That is such a misreading of everything I wrote. I don't really want to beat my head against a wall on this.
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.
And I haven’t said that he isn’t pro-life, so I don’t know what conversation you are trying to switch to.
Perhaps that is because someone hijacked the thread?
Man, what a strange path this thread has taken, as it moves away from Paul.
No, my focus was on Rand Paul.
Although I am getting educated in the cost of calling him pro-choice.
I believe that you are now confused.
No but you seem increasingly insulting and hostile, proving my point.
I’m sorry if I gave you that impression.
Wrong about what? If you're suggesting that I am not pro-life, then you are simply wrong. And I have a posting history of over 17 years that you can look back on.
If you're simply taking me to task over Rand Paul being pro-life or pro-choice, then it's because I'm looking at his consistent statements that he is pro-life, and you are looking at other things that signal to you that he is actually pro-choice. In other words, YOUR analysis has concluded that he is pro-choice. You can find no place where he has claimed to be pro-choice, so you have gone to other things to discount his words to arrive at your conclusion.
I'm doing that same thing, and for some reason that's not ok with you. According to you, I should simply take your word for it.
The dilemma as I see it is based on the fact that MOST Freepers, with some exceptions, have voted for in order GHW Bush, Bob Dole, GW Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. All of them subscribed to the exceptions for rape, incest, and life (RILOM) of the mother. Each of them.
Were they pro-life? Did you vote for them? If so, then the definition of pro-life that we've used in the past has included those exceptions. Are we now saying that we are no longer accepting as pro-life those candidates who subscribe to that RILOM position? Have you ever held that position?
Now, where does Paul actually fall? He says he is pro-life. Using the old acceptable standard of RILOM would that have been an issue in the past? His isolationism would have been. His drug ideas would have been. But, I never heard anyone slam GW Bush for his RILOM position. It was for his immigration position primarily.
That gets us to Romney and his 'health of the mother' comment. We suspected that Romney let slip where he truly was. Health of mother is not life of mother. Health of mother is an excuse for open abortion. We know that.
That is why Rand Paul's comments about being in the medical weeds regarding 'life of the mother' is of concern. Some have already concluded that means he is pro-choice. You are one of them. Marlowe is one of them.
I'm still open on trying to figure out what he meant BECAUSE he is an MD. MDs would see a lot of unique medical concerns when we say 'life of mother' that we wouldn't see. What are those issues?
We all think that the mother who foregoes cancer treatment to protect her unborn child is demonstrating wonderful love. She is. What if she receives those drugs in an effort to save both herself and the child? I think we would accept that.
But what if receiving those drugs would irreparably injure or kill the child, but she receives the drugs anyway? Is the receiving of those drugs, if they kill the child, an act of abortion?
If this is the kind of stuff he is struggling with, and more than even this because he knows more as an MD than I do, then I'm going to let him explain himself.
But, according to you, since you've made up your mind, then I should have already made up mine.
Let me say this, though, I wouldn't support Rand Paul unless it came down to him or Christie/Bush/Romney or their ilk.
“The PRIMARY GOAL of the GOP is to undercut, marginalize and silence conservatives.”
NAILED it!
***************************
Thank you for a thoughtful and thorough explanation of your perspective regarding this issue, xzins.
While pretending to be one with them.
Yes.
That is quite a defense of Paul and his position on abortion.
Good luck with your choice.
That is such a misreading of everything I wrote. I don't really want to beat my head against a wall on this.
I hear you.
Good luck with your choice.
Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you unable to comprehend what xzins wrote?
For seven months you have been arguing with me in defense of Rand Paul, why stop now?
You think that I misunderstand him, or miss the nuance of his positions.
The man is an idiot, and opposes social conservatism, and he is pro-choice.
Do you think that Rand Paul is pro-life? I don’t, and I think that he is a man on a mission to change the GOP from not only being pro-life, but to end it having a social conservative platform.
Paul is a serious threat.
“If you’re simply taking me to task over Rand Paul being pro-life or pro-choice, then it’s because I’m looking at his consistent statements that he is pro-life, and you are looking at other things that signal to you that he is actually pro-choice. In other words, YOUR analysis has concluded that he is pro-choice. You can find no place where he has claimed to be pro-choice, so you have gone to other things to discount his words to arrive at your conclusion.”
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.