Rand Paul aborts his own pro life views live on cnn

[Christian Liberty]

To be clear, I haven't given up my support of Rand yet, but I'm very unhappy. When someone does this I seriously second-guess their principle. And if I can't even trust them to be principled on their positions, it doesn't really matter if they agree with me on every single issue, since they could just give up those positions at any time. Compare what Reagan said to what he did and I'm sure you'll see what I mean. Reagan talked about "Government overstepping its bound when it stops you from hurting yourself" while all the while punishing drug users and dealers...

Since the GOP, except Ron Paul (I would have included Rand here until today) is mostly BS on abortion anyway, I don't mind so much voting for a pro-choice candidate. Its uncomfortable but I'd do it if I had to. But this... Rand is just showing himself as untrustworthy, which is even worse.

He has 3 years to redeem himself but right now I'm kind of ticked. I also think that this may well be the first of many. Rand is turning into a politician. Which was exactly my fear with all this compromise. I highly doubt he stops being a politiican here.

[NY-Dano]

Isn't this bill basically the same thing as Ron's Sanctity of Life Act? So life would be defined at conception (thus basically overturning Roe v. Wade) but it would be up to the States? Therefore what Rand said may not be totally inaccurate, but he does need to clarify.

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah. You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to sailingaway again.

The one thing liberals and independents that I know liked about Ron Paul is that they were sure where he stood even if they disagreed. Rand overcompensating and appearing to pander will only get him so far. This is not the way to win independents.

When I was a neoconservative, this was the biggest reason (That and his conservative view on the economy, I was a weird neoconservative that actually supported real conservative views on ecomonics even while supporting insane foreign policy) I initially liked him even while disagreeing with him all the time.

Rand Paul is pissing me off. This is exactly what I was afraid of with too much compromise. I don't give a crap if we actually win or not, since we can't. We need to be the movement of principle, and do the right thing REGARDLESS of if we win or not.

I know I'm going to get neg repped for this but I don't care. Screw winning. Be principled, and leave the results to God.

[thoughtomator]

I honestly don't give a $#@! about abortion, a lot more people are going to die if we don't end the wars and fix our finances, and there's nobody in office better than Rand on that. If you're genuinely pro-life, making a short-term compromise on abortion shouldn't be a problem as a practical matter. People who have already been born count as life too.

[brandon]

This is one issue that I hope Rand can play both sides of without ever having a firm opinion. What a waste of time.

[No Free Beer]

I am 100% pro-life and I did not see anything wrong with Rand's answer

[cajuncocoa]

Rand is trying to play both sides on too many issues. I'm back to asking: Who is Rand Paul?

[Christian Liberty]

I honestly don't give a $#@! about abortion, a lot more people are going to die if we don't end the wars and fix our finances, and there's nobody in office better than Rand on that. If you're genuinely pro-life, making a short-term compromise on abortion shouldn't be a problem as a practical matter. People who have already been born count as life too.

I am 100% pro-life and I did not see anything wrong with Rand's answer

Although I would think less of a candidate who supported abortion when compared to one who did not, all other things being equal, I have said already that I'm willing to make that compromise. The Republicans are just as "BS" on this as Rand anyway. Other than maybe a few of the harder-core conservatives, the party as a whole doesn't give a crap anyway.

What worries me here is the lack of consistency. If he stops with "Lacking consistency" here than I will still support him, and strongly. I'm not going to let one mistake ruin his career. I am, however, much, much more skeptical of him now. Ron Paul would NEVER stupidly contradict himself like this. And while one scenario like this may be worth looking past, a few of them and we could very easily have another Ronald Reagan on our hands. Which is to say, not terrible, but certainly nothing close to a constitutionalist, let alone a libertarian, yet having libertarian rhetoric. I don't want a guy who has libertarian rhetoric if he won't follow through. I'd rather have a guy who doesn't even pretend. And I fear that by 2016, Rand will be corrupted to the point where it doesn't matter.

[Christian Liberty]

Rand is trying to play both sides on too many issues. I'm back to asking: Who is Rand Paul?

+1. Me too.

[jmdrake]

I honestly don't give a $#@! about abortion, a lot more people are going to die if we don't end the wars and fix our finances, and there's nobody in office better than Rand on that. If you're genuinely pro-life, making a short-term compromise on abortion shouldn't be a problem as a practical matter. People who have already been born count as life too.

I care about winning. And sadly many of the people Rand might lose on this are the same ones he kinda/sorta won over after soft-peddling his dad's foreign policy. They don't really care, as you and I do, about ending the wars. And if it was just about finances, Ron should be president. This was a tactical blunder, no question about it. Hopefully it's far enough out for him to recover. But I can see the attack ads forming as I type this.

[V3n]

Saying complicated issues involve exceptions and discussion = flip flop

lolwut??

[itshappening]

By the way Blitzter was soft on him re: abortion. Sooner or later someone will try and pin him down on rape and incest and will press him on it hoping to get him to say the R word or make a silly statement.

[Christian Liberty]

I care about winning. And sadly many of the people Rand might lose on this are the same ones he kinda/sorta won over after soft-peddling his dad's foreign policy. They don't really care, as you and I do, about ending the wars. And if it was just about finances, Ron should be president. This was a tactical blunder, no question about it. Hopefully it's far enough out for him to recover. But I can see the attack ads forming as I type this.

He can recover from this, he just needs to stop doing it. Now.

By the way Blitzter was soft on him re: abortion. Sooner or later someone will try and pin him down on rape and incest and will press him on it hoping to get him to say the R word or make a silly statement.

I would just answer "Our constitution does not mention abortion, and so while I personally feel that abortion is murder even in this case (I would not say the word "Rape" so it would be harder to cherry pick the quote), the constitution does not give me authority as President of the United States to pass any laws on this issue, and so in accordance with the 10th amendment I support the rights of each state to make its own abortion laws."

Would that work?

[supermario21]

By introducing the life at conception act, I wouldn't suspect Rand is pro-choice considering most people (media/leftist types) view that piece of legislation as right-wing buffoonery. I would question my support of Rand if he supported abortion for anything other than grave threat to the mother (maybe tolerate rape/incest, that's it).

[supermario21]

He can recover from this, he just needs to stop doing it. Now.



I would just answer "Our constitution does not mention abortion, and so while I personally feel that abortion is murder even in this case (I would not say the word "Rape" so it would be harder to cherry pick the quote), the constitution does not give me authority as President of the United States to pass any laws on this issue, and so in accordance with the 10th amendment I support the rights of each state to make its own abortion laws."

Would that work?

To us, yes, to evangelicals, no. They'll say a states rights position is de-facto pro choice. Even though we control about 30 states. It's why this issue is so hard to argue, every side has their own views and objectives, which as Rand correctly said on CNN, is more than "check the box." That's why I think there is mass over-reaction here.

[TheGrinch]

Not crazy about inconsistent messaging at all, but he did also say that while the country isn't ready to legislate on the issue, that he introduced the bill more to just get a debate going.

I don't see anything wrong with him conceding that there may be a number of extraneous instances where it may be wrong to take away the mother/doctors choice (such as in cases of rape or life-threatening situations), but that he personally believes that life should be defined as at conception and will stand for that principle. The problem is that "doctor/mother choice" does contradict his previous rhetoric, but he has also claimed to be a realist on other issues, so perhaps here too on the lone issue I think compromise may be necessary (not even libertarians agree on this issue).

Really I just wish that he'd keep his mouth shut unless he was asked, but since this stands to only lose him political points (amazing how you can piss off pro-choicers, pro-lifers and even agnostics on the issue in a matter of days), maybe he is sincere that we should have a real debate on it now, before it becomes a divisive campaign issue later.

[Brett85]

when it comes to life of the mother, pro-life absolutist say the women must die, even if there is a good chance the baby dies also.

No, I support an exception for the life of the mother. If that's all Rand was talking about, I don't have a problem with that. But it's ridiciulous for him to say that he supports "thousands of exceptions to a ban on abortion." It didn't just limit it to the life of the mother.

[cajuncocoa]

What makes no sense to me about this is not just the inconsistency on the issue of abortion, but the lack of logic behind it....if we are to believe what we've been told by Rand's strongest supporters right here on RPF. When it comes to foreign policy, we've been told that Rand has to say certain things to appeal to Glenn Beck's audience. He had to endorse Mitt Romney so that he would still be viable in the GOP. But when it comes to an issue that is heart and soul to most GOP voters, he flip-flops before the ink is dry on his own amendment. WTF?

[Brett85]

Saying complicated issues involve exceptions and discussion = flip flop

lolwut??

Then why introduce a bill that bans all abortions nationwide? He should take a consistent position on the issue.

[TheGrinch]

No, I support an exception for the life of the mother. If that's all Rand was talking about, I don't have a problem with that. But it's ridiciulous for him to say that he supports "thousands of exceptions to a ban on abortion." It didn't just limit it to the life of the mother.

You'd have to think he meant thousands of individual exceptions, not thousands of reasons. He may have made a bluder here, but he's not stupid to completely go back on the legislation he just put forth.

[TheGrinch]

Then why introduce a bill that bans all abortions nationwide? He should take a consistent position on the issue.

Did you listen to the interview? He said that he doesn't think America is ready for legislation, but he put forth the bill to get a dialogue going.

[jbauer]

God Lord Rand. Can't you Shut your Fing Mouth? If you can't handle doing 20 interviews a day then don't do it. You can never win on abortion no mater how you state it.

[jtstellar]

one solution, leave to locals, that's the finality. let people have the choice to live with a town of aborters or not. naturally richer neighborhoods will likely have less of these instances. let the locals decide, and of course when that happens, there will be some places that allow and some that don't, hence "exceptions". to poor women who say they can't move to some place that does and i shouldn't take their choices away, i say don't take my choices away to decide whether i want my town to be one full of aborters, not just me, 70% other people in the town as well, it is you that need to get kicked out/moved out/shipped out

not forcefully but if you threaten a doctor to perform services the town does not want provided. if all your neighbors hate you, chances are you shouldn't be there anyway.

[itshappening]

Then why introduce a bill that bans all abortions nationwide? He should take a consistent position on the issue.

He is being consistent. He's just not saying the exact words you want him to say. Considering he's speaking on CNN and to Wolf Blitzer he's not going to sound like a hardcore anti-abortionist.

[Christian Liberty]

That may have been what he meant but that was so unclear I seriously think that it was an attempt at political rhetoric rather than a genuine mistake. I still like Rand more than anyone else in the senate but he's showing me more and more that he's a politican. Honestly, he should just stay where he is for now and focus on being a good senator. I'll vote for him if he runs for President but I'd advise against it. Anyone that actually wants to be President really shouldn't be President.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

What makes no sense to me about this is not just the inconsistency on the issue of abortion, but the lack of logic behind it....if we are to believe what we've been told by Rand's strongest supporters right here on RPF. When it comes to foreign policy, we've been told that Rand has to say certain things to appeal to Glenn Beck's audience. He had to endorse Mitt Romney so that he would still be viable in the GOP. But when it comes to an issue that is heart and soul to most GOP voters, he flip-flops before the ink is dry on his own amendment. WTF?

I don't even think that's close to being true. That's exactly what Rand is saying, he knows its not possible right now, but he's pushing the agenda forward.

[cajuncocoa]

one solution, leave to locals, that's the finality. let people have the choice to live with a town of aborters or not. naturally richer neighborhoods will likely have less of these instances. let the locals decide, and of course when that happens, there will be some places that allow and some that don't, hence "exceptions". to poor women who say they can't move to some place that does and i shouldn't take their choices away, i say don't take my choices away to decide whether i want my town to be one full of aborters, not just me, 70% other people in the town as well, it is you that need to get kicked out/moved out/shipped out

This really is the only workable solution as far as I can see.

[itshappening]

What makes no sense to me about this is not just the inconsistency on the issue of abortion, but the lack of logic behind it....if we are to believe what we've been told by Rand's strongest supporters right here on RPF. When it comes to foreign policy, we've been told that Rand has to say certain things to appeal to Glenn Beck's audience. He had to endorse Mitt Romney so that he would still be viable in the GOP. But when it comes to an issue that is heart and soul to most GOP voters, he flip-flops before the ink is dry on his own amendment. WTF?

He hasn't flip flopped. He does not support abortion but thinks there are cases where doctors should make a decision like the one in Ireland where they couldn't abort the baby and the mother died. Do you expect him to say to Wolf Blizter : "Yes Wolf, I support banning abortions even when the mothers life is in danger, that'll show her!"?

[cajuncocoa]

He hasn't flip flopped. He does not support abortion but thinks there are cases where doctors should make a decision like the one in Ireland where they couldn't abort the baby and the mother died. Do you expect him to say to Wolf Blizter : "Yes Wolf, I support banning abortions even when the mothers life is in danger, that'll show her!"?

Well, he opened up that can of worms with the amendment he proposed. Why go there if he didn't want to answer that question...and since he did go there (proposing the amendment) his response to Blitzer looks like a flip-flop.

[Christian Liberty]

He hasn't flip flopped. He does not support abortion but thinks there are cases where doctors should make a decision like the one in Ireland where they couldn't abort the baby and the mother died. Do you expect him to say to Wolf Blizter : "Yes Wolf, I support banning abortions even when the mothers life is in danger, that'll show her!"?

No, even I don't support that (I support the life of the mother restriction, but not the rape or incest exceptions, and I oppose Federal involvement on the issue since its not in the constitution.) I see no reason why Rand couldn't have said something like I said "I believe abortion is murder even in that case (Meaning rape, but not saying the word rape so it can't be soundbited) but since its not in the constitution I support state's rights to make their own laws on this issue and keep the Federal government out of it."