Posted on 04/08/2015 12:36:31 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Rand Paul says he doesn't want to be grilled about abortion until Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz answers similarly tough questions.
And Wasserman Schultz is hitting back -- highlighting Paul's testy interviews with female television anchors, too, by saying she hopes he can "respond without 'shushing' me."
Paul, the Kentucky Republican senator who launched his 2016 presidential campaign this week, bristled at a question about abortion while talking with reporters in New Hampshire on Wednesday.
"Why don't you ask the DNC, 'Is it OK to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus?'" Paul said.
His comment came after The Associated Press published a report that said Paul had ducked questions about his views on what exceptions -- if any -- he'd support if abortion were to be banned. Paul has previously supported measures that included exceptions for situations like rape and incest, as well as measures without those exceptions.
In a press conference shortly after the AP's story was published, Paul said discussions of abortion focus too much on "exact details" on the right, and that Democrats should face similarly complex questions.
"We always seem to have the debate way over here on what are the exact details on exceptions or when it starts," Paul said.
He said reporters should go to Wasserman Schultz with similar questions -- and then ask him again.
"You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she's okay with killing a seven pound baby that is just not yet born yet. Ask her when life begins, and you ask Debbie when she's willing to protect life," he said. "When you get an answer from Debbie, come back to me."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Paul is a little less than clear on abortion himself.
“Paul said he believes life begins at conception, but “I also understand that there can be a range of opinions, and to make life better, and to protect more life, I’m willing to go for all kinds of in-between solutions. I think the one thing that we agree on more than others is that a 5- or 6-pound baby, even in the womb, absolutely has life.” Would he make exceptions for rape, incest or the mother’s life? “I’ve supported both legislation with and without. I want people to know I’m pro-life and open to trying to get incremental change. But I’m also open to promoting that there’s something special about life from the very beginning>”
When is Rand Paul going to figure out that the MSM is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the DNC? There are a few undecided thrown in to make it look good, but they are undecided between Democrats, the Socialist Workers Party and other leftist fringe groups.
“Why don’t you ask the DNC, ‘Is it OK to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus?’”
I think its a dead on intelligent response. The media has an agenda and acting like the don’t is self-defeating. Abortion is a tough issue, yet only Republicans are challenged by their positions on it. Why accept that? Why not point out the agenda behind the question?
You may not like Rand, but its a damned good response.
Although I am not a promoter of Rand Paul, I actually think his response here is one all GOP candidates should adopt. For too long, the MSM has been able to get away with the gotcha questions for GOP candidates, and avoids asking any Dem the same questions. If all of the GOP candidates took the same tack, it would at least highlight the hypocrisy and inconsistency for the LIVs that get their limited info from the MSM...
Yep...I’m beginning to be optimistic!
I’m surprised they did not use the Todd Akin tactic on Rand.
You know — “What about the case of rape and incest?”
I think so too. Something similar should happen overtime a MSM hack asks a Republican about abortion.
Don't support Rand for president, but agree with him that Republicans need to start throwing the MSM's gotcha questions back in their faces, no holds barred. Point out their hypocrisy and games at every opportunity.
Don't recall the exact details, but Newt Gingrich threw it back in the face of a panelist during the SC presidential primary debates and created one of the biggest audience reactions of the primaries and a lot of buzz afterwards.
Wow. I knew he was questionable, but he seems like a far lefty.
Thanks for your post. That pretty much says it all. Every abortion doctor violates his oath.
Here's what Paul said two years ago on CNN:
Well, I think that once again puts things in too small of a box. What I would say is that there are thousands of exceptions. You know, I'm a physician and every individual case is going to be different, and everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what's going on with that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother.I would say that after birth, you know, we've decided that when life begins, we have decided that we don't have exceptions for one- day-old or six-month-olds. We don't ask where they came from or how they came into being, but it is more complicated because the rest of it depends on the definition of when life comes in. So, I don't think it's a simple as checking box and saying exceptions or no exceptions.
I've been there at the beginning of life. I've held one-pound babies in my hand that I examined their eyes. I've been there at the end of life.
And there are a lot of decisions that are made privately by families and their doctors that really won't -- the law won't apply to, but I think it's important that we not be flippant one way or the other and pigeon hole and say, oh, this person doesn't believe in any sort of discussion between family. And so, I don't know if there's a simple way to put me in a category on any of that.
That line about "what's going on with that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother," is simply another way of saying whether or not it's convenient.
My hunch is that what Paul really meant by today's remarks is that he wishes he wasn't asked about abortion because he's worried that he will slip up on the responses he's practiced and people will find out he's pro-choice just like his father.
I don’t trust him any further than I could throw him.
” My hunch is that what Paul really meant by today’s remarks is that he wishes he wasn’t asked about abortion because he’s worried that he will slip up on the responses”
I’ll take your last sentence for $400, Alex.
Liberals want to spare rapists from the death penalty, but instead kill the innocent baby.
So, you all think telling a member of the opposition press while pointing the finger at DWS saying grill her as much as you do me was a presidential response?
The Democrats are winning.
Thanks LS.
Paul is going to give the Dems and the press a lot of heartburn in the next two years.
Yes I do. Rolling over and playing nice with the media is for losers. You dislike of him is effecting your judgment on the issue.
good choice...President Walker and VP cruz will need some help from the alsorans.
Governors are people who set policy, organize huge bureaucracies, run their state national guard, propose budgets, run their state police, establish university policies, oversee highway projects....senators are people who vote aye or nay on things that other people do.
Yes, I think Paul made an excellent point. And they actually did go to Wasserman-Schultz and ask her the question, to which she gave the standard pro-choice, “it’s between a woman and her doctor, not the government” response.
When told her response, Paul made the point that she is then apparently just fine with terminating a 7 pound fetus, as is the Democrat Party since she was functioning as its spokesman. Of course, if the MSM was remotely fair, they would follow up her answer with Paul’s comment, for they would certainly do that with a Republican. But this is progress.
Paul also then was able to give a much more extensive answer in which he got into the need to decide when a baby’s rights should begin, comparing a 2 pound premature baby he’s held in his hand, who has all the rights we each do, and a full-term baby still unborn who has no such rights.
Paul is taking on the tough issues of the day and is willing to discuss them rationally. I find that both refreshing and needed, and the GOP will benefit greatly from his candidacy, even if he fails to get traction. I suspect he will get a lot of support as the campaign progresses, however.
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.