Rand Paul gets testy with NBC's Savannah Guthrie

[mystery-ak]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/238170-rand-pauls-nbc-interview-gets-testy

April 08, 2015, 08:25 am
Rand Paul gets testy with NBC's Savannah Guthrie

By Jesse Byrnes

An interview with Sen. Rand Paul (R) on Wednesday got testy as the libertarian-leaning Kentucky senator, fresh off launching his presidential campaign, battled suggestions he had changed his views on foreign policy.
 
Speaking from the early voting state of New Hampshire, Paul clashed with NBC's "Today" show co-anchor Savannah Guthrie over his previous statements on Iran, aid to Israel and defense spending.
 
"Why don't we let me explain instead of talking over me, OK?" Paul told Guthrie when pressed about his previous statements.
 
"Before we go through a litany of things you say I've changed on, why don't you ask me a question, 'Have I changed my opinion?' That would be sort of a better way to approach an interview."
 
"No, no, you've editorialized," Paul said when Guthrie interjected to ask if his views had changed.
 
"No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no," Paul said. "Listen, you've editorialized." 
 
Asked about his statements in 2007 that Iran wasn't a nuclear threat, Paul acknowledged his position had shifted.
 
"2007 was a long time ago and events do change over long periods of time. So we're talking about 8 years ago. We're talking about a time when I wasn't running for office and I was helping someone else run for office," he said.
 
"There has always been a threat around gaining nuclear weapons and that's greater now than it was many years ago." 
 
Paul neither supported nor condemned the framework nuclear agreement reached between the Obama administration and five other world powers and Iran.
 
"I'm going to keep an open mind and look at the agreement. I do believe that negotiation is better than war," Paul said.
 
Paul argued that the "sincerity of the Iranians does make a big difference" in the nuclear negotiations.
 
"And if they're immediately saying that the agreement doesn't mean what President Obama says that is a big problem," Paul said, referring to fact sheets put out by negotiators in announcing the framework deal reached last week.
 
"The Iranians put out 500 words, the Americans put out 1,300 words, the Europeans put out 200 words. And they don't all seem to agree, but it's very, very little information so far," Paul said.
 
Paul, who has been exploring a presidential bid for many months, launched his campaign on Tuesday, to be followed by a tour of many states. The Kentucky senator has battled criticism from members of his party over his libertarian positions on foreign policy issues, and has been viewed as taking more hawkish positions leading into his White House bid.
 
Paul got testy in another interview in February, when he squared off with CNBC host Kelly Evans when discussing his plan for a tax "holiday" for companies bringing back money from overseas, at one point shushing the host.
 
"Calm down a bit here, Kelly, let me answer the question," Paul said during that interview.

video at link

[truth_seeker]

Good for him, putting the media in their place.

As stated previously, he has to convince voters that he would nuke some muslims.

I don't think he will succeed. He has both his father's campaign positions, and his own previous mistaken beliefs.

Too many flips and flops.

[musiclady]

I've been thinking about this guy, and moderating my views.

I think he really loves America.  And since he does, if and when he gets to the Oval Office, he will find out the danger we are really in, and will protect America.

I think his 'non-interventionist' (i.e. cowardly) position will modify when he finds out a lot more than he knows now about what radical Islam really is.

[aligncare]

I've been thinking about this guy, and moderating my views.

I think he really loves America.  And since he does, if and when he gets to the Oval Office, he will find out the danger we are really in, and will protect America.

I think his 'non-interventionist' (i.e. cowardly) position will modify when he finds out a lot more than he knows now about what radical Islam really is.

Agree. Paul knows the Constitution is not a suicide pact and will work to defend America's security.

[flowers]

It is wonderful to see him do this.

[musiclady]

Agree. Paul knows the Constitution is not a suicide pact and will work to defend America's security.

Good way to phrase it.

If you love something, you will not allow it to be annihilated.

[massadvj]

It will be quite a Kabuki dance for Paul, but I do think people are going to be quite surprised at how "isolationist" the Republican Party is becoming.  Paul is positioning himself as the most anti-foreign aid, anti-nation building candidate in the field.  And after our experiences in bot Iraq and Afghanistan, I am not sure that is such a bad thing.  His problem is going to be convincing Republicans that he is for a strong defense posture and will retaliate not just forcefully, but lethally, if provoked.

[Longiron]

It is wonderful to see him do this.

DITTO: great to see some fight in a politician other than a DEM or RINO going after a conservative. Have to take on these LIB pundits by answering their question with a question.They are not all that bright in fact most do not even know the meaning or understand the content of their question. Newt was good at giving it back to them and Cruz AND  Paul are both smarter than all pundits and seen to do the same with CLASS.

[mystery-ak]

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/238238-paul-gets-in-spat-with-reporter-over-abortion-stance

Rand Paul in spat with second reporter

 By Sarah Ferris - 04/08/15 03:20 PM EDT

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), already in the spotlight for a televised fight with "Today" Show host Savannah Guthrie, got into a heated exchange over abortion on Wednesday with an Associated Press reporter.

AP reporter Philip Elliott's interview with Paul became heated after Elliott pressed the presidential candidate to say whether victims of rape should be able to get abortions.

"I gave you about a five-minute answer. Put in my five-minute answer," Paul told Elliot.

"The thing is about abortion — and about a lot of things — is that I think people get tied up in all these details of, sort of, you're this or this or that, or you're hard and fast (on) one thing or the other," Paul said during the interview.

Paul announced his White House candidacy on Tuesday. A day later, press attention has focused on his interactions with reporters.

He accused Guthrie of editorializing after she raised a question about whether he had "mellowed" as a senator given different statements he's made on a range of issues.
"Why don't we let me explain instead of talking over me, OK?" Paul told Guthrie when pressed about his previous statements.
 
"Before we go through a litany of things you say I've changed on, why don't you ask me a question, 'Have I changed my opinion?' That would be sort of a better way to approach an interview."
 
Democrats are pouncing both on Paul's comments on abortion and his treatment of female reporters.
 
"We know you want to allow government officials like yourself to make this decision for women, but do you stand by your opposition to any exceptions, even when it comes to rape, incest, or life of the mother?  Or do we just have different definitions of ‘personal liberty?' " Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee and a supporter of abortion rights, wrote in a statement blasted on the DNC listserv.
 
She also took a jab at Paul for telling CNBC anchor Kelly Evans to "shush" during an interview in February about his stance on vaccination.
 
"And I’d appreciate it if you could respond without 'shushing' me," Wasserman Schultz wrote.
 
Paul, who said Wednesday, “in general, I am pro-life,” has voted for abortion bans in Congress that provide exceptions when the mother’s life is in danger or in the case of rape. He has also supported abortion bans that don’t allow exemptions.

Paul, a libertarian, has previously cast himself as strongly opposed to abortion.

“The debate isn’t really about whether government has a role in protecting life; the debate really hinges on when life begins,” Paul told a conference held by the Christian-leaning group Family Research Council last fall. “I’ve held one-and-half-pound babies in my hand. Don’t tell me that five- and six-pound babies have no rights simply because they are not yet born.”

Republicans have come under criticism for struggling to define their position on abortion while also protecting victims of rape. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a potential 2016 candidate, acknowledged in January that his party has a “definitional problem of rape” when it comes to abortion law exceptions.

That same month, GOP House leaders were under pressure to pull a bill banning late-term abortion because of concerns within its own party that the legislative language would endanger rape victims.

[evadR]

I didn't hear the interview but I think it was a legitimate question.  I would like to have seen him give a real answer instead of the wishy washy weak one that I read.
Paul needs to learn that he will never win anything by getting into spats with "reporters".  He would be better served by not giving the interview at all.

[sinkspur]

When did rape become a universal act that justfies an abortion?

The manner of conception is of no consequence to the child whose life is growing in the mother's womb.

If we were a truly sane, compassionate country, there would be no exceptions that would allow abortion. In other words, no abortion, for any reason.

If that makes me uncaring according to some, so be it.

[alicewonders]

When did rape become a universal act that justfies an abortion?

The manner of conception is of no consequence to the child whose life is growing in the mother's womb.

If we were a truly sane, compassionate country, there would be no exceptions that would allow abortion. In other words, no abortion, for any reason.

If that makes me uncaring according to some, so be it.

I tend to agree with you on that - in other words - two wrongs don't make a right.  What galls me is that many times an abortion covers up a rape, or incest - and the perpetrator gets off scott-free.  No one wants to be seen as forcing a 14 year old to bear a child which is conceived in rape or incest - or a woman who is a victim of violent rape.  But the violence is the act that brought the pregnancy about - the baby that is conceived is innocent and is also a victim of that crime. 

The better solution is that rape victims report the crime IMMEDIATELY and receive the morning after pill or some other solution to prevent any pregnancy from occurring.  I know there are those who think those solutions are the same as abortion - but to treat it before implantation is much better than letting the child develop and grow.  That's my opinion.

As far as the health of the mother - by all means, do what has to be done to save the mother, but TRY to save the baby too, if possible!  You don't have to jab scissors in the baby's skull to save the life of the mother!

These questions that the media asks Republicans, conservatives and Christians are just "gotcha" questions designed to put the person on the defensive and to distract from the other issues.  Rand Paul is right not to answer them in those scenarios. 

[GourmetDan]

I tend to agree with you on that - in other words - two wrongs don't make a right.  What galls me is that many times an abortion covers up a rape, or incest - and the perpetrator gets off scott-free.  No one wants to be seen as forcing a 14 year old to bear a child which is conceived in rape or incest - or a woman who is a victim of violent rape.  But the violence is the act that brought the pregnancy about - the baby that is conceived is innocent and is also a victim of that crime. 

IOW, since the child is completely innocent of any crime... why is it the one that gets executed?

[alicewonders]

IOW, since the child is completely innocent of any crime... why is it the one that gets executed?

Exactly!