No sooner did Rand Paul announce his 2016 presidential campaign than he began fielding questions about divisive social issues from eager reporters. These are the types of questions that often trip-up socially conservative candidates if they aren’t prepared to handle the topic off-the-cuff. Paul was able to employ a new tactic which few Republican candidates are able to pull off. He tossed the question back at the reporter and requested that they ask similar questions of Democratic candidates as well.

Report from CNN:

Rand Paul says he doesn’t want to be grilled about abortion until Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz answers similarly tough questions.

Wasserman Schultz hit back — highlighting Paul’s testy interviews with female television anchors, too, by saying she hopes he can “respond without ‘shushing’ me.” But Paul, the Kentucky Republican senator who launched his 2016 presidential campaign this week, said her answer made it sound like she is indeed okay “killing a seven-pound baby.”

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. [Emphasis added]

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.

These types of questions have become commonplace in recent election cycles with reporters getting sound bites, often with poorly considered or constructed answers, from Republican candidates on social issues. The most famous and often cited case, of course, is Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin in 2012.

In this instance, Paul may have figured out a better way to handle the topic by asking for equal treatment and pointing out that Democrats are rarely put on the spot to answer questions such as when they believe life begins, or how many genders they are.

The bigger question that I see here is how his pro-life advocacy will play among the libertarian base. His father also spoke strongly on the sanctity of life and that didn’t seem to bother his core supporters so perhaps Rand will play out the same.

49 COMMENTS

  1. Whatever Rand Paul’s believes about abortions shouldn’t be a secret. Using coarse remarks that have no basics to deflect a direct question is cowardly. It’s time for Rand Paul to put childish “gotcha” remarks on hold. However, he stands on abortion…yes, no or maybe…isn’t going to win or lose an election. A little honesty would win a lot of female votes regardless of his choice.

    • Tess Liehard — you can whail, throw ash on your hair, lament, and screech like the liberal banshee that you are all you want… but, it’s over for your America-hating ilk. Your “chosen” one — Hillary — will become naught but a footnote in History as one of the vilest politicians that FAILED, because of her America-hating ugliness (just like you fail here with your defunct liberal tripe)!

      End of story.

      Bye, bye….

      • That human life is precious no one challenges. That I do not believe in
        abortion does not mean that I have the right to say another woman cannot have
        one. People who voted to send young men and women into war zones know they will
        be killing many of them. Is there an age limit where murder is acceptable to
        Rand Paul? To use the 14th Amendment as his reasoning is a long,
        long stretch as it was used to win Roe vs Wade. Section 1. 14th Amendment “All
        persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
        jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state
        wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
        the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
        state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
        law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
        laws”.

        • Well, he’s re-framing the debate to say the child has a right to life which the state is supposed to protect under the 14th amendment.

          I haven’t watched his video, I’m going on what you said.

          If you (as in anyone) believe the baby is a person, then it has rights under the law. As such, can those rights be deprived without due process? I think that’s the argument he’s making.

          Also, the military is currently a volunteer force. A baby can’t opt-in or opt-out from abortion.

          • A fetus has no rights by law because it would interfere with the Mother’s rights by law. You are right that a baby can’t opt in or out because an unborn child has no rights, legal or otherwise, until it can breathe on it’s own. The majority of young people volunteer for service, not from patriotism, but because it offers a better life. For many, it is simply having shelter and food they didn’t have before enlisting. For illegals it is an opportunity to be accepted as an American. Others see the opportunity for a free college education, simply for a better life. Regardless of the reason for volunteering, the Leaders of the United States of America, has complete control over whether these young people live or die.

            • I get that, but the analogy doesn’t work since I decide whether or not I join the military knowing death is a possibility. The reason for joining is immaterial to this discussion.

              Not the same.. apples to oranges.

              But that’s the debate, does a baby in the womb have rights or is it expendable at the will of the mother. I’m just stating that’s where Rand Paul is framing the debate as a constitutional issue.

              The question is whether a right to live trumps a right to end the life of a child or vice versa.

            • Nate… to answer your question. A fetus has no legal rights in any form or fashion under US law. When a newborn can breathe on its own, then, by law, it is entitled to all rights and freedom offered under our constitution.

            • Yes, under current law, a baby is not yet afforded those rights. Laws change as the culture changes. Science has made amazing advances showing how earlier and earlier babies can survive outside the womb. Gets harder to argue with science.

            • Or whether old, rich, white, fat men may “choose” what a young woman does with her body.

              I agree with the Libertarian Platform, quoted below:

              “we believe that government should be kept
              out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration” –except that I’d change “their conscientious” to “HER conscientious.”

            • You ignore the baby, as always in this topic.. Why can’t the mother and baby both have consideration?

              I’m not here for an abortion debate on Friday afternoon.

            • No.
              I’m not.
              I’m just saying I agree with the Libertarian Platform.

              You and I have good-faith views, and the Platform says individual women make good faith choices.

              Anyway, it’s my ex-wife’s birthday today, but I’m sure there must be something to celebrate. Certainly not that choice. . . .

            • I just realized I was not clear about “which” choice
              –that is

              • MY choice,
              OR
              • her PARENTS’ choice

              Answer: yes.

  2. It’s great to see President Paul putting these one-way-street Liberal Shills, that call themselves “reporters”, in their place!

    Our next President — Rand Paul — shows he has backbone!

    Bye, bye, Hitlery Clinton. I said it here first, and I’ll say it again — the Killer-Bitch-of-Benghazi is done, finished, kaput!

  3. I don’t understand why Rand didn’t just give the answer everybody knows, as noted by Nate.

    Despite the adamant hostility of both Ron and Rand, the 2014 Libertarian Platform is clear on the libertarian view of abortion:

    “1.5 Abortion

    Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold
    good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept
    out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their
    conscientious consideration.”

    Since Rand is trying to carry the libertarian banner, it’s certainly fair to ask him if he agrees with the Libertarian Party’s platform. But, of course, he’s not running as a Libertarian Party candidate, so that should have been his answer. He is “mostly” libertarian. That would have also eased the minds of centrists, who want to think he’s his own man.

    I have to say, I find it ridiculous that the candidate, being asked as a candidate, says the reporter should ask the question of someone who has never given any indication of being a presidential candidate. Not a straight answer. Just hoping he’ll confuse., the issue by shouting, “SQUIRREL!!”

    • I think his point is that Democrats can say they’re “pro-choice” and nobody asks them to clarify any further. A republican can say they’re “pro-life,” and they’re asked about exceptions, they’re asked about rape, they are asked to get into details.

      What he’s saying is that, next time you ask a Democrat, ask them to get get into the same details.

      They believe in unfettered access to abortion? Up until the time of birth is it acceptable? After a certain time period is it acceptable? Is it ever OK to deny abortion services? When does life begin?

      Those are questions frequently asked of Republican candidates, but never asked of Democrats.

      He’s getting huge applause among the pro-lifers:

      http://www.lifenews.com/2015/04/08/rand-paul-turns-the-typical-question-on-abortion-exceptions-around-in-the-most-amazing-way/

      • I agree completely that CANDIDATES should get the same kinds of questions. Rand SHOULD have said, “are you going to ask Hillary that question?” Good answer. Instead, he starts talking about Wasserman. WTF??

        However, from what I could find, the AP asked ONE simple question: “do you agree to exceptions in the case of rape, incest or life of the woman?” That’s a simple and fair question. It’s really the ONLY question that matters. It divides politicians between, “no exceptions,” “certain exceptions,” or “individual choice.”

        Anyway, it was RAND who refused to answer the simple question, and threw in all the other things, He was not asked those things. He volunteered them.

        • Rand’s problem is that he knows most people don’t want to think about it. From the AP:

          “Polling on the issue is complicated — and often depends on how the question is phrased. According to a 2014 Gallup poll, 47% of Americans described themselves broadly as “pro-choice,” while 46% described themselves as “pro-life.” But when given more options, 50% of Americans said that abortion should be “legal only under certain circumstances.” Another 28% said it should be legal always, while 21% said abortion should never be legal.

          A CNN/ORC poll from the same year breaks down voter sentiment even further. That survey finds that 27% say that abortion should always be legal, 13% be legal in most circumstances, 38% support legal abortion in few
          circumstances, and 20% say it should always be illegal.”

  4. I support The LP platform which Goethe brought up and appears a lot of people including Wasserman and Paul agree on to an extent – my further reasoning gets a little convoluted.
    “1.5 Abortion
    Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold
    good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept
    out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their
    conscientious consideration.”

    My extensive reading and studying about Life Between Lives all agree – That our soul doesn’t enter the fetus until the brain is capable of reasoning that its body has been invaded by another reasoning entity (and much smarter than it).The goal at that point is the soul will ingratiate itself to the brain of the fetus cause they will be together for unknown earth years.
    There is always the possibility than the souls of the mother/father and the (possible) baby decided before anyone had arrived that the baby (regardless of stage – zygote / embryo / fetus) would enter at an early time to comfort the mother and maybe even the father – especially if an abortion was planned.

    So the electrical brain activity (no conscious thought) is started at about 5-6 weeks of the embryo – but – synapses (conscious thought) don’t start happening till about 17 weeks and keep forming till years after birth.
    This means, in general, the “baby / zygote / embryo”, is a very small living human animal without a brain or soul until midway in the 2nd trimester.

    BUT my real point is: The whole sequence of events was pre-planned by a whole lot of souls before ever transpiring. There is always the possibility where we decide to change our life lessons with free choice but that is more the exception than the rule.
    So my thought is – it ain’t anybody’s business but the souls involved in the event.

    I’m hoping that all the GOP’ers with use the LP platform on “personal choices” – Government keep your big wart nose out of it.

        • You’re one of the few people with whom a trip down the rabbit hole is fruitful.

          “Some” people on here are fully living “through the looking glass.”

          • Thank you, too, Goethe. Usually i enjoy our “chases”. But, I am old, crippled, and cancerous plus i don’t give a hoot and have been down too many rabbit holes in this incarnation.

  5. “Rand Paul says he doesn’t want to be grilled about abortion until Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz answers similarly tough questions.”

    Why?

    And the ludicrous inanity of his ridiculous (and medically inaccurate) question aside, to the best of my limited knowledge she’s not announced a Presidential candidacy. Just that she’s not running for Senate.

    So why is he hiding behind her skirt?

    • you are not a Republican – your a fking liberal idiot – what good for grilling conservatives applies to liberals as well. And I would much rather he had aimed at die hüdin but she hadn’t announced so went after the DNC as a symbol of all liberals.

      • Ad hominem is not the same as ‘refutation’.

        Unless you’re a FRWNJ. And it’s clear that you are.

        I am a Republican. forty years. I remember when Sen. Goldwater was considered pretty far-right. Now, the RINOs that have taken over my party and threaten my country are so f*c(ing extreme that they make that whack job look like a moderate.

        But then I’m addressing someone who not only doesn’t know when to capitalize, but doesn’t even know how to spell die hündin.

        • I don’t think many people would call Goldwater a “whack-job.” Your argument would have been stronger if you said that Barry was a reasonable man who would not have approved of the stands of the party, now.

          It’s the first time I’ve heard a moderate call a conservative a “RINO.”

          • My point is that he was seen as a whack job by most. While something of an extremist (at least for the day) he was nowhere near so extreme as the FRWNJs that have taken over my party and continues to threaten America’s first-world status.

            Who’s the moderate conservative you think I called a RINO? Goldwater? As extreme as he might’ve been, he was nowhere sufficiently extreme to be a RINO.

            • OK, fair enough. Nobody is “ideal.” Humans don’t become “ideal” until they’re dead, like JFK or Reagan.

              But every Republican who can spell his (or her) name is running. You must like somebody. So instead of “ideal,” how about giving us your “least bad” option.

              I think what Nate is getting at is that you appear to be playing games, since “Progressive Republican” is a conflict in terms, as “progressive” has become a synonym for “liberal;” and putting a Swastika on a party label makes it impossible to believe you’re really a member of that group. If you’re here just to jab at Republicans, it would have been smarter to use a picture of Reagan, to lull them into complacency.

              To be fair, I’ll answer the question. I continue to believe that Rand Paul is the best Republican option, at this time. But I also believe that JEB will become much more popular, once people realize he’s “the smart brother.” Rand and JEB are so far above the rest that I don’t have a third choice.

            • Well, no, there’d only be one “least” bad. And it’s pretty easy to eliminate most of them, without much cogitation. There’s a lot of “bad.”

            • I guess I was giving you too much credit. Typically, deep conservatives call moderates “RINOs” because they are not “pure”/extreme enough.

              When you said, “the RINOs that have taken over my party,” I thought it was clear that you thought the moderates are the REAL Republicans, and the deep conservatives are “in name only.”

              That was a unique and interesting idea. I thought you meant to say it.

            • That is indeed what I thought I’d said. I’m not sure how happy I am that such an idea comes off as “unique”, but I’m not surprised either.

            • Goethe, “deep conservatives” (that I am one of) that I know call “moderate” GOP’ers RINO (or Democrats Lite) because they favor most of the moderate Democrats ideology, including big government and higher taxes for the rich (the foundation for Socialism / Communism). I think all RINOs, Democrats, and Liberals forget that you got to through Communism to get to Socialism and thus far those that try to get to Democratic Socialism are in dire straights (Europe).

            • Yeah, I gotcha.

              That’s why I was so surprised by Progressive Republican turning it around, claiming that “Democrat Lite” was the real GOP, and deep conservatives were the RINOs.

              But I disagree with your continuum. I’d say it goes from Democracy to Democratic Socialism to Communism on the left, and from Democracy to Capitalist Symbiosis to National Socialism on the right. It’s sort of like the visual spectrum goes from red to orange to white to blue to purple, but purple and red connect, too.

              By “Capitalist Symbiosis,” I mean a system that concentrates power in the owner/managers working together to drain the have-nots, just as Democratic Socialism tries to drain the haves to give to the have-nots. But when you get to either extreme, they are equally destructive of rights.

            • It is pretty standard that Republican In Name Only has been referring to Democrat Lite, and started a long time ago:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only

              http://theconservativelibertarian.com/a-stark-contrast/
              The Pic in the url lays it out fairly succintly and the chart after taking the LP quiz:

              “Capitalist Symbiosis,” wasn’t a term I was familiar with. Sounds like a pure liberal term – I don’t believe owners / managers want to drain the have-nots, it is in the best interests of capitalists to lift their employee base up and to encourage other have-nots to excel and make money for a variety of reasons. On the other hand Socialism by definition is equal for ALL – even it means taking away from someone more fortunate.

            • I was recently thinking about the color spectrum. You are right in the color gradation. If you look for a color between red and yellow, you find orange, for instance. So–here’s my thought: if you look for a color between blue and red, you get violet. But the continuum shows red opposite of violet. The way I see it, it means that the continuum is actually a cycle. I believe, if our eyes could tell, we’d see red AFTER violet, and through the colors again.

              SO–I think, if we could shift the frequency by some mechanical tool, we could “see” microwaves and all the other waves–in color.

              AND THAT MEANS–we should be able to make “night vision goggles” that do not have the tell-tale green light. If we are reading microwaves, or whatever, we will see–in color–as if it were daylight.

              But that also raises the question if we could then see things we cannot see in the normal light spectrum–things like past events, another dimension, or even ghosts.

            • In one respect you’re a little off – the continuum is a linear spectrum that goes from DC (direct current-0Hz-0m) out to Gamma Rays (highly charged radiation-1YottaHz-1femptom) – so it is not cyclic —- however, you are definitely on to something about “shifting the frequency” so can ‘see’ the frequency of interest. actually it is called modulation (done electronically). Depending on which is the modulated (intelligence) frequency and which is the base (carrier) frequency you can often “see or hear” the intelligence. Most common is modulating already modulated voice /data of base into channels. The result is huge intellegence is modulated onto fiberoptic channels at the high end of the visible (near IR). This allows communications to move intelligence in volume and fast. Also ultrasound is modulated up to various colors for easier 3D investigation and Xrays down to sub carrier to “see” the Xray spectrum for analysis.
              http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-wavelength.htm

              I agree with your political spectrum – that’s why I’m a TeaParty/Libertarian – If we could keep the government and politically correct assholes out of religion there wouldn’t be any crossfires about Abortion, LGBT, Race, or Gender issues. It’s called personal freedomand as the Declaration called it, “… that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, …”

            • Well, yeah, numerically the wave continuum is linear, but I still think it’s cyclical–so that there are “red” microwaves and “blue” microwaves, if we could detect them.

              You know, like the periodic table. The elements increase in number, but they have similarities with those in another row, not the ones next to them.

            • As for the political labels, it’s all one-dimensional thinking. Not even two-dimensional.

              Most conservatives think conservatism is “good,” and everything else is “bad.” They don’t think it’s possible to be “too conservative.”

              But I was speaking in the economic sense. A society can be set up with varying degrees of power to either the owner/manages, or to the worker/consumers. Again, this is one-dimensional thinking, to simplify.

              When government is in partnership with the owners, it’s fascism. When government is in partnership with the workers, it’s communism. Of course, we’ve seen that the real world is not “one dimensional,” and the attempt to create a “worker’s paradise” ran into the typical human vices.

              So my continuum is not like Johnny Weismuller (Tarzan) saying, “Me. . .good–You. . .bad.” My continuum is bad on BOTH ends, with democracy being the tricky balancing act in the middle.

  6. Until our biased Liberal Media starts asking the same questions of Dems — such as: “When is it OK with you Mrs Clinton to kill babies?” — then, they must be exposed for the Dem shills that they are…and Rand Paul did it superbly by putting egg on their perfidious faces!

  7. Rand Paul is an announced candidate for the presidency of the United States. Being such, he opened the door for any question that would determine his actions as our president. Evading a question is putting forth his insecurities for all to see. His crude answers (questions) displayed his immaturity.

    The Democratic Party is not totally Liberal. Just as the Republican Party is not totally Conservative. Just as the Tea Party is not totally Libertarian. All parties have a glossary of terms to describe the voters under their flag. This is a disparaging habit that all party leaders should avoid.

Comments are closed.