When Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) induced an abortion-related gaffe from Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, pro-life activists hailed him as one of their most effective messengers in presidential politics — but he doesn’t intend to build his 2016 campaign around such fights.
Rand owned her and by consequence the entire abortion debate from a long time ago but still they go on with their shit... in their portrayal.
“I didn’t run for office because of the social issues,” Paul said Monday during a question-and-answer session with conservative-radio host Dom Giordano at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia. “It wasn’t what got me to leave my practice. I ran for office mainly because I became concerned that we were going to destroy the country with debt. That we would borrow so much money that we would just destroy the currency . . . There’s also a chance that we get so far overdrawn that we have a calamity. In 2008, we were very close to a calamity.”
The exchange began when Giordano asked if, in light of the House passage of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, abortion should be “handled” at the state level or at the federal level under the Fourteenth Amendment.
“I think best by the states,” Paul replied. “I think the question that still divides us, and it’s a difficult question, is when does life begin . . . I’m an ophthalmologist and I see one and two-pound babies in the neonatal nursery. I look into their eyes and I try to prevent a form of blindness that is now preventable. And everybody agrees that that one-pound baby has rights. If someone were to try to hurt that one-pound baby in the neonatal nursery, it’s a problem, that baby has rights. But we — I think somewhat inconsistently — say that a seven-pound baby, at birth or just before birth, has no rights.”
htxp://www.nationalreview.com/corner/418599/quote-may-come-back-haunt-rand-paul-joel-gehrke
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/418599/quote-may-come-back-haunt-rand-paul-joel-gehrke
Says this neocon rag that's trying to exploit this where nothing is really there. Fiscals trump socials esp when the social comment/stance isn't a complete negative. Turning a total positive of fiscal conservatism against those that are in it only for social conism is typical of the neocons that only care about foreign policy hawkism just to obfuscate the big picture. The post is there but I left the link to you if you want to reward these kinds w/ your grace by taking the extra step.