This article is from the archive of our partner National Journal

After a day of bad press about his relations with ... the press, Sen. Rand Paul capped off the second day of his campaign with a somewhat conciliatory interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

Paul has been accused of talking down to female reporters after interrupting the Today show's Savannah Guthrie in an interview Wednesday morning, and shushing CNBC's Kelly Evans in February.

The latest media peccadillo that Paul has taken issue with is trying to nail down his stance on abortion; specifically, whether he would support abortion in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother was threatened.

After fielding such a question at a campaign stop in New Hampshire on Wednesday, Paul turned the question back on Democrats, telling reporters they should ask Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz "if she's OK with killing a seven-pound baby that is not born yet."

He also snipped at a (male) Associated Press reporter who asked if the senator supported abortion in cases of rape or incest. "I gave you about a five-minute answer," Paul told the reporter. "Put in my five-minute answer."

In the interview with Blitzer on Wednesday, he once again dodged the question of rape and incest, saying he's supported legislation on both sides of the issue.

Blitzer then asked Paul to respond to allegations that he's been less than cordial with female reporters.

"I think I have been universally short-tempered and testy with both male and female reporters. I'll own up to that," Paul said. "I think I should have more patience, but I think I'm pretty equal-opportunity. If I get annoyed—I was annoyed with a male reporter this morning—so I will have to get better at holding my tongue and holding my temper, but I think it's pretty equal-opportunity, not directed toward male or female."

Still, it's not hard to see the difference in Paul's disposition toward Fox News' Sean Hannity on Tuesday night and Guthrie on Wednesday morning. Hannity and Guthrie asked virtually identical questions about Paul's views toward Iran and foreign aid to Israel, yet only one of them got a lecture on media ethics. You'd think an ophthalmologist would have a better handle on optics.

This article is from the archive of our partner National Journal.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.