[Video] Rand Paul on The Today Show w/ Savannah Guthrie 4/8/15

[specsaregood]

If they had put a MAN in front of him asking the same question, he would have been as adamant and direct.

And that is exactly how he should reply/address it when the spinmeisters try to make a bid deal out of it. Lack of a Y chromosome is no excuse for loutish behavior.

 

[jct74]

Rand Paul Says His Temper Doesn't Discriminate Based On Gender

by Igor Bobic
04/08/2015 6:06 pm EDT




WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is an equal-opportunity hater of journalists, regardless of whether they're men or women.

"I think I've been universally short-tempered with both male and female reporters. I'll own up to that," he said Wednesday in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "I'll have to get better at holding my tongue and holding my temper. But I think it's pretty equal-opportunity."

The Kentucky Republican, who is running for president, got heated with NBC's Savannah Guthrie earlier in the day after the "Today" show anchor prefaced her question by noting the senator's shifting views on Israel, Iran and the defense budget. "No, no, no, no, no, listen, you're editorializing," he told Guthrie.

...

read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/08/rand-paul-temper-reporter_n_7028822.html

 

[Vanguard101]

He either takes a harder line on Iran like he's currently doing, or he has no chance at all to win the GOP nomination. That's the sad state of the Republican Party right now. I still don't believe that Rand would push for war with Iran if he were President.

I guess

 

[grizzums]

I thought this was a terrific response by Rand (in the Wolf interview) to the question about the female interviwers. Good, comfortable body language too. Rand is a quick study. Thumbs up.

 

[JohnGalt1225]

I think Rand wasn't expecting such a ball buster routine from Savannah Guthrie on the Today Show and had come into the interview with his guard down a bit and then was taken aback. It should be a good lesson going forward, the media is not going to go easy on him and he needs to be on guard at all times.

I also think he could do a better job explaining the sanctions and the defense budget increase. I understand the parliamentary tricks he's pulling off and I understand the stances he is taking. However the media will spin it as, and the common voter will interpret it as, "Rand Paul flip flops! He is now for war with Iran and for increasing the Defense budget."

 

[nikcers]

the common voter will interpret it as, "Rand Paul flip flops! He is now for war with Iran and for increasing the Defense budget."

That's what they think, but we know that the common voter is going to see the neo cons ads that say he sides with Obama and doesn't want war at all costs. The average voter will Google Rand Paul flip flops and find flip flops for sale on his website LOL!

 

[Crashland]

Come on, Rand, really? The way he handled this interview was an unforced error - apparently he didn't really learn his lesson from the "shush" last time which he has already said he would do differently. I don't care if he was right or wrong, it's not presidential to lecture someone like that. I can understand a little bit if she had just kept going on and on without ever giving him a chance to respond, but she really hadn't gone on for very long at all before Rand interrupted. You can't expect every interviewer to be unbiased.

 

[BarryDonegan]

I don't think it's off the radar to say you were helping someone run for office. If you act as a surrogate on a campaign, for example, you may be characterizing someone else's position and using the campaign talking points to explain that position as the context of the discussion, which means its inherently knowable that every argument you're making when characterizing someone else's position may not actually be your own opinion.

I represented Ron Paul as a surrogate at local GOP debates in our state as no presidential candidates came to our state, and as a surrogate advocate for a campaign at a GOP event, I was cornered into a particular set of arguments and had to defend those positions colloquially in a way where if someone videotaped me and chopped some things I was saying out of context, it could seem like I was advocating my own position when really I was using an argument to explain Ron Paul's.

He was right to call her out for editorializing. Why invite someone to be your guest then waste their time being interviewed just drawing opinion conclusions and insulting him with them?

 

[MrGoose]

I've noticed that they're trying to push the narrative that Rand has flip flopped on a lot of issues.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I think Rand wasn't expecting such a ball buster routine from Savannah Guthrie on the Today Show and had come into the interview with his guard down a bit and then was taken aback. It should be a good lesson going forward, the media is not going to go easy on him and he needs to be on guard at all times.

I also think he could do a better job explaining the sanctions and the defense budget increase. I understand the parliamentary tricks he's pulling off and I understand the stances he is taking. However the media will spin it as, and the common voter will interpret it as, "Rand Paul flip flops! He is now for war with Iran and for increasing the Defense budget."

Yes. He was probably expecting a softball interview like all the other ones on that show. I love when Rand gets contentious. These libtards can go fly a kite.

 

[serenityrick]

Drudge has Rand on the front page main banner

The conservative commenters are gushing over it so I see this as a total win for Rand.

[FONT=ARIAL,VERDANA,HELVETICA][SIZE=+7]RAND SLAMS MEDIA; PRESS TURNS TOUGH AFTER OBAMA SLUMBER
[/SIZE][/FONT]




[FONT=ARIAL,VERDANA,HELVETICA][SIZE=+7][/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[KingNothing]

Rand's gotta do better. People are going to be dicks to him. He can't interrupt them and talk over them. He's got to laugh them off, point out their editorializing, and then answer whatever question he wants, however he wants.

 

[65fastback2+2]

This wasn't a question. It was an impeachment. She was trying to get him to squirm and get defensive. I think it would be an improvement if he calmly and patiently let her finish. No skin off his back to do that and THEN calmly pointing out that she asked him 4 questions at once on complex issues (Iran, foreign aid to Israel, cutting defense spending, have you mellowed out) and that she was editorializing. This makes her look unreasonable.

thats what I want to see him work on.

"Excuse me, what was the first question you asked again? I want to make sure I respond to it, but 4 questions in a row, I dont want to misrepresent the question"...that puts it ALL back on her.

 

[65fastback2+2]

I don't think it's off the radar to say you were helping someone run for office. If you act as a surrogate on a campaign, for example, you may be characterizing someone else's position and using the campaign talking points to explain that position as the context of the discussion, which means its inherently knowable that every argument you're making when characterizing someone else's position may not actually be your own opinion.

I represented Ron Paul as a surrogate at local GOP debates in our state as no presidential candidates came to our state, and as a surrogate advocate for a campaign at a GOP event, I was cornered into a particular set of arguments and had to defend those positions colloquially in a way where if someone videotaped me and chopped some things I was saying out of context, it could seem like I was advocating my own position when really I was using an argument to explain Ron Paul's.

B-INGO

 

[mac_hine]

I've noticed that they're trying to push the narrative that Rand has flip flopped on a lot of issues.

Because he has.

And he came across rather douchy in the interview.

The fact is, he has flip flopped on a number of issues. He didn't answer any of her questions directly like Ron would have because he's not as principled. Expect more of this.

 

[staerker]

Anyone who watched these interviews knows that this is complete spin, and outright lies.

The media would rather have you scream and babble with the interviewer for ten minutes, making yourself look like an idiot. And if you calmly call them out on it, and tell them you don't want to do that, you're labeled as rude and impatient.

An Empire of Lies...

 

[mac_hine]

Anyone who watched these interviews knows that this is complete spin, and outright lies.

The media would rather have you scream and babble with the interviewer for ten minutes, making yourself look like an idiot. And if you calmly call them out on it, and tell them you don't want to do that, you're labeled as rude and impatient.

An Empire of Lies...

No, she actually made a good point.

 

[staerker]

No, she actually made a good point.

Have you watched his interviews? It is perfectly reasonable to request someone to stop screaming over you. To engage in their tactics is to be uncivil, not the other way around.

 

[mac_hine]

I watched the interview. She spoke over him in the beginning, which was wrong. Then she called him out on flip flopping, and rightly so, and he proceeded to be an asshole.

He was the overall loser in this interview.

 

[Thor]

I've noticed that they're trying to push the narrative that Rand has flip flopped on a lot of issues.

Then he should fill Flip Romney's shoes just fine...