and daughters, they love avocado. I may well be allergic. It makes me physically sick.
Harwood: You made a comment about how used to like rock music, and then your tastes changed after 9/11. What music did you like?
Cruz: I grew up listening to classic rock—the Kinks, Genesis, The Who, Pink Floyd. Saw Pink Floyd in concert in Houston—I think it would’ve been 1988 in the Astrodome—which was an amazing concert. For everyone trying to read broad political commentary in there, there isn’t any. It’s just simply I had the reaction (after 9/11) that I said, “I like how country’s responding.” And so I shifted over and started listening to country.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on “Squawk Box”
Stefanie Smith | CNBC
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on “Squawk Box”
Harwood: The first president of your adulthood was a Texan, George H. W. Bush. What is your evaluation of his presidency now?
Cruz: I think he did an effective job when it came to managing the demise of the Soviet Union. He was the right person at the right time. Domestically, I disagree with what he did. When you tell the American people, “Read my lips. No new taxes,” that should mean no new taxes. That was a mistake. And it’s a mistake that cost him the election.
Read MoreSen. Ted Cruz blames the media for distorting his image
Harwood: You worked for his son. Was he right to expand Medicare to cover prescription drugs?
Cruz: That was a policy fight I was not engaged in at the time. I’ll tell you what wasn’t right. When George W. Bush entered office, the national debt was $5 trillion. When he left, it was $10 trillion. I think the administration spent too much money. Now, I also think you’ve got to give George W. Bush some real credit—he showed remarkable courage in the beginning of the second term taking on Social Security reform and personal accounts. It was the right thing to do. Sadly, congressional Republicans ran to the hills and abandoned him.
Harwood: A third Texas president, L.B.J., created Medicare in the mid-’60s. Your hero Ronald Reagan campaigned vigorously against that, saying it would lead to socialized medicine, would end liberty in the United States. Who was right: L.B.J. or Reagan?
Cruz: It’s not worth tilting at windmills. I don’t know. I wasn’t alive then. What I do know is that today, we have got to preserve and reform Medicare. There is a broad, universal consensus that Medicare is a fundamental bulwark of our society. Look, it’s one thing to have asked 50 years ago should we have created it. It’s another thing when you have a generation of seniors who paid into it 30, 40, 50 years who have been made promises. We need to honor those promises.
Harwood: You announced your campaign at Liberty University. You’re appealing to Libertarians. The Libertarian Party platform in 2012 calls for Social Security to be phased out. Are they wrong as a matter of philosophy?
Cruz: Oh, I understand why they call for that. But I don’t agree with them. What I would like to see is several things. Number one, for those on Social Security or near retirement, no changes whatsoever. Honor the commitments. But for younger people, people in my generation, we should gradually increase the retirement age. Secondly we need to change the rate of growth of Social Security benefits so they match inflation rather than exceed inflation. Those two reforms on their own take Social Security from bankruptcy into solvency. But the third piece, and it’s what Bush fought for, is personal accounts. I think it is transformative to allow younger workers to put a portion of their taxes into a personal account that they own, that they control, and that they can pass onto their heirs.
Harwood: I read an anecdote that said you asked a friend at Harvard Law School her IQ, and then when she didn’t know her IQ, asked her SAT score. What was that about?
Cruz: That was a silly story that appeared in a magazine. I have no recollection of ever having had any such conversation. So, I can’t respond.
Harwood: And the idea that you wouldn’t study with anybody who didn’t go to Harvard, Yale, and Princeton?
Cruz: Now that’s just a complete lie. It’s actually the same magazine, which was one of the more noxious hatchet jobs. The facts are, my study group consisted of three people: My college roommate, who did go to Princeton with me, and one other fellow named Jeff who went to Northwestern. So not only is that claim a lie, but we actually didn’t have anyone in the study group who did go to Harvard or Yale. It’s a purely made-up lie. But it gets repeated on the internet all the time because it’s the sort of thing that even if it’s not true, people want it to be true.
Read More10 questions for Bobby Jindal
Harwood: When I asked a couple of other campaigns, “What would you ask him if you were me?” they said, “Ask him to name his biggest accomplishment.” And the reason they said that was, “He doesn’t have any.” What is your yardstick for when you’re succeeding, as opposed to tilting at windmills, getting publicity, all that?
Cruz: What I have endeavored to do in my time in the Senate is to stand up and lead on the great issues of the day. People say, “Well, gosh, you haven’t succeeded in repealing Obamacare.” That is true. We haven’t succeeded yet. But any student of military history knows that great wars are typically not won in a single skirmish. Although we did not defeat Obamacare and take it down in October of 2013, I believe that fight set the predicate. I think we built the foundation for repealing Obamacare.
Harwood: You’ve said a few things that don’t necessarily comport with the facts, like, “125,000 I.R.S. agents, send ‘em to the border.” They’ve only got 25,000 agents or something like. You’ve talked about the job-killing nature of Obamacare. We’re adding jobs at a very healthy clip right now. Why shouldn’t somebody listen to you and say, “The guy’ll just say anything - doesn’t have to be true”?
Cruz: There is a game that is played by left-wing editorial writers. It’s this new species of yellow journalism called politi-fact. Colloquially I was referring to all the employees as agents.
That particular stat is in a joke I used. So, they’re literally fact-checking a joke. I say that explicitly tongue in cheek.
The second point is more significant. You talked about the job creation that has occurred. The simple reality is millions of Americans are hurting right now under the Obama economy. Yes, some jobs are being created, but not nearly as many have been destroyed. The rich, the top 1% today earn a higher share of our income than any year since 1928.
Big business does great with big government. It gets in bed with big government. Median wages have stagnated. So, if you’re a single mom waiting tables, if you’re a teenage immigrant washing dishes like my dad was when he came from Cuba to America, your life under the Obama economy has gotten harder and harder and harder.
He is a politician and our experience should tell us to be a bit skeptical towards those people. They are great with words but slim on deeds.
Alynski said to ridicule. Do it. Reveal their true motives and ignorance. His anger is righteous, if about child sacrifice, not the way the question was worded.
I too liked his answer. So did God. Catering to the enemy is allowing them to keep sliding into hell. Show them the truth so they can decide what is right. Most of them have never heard the truth.
Sorry about the garbled cut and paste.
“Ha ha, I loved what Rand Paul said about a seven pound baby, it was brutal and I loved it. You know, he might (figuratively) die fighting the media, but Rs need to do it constantly.”
Exactly. He handled it well. No Republican candidate should accept the media’s leftist premises and they should throw the gotcha questions right back in the faces of the libtard reporters/reporteretts just like Rand did. I’m not backing Rand, but I applaud him for standing up to them. It’s what Pence and Hutchinson should have done when the Gaystapo came after them over their states’ religious freedom acts.
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.