Posted on 04/11/2015 4:46:32 PM PDT by Kaslin
Although I'm extremely excited for the 2016 election even without having a particular GOP candidate in mind as my hoped-for annihilator of Hillary Rodham, Rand Paul really ticked me off this week. I mean REALLY ticked me off.
It looks like he is not going to play ball with the press. And that's a huge mistake.
So what happened?
He tussled with Savannah Guthrie, the 'Today' host, over her editorializing rather than simply questioning him. She was pressing him on whether or not he'd changed opinions on foreign aid to Israel and he not only objected to her talking over him and rendering an opinion in the process, he also gave her a suggestion as to how better to interview him.
He also had a couple of irritation-revealing interactions with journalists over questions about abortion. In both cases, the journalists were unhappy with the way Paul responded and Paul was even more unhappy with their reactions to that.
He even had the temerity to question the assumptions behind the interviewer's abortion question, saying:
“Here’s the deal — we always seem to have the debate waaaaay over here on what are the exact details of exemptions, or when it starts. Why don’t we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus? You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman-Schultz if she’s okay with killing a seven-pound baby that is not born yet. Ask her when life begins, and you ask Debbie when it’s okay to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, get back to me.”
It was as if he didn't even respect their importance and influence enough to respond the way they wanted. How in the world can he expect to win their approval that way?
He attempted to explain himself several times, firstly to Wolf Blitzer in a television interview on CNN, then to Megyn Kelly on Fox News, and finally on Mark Levin's radio show, by acknowledging that he does get short-tempered and doesn't like it when simple direct questions aren't asked of him. He even went further on Levin's show, stating that he (and other conservatives) get tough questions whereas people like Hillary get asked how their vacations were or if they recalled being at a party together in the Hamptons.
What a strategic error he is making.
Doesn't he understand that pleasing the media should be his number one priority? Being someone they like and with whom they agree is the way to get the "What's your favorite color?" questions. Maintaining principle and attempting to dictate the rules of the game may please the masses and scratch an itch conservatives have had for years, but it certainly won't win friends and influence MSNBC people. And how else will he win their votes?
There are lessons that can be learned from the past and he'd do very well to study them.
Imagine, for a moment, had Mitt Romney spent time wooing and gaining the approval of Candy Crowley. Would she have been so energetic in her defense of President Obama during their debate? Perhaps she'd not have incorrectly opined in the middle of their discussion and that could've made a difference in the election.
Consider if John McCain had made a sufficient impression on Chris Matthews so that even an inspiring speech by Barack Obama wouldn't have sent a thrill up his leg. Would Matthews have spent so many countless hours beating the drum in support of the President had Republicans spent more time being what Matthews wanted them to be? It might be a completely different political world.
One might consider thinking it would be wise to directly fight to the media. But that would require recognizing they're as much of a political opposition to conservatives as are liberals and Democrats. Before going down that lonely road, it would have to be realized that such an approach won't get you invited to Andrea Mitchell's cocktail party or a big thumbs up from Rachel Maddow. And that would be a tragedy, wouldn't it?
Oh, c’mon. Give Rand Paul a break. He’s new at this.
The press will try to kill him any way they can. What counts is he gaining points or loosing points by making them the enemy? Next, is he real or a stalking horse to kill their credibility? Not much ever happens by accident.
He should back out and stop embarrassing himself as he clearly is just pandering like the Dems.
LOL Hes killing himself
A wit as sharp as rapier is required to be on the field in the War on Womyn.
Ha ha, I loved what Rand Paul said about a seven pound baby, it was brutal and I loved it.
You know, he might (figuratively) die fighting the media, but Rs need to do it constantly.
But here is my real advice for them all, when asked an exceptionally stupid question, like when some reporter or reporterette asked Scott Walker if he thought Barack Obama is a Christian, I mean seriously who asks a question like that? They should say: Why are you asking me that?
Because that’s what we’d all like to know: why are you asking this exceptionally stupid question?
I say give him a chance. He’s not my first choice, but I think he deserves a crack at the nomination.
The author is not very smart
.... OR works for Obola-the-undocumented.
I’m afraid he is a Kook! I’ve crossed him off. I’m not wild about Cruz but would vote for him against Clinton.
Bollocks.
Guthrie was speechifying, rude and impertinent. Her 'questions' were nothing more than declarative sentences - i.e. accusations - that reflected nothing more than her DC conventional wisdom opinion. It was evident from the start that she cared not a whit about the substance of the answers - she merely wanted to make a spectacle of herself.
Paul had every expectation to be asked questions and provide answers in such a stock-standard format and he had every right to ask her to give him a chance to respond, otherwise why have him on air in real time? He was asking for common courtesy, nothing more.
The treatment Paul received as a matter of course from a broadcast outlet was confrontational and cynical. And, as always, a Democrat, especially Hillary Clinton, would NEVER receive such treatment from any of the Big 3 networks - quite the opposite in fact.
Playing nice with the press is best left in the 20th Century. Their premises, their methods and their conclusions must be challenged early and often.
Compare and contrast Paul’s handling of the Savannah Guthrie incident with Cruz’s CNBC interview.
Cruz answered the question, made his (correct) statement about liberal media bias and handed the interviewer his head in a basket.
Paul did not answer the question, got confrontational, and came off looking like a jerk. There’s a way to fight the media and that wasn’t it.
Ronald Reagan was “The Great Communicator”. Cruz reminds me so much of Reagan it’s amazing.
It is a sarcastic piece but repeating the conventional wisdom only amplifies it.
Schoolyard bullies will never change their ways until they are smacked as hard as possible.
Rand has the MSM drive by’s heads spinning like the exorcist. Its about time the GOP stopped pandering to these people. They will never like you or give you a fair shake no matter what you do so I say act out. :-)
Rand Paul On Shutdown: "Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb Idea"I said throughout the whole battle that shutting down the government was a dumb idea. Even though it did appear as if I was participating in it, I said it was a dumb idea. And the reason I voted for it, though, is that it's a conundrum. Here's the conundrum. We have a $17 trillion debt and people at home tell me you can't give the president a blank check. We just can't keep raising the debt ceiling without conditions. So unconditionally raising the debt ceiling, nobody at home wants me to vote for that and I can't vote for that. But the conundrum is if I don't we do approach these deadlines. So there is an impasse. In 2011, though, we had this impasse and the president did negotiate. We got the sequester. If we were to extend the sequester from discretionary spending to all the entitlements we would actually fix our problem within a few years.[Posted on 11/19/2013 12:16:51 PM by Third Person]
Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
Rand Paul's immigration speech...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.[Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg]
Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.
Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.
Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.
If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...
This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.
Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reformLatinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]
[but he's not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]
Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt's Generals: 'How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?'Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt's military -- even as Cairo's security forces massacre anti-government activists. [by "anti-government activists" is meant church-burning Christian-murdering jihadists][Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat]
Rand Paul is better than any Democrat or any RINO Republican.
In about another 25 years he can get away with it by playing the crazy old man card like his father. But as a 52yo pol, it’s not gonna fly.
“It looks like he is not going to play ball with the press. And that’s a huge mistake.”
In what way is “playing ball with the press” different than negotiating with Iran?
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.