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.
I’m a Cruz supporter, but I applaud Senator Paul for sticking it to those vile sons of b*tches in the media and on the left.
I don’t think he looked mean and nasty at all. I’ve watched them a couple of times now. He was pretty calm, actually.
BUT, He shot himself in the foot by his totally negating the good he had by trying to accomplish when he apologetically claimed “I lose my temper...”
Nonetheless, I will not shoot at ANY of our conservative candidates until this plays out.
Paul is not in my top tier.
Top:
Cruz
Walker
Perry
Rubio
Acceptable:
Paul
Pence
Martinez
Better than Hillary
Huckabee
Santorum
Ted is a gospel booster, which reveals a lot.
Ted is a gospel booster, which reveals a lot. (To the good.) It isn’t a question of can we trust Ted, it’s that Ted has trusted the Trustworthy One.
I think in Ted’s wake there are going to be more stouthearted men on the picture. An example was needed.
I’d have no complaint with a President Cruz, but other acceptable possibilities may shake out too.
He still dodged the question. Rather than answering the question, he posed a question for the reporter. While Paul’s question was a legitimate one, he should have given his own answer before questioning the reporter.
I don’t like it when candidates dodge questions. Ted Cruz seems ready willing and able to answer any question posed to him. Cruz’s responses generally leave the reporters flat footed.
Paul is guided by a libertarian perspective and he pretends to be pro-life, when in fact, he is pro-choice. He just thinks there is some point in the pregnancy when the government can stop it. That is the position of Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade stated that the Government has an interest in protecting a “viable” fetus. While democrats don’t even accept that premise, Paul does. But that doesn’t mean he disagees with Roe v. Wade at all.
For a physician trained in the Scientific Method, Rand is soft on a number of major, existential issues.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/rand-paul-republicans-need-soften-stance-voter-id-offending-people/#mmE4eP8W7oQvVGM0.01
Whatever the “theoretical” holding of RvW, the practical upshot is not to care if the baby is viable.
Whatever the “theoretical” holding of RvW, the practical upshot is not to care if the baby is viable. — So, to care even about that is superior to the practical upshot.
Paul has McCain’s nastiness.
And poor judgement, as well.
Putting himself on that biased MSM interview was just stupid,
especially so early on in his announcement.
He, along with others will be Bush’s stalking horse.
Libertarian is also more easily persuaded to pro-life leanings than liberal, because a liberty without a life is meaningless. Liberals (viz. the climate madness) would just as soon get into a suicide pact for their meaningless lives.
Oh woe, an angry white man.
Depends on what that white man is angry about.
Huh?
Are you saying that a candidate who supports the holding of Roe v. Wade would be acceptable as opposed to a candidate who believed that viability was no concern?
Do you really know Paul's position on Abortion after that interview?
I sure don't.
He turned the question from support for abortion to whether the DNC supported killing a "viable" fetus in the womb.
Nice tactic, but it leaves the question of whether he would support a 4th or 5th month abortion as a libertarian right.
He’s not any meaner and nastier than the average FReeper.
Like him or loathe him, at least Rand Paul was willing to stand up to the reporter’s questions, unlike “Conservative” favorite Mike Pence in Indiana.
So libertarians are better than liberals? Wow, that isn't saying much.
Most libertarians are concerned only with the rights of the born and not the rights of the unborn. Most libertarians look at the issue of Liberty as some form of libertine anarchy rather than the view of government being a form of "Ordered Liberty" which is a liberty that not only protects the rights of the individual but also the society at large and the nation's posterity.
But I’m not, and as far as I know
no other Freepers are running for the office of President of the US.
Its time to take it to the media and take it to the Progressives with no apology. That’s the way to win.
Anyone could say that. That is the mating call of the pro-choice movement. "Yes, in general, I'm pro life but..................."
Would Hillary have answered that any differently?
He stood up for Mitch MConnell, as well. Big Time
Mitch IS the problem, not the solution.
I’ve listened to Rand Paul on this subject. He’s not as bad as Mitt Romney with his ‘health of the mother’ and he’s not as good as those who say ‘life of the mother.’
He seems confused by all the medical knowledge he has and refers to unusual medical conditions and exceptions that non-medical people aren’t informed about.
He was right to take the Debbie Wasserman to task over late term (full term) abortion, but Rand Paul needs to define for HIMSELF when life begins. Then he needs to apply his libertarian principle of life and liberty for distinct individuals. ANYONE who defines life at conception OR EVEN THOSE who define it at implantation CANNOT justify the violation of rights of the unborn.
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.