He’s been savagely attacked by the media, including right wingers Megyn Fox and Dana Perino of FOX NEWS who said he’s too thin skinned for attempting to answer the editorials against him disguised as questions. Excuse him for over-listening and actually responding to the “Gotcha” questions.

The problem for candidates is their inability to control vicious opponents disguised as objective interviewers. Rand Paul was unfairly criticized by Megyn Kelly and Dana Perino for the way he appeared to them to have responded to outright ambush interviews by two women clearly opposed to him and who were also clearly “out to get him”. Kelly Evans and Savannah Guthrie were neither unbiased nor fair when they asked questions that belonged in a prosecutors mouth when they are questioning someone accused of a crime. Rand Paul is as far from that as one can get yet he was ambushed and trapped by opponents disguised as fair questioners.

To explain: …..”do you still beat your wife?”, -is a loaded question, -a rhetorical device -and a trap. Evans, Guthrie, Kelly and Perino were serving their agendas which were to enhance their status with their narrow audiences. These ambushes, traps really, are unfair. In this case the four bushwhackers were all unfair to Rand who is a far more decent person than the aforementioned four. Megyn Kelly seemed positively mad at Paul for some inexplicable reason. Very unlike Megyn to act that way.

Rand Paul is a special person just by virtue of his being a decider of life or death as a doctor. None of the above four has reached that level of living. None can relate to his experiences as a doctor. Not one.

Rand Paul has far more compassion than the four hit-women who abused their privilege as supposedly objective reporters. Each of the four was extremely rude. Each used their position and popularity to increase their standing as interviewers but not one displayed human fairness to Rand Paul and that’s worse for them than it was for Paul.

The law understands the “fighting words” doctrine which are words designed to incite violence. Fighting words are an exception to free speech. They are not protected by the Constitution. Fighting words are “words that when uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage”. All four interviewers purposely placed Rand Paul in a hostile environment; put him at ease with soothing words and sounds then viciously, knowingly, and purposely attacked him with violence inducing fighting word type statements from which he could not escape because of the cameras. They took a victory lap and smiled as Rand Paul thrashed around their traps. Paul is a very decent young man who is ill prepared to respond to such attacks because of his respect for people. In these cases his respect was undeserved by the four perps. That’s not a mistake nor a failing by him. It’s an indictment of each of them.

Is Rand Paul Presidential material? Compared to Barack Obama, Bill Clinton or the four deceptive interviewers, he is overqualified. He is a fundamentally decent candidate because he’s a very decent and compassionate man. In the political and journalistic world full of human hyenas he is prey and thankfully for the human race, he is neither like them nor one of them. He’s above them, as are most people.

It’s difficult to be a candidate with an unfair media. It’s far more difficult when the media are so lacking in human values that they attack without principles. When those devilish values are on display as they were against Rand Paul, decent people recoil, not because they support Paul but because they are decent.

Decent people cannot relate to human hyenas like the four masqueraders because their behavior belongs in a lower, savage kill or be eaten world. Rand Paul is far from that. Most people are because they are human. Hopefully the four can climb up to his level. At least they should be ashamed. Rand Paul is owed an apology especially by Megyn Kelly and Dana Perino.

Hits: 3