Rand Paul remarks on abortion

[Brett85]

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.

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

 

[menciusmoldbug]

That's certainly not how it came across to me, and I've listened to it multiple times. He only said that he "personally believes" that life begins at conception. It sounded to me like he's personally pro life but doesn't want to force his views on other people. To me, that's not pro life. I don't care what his personal religious beliefs are. I care about his policies.

[h=1]Senator Rand Paul introduces Personhood bill[/h]

 

[Brett85]

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.

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.

 

[Brett85]

[h=1]Senator Rand Paul introduces Personhood bill[/h]

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

 

[Crashland]

That's certainly not how it came across to me, and I've listened to it multiple times. He only said that he "personally believes" that life begins at conception. It sounded to me like he's personally pro life but doesn't want to force his views on other people. To me, that's not pro life. I don't care what his personal religious beliefs are. I care about his policies.

If there was a bill that banned abortion from conception, with no exceptions, and it SOMEHOW passed the House and the Senate, do you really think Rand Paul would veto it?

 

[menciusmoldbug]

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.

I agree.

[h=1]Senator Rand Paul introduces Personhood bill[/h]

 

[Brett85]

If there was a bill that banned abortion from conception, with no exceptions, and it SOMEHOW passed the House and the Senate, do you really think Rand Paul would veto it?

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.

 

[Origanalist]

If there was a bill that banned abortion from conception, with no exceptions, and it SOMEHOW passed the House and the Senate, do you really think Rand Paul would veto it?

Oh hell, he doesn't care. He just wants to jump up and down.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

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.

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.

It just seems to me like people are spinning his answer to make it sound better.

Well, it seems that way because that is in fact exactly what we are doing. And you should be helping us.

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.

Indeed, but their attacks will be dishonest and misleading and you should help us to fight them by clarifying what exactly is going on here. Before you can do that, of course, you have to understand what's going on.

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.

I agree that what he's doing is risky, but it is also necessary. Rand is trying to walk a tightrope here, and it's inevitable that in doing so he will lose the support of extreme, unsophisticated voters. But he has a strong chance of gaining support from others at the same time. Time will tell whether what he's doing is wise. I happen to think it is, but I freely confess that I may be wrong.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

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.

 

[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?