Posted on 04/07/2015 10:14:06 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Watching the ads that run during Hannity, it's not a great mystery to figure out who the show's target audience is: retirement savings plans, arthritis cream, and of course, Cialis. But speaking to Sean Hannity on Tuesday night—in an interview taped just after he announced his presidential run—Sen. Rand Paul made his pitch to expand the Republican party beyond the largely older, white party base.
Hannity successfully pushed Paul to nail down his positions on topics from Iran ("we should not trust them with a nuclear weapon ever") to vaccines ("the benefits are a million to one, you should vaccinate your kids").
It's not impossible to guess who Hannity would like to see become president. Just watch the softballs he lobbed to Sen. Ted Cruz at the Conservative Political Action Conference (sample question: "Why does Ted Cruz love America?"). In his considerably tougher interview with Paul, Hannity alluded to Cruz's willingness to lead the government to shut down to stand against Obamacare.
"You talk a lot about the Constitution, and returning to first principles. So, two powers that the Congress has: advice and consent, and the power of the purse. Lot of symbolic votes about repealing Obamacare, but when it came to actually standing, shutting down the government or being accused of shutting down the government, Republicans then would back off in those moments. How do you characterize that?" Hannity asked.
Paul pivoted to the debt ceiling. "I think the problem is we all sort of quietly admit defeat before we get started. We all admit, 'Oh, we're not going to follow through very long,' and then we don't have the willpower to do it," he said. "It's kind of like the debt ceiling vote. To raise the debt ceiling, what I've always said is, let's don't raise it until we do entitlement reform. Let's just hold firm. And people say, 'Oh we would default.' And I say, 'Oh no. Let's take the tax money...we'll meet our obligations. But then everything else would have to just stop. It would bring the picture finally to the American people: we're spending a million dollars a minute. It's insane."
Below are some highlights from Paul's hourlong interview.
On redefining the term "Constitutional conservative":
"We're really good about defending the second amendment...I think if we showed equal deference and love for the Fifth and Sixth Amendment and the Fourth Amendment, the right to privacy, all of a sudden there's a whole new group of people—young kids, college kids, African-Americans—that are going to come and say, 'You know what, this is the party I want to belong to again.'"
On his Republican opposition:
"I think you can find good senators and bad senators, good governors and bad governors. When Republicans ask me the question I say, 'You do remember Jimmy Carter, right?' You know, people think it's automatic that a governor is better than a senator. I think really people should be judged on their entire character, you should get to know them...whether they have wisdom, whether they're well-read, whether they're reckless, whether they're overly emotional and would act in a way without thinking."
On abortion:
Paul said he believes life begins at conception, but "I also understand that there can be a range of opinions, and to make life better, and to protect more life, I'm willing to go for all kinds of in-between solutions. I think the one thing that we agree on more than others is that a 5- or 6-pound baby, even in the womb, absolutely has life." Would he make exceptions for rape, incest or the mother's life? "I've supported both legislation with and without. I want people to know I'm pro-life and open to trying to get incremental change. But I'm also open to promoting that there's something special about life from the very beginning."
On immigration:
"My position has always been we should do little bits of what are doable and what people believe in. Right now, we have 11 million people in the country who are said to be here illegally. If you do nothing, you'll get 11 million more. I think having no immigration reform is a no-starter. The first problem is, you have lawlessness on the border. And there's also a national security risk to people who just walk into our country. The first thing you have to do is secure the border. There's a vast consensus on that. If we had a bill to secure the border, it would pass. But the Democrats, the liberals, the president, they want everything or nothing. They've prevented the border from being secure."
On a $1 million ad campaign criticizing Paul's actions on Iran:
"I would say that almost every element of the ad is a lie...I have no idea really who these people are, but I would say they're part of the neocon community. The neoconservatives sort of believe—these are the same people who wanted to give arms to [former Libyan Prime Minister Muammar] Gaddafi, and then the next year wanted to topple Gaddafi. They've been on both sides of every war. The only thing consistent about their message is, we should always be at war."
On Sen. Lindsey Graham's comment that "everybody on our side, except maybe Rand Paul, could do better" on the Iran deal:
"Well, almost anyone in the Congress would better defend the Bill of Rights than this particular senator. So, touché."
On whether the Iraq War was a mistake:
"There's a lot of things that are difficult to understand in the Middle East. But the one thing that I think I know is true, when we have toppled secular dictators, we've gotten chaos and the rise of radical Islam. Not only Hussein. Iraq was a disaster. They lost their strong man and we had chaos. We did it to Gaddafi. It happened in Egypt as well. It threatens to happen in Syria. Every time we lose the secular strong man—chaos and radical Islam—and we're less safe."
On foreign drone use:
"I'm not against drones as a military weapon...if you're an American, an Arab American living in Dearborn, Michigan, no one has a right to drop a drone on you. They can accuse you of a crime, but most Arab Americans are just like most Jewish Americans, or German Americans, we're innocent until proven guilty."
On his 2007 comments accusing Dick Cheney of pushing the Iraq War to benefit Halliburton:
"That was probably over the top and mean-spirited. I shouldn't have questioned his motives or patriotism. I think he wants what's best for the country. But he's part of a group of Republicans that really believe that war is the answer, and don't, I think, have an adequate belief in peace and deterrence through strength."
On the religious freedom laws in Indiana and Arkansas:
"I think our founders would be aghast that anyone would think that...to do something, to perform a ceremony or be part of a ceremony that's against your religious beliefs. That being said, though, I think the law ought to be neutral. I don't think we ought to treat people unfairly, and I'm all for treating people with respect and tolerance...I don't think you can have coercion in a free society very well. They seem to be antagonistic. So I would think we ought to try freedom in most of these things. And then also, people ought to understand that people's opinions change through persuasion. And if I really want to convince you to come to my political way of beliefs or my religious beliefs...if i go to Africa, I don't evangelize by forcing you to accept my religion. I've got to convince you to. So if people want to convince people that other forms of marriage are fine, they need to do it through persuasion."
On the difference between him and Cruz:
"What I've tried to do is a little bit different. I spent a lot of time over the last two years trying to show that the Bill of Rights is not just the Second Amendment. And I'm not saying he's not in concert with what I'm doing. But I'm saying the difference is I'm really trying to expand that party to new people. And I don't think that it's always just sort of dangling red meat for our people. I want our people to be brand new people who come in the door, who have never thought about being a Republican and say, 'You know what, I've never heard a Republican say that before. I'm going to listen to you.'"
If he gets the nomination, I will vote for him with no qualms.
Rand Paul pals around with traitors.
RP and Adam kokesh.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE9gVeykPAU
If he gets the Nom I’m leaving the party for good.
He just lost me right there.
Maybe he meant 11 million in California.
HUH , the man is plain nuts, yesterday he said this.
“Any law> that disproportionately incarcerates people of color is repealed”
He is pandering to illegals, homosexuals, and blacks while calling the base neo cons and not standing u for conservative principles.
If you cannot see how nuts the man is and how much pandering he has done then I hope you do soon .
Saw him interviewed and nearly fell off my chair, the man is pandering so bad is smells of desperation and I can only conclude after that interview and what he said in his speech like this.
“Any law> that disproportionately incarcerates people of color is repealed”
That he is either a lunatic or he is out to destroy the republican party from within , more so than the other RINO’s
Paul is a neocon like daddy....
Neocons are Lindseed Grahamnesty and Juan McStain. So lets don’t diss Rand Paul for calling a spade a spade. I don’t agree with him on everything but he’s right about the Neocons. We can thank them and Obutt for the Arab Spring.
I can’t wait to see Ted Cruz take this nappy-headed jerk apart in the debates.
McCain had a conservative challenger in the primary. Most, if not all, of us supported him. Sarah came in and endorsed the Establishment candidate against the conservative challenger. She gets a pass.
Yet when Rand Paul endorses his Senate colleague (who was the Establishment candidate facing a conservative challenger), it proves he's unprincipled and not acceptable. Do you not see the double standard?
His endorsement of Ditch was discouraging, but not fatal. He has stood up for many of our causes in the Senate. Look at the whole record.
Keep in mind..the old white men base, which has been the largest support group for GOP in the past is dwindling in comparison to Latino’s, Blacks, immigrants from non-European countries (one million+ EACH and EVERY year, and most are from Asia and Africa), the openly homo-sexual’s, and of course the illegal immigrants.
There are 6 million plus Americans over 115 years old, actively contributing to social security! Those are obviously illegals using stolen numbers from people who have died. They can all vote! In WA state where I live, you can register without any proof of citizenship. At the post office, at the DOL, at schools, at colleges etc. And 100% of voting is by mail. No one ever sees your face to vote. No ID of any kind required to vote.
Yeah, I know reality is a byotch. But ignore reality at your own peril.
The first thing senator Cruz said about senator Paul yesterday was all positive. He actually praised him!
His challenger was flaky and wasn’t going to win, and the 2008 republican ticket turning on itself would have dominated the news and the entire tone of the 2010 election, and it would have destroyed what turned out to be an historical victory for conservatives and republican. You cannot confuse such huge, national strategic events, with Paul’s simple establishment pandering and support.
Paul is just a pandering rino/libertarian, who could have helped the tea party, but instead turned his back on it in Mississippi, and with McConnell and who was entirely too enthusiastic about Romney.
“Rand Paul to steer clear of Mississippi runoff”
“Rand Paul: It’s a ‘misnomer’ to say McConnell isn’t conservative”
“Rand Paul To Campaign for Romney”
March, 2013—”Rand Paul endorses Mitch McConnell in 2014 Senate race, won’t back tea party challenge”
The problem with Paul is that he is NOT out there convincing people to become conservatives, instead he is out there seeking liberals to help him defeat conservatism within the GOP.
That is a big difference.
By the way, why you do you talk like a lefty?
The “old white men base”?
You mean white Americans of all ages and both sexes, the original Americans who still vote against the left?
Paul and Obama are completely wrong to want to shrink the military, we are struggling as it is, and are facing a resurgent Russia in Europe, invading territory and threatening NATO and a China building to become a global threat, that is putting the Pacific under threat right now.
Cruz understands that the day the man announces is perhaps not the time to attack. But if you think Ted will ignore Paul's stances on amnesty, queer marriage, and his pandering to black criminals, you're in for a shock.
“Old white men” is used in a derogatory sense by leftists, and now by you.
Let’s pander to everyone else, including the queers! /S
And please, for the love of Pete, learn how to use apostrophes.
“Paul and Obama are completely wrong to want to shrink the military”
Correct me if I’m wrong but as far as I know this thread is about Rand Paul’s appearance on Hannity last night. Last night Rand Paul unequivocally stated that he wants to significantly increase the military however he plans to pay for it by cutting spending elsewhere instead of borrowing it. I am in agreement with that plan. At no time did Rand Paul tell Sean Hannity he wanted to shrink the military.
Its OK if you are not a Rand Paul fan but try to be accurate about what was said. Just because I’m backing Ted Cruz does not mean I’m going to try to twist what another candidate says. I’m not a big Walker fan but I will take whatever he says as that’s what he said when he comes on Sean Hannity for his hour. Same deal with Rubio and anybody else.
He had been a member of the House and put up a pretty good voting record. We'd be better off with him in the Senate than with Gutless Juan McVain, the Amnesty Whore.
Which has nothing to do with our exchange.
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.