Rieder: Rand Paul rankled by media scrutiny

Rem Rieder | USA TODAY

Show Caption Hide Caption Rand Paul's history of clashing with reporters One day into his presidential campaign, Senator Rand Paul had a strained interview with NBC anchor, Savannah Guthrie. This isn't the first time that he's clashed with the media, however. Here are a couple of Sen. Paul's most intense interviews.

I know he's busy, what with this running for president thing and all. But it might be good for Republican presidential hopeful Rand Paul to enroll in journalism school, or at least audit a few classes.

Because his behavior strongly suggests he has no clue how the give and take between candidates and the news media works.

We got a taste of this awhile back, in February, when the Kentucky Republican behaved badly in an interview with CNBC's Kelly Evans. Rather than answer her questions, Paul cut her off and lectured her about how to do her job. The impression he gave was of someone who was both boorish and defensive, not particularly attractive traits in a would-be president.

Paul formally kicked off his campaign Tuesday. And his relations with the Fourth Estate hardly seem on the upswing.

Wednesday morning brought us Paul's disastrous appearance on NBC's Today show. Once again, Paul took umbrage at perfectly legitimate questions about his evolving positions. Again we had the refusal to answer, the interrupting, the condescending instructions to co-anchor Savannah Guthrie about how she should do her job.

"Before we go through a litany of things you say I changed on, why don't you ask me a question: Have I changed my opinion?" professor Paul intoned. "That would be sort of a better way to approach an interview."

As Guthrie persisted, Paul continued with his lecture. "No, no, no, no, no, no. Listen, you've editorialized. Let me answer … you ask a question, and you say, 'Have your views changed?' instead of editorializing and saying my views have changed."

Not surprisingly, Paul's pompous prattling didn't play so well on social media. The good doctor was pummeled mercilessly on Twitter, where the hashtag #randsplaining — a play on the term "mansplaining," when a man explains something in a patronizing way to a woman — has come to the fore.

"#Randsplaining is a real phenomenon now. He just loses his mind when women ask him serious and important questions," read one tweet. "Good thing we have Rand Paul to do #Randsplaining to a reporter with the nerve to ask a candidate uncomfortable questions," read another.

It's understandable why Paul is so sensitive to undergoing interrogation. Part of his appeal has been his unorthodox amalgam of views, his contrarian ideas, his refusal to fit readily into a template. Conservative, sure, but with some libertarian takes that put him at odds with hard-core social conservatives.

But if you're serious about securing the GOP nomination, there's not a lot of running room for maverick views. And make no mistake, Paul is serious about this thing. He doesn't seem to have bought in to the take of New Yorker humorist Andy Borowitz, who wrote: "With an official announcement on his campaign Web site, Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has joined a crowded field of people who will never be elected President in their lifetimes."

In particular, Paul is sensitive about foreign policy. For years he has been wary about American engagement overseas. But as the primaries approach, Paul is moving toward his party's more hawkish tone.

In fact, it was Guthrie's questions about Iran and Israel that set him off. Back in 2007, for example, Paul said it was "ridiculous" to think that Iran posed a threat to the United States.

Speaking of ridiculous, Paul took a position that cries out for that description during his first interview after his announcement with Fox News' Sean Hannity. Asked about that old remark on Iran, Paul said quite sensibly that things change over time. Then he added, "I also wasn't campaigning for myself, I was campaigning to help my father at the time."

And that makes a difference because? So he didn't mean it then? Or he shouldn't be held accountable for past statements?

Then Paul doubled down. As Hannity began to ask a question about something Paul had said about Dick Cheney, the candidate broke in, "Once again, before I was involved in politics for myself."

You get the sense that Paul feels it's up to him to set the rules. But it's not. Candidates have to be responsive to legitimate questions, not to make the press happy, but because the American people have a right to know pretty much everything about people who want to be their president.

Paul will be a lot better off if he comes to terms with that. Soon.