[Video] Rand Paul on CBS This Morning 9/15/14

Walking that tightrope with the political winds just a-howling.

Folks, this is still 2014. This will be one looooooong campaign...
 
Ummmm......CBS keeps trying to get him to say he changed his views. How is saying we shouldn't arm the islamists a change of position? Then, unable to shake him on that, they try to tie him to same sex marriage?
 
Ummmm......CBS keeps trying to get him to say he changed his views. How is saying we shouldn't arm the islamists a change of position? Then, unable to shake him on that, they try to tie him to same sex marriage?

Didn't CBS bring 'gotcha journalism' to television in the first place? I never saw Sixty Minutes let the facts get in the way of a chance to holler, 'Gotcha!'
 
I like how he still comes out and doesn't want aid to Israel. Thank you Rand

Of course that was the first question they asked after the supposed main topic of ISIS. It's such a priority for them. Pretty much their first priority. They must make them Israel-firsters. Hannity would fit right in with them.
 
Ummmm......CBS keeps trying to get him to say he changed his views. How is saying we shouldn't arm the islamists a change of position? Then, unable to shake him on that, they try to tie him to same sex marriage?

Rand is certainly willing to run their gauntlets.
 
Dayum, Rand Knocked all the gotcha questions out of the park. And I just loved how he kept up bring up Hillary and the air quotes around moderate liberals was the icing on the cake. This is going to drive liberals and muwahid type neocons crazy
 
First question: "Tell us how you have changed your views"

lol, sweet question Charlie (#douche)

Great answer(s) from Rand. Voters have no problem changing their views as long as there's a good reason to do so (#evolving)

But yeah, this was a definite attempt at a hit piece against Rand (as was the WashPost article). Rand just needs to keep calm, keep positive and keep pushing his message (and keep punching back at journalists like Rose who try to skew his positions and/or push Establishment talking points)
 
Wow. Huge props to Rand on this one, he is definitely becoming pro at handling extremely biased questions. I would have been totally flustered at those stupid leading questions, one right after another
 
That was one of the most intense and trap laden interview I've ever seen. They are trying to get him to seem like a flip flop like Romney, but being a flip flopper didnt stop Romney from getting elected. Republicans love it when someone berates Obama and Hillary. ALTHOUGH, it would've been ideal to go after some republicans too. But politically, it is probably better not to.

I think Rand is right. A few years ago, he would be against arming rebels or bombing assad. But because of the decisions made in the RECENT past (Obama/Hillary), he may have to go after ISIS if he was president now. ISIS will probably not ignore USA after it had bomb ISIS even if USA stops. He would probably not dispose of dictators like Ghaddafi or Saddam.
 
Rand knocked that one out of the park.

Sure, the panel tried to squeeze him into the "changing views" corner - however, THEY LET HIM ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!!!

That's a big difference from the loud-mouths like Bill O'Reilly-suckhole who NEVER lets someone finish a thought.

Like it or not, "He's changing his views!" (read "He is floppin' like Mitt Romney!") is the media narrative right now.... Rand has got to address it.

I've got no problem with the way the panel behaved - as long as they let Rand answer the friggin' question, he will smack that thing out of the park and take a leisurely jog around the bases with high-fives all around. All good!

Good practice for Rand as well.

p.s. Have you ever heard a presidential candidate with as genuine and well-thought-out command of the issues?? He's a chip off the 'ol block, I'm telling ya!
 
Last edited:
It is also clear from this interview that Rand has a clear strategy on who he wants to attack. Always attack Clinton. Don't attack the person asking you the question. Notice how after they accuse him several times of changing his positions, he responds with "You know what I think is funny about it is, they're all saying 'You've changed, you're no longer an isolationist, therefore you're on two sides of an issue.' And all I've been saying for 5 years of public life is I'm not an isolationist." He didn't attack the interviewers specifically, he just used the general term "they" - who he basically defined afterwards to be unreasonable people who haven't paid attention for the last 5 years. This is important because of how it comes across to the viewer.
 
It is also clear from this interview that Rand has a clear strategy on who he wants to attack. Always attack Clinton. Don't attack the person asking you the question. Notice how after they accuse him several times of changing his positions, he responds with "You know what I think is funny about it is, they're all saying 'You've changed, you're no longer an isolationist, therefore you're on two sides of an issue.' And all I've been saying for 5 years of public life is I'm not an isolationist." He didn't attack the interviewers specifically, he just used the general term "they" - who he basically defined afterwards to be unreasonable people who haven't paid attention for the last 5 years. This is important because of how it comes across to the viewer.
Yep. Great observation.

I'm going to chalk that up to some seriously good coaching. Do I detect Doug Wead in the coach's corner?
 
It is also clear from this interview that Rand has a clear strategy on who he wants to attack. Always attack Clinton. Don't attack the person asking you the question. Notice how after they accuse him several times of changing his positions, he responds with "You know what I think is funny about it is, they're all saying 'You've changed, you're no longer an isolationist, therefore you're on two sides of an issue.' And all I've been saying for 5 years of public life is I'm not an isolationist." He didn't attack the interviewers specifically, he just used the general term "they" - who he basically defined afterwards to be unreasonable people who haven't paid attention for the last 5 years. This is important because of how it comes across to the viewer.

Spot on. If Rand can continue to carry himself like this, it will eventually become impossible for LIVs (even those leaning DEM) not to notice how transparently partisan and oddly antagonistic towards Rand MSMers like Rose & Co. are. Why? Because without an on-air incident/example of Rand becoming "flustered" and/or "angry" (that they can then replay 24/7 for at least a news cycle), the MSMers won't be able to convinceviewers that it's ok for them to treat Rand with so much open disdain.

American LIVs love to support an "outsider", "underdog" and/or "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" - and if the MSM keeps it up, Rand's going to own that mantel.

Yep. Great observation.

I'm going to chalk that up to some seriously good coaching. Do I detect Doug Wead in the coach's corner?

#DougWeadFTW :cool:

Related note... Think Rand ever watches/reviews old game tape?? If I were on his media team, I'd totally have Rand re-watch a few greatest hits before every big interview to remind him of how positively people respond to him when he answers questions (even combative/tough ones) like he did in the two Frank Luntz panels:


 
Last edited:
Yep. Great observation.

I'm going to chalk that up to some seriously good coaching. Do I detect Doug Wead in the coach's corner?

Doug Wead is probably one of the few people I'd like to see from the 2012 Ron Paul Campaign working closely with Rand in 2016. There are others, but I think having a good PR officer is above all most important. You need good PR to spin things to benefit you. Wead uses a lot of pop culture and references to use as analogies and comparison for arguments, I like that.

He'd be a funny ass white house correspondence...

but yeah, you don't want a dumbass representing you say the wrong things that could hurt you.
 
Back
Top