Rand Paul and the Hungry Press

The New York Times complains that Candidate for the GOP Nomination, Rand Paul, has become “testy” in interviews. Apparently, over the past several years, the press has been wearing a leash, and suddenly turned aggressive, when Paul took center stage. In a few interviews, the earnest journalist spluttered furiously at the Senator with a barrage of questions – and was surprised when he has the unmitigated gall to appear somewhat authoritarian..

Can one blame the press? After all, they haven’t had a real interview in years with a political figure of merit, so, they are somewhat unchained for what seems like the first time, and never being pushed back, are aghast that someone might do so. To the press: “welcome to the real world”.

In the instance where the media is full of tomes on the Senator’s sexist demeanor to two female reporters, they must have failed to listen to the painful manner in which they phrased (using that word politely) what should have been a question, but came across as a litany of nagging, shrill and senseless jargon. Regardless of the fact that they should have used the opportunity for a “gotcha moment”, they were either wasting both their time and the Senators for one of two reason, the first, being incompetence due to the inability to reign in a desire to get the man, and the second, by design, so that the mighty female demo might just buy into the “mean and cranky towards an idiot equals sexist angle.

Difficult to tell.

Either way, the words “unfair” have been uttered by those women who don’t normally follow Politics other than the evening news. This bodes well for Paul, as those who are furiously condemning him for having a “short temper” may be missing the bigger picture. Paul, who is no dummy, merely points to the press the majority either ignore or despise, with a few tolerating and fewer applauding the very same.

It would be refreshing to see this same journalist treating say, a political opposition candidate in the same manner. But that would endanger one or even both of the following: their ideology or their job.

As a feminist, it galls me to hear something that should be called out as ridiculous on the part of the screamer, what it is, she lost control, instead of pointing the “sexist” finger at the target, girls, get a grip. Had a man been in the same seat, and acted in the same manner, perhaps he’d get the same push back from the Senator. Merely look at the difference in the mannerisms of Sean Hannity, who in the Times article was said to receive a ‘testy” answer, but, apparently the author did not watch the interview, Hannity moved on and the interview was “cordial. Compare to Savannah Guthrie, who asked not one, but a never take a breath, barrage of questions – unprofessional, and sadly lacking. She deserved what was dished out.

They may call the Senator Cranky – but the base, and one might suggest the general public is not buying it. It appears, after watching years of a benign and shackled press, that they are the ones being the bully. Go figure.

As the next announcement is made, be in from a Democrat, or yet another GOP candidate (and there will be plenty) Savannah will have the opportunity to either barrage them both in a bi-partisan manner or make it extremely plain that she favors one party over the other, losing credibility. Perhaps when she has the next opportunity – she might review some tapes of Barbara Walter.