Rand Paul remarks on abortion

[menciusmoldbug]

So then he was saying that his own views on the issue are extreme?

Implicitly, yes. However, by diverting the question away from his own views and focusing instead on where "the country" is, he successfully managed to deflect Axelrod's ham-handed attempt to paint him as a theocrat or hypocrite. Instead, Paul turned the tables so swiftly that he put Axelrod on the defensive, forcing him to come up with weak responses to Paul's points, such as that few third-trimester abortions occur - which is true, but is that an argument for tolerating them or for banning them altogether? I think most people would agree with the latter.

You seem upset that Rand wasn't "preaching to the choir" here but was instead making a very strong attempt at persuasion - which is exactly what he said needed to be done before the laws would change.

I think Rand Paul would be more successful at moving the pro-life ball down the field than any President in the history of the country. If this is not sufficient for you to support or vote for him, I think your views cause you to behave in a self-defeating fashion. This is a common problems with pro-lifers and conservatives in general, but I'd like to see it subside.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

YES! It was implied as such and both times he said it, he made a point to reference his religious beliefs. Did you actually listen to it?

You can say he gave a nonanswer, you can say he dodged the question; but you can't say what you claimed as it is untrue.

Personally, I think he laid out the gameplan for how pro-life people could actually make some progress on this issue and start getting exceptions made for life.

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

 

[Brett85]

I think Rand Paul would be more successful at moving the pro-life ball down the field than any President in the history of the country. If this is not sufficient for you to support or vote for him, I think your views cause you to behave in a self-defeating fashion. This is a common problems with pro-lifers and conservatives in general, but I'd like to see it subside.

I'm 100% pro life, and while I think that banning abortion after the point of viability is a step in the right direction, it certainly isn't a pro life position to just support defending life from viability on.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Rand Paul should point out the extreme racism of Planned Parenthood's founder and the fact that PP disproportionately targets minority communities. It would damage that Democrats' claims of being the party of civil rights.

 

[Crashland]

I'm 100% pro life, and while I think that banning abortion after the point of viability is a step in the right direction, it certainly isn't a pro life position to just support defending life from viability on.

So unless it's a 100% pro-life position like yours, it's not a pro-life position?

 

[Brett85]

So unless it's a 100% pro-life position like yours, it's not a pro-life position?

Allowing the murder of innocent human beings for the first 20 weeks of pregnancy certainly isn't a pro life position.

 

[Origanalist]

Somebody help me out here. Can the President ban abortion?

 

[menciusmoldbug]

He said that he personally believes that life begins at conception. A lot of politicians, mostly Democrats, say they believe that life begins at conception but that they don't want to force their views on others. That's what I interpreted Rand as saying. He certainly didn't ever say that the law should protect the unborn from the moment of conception.

It's true that he didn't say that in this venue, but it's also true that he didn't say it shouldn't - indeed, his comments made it pretty clear (to me, at least, if not to you) that he thinks the law should protect the unborn from the moment of conception. Go back and listen to his remarks on holding one-pound babies in his hand. Furthermore, he has introduced the Life at Conception Act, and I'll eat my shoe if he ever disavows it. Instead, he can reasonably point to that bill's lack of success as evidence that the country will not support a total abortion ban yet (although he does) and then introduce a less "extreme" bill designed to appeal to moderates and middle-grounders on this issue.

At no time in the talk did he ever say that he doesn't want to force his views on others. He simply conceded, as a point of actual fact, that he probably can't. And he is correct in this assessment.

Your failure to understand the larger game being played here is disappointing, TC. Rand Paul did not all-of-a-sudden become pro-choice any more than he all-of-a-sudden became an interventionist hawk when he voted for sanctions on Iran's central bank. He's simply playing the game. And he's doing a fan-fucking-tastic job of it. As a pro-life advocate, Paul's deft handling of a hostile interviewer and audience on the issue should excite you.

 

[Brett85]

It's true that he didn't say that in this venue, but it's also true that he didn't say it shouldn't - indeed, his comments made it pretty clear (to me, at least, if not to you) that he thinks the law should protect the unborn from the moment of conception.

I certainly don't see that at all. I heard in the interview that Republicans who support defending life from conception on have an extreme position on the issue. That's what I heard him say. It just seems to me like people are spinning his answer to make it sound better. There's no doubt at all that this sound bite will be used against him by the likes of Huckabee and Santorum in Iowa, and it will be a killer. It's unfortunate that he's doing this, because he's going to have a hard enough time winning over conservatives who are wary of his foreign policy views. Now the social conservatives are going to be critical of him as well.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

Of course I would support a bill that bans abortion after 20 weeks, but I would also make it clear that this is only a minor first step, and the ultimate goal is to ban all abortions, except when the life of the mother is in danger, which is extremely rare.

With respect, this is why you are not a successful politician. It is far easier to convince people to take a step down a slippery slope by NOT drawing attention to the potential for future developments in the same direction, which people may not presently support. Consider the tactic used to "sell" the income tax and Social Security to voters, for example. Rather than admit their end goals, politicians minimized the fears of people warning about a slippery slope and denied their arguments' validity.

Tactics are value-neutral. We can do the same thing when pushing pro-life protections and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

 

[Crashland]

Allowing the murder of innocent human beings for the first 20 weeks of pregnancy certainly isn't a pro life position.

One thing that Rand is spot-on about, is that this battle needs to be won in the hearts and minds of Americans before it can be won in politics. Don't bash pro-life politicians for being willing to make a few concessions in order to achieve a more pro-life law than we have now. When you and the pro-life movement can convince your neighbors to come to your point of view, then we wouldn't need to make concessions in order to achieve more pro-life laws.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

It's a classic wedge issue anyway; nothing will change.

But it's smelly! It's red! How can you resist?

Next up, more extremely important questions for Presidential candidates, such as "did Moses ride a dinosaur?".

 

[menciusmoldbug]

@Rocco-What do you think is the strategy behind this? Is this kind of rhetoric going to help him in Iowa and other deep red states? Why is Rand answering a question like that as if he's running in a general election campaign for President, when he has to win the GOP primary before he ever gets to that point?

Because he's currently running ten points behind Hillary Clinton, and if the Romney campaign taught us anything, it's that candidates can't turn on a dime and substantially alter their image after winning the nomination anymore in the Internet Age. The general election campaign has already started. Rand has to convince a wide swath of voters in the middle that he is serious, sensible, not an "extremist," and can be trusted to fill the most powerful position in the world. Going out of his way to alienate moderate voters on the abortion issue would not be in line with these goals.

 

[Brett85]

One thing that Rand is spot-on about, is that this battle needs to be won in the hearts and minds of Americans before it can be won in politics. Don't bash pro-life politicians for being willing to make a few concessions in order to achieve a more pro-life law than we have now. When you and the pro-life movement can convince your neighbors to come to your point of view, then we wouldn't need to make concessions in order to achieve more pro-life laws.

How do you convince your neighbors to take a pro life point of view if you don't actually take a pro life point of view? Rand didn't even make the argument in this interview that an important or main role of government is to protect human life.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

I'm upset with this constant waffling and non committal BS. He'll take an unpopular position when it comes to something like closing down the Department of Education, but won't do the same when it comes to abortion. It just makes me think that he doesn't care much about the issue, which is unfortunate. The main problem I had with what he said is when he said that banning abortion is an "extreme position." If Rand is just pandering, then I guess I won't ever be a politician, because I would throw up if I ever used the kind of rhetoric that he used in this interview.

You radically overestimate the unpopularity of eliminating the Department of Education, particularly when the idea is presented as he did in this interview.

You will never be a politician. #dreamcrusher

 

[menciusmoldbug]

I wouldn't have had a problem if he had said what you just said, but that's certainly not the way it came across to me. He said that it's an extreme position to ban abortion, not just that we should pursue incrementalism to protect life.

News flash, TC: it is an extreme position to ban all abortions with no exceptions for rape or incest. This is not a position supported by anywhere close to a majority of voters. That doesn't make it wrong, but it does make it unlikely to become policy in a democratic country.

 

[Brett85]

Because he's currently running ten points behind Hillary Clinton, and if the Romney campaign taught us anything, it's that candidates can't turn on a dime and substantially alter their image after winning the nomination anymore in the Internet Age. The general election campaign has already started. Rand has to convince a wide swath of voters in the middle that he is serious, sensible, not an "extremist," and can be trusted to fill the most powerful position in the world. Going out of his way to alienate moderate voters on the abortion issue would not be in line with these goals.

Then he'll just be labeled a flip flopper. 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

 

[menciusmoldbug]

Why would he give another poor answer like this when he already received heat from pro lifers for his "thousands of exceptions for abortion" comment? He's just shooting himself in the foot.

I agree that his framing of the issue is alienating pro-lifers, and if they abandon him en masse the strategy will backfire horribly. However, he can't win a general election with the supporters he's got, so he needs to get more. In order to do that, he is rhetorically moving to the middle on a lot of issues, and the net effect thus far has been so wildly positive that he is actually the frontrunner for the Republican nomination and polls as well as anyone else against Hillary.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

So again, he's characterizing his own position as being extreme? How much sense does that make? At the 43:25 mark of the interview, he criticized the Republicans who don't support any exceptions for abortion. Those were his own words.

You are utilizing a radically weird definition of "criticized" here.

 

[Crashland]

How do you convince your neighbors to take a pro life point of view if you don't actually take a pro life point of view? Rand didn't even make the argument in this interview that an important or main role of government is to protect human life.

The all or nothing approach just doesn't work in politics. Rand is a realist. It's the same thing with foreign policy -- you can't just say "You are for us or you are against us." Not all pro-life people share your exact same views. In fact, most people who identify as pro-life don't believe abortion should be unconditionally banned from conception. That doesn't mean they aren't pro-life. You can have your "100%" pro-life views but you have to win some battles before you can win the war.