Never Accept the Left’s False Premise

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

by: Brent Smith

I’ve not been a huge fan of Rand Paul over the years, but that’s changing, as he is one of only a select few who is fighting back against the assault of leftism and leftist so-called journalists.

Leftist “journalists” like George Snuffleupagus, former hack hit man who ran the Bill Clinton “war Room,” and now effectively runs the ABC News leftist attack squad, whose only job for the past 4+ years was to torpedo and sink the Trump presidency and now the Trump legacy.

But Rand Paul would have none of it, displaying brilliantly the reasoned tactic that Rush Limbaugh has championed for so many years – never just accept the left’s premise as being factual when they question, I mean grill you.

from Kylee Zempel at the Federalist:

Rand Paul’s Cage Match With George Stephanopoulos Is A Pattern Everyone On The Right Should Follow

Every single Republican lawmaker and figurehead should be required to watch the Rand Paul clip as a clinic for how to take on the left-wing media.

Rand Paul’s patience ran out this week when he made an appearance on ABC with George Stephanopoulos and the latter exchanged journalistic inquiry for partisan hackery. The ensuing fight, however, was a case study in what the media has become and how all conservatives who hit the airwaves ought to take them on.

Rather than pose legitimate questions to the Kentucky senator, Stephanopoulos, who made his money as a Clinton-era Democratic operative before jumping over to the world of “objective journalism,” assumed one of the corporate media’s favorite stances. Let’s call it “media antagonism.”

It isn’t about asking the tough questions. Hard-hitting questions from a journalist are good, although they should be applied to both sides. No, this problem occurs when so-called journalists assume Democrats’ narrative to be indisputably true, frame those partisan talking points as good-faith questions, and then expect conservative interviewees to accept the faulty premises in their responses. Consider the exchange between Stephanopoulos and Paul.

“This election was not stolen. Do you accept that fact?” Stephanopoulos began, taking sides right off the bat. Notice how, first, he echoed Democrats’ position about a controversial topic, and then assumed it to be true in asking if the GOP senator accepted “that fact.”

Paul didn’t fall for it. Instead, he deconstructed the question, noting that while he voted with other members of Congress to certify the results of the Electoral College vote, “the debate over whether or not there was fraud should occur.” Paul proceeded to make the case that fraud did occur by giving examples from his state and others.

Stephanopoulos didn’t like that. He cut off the senator’s argument to offer more Democratic talking points — “No election is perfect,” for instance — that ignored Paul’s valid objections. “Can’t you just say the words, ‘This election was not stolen’?” Stephanopoulos said with “repeat after me” paternalism.

Read more