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.
Paradigms are hard to change that’s why Cruz didn’t offer any real opposition to McConnell either, and he congratulated Thad for his disgusting win in the primary. I’m not going to speak for you but I don’t know what it’s like in the bowels of the DC GOP machine. I’m not real big on Ron Paul’s son, but I don’t think a lot of the criticisms from Freepers are fair.
Thanks for posting that, Paul was actually playing hide the pea, and the libertarians are concealing that the part about him revealing yet once again, that he is pro-choice.
Is Rand Paul the most like Mitt Romney?
How did Paul describe himself in that interview? "In general, I'm pro-life.", -----"in general"?
Anything less than a consistent warrior for liberty will either assure Hillary will be president, or assure we’ll be a third world oligarchy.
“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”
Wow, still putting the best spin on Paul and his pro-choice politics.
I’m being honest about what I’ll do if it comes down to Hillary versus XYZ.
I’ll vote for XYZ if I can at all bring myself to do it. If not, I’ll stay home. The third parties are a joke.
Did you read something positive in there?
Cruz NEVER campaigned or supported Thad.
Paul ACTIVELY supported and campaigned for McConnell.
It is regrettable that you do NOT see the difference.
Paul ran as Tea Party conservative.
He has been anything but A Tea Party Senator.
A difference you fail to notice, as well.
Lol Good Line
Something there is something about a candidate that just sets you off and gives you a glimpse of what’s inside - like Obama not placing his hand over his heart during the national anthem.
For me, it is watching Rand walk down congressional aisles with his hands behind his back. Who does that ?
Think Napoleon.
I read an attempt to soft pedal his pro-choice efforts, to find a positive way to describe his pro-choice campaigning.
Rand Paul is pushing an agenda on republicans when he spreads his message on abortion, he opposes the GOP on abortion and social issues.
Where do you read soft-pedal pro-choice? Is it where I say he’s not as bad as Romney and not as good as ‘life of mother’ advocates?
Do you know any life of mother advocates?
All the people carping about Rand Paul’s nastiness, etc., should go to the referenced article, skip to page 2 of it, and click on the interview Rand Paul had with Wolf Blitzer on CNN after he suggested that Wasserman-Schultz be asked about how the Dems should view a 7 pound baby in the womb.
He destroyed her, with her own words, and on CNN at that.
Anyone who doesn’t at least acknowledge that is so biased against Paul that you’re not being rational. You might not like him for President, but no other candidate, or prospective candidate, has managed to do what he did in that series of exchanges. No one.
I think Rand Paul's problem is that he really hasn't taken a position at all. He claims to be pro-life but does he really believe the principle of life beginning at conception or even with the first heartbeat? Would he take the position that the unborn from the first heartbeat to the last would have a right to live as much as the mother who is sitting in the abortion clinic contemplating ending that life?
One problem we have is that simply too many women have had abortions and are not willing to accept the fact that they are guilty of a heinous sin. American's have gotten away from the notion that acts against God's commandments are sinful. They justify their sins in order to appease their own consciences and as a result they are more than willing to accept sin as acceptable behavior both the the world and to God.
I really don't know where Rand Paul stands on a spiritual level in regard to issues of life. He seems to take a clinical approach to the subject, which tells me he is not going to push any pro-life agenda. He will mouth the right words to appease the Conservatives, but temper them so as not to overly offend the abortion loving crowd.
His approach to politics seems to be predicated more on appeasing his opponents than exciting his supporters.
If I was a Paul supporter, I would welcome your post 40, especially the part about him possibly being so much of a medical expert that he may be communicating over our heads and giving us an impression that he isn’t as pro-life as he might be.
At least your defense of him is weakening, and getting better than what it has been.
Rand Paul is an oddball. His father always seemed a little weird in the way he carried himself, paced his words, expressed his ideas. He is the same. Living across the river from Kentucky, I get to hear him a good amount. There’s always that odd delivery, posture, methodology.
I’ve never heard him asked when he thinks life begins. I imagine that libertarians hate getting nailed down on that, because it will automatically blow up any pro-choice notions that they might have. Libertarians can’t insist on the liberty of the individual and simultaneously be killing off individuals. It would be a glaring contradiction that they couldn’t avoid.
Rand Paul has definitely taken a position if one has followed him.
In 2010 he was clearly pro-life to win that election, there was no confusion about his claimed views, and after winning that election he switched to his current position, his true position, for the last couple of years he has been trying to move the GOP into a pro-choice party.
“The thing is 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 this or this or that, or you’re hard and fast (on) one thing or the other,” Paul told Elliott. “I’ve supported both bills with and without (exceptions), you know. In general, I am pro-life.
I suppose a politician might welcome being told they can’t nail down their position because they’re in the weeds, but I wouldn’t see it as a positive.
I keep hoping that all of the conservative leaning candidates wake up on all kinds of things. I think Walker has woken up on immigration. Maybe Paul will wake up and finally define when he thinks life begins.
Do you know anybody who is a ‘life of the mother’ pro-life?
“I read an attempt to soft pedal his pro-choice efforts, to find a positive way to describe his pro-choice campaigning.”
You can not like Paul all day but just flat out calling him pro choice because he supports 1 exception to abortion ban is pretty ignorant.
The only time he has said he sees an exception is when the life of the mother is threatened. He’s complelty against all other forms of abortion citing the 14th amendment. At that point the doctor and mother have to make the tough choice between losing the child and saving the mother or sticking with it and possibly losing both. I’m not sure if want a gov official getting involved in that situation. He’s not advocating any person going down to planned parenthood and getting an abortion as a form of birth control. We understand that Ted Cruz is your guy but simply lying about the other candidates is a democratic tactic perfected by Harry Reid. Don’t be like him.
What’s the difference between Sarah Palin supporting John McCain and Rand Paul supporting Mitch McConnell?
A lot of highly respected Conservatives voted for Mitch McConnell as Senate Majority Leader and John Boehner as Speaker.
If Rand Paul’s support of Mitch McConnell failed the litmus test then pretty much all of the candidates are going to fail the litmus test.
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.