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.
It may or may not benefit Rand Paul's campaign, but it will in the end help bring down the US news media and its role are political kingmaker. The more average people are made aware of MSM games the better, and they notice confrontation.
I don’t think I even pinged you on Rand Paul. How could I be saying you’re wrong on Rand Paul?
Do you believe them regarding their plank on abortion, but even your own write-up says they have been RILOM pro-life (rape,incest, life of mother) for a long time?
Your arguing with me on this thread is about you defending Paul on his abortion position, against me trying to expose it, you even went so far as to make false claims about the GOP and it’s long time abortion position, in an attempt to make it sound like Rand Paul’s.
You say that wagglebee helped make you more pro-life, it seems to be an ongoing effort of some of us here.
The 0bama countdownclock
http://datecountdown.com/?timer=1&d=1%2f20%2f2017+12%3a00+AM&t=Obama+Countdown+Clock&embed=1
My wife always complains about the clock where she works running slower on Friday afternoons...you think that one runs slow, honey? I’ve got one for you...thanks, CB!
I am not defending Paul’s position. There are zero posts where you can demonstrate that. I’m analyzing Paul’s position. Somehow you are mistaking the two.
If we have a scale of 10 with one being “full blown abortion on demand” and 10 being “no abortion ever for any reason”, then Debbie Wasserman Schultz is apparently a 1 and Mother Theresa was a 10.
Where does “life of mother only” fall? I’d say about a 9.
Where does RILOM pro-life fall?
I’d say about 6 or 7. It’s more than halfway, so 6 or 7.
Where does Romney’s ‘health of mother’ fall. Being kind, I’d give it about a 2.
Where does Rand Paul “I’m generally pro-life...life of mother but all these medical weeds to wade through” fall? I think he’s above a 5. It’s probably about a 6.
You don't have a clue what nasty is.
FMCDH(BITS)
Month, after month, after month, after month, after month, after month, of you “not” defending Rand Paul on abortion, and doing it with passion and dedication, on thread after thread, after thread.
I hope you don’t start “analyzing” Jeb Bush on immigration, or Mitt Romney on guns, or Chris Christie on abortion.
You are fantasizing things, ansel. First, I’m a fairly solid Cruz supporter. Sent him a decent chunk of money at his rollout. If Cruz drops out an endorses another, then I’ll pick up another candidate.
I keep thinking our last discussion was about Walker, but if you say it was Paul, then so be it. In any case, Paul is only about 5th or so on my list right now. I think he’s better than Romney from last election. Did you end up voting for Romney? I did. Benghazi changed my mind.
It is always about Paul, going back well into 2014.
I don’t get what your deal is about looking for ways to keep people from nailing Paul on abortion.
Here’s a link to a post I wrote a couple days ago:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3277159/posts?page=31#31
I’d say he’s about the same as Romney though he would try to claim otherwise.
As xzins pointed out earlier, libertarians HATE to be asked about abortion, they know they can’t get conservative votes if they tell the truth and they lose the stoner crowd if they lie.
I can proudly say that I was never fooled by Rand Paul, but I know A LOT of great FReepers who were.
I have become convinced that the GOP isn’t pro-life and probably never was. There are obviously many Republicans who are, but at a party level the GOP is pro-choice. Most Republicans who say they are pro-life are actually as hypocritical as the Democrats who say they are church-going Christians.
I think you can’t find a thing that shows me defending abortion. You can’t find a thing on this thread where I’ve said that Paul is other than a supporter of some kind of lower-level pro-life. I do not think he’s full blown pro-choice. He’s stuck in some medical weeds over ‘life of the mother’ and what it actually means with specific medical conditions.
Where does that say I support abortion? It doesn’t. It does say that Paul makes some kind of medical, life of mother, exception for abortion. He does. So did every other candidate the republicans have run since Ronald Reagan.
This is hopeless, for at least 7 months we have tried to educate you on Paul and abortion, and get you off of defending him, and for 7 months you argue all day for him, and claim all day, that you aren’t doing it.
It’s hopeless because I’m not defending Paul on abortion.
But...whatever. Knock yourself out.
Yes. Paul should kiss their asses and smile while doing it. that is after all the conservative way.
I have been for at least 7 months, and you always keep “analyzing” his pro-choice positions and with great passion and persistence, ready to meet any challenge of him being accurately described as being pro-choice.
Even to the point of trying to mislead on the history of the GOP platform and abortion.
Xzins has NEVER defended ANYONE for being pro-abortion.
I personally exchange posts and FReepmails with xzins on an almost daily basis and I have NEVER seen this. I know that he was mildly impressed with Rand when he first ran for Senate, I told him that Rand was going to turn out just like his father and I was right.
For a long time now I've gone after ANYBODY who is pro-abortion or an abortion apologist. Everybody knows I do this, anti-FReepers have dedicated entire threads to bashing me and I can say with absolute conviction that xzins is pro-life and doesn't defend anyone who isn't.
Thanks for the info. I like truth & facts.....works every time it’s tried.
Reagan won many a vote that way.
However, if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
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.