Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016

You have to give Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) credit for recognizing Republicans should be embarrassed by their stand on a woman’s right to choose.

While promoting his Life at Conception Act last year, Paul told CNN that “there are thousands of exceptions” to his bill, which would make all abortions and some forms of birth control illegal. His chief of staff later clarified that the “thousands of exceptions” the senator was referring to were individual cases where the life of the mother might be threatened. So there was one exception, really. And no other exceptions, even in cases of rape or incest.

Now, as the 2016 campaign begins, Paul wants Republicans to hide their obsession with social issues.

“I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues,” he said. He went on to reference “traditional marriage” as an issue young people may feel “festooned” by — using that slang the kids dig so much these days. But in the subtext of words, Republicans heard hints of the so-called “truce” former Indiana governor Mitch Daniels once called for, in favor of focusing on economic issues in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

Daniels’ plea for a truce came before birth control suddenly became a presidential election issue and it seemed as if Republicans wanted to refight battles many thought were settled in the early 1960s.

Even though Rand Paul’s truce didn’t explicitly mention abortion, it sounds a lot like what CNN’s S.E. Cupp recently said:

We, of course, want to make abortion illegal. We can’t be afraid to talk about that, but I think politically right now it’s probably more beneficial for our candidates to say, ‘Look, I’m not going to Washington to overturn decades-old legislation. I’m going to fight to keep abortion safe and rare.’ That’s how we get pro-life candidates elected and in positions of power to actually do something about abortion, to roll it back.

Why would it be to Paul’s advantage to not talk about reproductive rights?

The senator is currently in the process of trying to sell the world on the idea that he can appeal to voters who have refused to consider the GOP in the past, by focusing on privacy and the NSA.

“So my goal in being here is to say that, ‘look, maybe I’m the Republican that can attract votes even at Berkeley,” he said, sitting in Philz Coffee after a recent speech at UC Berkeley.

Paul was speaking to a reporter from the Daily Caller, a publication that recently had to apologize for sexist comments from a reporter with an impressive history of being sexist.


Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 The National Memo
  • Daniel Jones

    Look, Paul Ryan is such a fool he was bleating about how gay marriage would lead to bestiality.

    This, from a representative for Kentucky–where bestiality is legal.

    • dmhlt_66

      Hell, it’s a proud Family Tradition!

      • Grannysmovin

        That explains why Paul Ryan is the way he is.

      • plc97477

        That explains all the horses asses in that part of the country.

    • Joyce

      lol, Daniel

    • howa4x

      Rand Paul is from Kentucky and Paul Ryan is from Wisconsin. I know it’s confusing.

      • Daniel Jones

        That was a pure slip up on names, and I do thank you for catching it. I trust everyone knew what I meant?

        • howa4x

          I knew exactly what you meant and agree completely

        • Dennis Beej

          Same Difference .

    • stcroixcarp

      He is just afraid of the humiliation he would face if even his dog wouldn’t have him.

    • plc97477

      So his take on it is wishful thinking?

      Maybe if we outlaw gay marriage he will have better chances for a date on saturday.

    • JSquercia

      I wondered how Mitch ever got any .I guess now we KNOW

  • Dominick Vila

    It is hard to describe the cynicism of those who clamor for smaller government and a less intrusive government, while pushing for tests to deter abortion, citizenship checks to identify illegal immigrants, and other policies worthy of repressive police states. I guess their proposal is limited to protecting what is important to them, and stepping in everyone else rights or wombs.

    • Grannysmovin

      You are so right he is a false Civil Liberties hero. He once said businesses should be able to turn people away based on the color of their skin. In addition he votes against the Violence Against Women Act. He wants to cut Social Security and Medicare, while preserving tax loopholes for the wealthiest people ever born. His motto is: Civil Rights for me and mine but not for thee and yours.

    • Independent1

      When Republicans keep shouting about wanting smaller government, maybe should make them explain to all of us, if that is true, why is it that when Reagan was in office he expanded the government to the largest size in history (to over 3.1 million) by adding over 280,000 government workers to the payroll; and when Bush Jr was in office he not only added over another 50,000, the policies that he and the irresponsible Congress enacted while he was in office expanded all governments around the country: city, county, state and federal governments increased by over 950,000 workers during Bush’s 8 disasterous years in office.

      While in contrast, Carter reduced the size of government by over 8,000 before Reagan went on a rampage, and while Clinton was in office it shrank by over 380,000 workers; and the size of government has only increased about 27,000 during Obama’s almost 6 years to support expansions in what FEMA supports and for the administration of ACA.

      But when you take everything into account, the size of our government today is 330,000 workers smaller than when Reagan left office in 1989; and today, the size of all governments combined has gone down by over 600,000 workers since Bush Jr. left office.

      When are Republicans going to realize that we’re on to them? The GOP doesn’t want smaller government, it only wants to do away with the parts of government it doesn’t like, so it can greatly expand the roles government plays in are lives for controlling what it is that they do like (including the military).

      • Dominick Vila

        I agree. I was a government contractor at NASA from 1960 to 2001, and we loved it when Republican presidents were elected because we knew our staff was going to grow and money was going to flow uninterrupted and with little monitoring. The moment a Democrat was elected president we began to prepare for staffing reductions, intense scrutiny and budget cuts in general. Some of my colleagues considered Al Gore a hatchet man.
        Hearing Republicans talk about Obama over spending, and increasing the size of government, is almost comical. I am convinced that most Republicans are not interested in facts. They react to emotional issues.

        • Duckbudder

          They wouldn’t know a fact if it bit them in the ass.

      • RobertCHastings

        Lest we get carried away with that particular line of thought, we should bear in mind that our current level of enlisted men in the US Army is at about half of what the Russians can put in the field, and far fewer than can be rushed into combat by the North Koreans. Should the need arise, the US Army would be greatly outgunned, although our bureaucracy is on a par with that of ANYONE.

  • Duckbudder

    PLEASE get rid of the Disney ad at the bottom. Every time I close it Safari crashes.

    • Sand_Cat

      The music sucks, too, and I’m always accidentally moving the mouse over the ad and starting it.

  • criterionstalker

    Once the white guy media gets past their current Paul anti-NSA obsession, they’ll have to delve into all the other areas of his policies which differ not a whit from Ted Cruz. Notice there are almost no black or female libertarians?

  • Jim Myers

    He could take lessons from Pat McCrory of North Carolina.

    During his run for Governor, he stated that he would not sign any legislation that restricts abortions, even though he opposes them.

    However, when the High and Mighty added severe restrictions to abortions in North Carolina with an amendment to a Motorcycle Helmet Safety law, (added during a late night session), he couldn’t find a pen fast enough. He claimed it provided safety measures to the procedure, and therefor was beneficial to the health of women seeking abortion.

    I do view that legislation with some sort of macabre fascination.

    Personally, I do think having an abortion on the back of a motorcycle while riding through the winding roads of rural North Carolina would be very dangerous.

    You can’t just make this stuff up. Look it up on Google.

    (NC – Motorcycle abortion amendment)

  • criterionstalker

    Maybe the white bro media will start reporting on Paul’s hypocrisies.

  • howa4x

    Paul may not get the chance to warm America to him. If the GOP gets control of both houses then the base will demand action on issues like abortion, gun safety, environmental protection to name a few. Then there is always a potential international issue ready to explode. Also the coalition to end Medicare and social security as we know it will be in power and the outside money groups will want action. Paul will move from the gadfly outsider to one making decisions, and people will have 2 years to study what positions he takes on legislation that can pass.. Whatever passes during GOP control will hang around the neck of whoever is running in 2016.

    • Independent1

      My sense is that if the GOP does get control of both houses, they won’t get veto proof control over the Senate; which means that unless Obama really capitulates to some questionable right-wing legislation, the next two years should be very little different than the past 6; except that maybe a lot of the crazy stuff the GOP has been enacting through the House will become national news as the GOP battles with Obama over their craziness.
      I know Obama has waffled some and capitulated to the GOP on some issues against what progressives would prefer (like accepting some cuts to SS and Medicare), but I’m hoping that’s because he was trying to created some sense of partisanship in order to get something passed that was workable. But if the GOP gains control of both Houses, then trying to create a sense of partisanship goes out the window, and it should be clear to Obama that the vast majority of the legislation that’s been passed by the House would be detrimental to our country’s future and he will need to use his veto pen.

      • plc97477

        Plus no matter how stupid the states are in voting for the crazies, the country as a whole will not elect another gotp president for the foreseeable future and the Dems should control the veto for some time to come.

    • demz taters

      [email protected] actually studying the positions that any GOPer actually takes. These are people who latch on to the rhetoric about “small government,” fiscal responsibility, family values and LIBERTY! and completely miss the obvious fact that by their actions, Republicans care about none of these things. It’s discouraging that so many people still believe in the branding even if the product bears no relation.


    Pro-life senator Paul, can be counted upon to oppose anything that benefits living, breathing children, and he couldn’t care less about the physical and mental health of the mother.

    • Kim Serrahn

      so true.

    • Annemb

      Absolutely! Care about the fetus, starve the child.

  • Independent1

    What is it going to take for the GOP to realize that banning abortions doesn’t eliminate abortions? And, in fact, studies have shown that abortions occur more often where they are illegal. And why is that, because what Republicans refuse to believe, is that legalized abortion clinics to in fact try to talk women out of getting an abortion before they perform one.

    So without legalized abortion clinics, women who determine they do not want to carry a fetus to term for a number of reasons (which is basically no ones business but theirs), women who make that determination are not going to be detered just because it’s illegal in the state or country where they live. If it is illegal and they can afford to travel where it isn’t illegal, that’s what they’ll do.

    And for those women that determine they want an abortion but can’t afford to travel, they’re going to go out and find someone who will try to abort their fetus on the cheap. And this is exactly what was happening before Roe vs Wade when thousands of women got abortions from quack doctors, and unfortuntely, thousands of women bled to death due to a botched obortion. Back in the 40s, 50s and early 60s, news articles reporting that women were found dead in back alleys, warehouses, and many other less sanitary places were commonplace.

    It is returning to this very wrong scenario (more women dying from botched abortions) that the GOP infatuation with making abortions illegal is trying to return our country. Unfortunately, repealing Roe vs Wade is just one of the many misguided policies that today’s Republican party is trying to inflict on America.

    • plc97477

      The only objection I have to what you posted is calling the butchers that killed so many females back in the ?good old day? were quack doctors. I would rather call them butchers cus that is what they were.

      • Independent1

        I certainly can’t disagree with you.

  • Dump The GOP In 2014

    Rand Paul Wants Government Out Of Your Cellphone and in your Womb to make room for the GOP

  • Fairplay4

    The GOP headline grabbers appeal to low IQ and racially biased segments of the population. Some of these Grabbers, e.g. Carson, hope to get on the 2016 ticket. The role of Government is preserve and protect the interests of the population, and, if this requires expanded government then so be it.

    • Independent1

      To support your comments on “The GOP headline grabbers appeal to low IQ and racially biased segments of the population”, here are some excerpts from one of many studies done which show that low IQ does, in fact, influence being conservative and racist:

      There’s no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

      The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

      “Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood,” he said.

      • Fairplay4

        Thanks for the supporting information.

  • rzinny1

    If religion, the media, AND parents did their job properly, we would not need for abortions. As a roman catholic, I don’t believe in abortions. But unfortuneately everyone don’t believe the same things, and don’t have the capability to handle a unwanted pregnancy. So why is Rand Paul playing God, Judge and Jury. Reason : he wants to become a “father” of our country. And “father knows best” Like most of the teenagers do with their fathers, here a idea, just don’t listen to him, ignore him, and do not vote for him.

    • Sand_Cat

      “Unfortunately” people don’t all believe the same things? Ever think how boring the world would be if they did? Not to say I think every belief qualifies someone to rule over the rest of us.

      • demz taters

        Boring and predictable is what conservatives crave. These are not resilient people who cope well with change – if they did, they wouldn’t be conservatives! They’re more comfortable coping with the complexities of life with soothing fantasies about returning us to some golden moral age in American history that never existed.

  • terry b

    Why would anyone want to reverse one of the finest Supreme court decisions of the last 41 years? Must be religious zealotry. The republicans kind of remind me of the Mullahs in Iran. All opinions must be based on religious beliefs. Never thought that religious beliefs could be compared to a form of mental illness. Lets keep the country moving forward. We shouldn’t want to go backward as the current GOP wishes to take us. Anymore nut cases running for office will cripple us for a long time should they achieve power.

  • Everything about Tea Party libertarianism can be summed up as this: When they say “keep government out of our business,” they literally mean THEIR business.

    They don’t care about government intervention encroaching on our privacy — on the contrary, they’re actually all for it. All they REALLY want is for the government not to do anything that might prevent them from making money. Which is why they’re for putting the government in your bedroom and your uterus, but against putting the government on Wall Street.

  • dtgraham

    “We, of course, want to make abortion illegal.” “We can’t be afraid to talk about that.”

    Of course they have to be afraid to talk about that. You can’t make abortion illegal without serious criminal justice penalties. If it’s murder or manslaughter, then the law has to reflect that. Political campaigns based partly on sentencing women to 25 years to life for home made or back alley abortions, out of desperation, are going to run into some problems to say the least.

  • jointerjohn

    Senator Paul recognizes that he has ridden into a box canyon by proclaiming to be a libertarian while simultaneously being a republican. The two cannot be reconciled to each other now that the republican party has developed itself into a party of church-ladies who can’t keep their noses out of our private affairs. They have spent nearly forty years morphing into the party of Pat Robertson and James Dobson and ain’t gonna throw that away now. Can anyone imagine the Southern Baptist Convention and Assemblies of God agreeing to drug legalization? I predict that his libertarian leanings will lead to him being eviscerated by his own party long before the 2016 nomination process.

  • RobertCHastings

    Maybe, he just thinks that a cellphone should be in every woman’s womb. Perhaps this is some new far right wing assumption that with a cellphone in every woman’s womb, the government (or some conservative NGO) can keep track of fetuses from conception to birth, basically the only period regarding which they seem to show concern for them.

  • Hadris Ellsberg

    Although competition’s virtues are proven by history, some rules and enforcement are important to help keep competitors from falling prey to their primitive anti-competitive instincts.