Rand Paul remarks on abortion

[William Tell]

No it isn't. It's a guaranteed path to failure, as has been proven by every candidate to try it in every recent election.

Besides, it makes no sense as an analysis of what Rand is up to. If he wants to veer left enough to land himself in the territory of the Democrat base, he has to go way more left than this.

Yup.

[William Tell]

Absolutely, it's gonna be a Randslide of course!
Really though, one of the best things Rand has going for him right now is that he is perceived to be the "most interesting" candidate because of all this outreach. That is not a typical description of a presidential candidate and it is getting him a ton of good (and bad) press ever since the drone filibuster. In such a wide open field, being the most interesting candidate is a huge boon. I think the Republican base is ready to try a different kind of republican and so is the rest of the country.

I thought 'Most Conservative Record!' would be a great strategy for the primaries. Vermin Supreme has him beat on 'interesting'

[Crashland]

I only mean it in the sense that Rand is actively appealing to the Dem base on freedom issues, like the war on drugs, anti-war/non-interventionism, privacy rights, voting rights, school choice. It doesn't mean he is veering to the left, unless by "veering to the left" you mean veering away from the GOP establishment.

[William Tell]

I only mean it in the sense that Rand is actively appealing to the Dem base on freedom issues, like the war on drugs, anti-war/non-interventionism, privacy rights, voting rights, school choice. It doesn't mean he is veering to the left, unless by "veering to the left" you mean veering away from the GOP establishment.

Ron did that too...

I don't think the Dems believe in privacy or school choice.

[Cutlerzzz]

No, the American electorate was pro choice then, and it's pro choice now. There's no difference.

The electorate is actually more pro life now than the 80s.

[William Tell]

The electorate is actually more pro life now than the 80s.

In a General election, all that matters is the Swing States. Most of them seem kinda liberal, and I assume that includes all issues. But I could be wrong.

[twomp]

Do the laws that we have against murder prevent all murders from happening? Of course not, but as a civilized society, we still have to have laws against murder.

So in your perfect world, the government would throw any woman who has an abortion in jail for life. Maybe even execute them? That's pretty "pro-life" there.

[Brett85]

So in your perfect world, the government would throw any woman who has an abortion in jail for life. Maybe even execute them? That's pretty "pro-life" there.

I certainly didn't say anything about executing women. If abortion were banned, it's likely that the abortionists would be prosecuted, since they would actually be committing the violent act.

[erowe1]

The democrat base <> democrat principles.

I'm not sure what that means. But what I said is still true.

[Origanalist]

I certainly didn't say anything about executing women. If abortion were banned, it's likely that the abortionists would be prosecuted, since they would actually be committing the violent act.

What happens to someone who hires a hit man?

[Brett85]

What happens to someone who hires a hit man?

They go to prison, but that doesn't mean that the law would have to apply in exactly the same way in regards to abortion. I understand that really wouldn't be "fair," but I really don't care about what's "fair." I care about saving lives.

[Origanalist]

They go to prison, but that doesn't mean that the law would have to apply in exactly the same way in regards to abortion. I understand that really wouldn't be "fair," but I really don't care about what's "fair." I care about saving lives.

It's never going to apply in the same way. Culture of death.

[twomp]

They go to prison, but that doesn't mean that the law would have to apply in exactly the same way in regards to abortion. I understand that really wouldn't be "fair," but I really don't care about what's "fair." I care about saving lives.

Your chief argument is that an abortion is "murder." You throw around hot button words like "baby killer." Yet you don't think they should have the same punishment? What is the difference between someone walking up and killing a 1 year old and someone having an abortion in your opinion then? A life is a life right? Why should they not suffer the same punishment?

[anaconda]

He's going to have to give a better answer than that in the GOP primaries for me to be able to fully support him. This isn't a minor issue.

Perhaps much of the base may accept Rand Paul's critique that hearts and minds must be won over to change society.

[DeMintConservative]

Your chief argument is that an abortion is "murder." You throw around hot button words like "baby killer." Yet you don't think they should have the same punishment? What is the difference between someone walking up and killing a 1 year old and someone having an abortion in your opinion then? A life is a life right? Why should they not suffer the same punishment?

In my view, fetal life deserves protection, but not to the same degree of neonatal life. Hence why I believe terminating fetal life should be legal in certain situations - like in the case of danger to the life of the mother: exactly because I value the life of a born human being more than the life of an unborn one. It doesn't follow that fetal life shouldn't be protected at all.

Then again, it seems this position is too nuanced for you.

[Brett85]

It seems like Rand is going to have to change the wording on his website if he doesn't want to be pigeonholed as taking an "extreme" position on the abortion issue. It's just a night and day different position than what he expresses in interviews.

I have stated many times that I will always support legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion.

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=3

[specsaregood]

It seems like Rand is going to have to change the wording on his website if he doesn't want to be pigeonholed as taking an "extreme" position on the abortion issue. It's just a night and day different position than what he expresses in interviews.

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=3

You are such a concern troll. More than a few of us explained to you last night that he was voluntarily putting himself in the extreme position in that same interview. His position on abortion is clear to all of us; but what he laid out in that interview is a way to compromise in the pro-life direction. I think that's a great thing, move the ball forward.

[Origanalist]

You are such a concern troll. More than a few of us explained to you last night that he was voluntarily putting himself in the extreme position in that same interview. His position on abortion is clear to all of us; but what he laid out in that interview is a way to compromise in the pro-life direction. I think that's a great thing, move the ball forward.

Ignore it specs, maybe it will get bored......

[Brett85]

Maybe Rand is just planning on running for President as an independent. Because he certainly isn't going anywhere at all in the GOP primary with this kind of rhetoric, particularly in Iowa.

[Origanalist]

[Brett85]

He's going to be battling with Jeb Bush for moderate Republicans in the GOP primary, because the conservatives have decided that he's too far to the left to be able to support.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/ne...?q=1&;page=101

[specsaregood]

I really hope that other GOP candidates for other offices pick up on Randals rhetoric and run with it. We've been stymied for far too long with no exceptions for life because of the refusal by pro-life people to consider any compromise that would end some abortions. And we've seen too many decent candidates destroyed on the issue. As Randal pointed out, the country is in the middle on this issue; so why aren't abortion laws? Start pushing for the middle ground and turn the pro-abortion folk into the extremists that have no respect for life at any stage. Start banning abortions after viability and show that the world doesn't come to an end and you'll be able to convince even more folk to ban all abortions.

[Brett85]

Republicans in Congress have been pushing for a bill to ban abortion after the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. It's a straw man argument to suggest that pro lifers don't believe in pragmatism. It's just that banning abortion after 20 weeks isn't nearly enough. The next step has to be to ban it even earlier, and then ban it all together, with the only exception being for the life of the mother.

[erowe1]

I only mean it in the sense that Rand is actively appealing to the Dem base on freedom issues, like the war on drugs, anti-war/non-interventionism, privacy rights, voting rights, school choice. It doesn't mean he is veering to the left, unless by "veering to the left" you mean veering away from the GOP establishment.

I can see some appeal to parts of that base with his noninterventionism. But the rest of your list doesn't fit what you're saying. Since when is the Democrat base for school choice?

[Brett85]

I really hope that other GOP candidates for other offices pick up on Randals rhetoric and run with it. We've been stymied for far too long with no exceptions for life because of the refusal by pro-life people to consider any compromise that would end some abortions. And we've seen too many decent candidates destroyed on the issue. As Randal pointed out, the country is in the middle on this issue; so why aren't abortion laws? Start pushing for the middle ground and turn the pro-abortion folk into the extremists that have no respect for life at any stage. Start banning abortions after viability and show that the world doesn't come to an end and you'll be able to convince even more folk to ban all abortions.

Then what was the point of Rand introducing the Life at Conception Act? That bill if passed would ban all abortions nationwide, which goes against this new "brilliant" pragmatic strategy that Rand is supposedly adopting now.

[Brett85]

Then you also have stuff like this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5199884.html

I just don't see at all how saying stuff like this is a good strategy when you have to win conservative voters to win a GOP primary. Conservatives make up probably 75% of the GOP electorate, and moderates probably less than 25%. There simply aren't enough moderate voters to be able to win a GOP primary by targeting them.

[Crashland]

I don't have stats on hand to back it up but I would venture that over 75% of conservatives don't believe abortion should be banned universally from conception except for life of mother.

[William Tell]

I can see some appeal to parts of that base with his noninterventionism

The Dem voters don't seem to even care about war anymore. I believe all they care about anymore is voting against the Tea Party.

[William Tell]

I don't have stats on hand to back it up but I would venture that over 75% of conservatives don't believe abortion should be banned universally from conception except for life of mother.

I call Bull. You live in a Yankee State.

[specsaregood]

Then what was the point of Rand introducing the Life at Conception Act? That bill if passed would ban all abortions nationwide, which goes against this new "brilliant" pragmatic strategy that Rand is supposedly adopting now.

I'm going to play along for just one more time and hope you aren't just being willfully obtuse.

Have you not been paying attention to Randals strategy the past 3 years in the Senate? Let me help you out:
1. propose extremist legislation
--get rejected or ignored
2. propose less-extreme legislation on same subject
--get rejected or ignored
3. propose moderate legislation on same subject
--get rejected or ignored
4. continually point to opponents as the extremists unwilling to compromise. Did you not listen to Randals initial speech on the senate floor? Talking about compromise? http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=22 Or the many times he has talked about good compromise vs. bad compromise?

This isn't some "new" pragmatic strategy; he has laid out his strategy over and over and over. He is pushing for incrementally changing the direction of govt.