Rand Paul: I wouldn't try to ban abortion or overturn Roe v Wade

[Never]

Wow, he really doesn't want that Nomination does he?

Maybe he thinks that he can run above the fray of the Republican primaries. If the GOP has a lot of serious candidates who are running to the right in order to win primaries in 2016, Paul could be viewed as the most reasonable voice.

But this is the Republican party, where you're not allowed to support abortion.

Someone needs to notify Governor Brian Sandoval pronto then.

It might be a risky for a Republican to take a pro-abortion view, but I don't think it is a dealbreaker. I am pro-life, but I don't think that I would rule out a candidate simply because they don't share my view on abortion, though the candidate would have to articulate their perspective on the issue intelligently for me to support him or her. Paul's attempt to appear ambivalent about abortion might not play well in the Deep South, but it would probably help him in some of the early primary states like New Hampshire and Nevada.

[Maxwell]

I hope he doesn't.

[Badger]

Weird. I'm trying to see how he believes this will help more than hurt in the primaries. Maybe it's part of his effort to reach out to Wall Street establishment types?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Weird. I'm trying to see how he believes this will help more than hurt in the primaries. Maybe it's part of his effort to reach out to Wall Street establishment types?

He was at a university being interviewed by Axelrod.  He likes to try to put things in terms that are relatable to his audience.

[GaussLaw]

I hate abortion as any sane person should.  I hate Roe v. Wade.  However, I think Roe v. Wade is a necessary evil.  Without it, there would be many back-alley unsterilized abortions unnecessarily putting the life of the woman at risk.  Abortions would not be lower with or without Roe, it's just more sterile with Roe.  It reminds me of the Prohibition in the pre-WW2 era.  Drug use did not go down during Prohibition, it was just mostly hidden.

Problem is, NARAL now admits they faked those numbers that claimed there were massive amounts of back-alley abortions before Roe vs. Wade.

(And I'm a pro-choice Democrat, mind you.  But liars are liars, and pro-choice/legal abortion groups are notorious for lying.)

[Badger]

Weird. I'm trying to see how he believes this will help more than hurt in the primaries. Maybe it's part of his effort to reach out to Wall Street establishment types?

He was at a university being interviewed by Axelrod.  He likes to try to put things in terms that are relatable to his audience.

A politician is NOT going to flip (or heavily shift) their view on abortion just to better "connect" with a crowd they're speaking to.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Weird. I'm trying to see how he believes this will help more than hurt in the primaries. Maybe it's part of his effort to reach out to Wall Street establishment types?

He was at a university being interviewed by Axelrod.  He likes to try to put things in terms that are relatable to his audience.

A politician is NOT going to flip (or heavily shift) their view on abortion just to better "connect" with a crowd they're speaking to.

What specifically did he say is a substantive flip from what he has said before (and misleading thread title doesn't count)?

[Mordecai]

At least he's taking a more libertarian position on the issue. A federal abortion amendment is not libertarian...

It actually is

If the Taxpayers' Party had existed in 1988, Ron and Rand Paul would have never referred to themselves as libertarian. They're paleoconservatives, cut from the same cloth as Pat Buchanan.

Um so what are you saying?

What I just said. The only reason Paul ran as a Libertarian was because it was the only alternative right-wing party at the time. If the Taxpayers' Party (now the Constitution Party) had existed he would have probably gone with them instead, because they're closer to his ideology.

[Hamster]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how this is a massively outside the Republican mainstream. He's just signalling he won't be campaigning on abortion.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

He's lying. He once tried to sneak fetal personhood into a flood aid bill. Or something porkish like that.

[Lief 🗽]

So is he not going to appoint Supreme Court justices? Or what? Because if Kennedy, Ginsburg or Breyer retire then he gets to appoint the 5th vote for making abortion illegal in half the country (nevermind that it's already de fact illegal again in a handful of states).

[Badger]

Weird. I'm trying to see how he believes this will help more than hurt in the primaries. Maybe it's part of his effort to reach out to Wall Street establishment types?

He was at a university being interviewed by Axelrod.  He likes to try to put things in terms that are relatable to his audience.

A politician is NOT going to flip (or heavily shift) their view on abortion just to better "connect" with a crowd they're speaking to.

What specifically did he say is a substantive flip from what he has said before (and misleading thread title doesn't count)?

Saying he would only seek 'incrimental' measures between 'the two extremems' is MARKEDLY different than the guy who introduced the Life At Conception Act.

Anti-abortion activists like Tony Perkins seem to agree, fwiw.

[Bull Moose Base]

If you think Rand Paul is a more likely nominee than Ted Cruz you are ridiculous.

[Rockefeller GOP]

If you think Rand Paul is a more likely nominee than Ted Cruz you are ridiculous.

Ted Cruz will not win the nomination.  Period.  Period.  PERIOD.  Keep dreaming.

[windjammer]

This guy is definitely pointless.

He will lose badly.
A shame he won't get the republican nomination, he would be a total disaster