Skip to comments.NAACP Head Praises Rand Paul
Posted on 04/22/2014 9:25:59 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
Over at NPR, Liz Holloran's latest piece on Sen. Rand Paul's efforts to loosen the Democratic Party's lock on black votes included some positive feedback from a prominent African-American leader:
"He's a different voice in the arena that we don't traditionally hear," says Lorraine Miller, acting head of the NAACP, who expects to invite Paul to speak at the organization's July national conference in Las Vegas.
"He's an engaging guy that's why we want to talk to him," Miller says. Miller is not the only black leader who has been intrigued by Paul, whose father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, had three unsuccessful presidential runs and amassed a fervent Libertarian following.
Miller's predecessor, Benjamin Jealous, has previously hailed Paul's position on reforming drug and sentencing laws, which disproportionately affect African-American individuals and families
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
Paul plays for the wrong team
Let's see if they hail his position if he starts talking about cutting off the EBT cards.
The NAACP will praise Rand Paul right up to the point he wins the GOP nomination; then it all changes.
Paul got a pretty high percentage of the black vote in Kentucky in 2010. Something like 32%.
It might be too small a sample size though. Kentucky doesn’t have a large black population like much of the South, I think it’s about 92% white.
Reverse agit-prop. Not that I support Rand Paul anyway, but the Colored People endorsing him will not work.
Conservatives will look at this and go “So What?”
Uh, there is a reason for this fact, and (for the most part) it's NOT because LEO are picking on the poor black folk.
Quit committing the crimes people, DUH. Or, get smart and stick with white collar crime; a lot easier to get away with it. Even better, get elected anywhere as a DemocRat and the law won't even apply to you anyway.
Wow, he is OK with gay marriage, but wants millions of new democrat felons voting, who needs amnesty when you can give the democrats millions of new voters, without Paul’s soft on immigration stance?
More proof that libertarianism makes conservative election winning, impossible.
The head of the NAACP is warming up to a Republican. This is something the lib’s absolutely don’t want.
I therefore conclude that this is a good thing.
Rand can’t beat Hillary sharing the same platform minus the free stuff.
It doesn't hurt to reach out as long as the basic premise of the party is not tailored to any specific group.
If the GOP ever wants to get a significant black vote, it will have to be for candidates who are seen as outsiders or at least average people.
The Bush/ McCain/Romney silver spoon types are intensely distasteful to minority voters.
After someone serves their sentence, their debt to society, are they no longer a citizen? They lose certain citizen rights. But can they expect to never become a true citizen again after their ‘debt’ is paid?
Lets also not forgot those wrongfully convicted. Or those who are criminals only due to ‘new’ laws being created. Heck, Bundy is considered a criminal to some lawmakers who want to prosecute him right now. There is also an active movement calling Christians, Vets, active military, and Tea Party folks terrorists right now. Something very important to consider.
It would be hard for anyone to beat someone giving out all that free stuff. That is the only way O.B. won. Whoever we put up there will have a heck of a tough time convincing voters what they can do is better for them than all the freebies combined. But it is not impossible.
Head fake. The NAALCP is never going to lean toward even a libertarian Republican.
Ugh! When are we going to recognize the obvious? Civil war or slavery? Those are the options.
What is not being considered by the ‘brains’ of that plan apparently is that there are a great deal of folks are not blinded with ‘free goody greed’ and know their God given rights are more important. I imagine the majority of the rest will wake from their oblivious spell quickly enough when the goods run out.
Btw- did you notice all the news reports on ‘beef prices going exceedingly high’ doesn't once mention the cattle ranchers being forced out of business by the feds?
Your argument might have some merit if most states didn't already allow convicted felons the right to vote (Source).
When democrats go after the evangelical right to life vote we should go after the black vote.
When democrats go after the NRA vote...
Before that time it’s a waste of money and time.
“Before that time its a waste of money and time.”
Not if you are losing elections.
The Dems are increasing their base with new Hispanic voters. The GOP will have to find new voters somewhere if it expects to ever win again.
The argument has merit regardless of the numbers, because felon voting is a cause of Rand Paul. as part of his war against conservatism.
Lulz. An argument not based in fact doesn't have much merit, so no.
The GOP can’t win by moving left with candidates like Romney and Rand Paul.
Social liberal Romney, won hugely with independents.
The fact is Rand Paul’s political position, which is felon voting.
“Rand Paul fights for felon voting rights”
Further, as someone else asked, should individuals who have paid their debt to society not be able to resume their rights? What about the wrongfully convicted?
I hadn’t realized the extent of the left’s/libertarian gains of felon voting, but it doesn’t change Rand Paul’s political agenda of calling for more felon voting.
My argument was about Rand Paul’s liberal politics, more than specific numbers.
It is like his coming out in support of gay marriage and against the GOP’s platform on social issues, which he wants the GOP to back off on.
The candidate you support stands to the left of Rand Paul on EVERY issue. That’s a fact. Amnesty, gay rights at the state level, you name it. He’s a good speaker though.
As Rand runs to head the federal government and appoint judges and the Supreme court and handle gay marriage in the military, federal employment and immigration, and share Obama’s foreign policy weakness.
Rand Paul: “I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues,” Paul advised. “The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who dont want to be festooned by those issues.”
Others are taking it a step further:
You are reversing Ted Cruz’s position, while Rand Paul supports gay marriage and is campaigning to assist it, Ted Cruz is fighting it by trying to restore DOMA, to save what we can for the states who oppose it.
Ted Cruz is seeking ways to fight gay marriage, he supported DOMA, and is offering a new version to make up for what was taken, Rand Paul opposed DOMA, and is campaigning to advance gay marriage and social liberalism.
Your argument might have some merit if most states didn't already allow convicted felons the right to vote (Source).Abortion utterly destroys your argument.
New laws, wrongly convicted, Bundy, Tea Party.... is a straw-man argument.
Justice is not about a “debt” paid to society but rather punishment.
What “debt” is paid by sitting in a jail at the cost of the taxpayer?
I am not a fan like Paul is of fiends selling poison to youngsters.
And abortion has what to do with the fact that felons can already vote in most states?
The same authority of law on the books... and still Not Right (emphasis on “Not Right”, Right as opposed to Left).
Further to respond to another point you made in this thread, justice isn't just about punishment. Justice is much more complex, involving ideas of restitution, fairness, etc. Your view that justice is merely about punishment is quite narrow and misguided, as is your opinion that someone who supports restoring voting rights to citizens cannot be part of the right.
Perhaps you missed the point, which was that allowing convicted felons to vote does not create millions of Democratic voters.Actually, I didn't make that narrow point. Guess you missed that in your general confusion here.
Further to respond to another point you made in this thread...
justice isn't just about punishment. Justice is much more complex, involving ideas of restitution, fairness, etc. Your confused ideas of restitution are called lawsuits. We are talking here about convicted felons who served jail time. A felon will go to jail independent of a civil lawsuit. A civil lawsuit has absolutely no bearing on the amount of time a felon will serve.
Nor does your silly liberal idea of "fairness".
involving ideas of restitution, fairness, etc.
Perhaps you missed the point, which was that allowing convicted felons to vote does not create millions of Democratic voters.Actually, the point you made to me was very specific. You plainly stated that because most States have a law on the books, that made everything proper and correct....
Your argument might have some merit if most states didn't already allow convicted felons the right to vote (Source).MY reply about Abortion devastated your silly notion. Which is way you desperately seek to now change the discussion. You need to learn to swallow a healthy dose of humility and admit when you are wrong, instead of wasting more of my time. Thanks!
And restitution is part of punishment. Still no clue what your idea of “fairness, etc” is though... LoL!
Let me know if it ever kicks you in the behind and hands you a clue.
I like to just place this link here. Like a pamphlet under the pillow...
You're sooooo right Barnacle... and I have the solution. We 'find' voters the same way dems find voters... And trust me they're not raiding our base to fine new voters...
Here's the plan:
We go to some poor Asian country and offer free citizenship to say ... 30 million Vietnamese or North Koreans - maybe Chinese... whatever ON THE CONDITION they vote Republican. To sweeten the pot we offer food stamps, welfare, medicare for their parents and a free education for their kids....
In addition we'll try to find some airhead democrat to talk about how coming here is an 'act of love' or some such bullsh*t. Do you know of any democrats as stupid as our own Jeb Bush?
Is that a cool solution or what?
We do what dems do... Or course I'm not sure if the New YUCK Times will pretend to be as gullible about our 'dreamers' as they are about democrat's 'dreamers'... but who knows. If they call us on it they'll be showing they knew what was going on with democrats all along... and I don't think they want to admit that... do you?
Same for the Washington Post... and LA Times...
You introduction of abortion was nothing more than attempt to change the subject. It didn’t work.