Rand Paul remarks on abortion

[Crashland]

He's already on record as opposing exceptions for rape and incest. Changing his position on that will just draw comparisons to Mitt Romney.

He has not actually changed his position. The only thing he said in this interview is that America needs more convincing before a bigtime abortion ban could happen politically. If there were such an abortion ban bill, he would support it but it's not going to be the hill to die on when the country is still unconvinced. And it's a moot point because the country isn't ready anyway. There will not be 100% abortion ban even if Jesus Christ was elected president.

[Brett85]

Well, he DID say that. And in so doing, he SEEMED to distance himself from the position, I agree. But that's the point. He managed to make himself more palatable to a wide swath of moderates without substantively altering his position at all.

Not altering it at all? He took a completely different position on the issue in order to appeal to a bunch of people who would never vote for him anyway.

[Brett85]

He has not actually changed his position. The only thing he said in this interview is that America needs more convincing before a bigtime abortion ban could happen politically. If there were such an abortion ban bill, he would support it but it's not going to be the hill to die on when the country is still unconvinced. And it's a moot point because the country isn't ready anyway. There will not be 100% abortion ban even if Jesus Christ was elected president.

He described such a position as being extreme and criticized other Republicans for holding it.

[menciusmoldbug]

Then he'll just be labeled a flip flopper.

Correct. By fools and liars, but fools and liars hold some pretty powerful positions in this country. If this labeling successfully costs him votes on net, then this strategy is a bad one. If the strategy gains him votes on net in spite of the dishonest characterization of him as a flip-flopper, then it is a good one. Time will tell.

How can he use rhetoric like he did in this interview when there are already sound bites of him taking an "extreme" position on the abortion issue?

2:19 mark and 3:36 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlunIcrr1Pk

Pretty easily, actually. It's called "tact." Also: "knowing your audience."

[Brett85]

Pretty easily, actually. It's called "tact." Also: "knowing your audience."

Right, but Hillary Clinton can just use Rand's statement of "ending the slaughter" in ad after ad in swing states. So what does this new "moderate rhetoric" do for Rand other than alienate pro life Republicans?

[menciusmoldbug]

He's already on record as opposing exceptions for rape and incest. Changing his position on that will just draw comparisons to Mitt Romney.

Correct. Fortunately, he hasn't changed his position, and I don't expect him to. All he's done is changed his rhetoric. This is perfectly acceptable to me, and it should be acceptable to you.

[Brett85]

Correct. Fortunately, he hasn't changed his position, and I don't expect him to. All he's done is changed his rhetoric. This is perfectly acceptable to me, and it should be acceptable to you.

Then you can say the same thing about Romney, that all Romney ever did was just "change his rhetoric."

[Crashland]

He described such a position as being extreme and criticized other Republicans for holding it.

He wasn't criticizing their belief. Why would he criticize a position he just said that he personally has because of his religion? The target of the criticism is Republicans who try to do the impossible, and insist on doing the impossible which makes it very difficult to achieve anything at all towards the goal.

[menciusmoldbug]

If his purpose is "moving to the middle" for the purpose of attracting moderate voters, then what was the point of all the Bill Clinton bashing? That probably alienated moderates more so than him taking the standard Republican position on abortion.

I disagree. I think the Bill Clinton bashing - especially the way he did it - was a wise way of highlighting the hypocrisy of Democrats who accuse Republicans of waging a war on women. Even if this is wrong and you're right, I think it should be obvious that this was Rand's thinking on the subject. Mistakes can sometimes be made, but that doesn't undermine the point that he's trying to "moderate" himself in the minds of moderate/casual voters.

[Brett85]

I disagree. I think the Bill Clinton bashing - especially the way he did it - was a wise way of highlighting the hypocrisy of Democrats who accuse Republicans of waging a war on women. Even if this is wrong and you're right, I think it should be obvious that this was Rand's thinking on the subject. Mistakes can sometimes be made, but that doesn't undermine the point that he's trying to "moderate" himself in the minds of moderate/casual voters.

Then why not go at the abortion issue from the same perspective? Why not go after the Democrats for supposedly wanting to "protect the little guy" while not wanting to provide any legal protections for unborn children?

[menciusmoldbug]

I know, so why won't he stand by the principles of his own bill in interviews?

I'm sure he will in future interviews. But this one was with David Axelrod in front of a hostile audience. Furthermore, it isn't as if he denied his principles - he simply chose not to linger on them. And he was wise to do so, imo.

[menciusmoldbug]

How am I supposed to know? I'm not a mind reader. I can only go by what he actually says. It's the same thing with foreign policy. I've been critical of some of the watering down of the non interventionist foreign policy message, and then I'm told that it's all strategy and that he's just "playing the game." Well, how am I supposed to know that? I don't know Rand personally and don't know what he actually believes.

Emotional intelligence and people-reading skills are important. If you don't know what Rand actually believes by now, there may be no hope for you.

[Brett85]

I'm sure he will in future interviews. But this one was with David Axelrod in front of a hostile audience.

What difference does that make? Every single one of these interviews are video taped and often appear on the internet, so even though it was in front of a hostile audience, Rand must have known that all of the conservative websites would pick up on it.

[menciusmoldbug]

Not altering it at all? He took a completely different position on the issue

cite plz

in order to appeal to a bunch of people who would never vote for him anyway.

cite plz

This conversation is pretty rapidly and radically lowering my opinion of you, TC. Sorry. =(

[Brett85]

Emotional intelligence and people-reading skills are important. If you don't know what Rand actually believes by now, there may be no hope for you.

I don't know what he believes if he's going to take different positions on different issues depending on what audience he speaks to.

[menciusmoldbug]

Right, but Hillary Clinton can just use Rand's statement of "ending the slaughter" in ad after ad in swing states. So what does this new "moderate rhetoric" do for Rand other than alienate pro life Republicans?

I can pretty much guarantee you that Hillary Clinton's campaign will do everything in its power to avoid associating the abortion industry with the word "slaughter." There is almost no chance that Rand's language that you're referring to will come back to bite him.

The thing is, this argument CAN be won with the American people. You simply have to approach it in the right way. Your way is terrible and has been alienating people for decades. In a very real and meaningful sense, you and people like you are responsible for the fact that so many babies get murdered each year.

[menciusmoldbug]

Then you can say the same thing about Romney, that all Romney ever did was just "change his rhetoric."

Sure, you could say that, but you'd be lying. Romney did more than change his rhetoric.

It's almost like you're being deliberately obtuse here, TC. I'm becoming very bored/annoyed with you.

[Brett85]

The thing is, this argument CAN be won with the American people. You simply have to approach it in the right way. Your way is terrible and has been alienating people for decades. In a very real and meaningful sense, you and people like you are responsible for the fact that so many babies get murdered each year.

You're simply wrong. Ronald Reagan ran on a platform of banning abortion without exception and won two elections, one in a landslide.

[menciusmoldbug]

Then why not go at the abortion issue from the same perspective? Why not go after the Democrats for supposedly wanting to "protect the little guy" while not wanting to provide any legal protections for unborn children?

That is exactly what he was doing at the very beginning of his answer by talking about the times he held one-pound babies in his hand that were recognized as being alive and deserving protection, then contrasting that with the image of an eight-pound baby being aborted.

[Brett85]

I can pretty much guarantee you that Hillary Clinton's campaign will do everything in its power to avoid associating the abortion industry with the word "slaughter." There is almost no chance that Rand's language that you're referring to will come back to bite him.

He also said "end abortion once and for all." I can guarantee you that will appear in ads, and using this new "moderate rhetoric" won't do a thing to alter the affect of those ads.

[menciusmoldbug]

What difference does that make? Every single one of these interviews are video taped and often appear on the internet, so even though it was in front of a hostile audience, Rand must have known that all of the conservative websites would pick up on it.

But all of the mainstream websites have picked up on it as well. Do you have any idea how much positive press Rand has gotten out of this interview in places that he normally never does?

[Brett85]

But all of the mainstream websites have picked up on it as well. Do you have any idea how much positive press Rand has gotten out of this interview in places that he normally never does?

I haven't seen any positive press for him from the "mainstream websites." The Politico piece that I read just accused him of being a flip flopper and unwilling to take a stand on controversial issues.

[menciusmoldbug]

I don't know what he believes if he's going to take different positions on different issues depending on what audience he speaks to.

Serious question, TC: Are you autistic? Like, do you have mild-to-severe Asperger's?

[Origanalist]

Sure, you could say that, but you'd be lying. Romney did more than change his rhetoric.

It's almost like you're being deliberately obtuse here, TC. I'm becoming very bored/annoyed with you.

Welcome to the reason I do not debate TC.

[menciusmoldbug]

You're simply wrong. Ronald Reagan ran on a platform of banning abortion without exception and won two elections, one in a landslide.

You'll notice (or should have noticed, rather - you obviously didn't) that I said "for decades," not "forever." Ronald Reagan's last election was thirty years ago, and the electorate is very different now than it was then.

[Crashland]

Let's try to avoid the ad hominems

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Brett85]

You'll notice (or should have noticed, rather - you obviously didn't) that I said "for decades," not "forever." Ronald Reagan's last election was thirty years ago, and the electorate is very different now than it was then.

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

[menciusmoldbug]

He also said "end abortion once and for all." I can guarantee you that will appear in ads, and using this new "moderate rhetoric" won't do a thing to alter the affect of those ads.

Ah, sorry, didn't realize I was speaking to God Himself, thought you were a mere mortal like me without the ability to definitively predict the effect of hypothetical political ads two years out.

I'm fairly confident that you're wrong about the the ability of Rand's approach to dampen the effect of political ads.

[erowe1]

I hope he will truly try to do something on the abortion issue when in the White House. Stopping murder at home and stopping murder abroad should be inseparable.

Are you saying it's the role of the president to stop people from committing murder in other countries? How do you want him to go about this? Because that sounds a lot like an interventionist foreign policy.

OK. I know that's not what you mean. You probably mean that you want the president himself to stop killing people abroad. But then you can't parallel it with abortion the way you did, unless all you mean is to stop funding abortion, and not something more interventionist.

And now that's something Rand should talk about when asked these kinds of questions. He can throw plenty of red meat to conservatives without taking an extreme stand. Say this: "What will I do about abortion as president? Well, for starters, not one cent of American tax dollars will be spent to fund abortions in this country or any other country. There will be no federal funding for any organizations that perform abortions, and no foreign aid given to foreign governments that fund abortions."