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?
>>Assuming the author of this is entirely serious.... <<
And I’ll assume that you read the rest of the pieces you’ve posted with the same close attention to detail....and skip them.
>>The delicious part is that 1) Liberals and RINOs won’t quite get it...<<
If you’ve read the comments both here and after the article you’ll see that a lot of conservatives didn’t quite get it either.
I’m not sure if that means it was a poor attempt at parody, or if the Obama administration’s incessant illegal actions have short-circuited a lot of people’s b.s. detectors.
>>I can’t believe it took 11 posts to figure that out. /s<<
Yes, well you have to figure that 50% of commenters don’t bother reading the article before commenting, so maybe 5 posts or so?
I agree with the author of the article that he likes the way Rand Paul handled the press. (Note that you have to read the article with your sarcasm gene turned on to know what I mean by that, however.)
Something unusual happened after Paul told her to ask Wasserman-Schultz about aborting a 7 pound baby. She was actually asked and she gave the standard Progressive response....between a woman and her doctor, period.
Following which CNN’s Wolf Blitzer actually gave Paul a full minute or so to elaborate and explain the issue while pointing out that the apparent Democrat position is that, yes, it’s fine to abort a full-term baby. A whole lot of people who are used to voting Democrat need to hear that position defended, because it’s indefensible and the attempt to defend it will influence their vote.
If you’re going to take on the media, you’re going to break some china, and some of it will be your own, but not nearly all of it.
Politicians are a class. The class characteristics are lying, deception, money grubbing, a high degree of vice addiction above and beyond the norm and an amazing lack of principles. etc. Be skeptical towards their words is all that I said. Cruz says all the good things yet what has he produced? I’d vote for him against Hillary.
absurd over-generalization. Jeff Sessions is a politician. He is none of those things. Same with Cruz. That's like saying all cops and all lawyers are bad.
Funny that you named only two people.
Your original post was about Cruz who is a politician and a fine decent American.
I don’t remember saying Cruz was fine and decent. However, I’m not aware of any allegations to the contrary. People are so fanatic that they construe any cautionary statement as advocating one hate and reject Cruz. I never said to hate and reject him. I do say be cautious of any politician. Politicians as a general rule are notoriously disassembling. I am not aware of any thing Cruz has done but give fine speeches. I said NOT AWARE!
You certainly are not aware - I will grant you that much and that’s about it
What has Cruz done that justifies my vote.(None of his speeches please) (Full disclosure I’m a Walker supporter at this time.)
Rand Paul needs to give ‘em hell and be proud about it and tell ‘em to bring it on. The problem people have with the media is after the first few punches they apologize
DON’T APOLOGIZE TO THE STINKING MEDIA. PERIOD. KEEP FIGHTING THEM. HOLD YOUR POSITION AND ATTACK. DON’T DON’T APOLOGIZE.
DON’T APOLOGIZE.
Agreed, Rs need to realize the media is their enemy. Maybe more their enemy than the Ds actually. They need to be looked at as an obstacle, a mine field, not as a neutral party or even a tool.
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.