It Continues to Be a Real Mystery Why Republicans Aren't Connecting with a Majority of Female Voters

[Content Note: Misogyny.]


Above is a screen cap from an interview Senator Rand Paul did with CNBC Anchor Kelly Evans yesterday, during which he actually shushed her, told her to "calm down," and lectured her on how to do her job.

A couple of thoughts:

1. Senator Paul would never do this to a male interviewer. At least not in this "angry dad" tone that he's using with Evans.

2. He's lecturing her on her supposed lack of objectivity, when objectivity is exactly what it's called when a news anchor grills their subject over allegations of impropriety instead of pulling their punches out of deference. He's using the Fox News definition of objectivity, which is "kiss the ass of your Republican guest."

3. Watching him get this fucking agitated with fairly softball questions about his background suggests to me he will implode during a real presidential run. Especially since now every news organization worth their salt knows all they have to do is send out a woman to question him, and he won't be able to contain himself.

An edited down version of the interview is below, followed by the transcript.

Kelly Evans: But I just have to begin by asking: Did you really just say to Laura Ingraham that you think most vaccines in this country should be, quote, 'voluntary'?

Rand Paul: Well, I guess being for freedom would be really unusual. I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.

[edit]

Evans: Senator, I'm sure you know that most of the research on this indicates that [tax loopholes allowing companies that have cash overseas to bring it home at a holiday corporate tax rate] actually cost more money over the long term than they save.

Paul: Well, that's incorrect.

Evans: Are you saying your plan will be different?

Paul: [waves his hands] You're, you're, oh ho ho, let's go back again. Your premise and your question is mistaken, okay?

Evans: All right.

[edit]

Paul: Let me finishing saying—hey, let me finish, hey, Kelly.

Evans: I'm sorry, go ahead.

Paul: [puts his finger to his lips and makes shushing noise] Quiet. Calm down a bit here, Kelly.

Evans: [laughs] I'm sorry.

Paul: Let me answer the question.

[edit; at this point Kelly has asked about a Washington Post story that mentioned a potential conflict of interest concerning Paul's ophthalmology group in Kentucky]

Paul: So, you've taken something and you've twisted it— [crosstalk] Well, yeah, you have. [Evans protests while Paul waves his hand around] No, you have.

Evans: —was to create competition, and make it more fair for younger doctors; I'm only asking about the part that they raised issue with, which was the board: They said, look, it's a bunch of his family and friends [crosstalk] just on the conflict of interest point.

Paul: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right. And you've taken an interview, and you've made an interview into something where we got no useful information, because you were argumentative, and you started out with so many presuppositions that were incorrect.

[edit]

Evans: Understood. And, Senator, before we let you go, I can tell you're fired up—I apologize, ahh, for the extent to which I'm the reason for that—but what about twenty sixteen?

Paul: Well—

Evans: I mean, is this year, uh, with an eye towards you entering twenty sixteen as a presidential candidate or maybe getting drafted into one of the campaigns?

Paul: Uh, we're thinking about it, and we're looking around the United States and seeing if the message resonates. Part of the problem is that you end up having interviews like this, where the interview's so slanted and full of distortions that you don't get useful information. I think this is what's bad about TV sometimes. So frankly I think if we do this again, you need to try to start out with a little more objectivity going into the interview.

Evans: I will certainly try my best, Senator. We hope you will come back and give us that chance.