BACKGROUND: This week, Republican Presidential aspirant Rand Paul got into yet another testy exchange with a female reporter, lecturing NBC anchor Savannah Guthrie on how to conduct an interview.
- This isn’t the first instance of Rand Paul having an angry and condescending interview with a female reporter. Rand Paul shushed CNBC reporter Kelly Evans during a tense interview.
- Even Fox News took notice, with anchor Megyn Kelly telling Rand Paul that “those women were not yelling at you” in regards to the exchanges with Savannah Guthrie and Kelly Evans.
- Rand Paul is forcing the question of what his problem with women is to the forefront of the dialogue.
- Why is Rand Paul so hostile towards female reporters and what are his motivations?
- Rand Paul’s sexist and over the top reaction to serious questions from female reporters is just another indication that Rand is in over his head and unable to address the issues that matter to Americans.
Female Reporters:
Rand Paul shushed CNBC reporter Kelly Evans during a tense interview. “Evans: Obviously the big news of the day here is the proposal with you and Barbara Boxer that would allow our companies which have about $2 trillion worth of cash overseas, to bring it home, a one-time holiday, I think at a 6.5 percent corporate tax rate. Senator, I’m sure you know that most of the research on this indicates that these actually cost more money over the long term than they save. Are you saying that your plan will be different? Paul: Well that is incorrect. Let’s go back again. Your premise and your question is mistaken. Evans: All right. Paul: Most of the research doesn’t indicate that. In fact, there is a prominent study by Robert Shapiro looking at the holiday in 2005, when we lowered the rate to five percent, and his conclusion was that it brought $300 billion of new capital home. And then it brought it about $30 billion of new tax revenue. The whole purpose of doing this is to bring money home. There’s two trillion – Evans: Right, but it works that first year, senator. But their concern is down the road. Paul: Hey, let me finish. Hey, hey, Kelly. Evans: I’m sorry, go ahead. Paul: Calm down a bit here, Kelly. Let me answer the question.” [“Closing Bell,” CNBC, 2/2/15]
Rand Paul lectured NBC anchor Savannah Guthrie on how to conduct an interview. “GUTHRIE: Once drastically wanted to cut defense spending and now you want to increase it 16%. I just wonder if you’ve mellowed out. PAUL: Before we go through a litany of — why don’t you let me explain instead of talking over me, okay? Before we through a litany of things you say I’ve changed on, why don’t you ask me a question, have I changed my opinion. GUTHRIE: Have you changed your opinion? >> PAUL: That would be sort of a better way to approach an interview. GUTHRIE: Is Iran still not a threat? PAUL: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, listen. You’ve editorialized, let me answer a question. You ask a question and you say, ‘Have your views changed?’ Instead of editorializing and saying my views have changed.” [“Today,” NBC, 4/8/15]
Megyn Kelly to Rand Paul on his interviews with Kelly Evans and Savannah Guthrie: “Those women were not yelling at you.” “PAUL: When an interview’s contentious and when an interview is full of a lot of opinion and editorializing and it’s a long-winded question that’s setting you up to say, well, you know, you’ve been beating your wife all these years and when are you going to stop beating your wife? It’s very difficult in those contentious interviews. I don’t think it makes for good TV on both sides. And I do lose my cool. And I lost — I do lose my temper some time. And I should be better at that, but the thing is you don’t get any visual clues. And it’s much harder to have, I think usually when you’re sitting down with someone it’s easier to have a reasonable conversation. But you’ve watched TV. You see TV where it’s just yelling back and forth. And I don’t think people like that necessarily. But, you know, I wasn’t -KELLY: Those women were not yelling at you. They were not yelling at you. PAUL: Well, I wasn’t yelling at them either. Basically it was a talking over each other kind of thing.” [“The Kelly File,” Fox News, 4/8/15]
Megyn Kelly asked Rand Paul if he regretted his behavior. “KELLY: But do you regret it? PAUL: I don’t think it makes for good TV. KELLY: Do you regret shushing the one reporter and jumping on it — Savannah Guthrie’s not exactly known for her, you know, aggressive unfairness.” [“The Kelly File,” Fox News, 4/8/15]
Megyn Kelly, to Rand Paul: “The question some people are asking about you is whether you’re ready for primetime.” “KELLY: I know but we only got a few minutes with you. So, we got to get in, we got to get out. I’ve got eight minutes with you. So, there’s not a lot of time for niceties. You know, you understand the position the reporters are in. PAUL: I do. KELLY: And the question, I’m going to get to the woman thing in a minute. But the question some people are asking about you is whether you’re ready for primetime because it’s only going to get worse. You know it’s only going to get worse. It’s going to get more contentious. When you get up on that stage for those presidential debates you’re going to get pounded. It’s going to be ugly. That’s the way the process works now. And you told Hannity last night you can’t get overly emotional. Did you get overly emotional?” [“The Kelly File,” Fox News, 4/8/15]
Other testy moments:
Rand Paul, to CNBC contributor John Harwood: “Don’t you have something better to read than a bunch of crap from people who don’t like me?” “‘Don’t you have something better to read than a bunch of crap from people who don’t like me?’ he snapped at John Harwood, a journalist for CNBC and for The New York Times, when asked in 2013 about a former aide with a history of racially provocative remarks.” [New York Times, 4/8/15]
Rand Paul said accusations of plagiarism against him were the work of “a bunch of hacks and haters.” “Well, we’re going to have to footnote things, like I say. But here’s the problem, George. Ninety-eight percent of my speeches are extemporaneous. I spoke for 13 hours on the floor extemporaneous. And so it is a little bit hard to footnote things accurately. And I will give you an example. I love the quote from Niall Ferguson, you know, referring to the president, saying, the deficit is declining, and now Ferguson says, yes, from super-enormous to really, really gigantic. And I love the quote. But is that enough or do I have to say, as I heard or read on an AP story about Niall Ferguson, or as I heard when he was on with George Stephanopoulos? I mean, there is a sort of a certain degree when we’re going to say, is that nitpicking? So is referring to the person enough or do I have to refer to the original source, where I got the quote from, the person? In an academic paper, even if you paraphrase something, don’t even use the same words, anything paraphrased has to be sourced. So when I wrote scientific papers, I sometimes had statements with eight footnotes for one sentence. Is that what you want me to do for my speeches? If it’s required, I’ll do it. But I think I’m being unfairly targeted by a bunch of hacks and haters. And I’m just not going to put up with people casting aspersions on my character.” [“This Week,” ABC, 11/3/13; 131103_27_27146_PAUL]
Rand Paul hung up on radio host Howie Carr after a heated conversation. Paul’s appearance on the Howie Carr radio show in January of 2015 was heated and confrontational, with the candidate repeatedly having to take back his words and abruptly hanging up at the end. [Howie Carr Show, 1/7/15; 150107_JF_856_A]
Politico: “Reporters who cover Paul have called him ‘thin-skinned,’ ‘sensitive,’ ‘wary’ and ‘prickly.’” “Reporters who cover Paul have called him ‘thin-skinned,’ ‘sensitive,’ ‘wary’ and ‘prickly.’ Others say he and his team will blame the media for his own mistakes, at some points freezing out reporters for perceived slights.” [Politico, 4/6/15]
Politico: Rand Paul “lashed out” during a Yahoo! News interview when asked about his position on U.S. aid to Israel. “When Yahoo! News asked Paul whether he still believed the United States should stop sending federal aid to Israel, he denied he’d made the proposal. After being pointed to interviews and videos showing that he had said as much previously, Paul lashed out. ‘You can mistake my position, but then I’ll answer the question,’ Paul said. ‘That has not been a position — a legislative position — we have introduced to phase out or get rid of Israel’s aid. That’s the answer to that question. Israel has always been a strong ally of ours and I appreciate that. I voted just this week to give money — more money — to the Iron Dome, so don’t mischaracterize my position on Israel.’” [Politico, 4/6/15]
Associated Press: Rand Paul “grew testy” when pressed on abortion exceptions during an interview. “Paul has said previously the issue is too divisive to expect changes in federal abortion law. That has led some religious conservatives to raise questions about his commitment to their cause despite a voting record in their favor. Paul grew testy when pressed in the interview on the question of exceptions. ‘I gave you about a five-minute answer. Put in my five-minute answer,’ he said.” [Associated Press, 4/8/15]