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.
Rand Paul joined the establishment RINO’s and supported that snake Mitch McConnell...lost all trust I had in the guy...much like Rubio and the Gang of 8. Poor choices like this cannot simply be erased.
I’ll stand with Ted Cruz.
Rand Paul looked mean and nasty in those interviews.
He knew full well what the MSM is up to.
Yet, he comes off looking mean and nasty.
He should be more selective in who he interviews with.
Otherwise, his McCain like nastiness is exposed.
I was impressed with how Sen. Paul handled obviously hostile interviewers. BUT that’s now it was reported by any media including Fox News... the media narrative was set (IMHO) before he ever set foot in the studio. “Rand Paul stumbled was testy and awkward”... bla , bla , bla! Again IMHO he must NOT apologize or waver, but take ‘em head on. Like... “Yes I get testy when forced to suffer media fools and false narratives”... all know Jeb has been chosen to lose to Hillary. Just a thought.
It’s best to show utter grace when dispatching a snake but sometimes that is not possible...
Examine your premise that trust should be placed in any man. Yes, even Cruz.
Cruz would tell you put your trust in God and pray for him to be able to obey. And the same goes for Paul. Sometimes even mistakes are better than being paralyzed altogether.
Cruz or lose.
All anyone needs to know is when things get heated Rand stands with McConnell. Rand was more concerned with RNC support than the criminal behavior of the RINO operatives in Mississippi attacking a true Conservative.
No sale Rand!
Scandal scandal, Cruz muffed when he should have said Social Security needs to be phased out, like the libertarians are urging.
Really, this cherry picking of hate issues is getting old.
If you are going to roll out your Presidential campaign, why put yourself
in the position of interviewing with biased MSM.
Not only is Paul nasty, he lacks judgement in who he interviews with,
The press says Paul is nasty. That doesn’t make Paul nasty.
And any president is going to have to talk to hostile people and keep his poise. Might as well see it happen now.
Which the lead story reports, and so what? Now just about anything Paul recommends short of that is going to look noble.
I saw the interview.
He looked nasty.
Then I asked myself why would he interview with biased MSM
right out of the gate?
I guess there are worse things than to be nasty to a snake.
And the whole encounter got put on record.
He should be mean and nasty to the MSM traitors. They want to take your kids away and put you in a re-education camp. I don’t think you could find a bigger threat to our liberty than the MSM They’re worse than PressTV or RT and should be exposed. He’s doing it. This is no longer a battle of ideas, it’s a battle of liberty vs tyranny.
Why put yourself in the jaws of a snake so early on in your campaign?
Why not wait a few weeks or a month.
This Mitch McConnell supporter does not have good judgement.
If it is liberty or tyranny, why did Paul support and campaign for Mitch
McConnell?
McConnell IS the problem, not the solution.
Cruz was right there congratulating Thad. Ted Cruz is the guy, but we have to be careful.
Because he believe he’s a mongoose and wants to show it?
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.