Thursday, April 9, 2015

Gender, Abortion & Rand Paul's Handling of the MSM

Rand Paul is now officially in the race for President. The attacks from the left have commenced. One, Paul is mean to women. Two, let's try to get Paul in a corner on the abortion issue.

The left seems to have their knickers in a bunch over the latest salvo in the war on women. The headline from Salon: “No no no no no no no no: Listen!” He-man Rand Paul lectures a lady — again. From Washington Post, it's Rand Paul's problem with female interviewers just cropped up again. Really? The left's going to play the victim card now when a Republican gets testy with a reporter in an interview if the reporter happens to be female? This would be the same left that spends their days and nights bemoaning a supposed lack of gender equality and looks upon the slightest hint of chivalry as yet another example of white male patriarchy?

Here's the video clip:

The interviewer, Savannah Guthrie, is, in fact, editorializing as part of a question, and the editorial is not favorable to Rand Paul. Paul's not having it, so he stops her in mid-question. In all fairness to both parties, Guthrie is doing what reporters should be doing, and Paul is perfectly within his rights to contest it. Frankly, Paul should be the example for how everyone on the right should be treating the MSM these days.

But apparently the left wants now to complain because Rand was mean to a lady. The hypocrisy is mindnumbing. If a woman is going into professions such as the law, politics, or journalism, their arguments are owed no deference because of their gender. This is the left trying to create a mountain out of a molehill, and I suspect this complaining has less to do with Rand Paul's lack of deference to a female member of the MSM than it does with battlespace prep for Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

Update: This from Ann Althouse's post, The Rand Paul Has Problems With Women Meme:

But even for those of us who don't want special sensitivity to women and who think it will hurt women's opportunities — in journalism, in politics, and elsewhere — we observe how well women are treated with an understanding of what has gone on in the past when women were subordinated and diminished and dissuaded from entering the fray. . . . With that background understanding, what is objectively equal treatment may feel unequal.

Of course, it's also true that Rand Paul has his opponents who will use whatever works, and I fully expect them to accuse him of sexism whenever they can now. Once it's a meme, that's how it goes. If he remains "short tempered and testy," whatever hits women will be highlighted as Rand Paul's problem with women. If he manages to take the edge off, because he's trying "to get better," what niceness is aimed at women will be characterized as patronizing and even exclusionary. His opponents will want to box him in. Whatever he does will be wrong.

Update: Fox News ladie Dana Perino think this will play poorly for Rand Paul, while Megyn Kelly feels otherwise and indeed, takes offense at this effort from the left to "protect" the ladies, finding that in and of itself sexist.

But that is not all Rand Paul is in the news for today. A reporter in the interview below (at the 8:00 mark) asked Rand Paul to state his specific position on exemptions for abortion. Paul's response is probably the perfect one:

Allahpundit at Hot Air notes:

And this is no idle tu quoque. The great majority of Americans oppose late-term abortion; the vast majority, maybe a unanimous majority at this point, of Democratic leaders support it without restriction. They are, without exaggeration, absolute fanatics on this subject. And proudly so. . . .

Obama feels no differently. Neither does Nancy Pelosi, who’s gone as far as to use the word “sacred” when discussing her feelings on this topic. Paul’s response should be a stock answer for any GOP candidate who gets a question on a third-rail social issue going forward: We’ll weigh in just as soon as Hillary Clinton does. Want to know what Marco Rubio thinks about abortion exceptions? No problem — just as soon as Hillary tells us when life begins. Want to hear Ted Cruz’s take on gay marriage? He’d be happy to provide it — just as soon as Hillary answers a simple question about how many genders she thinks there are. The wedge question should cut both ways this campaign, whether the media likes it or not.

Well done, Rand Paul.

For the record, abortion is not and should not be a Constitutional issue. The decision to adopt it as such in Roe v. Wade was pure judicial activism and, by imposing their own personal morality under the guise of a "penumbra" of a Constitutional right, the Courts created a horrendous political divide in this country. It was an issue of social policy falling outside the text of the Constitution, and by the 10th Amendment, was a decision to be left to the individual state's to decide. Personally, if asked to weigh in on the issue at state level, I would allow abortion through the first two trimesters. That is a moral, ethical and pragmatic question for the mother. It becomes a societal issue, however, once the baby would be viable outside of the womb. Late term abortions are nothing more than murder.


Jeff said...

The interviewer, Savannah Guthrie, is, in fact, editorializing as part of a question

No, she is not. She went and stated, one by one, each of the foreign policy positions that Rand Paul has changed his mind on. Outside of the republican bubble, these are called facts. The only reason Paul (and you) are unhappy with it is because these particular set of facts are uncomfortable.

If he can't handle an interviewer literally quoting his own words back to him, then he'll get crushed in the primary. And if you honestly think that stating facts is 'editorializing,' then I feel sad for you.

Several years ago, Paul said on Rachel Maddow's show that he wouldn't have supported all of the civil rights act. It's on video, much to his dismay. But he goes around today saying that he never said such a thing, hoping that people on the right simply won't look it up (and they won't, because it's a fact and facts are forbidden).

And the best part was watching Paul interrupt Guthrie with the line "Stop talking over me!" He is the Sara Palin of the 2016 campaign (if he makes it to 2016.

GW said...

Hello Jeff. Stating that he's changed his position is fact, but then the laundry list afterwards with no opportunity to respond individually is editorializing. As I said above, I have no problems with a reporter doing that, just as I have no problems with an interviewee trying to stop it.

I think he will hold his own in debates, though I do not think him the best candidate. I have a vague memory of the Civil Rights controversy with Paul. If I recall correctly, his concerns were with federalism and the reach of federal law. Does that mean he's racist? He's right on the law, but very much like Goldwater in '64, tin-eared.

Rand Paul actually -- and I give him great credit for this -- is the only Republican going into traditionally black enclaves and making the conservative case. Apparently he isn't getting tossed out of those meetings on his ear, so apparently a large segment of the left does not view him as a racist, though I could certainly understand why the MSNBC crowd would like to paint him as such.

Jeff said...

If I recall correctly, his concerns were with federalism and the reach of federal law. Does that mean he's racist?

I brought up the Maddow interview not to say that he is a racist. I don't care if he is or not. My point is that he said he wouldn't have supported the entirety of the civil rights act and then lied that he ever said that.

Full quotes here:

I'm just simply pointing out that he often 1) says something 2) changes his mind and then 3) denies he ever said the original thing in the first place. And going after the interview for pointing out this simple lie is thin-skinned on your part and his.

You're right about him going to black communities. And his thoughts on the drug war are 110% right. But I guarantee you

1) he'll stop all that once he has to win over the crazy right-wing base
2) he'll deny he ever said such things in the first place
3) he'll yell at anyone who points this out (especially the other candidates)

Being a racist is one thing. Lord knows the republicans will overlook that. But being inconsistent and a liar will knock him out of the running pretty quick.

GW said...

I'll assume that you are right, Jeff, though I haven't followed Paul closely enough over these past few years to verify. If that is the case, he will get eaten alive in the primaries.

These ad-hominems are a step below where I'd like to keep our debates. "Crazy" right wing base? Your demonizing there.

There is no reason for him to stop appealing to the black community. It is something conservatives should have been doing for decades. What basis do you have for believing that he will face any sort of backlash for that. The only place on earth where the right is full of seething racism is in the pictures painted by the left.

Nor am I aware of the republicans overlooking racism - actual racism, now. There may be some tiny town somewhere that you can point me to, but on anything approaching a national level, that's pure fantasy.

I am aware, however, that the last KKK member in Congress was a Democratic Senator. I am aware that Al Sharpton has spewed some vile anti-Jewish rhetoric over the years, and he has a show on MSNBC. I am aware that probably the most blatant sexist of the past century, Ted Kennedy, had virtually all of his indiscretions ignored, including manslaughter. I am aware that the left circled the wagons for Bill Clinton's indiscretions.

Let me end on agreement. If Paul is shown to be inconsistent and disingenuous, he will and should be knocked out of the running quickly.