Skip to comments.Rand Paul: I think Republicans may have over-emphasized voter fraud
Posted on 04/23/2014 2:04:38 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Via WaPo and RCP, another nugget mined from yesterday’s chat with Axelrod in Chicago. As with abortion, Paul’s “different kind of Republican” brand requires a compromise here. He knows that most voters, including those in his own party, support voter-ID laws; he also knows that those laws are easily demagogued as racist by lefties, which means that toeing the GOP line too closely could jeopardize Paul’s effort to connect with black voters. What’s a different kind of Republican to do? He insists that ID is a good idea — “I don’t think dead people should vote” — but concedes to Axelrod that the GOP has over-emphasized it in light of some data suggesting that actual fraud is negligible. (There are, however, many millions of invalid voter registrations on the books.) What did people expect him to say? He’s already come out in favor of restoring voting rights to nonviolent felons. He also says here that, unlike many GOPers, he supports early voting. All of this will be useful to him if/when Democrats start in on him for questioning the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He’s building a defense to racism charges and distinguishing himself from his party, which is unpopular with the constituencies he’s trying to appeal to, at the same time.
Anyway. While we’re on the subject of Paul oppo research, that Mother Jones piece that I mentioned earlier is blowing up among lefties, who seem convinced that Paul is now DOA in the primaries because he — gasp — noted that Jimmy Carter kept spending lower than Reagan. Is that right? Which of his opponents, please tell me, is going to attack him for complaining that federal spending has been too high, even under conservative leadership? It’s okay to criticize even Reagan so long as you’re attacking from the right; if you don’t believe me, stop and think how many Republicans you’ve heard say in the past year alone that we can’t afford a repeat of the 1986 amnesty that Reagan signed into law.
If Paul’s comments about Carter and Reagan end up giving him trouble, it won’t be because he dared to question the Gipper. It’ll be because, allegedly, they’re further evidence of Paul’s foreign-policy weakness: The reason Reagan spent more, Paul’s critics will say, is because he was hellbent on bringing down the Soviet Union in a way that Carter never was. Deficit spending is lamentable but defensible if the cause it serves is noble enough. Would President Paul have refused to spend the necessary dollars even if it meant a reprieve for the failing Soviet Union? In that case, perhaps he’s too dovish after all. That’ll be how the Carter/Reagan comments are spun, if anyone even thinks to attack him on it.
I think some folks over emphasized Rand Paul as a legit national figure.
He has bought into the “kinder gentler” - “see, we mean you no harm” school of thought full fledged.
Rand Paul is a creep and a snake. He thinks he’s fooled conservatives enough to support him, now he’s going after the rest of his looney dad’s followers. He can go to hell.
The more he opens his mouth, the more I think the nut doesn’t fall too far from the tree.
What kind of delusional world is he living in? Blacks arent about to vote for him or any other GOPer.
Forget about them, they make their beds. Start talking about ending “affirmative action” “Diversity” illegal immigration. Voters will migrate to those issues, they’re tired of all the excuses and racial hypocrisy.
And one more thing: stop letting the MSM define the issues. Eff em.
The Dems have beat the system because they calculate and infiltrate the returns of specific districts that carry the state. In other words, they cheat.
Voter ID is a minimum requirement.
These very folks who are allegedly disenfranchised are able to produce a valid ID for their EBT cards faster than a switchblade.
How much fraud is ok with him?
Rand, Rand, Rand. Everything he says here lately, lets a little more air out of my balloon of enthusiasm to see him elected. Praising Carter of Reagan, Expressing allegience with Jeb’s ‘Act of Love’ warblings, now this. Oh well, best that all this
spillage of dirty detail happens now, vs next year, when the campaigns will be nearing full swing. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are smart not to jump on these comments at this time. Let Rand tell his story in his own words.
He’s just as big of an idiot as his nutcase father. I’ll vote democrat before I’d vote for this idiot.
I think Rand Paul is vastly UNDERestimating voter fraud.
So the 40,000 voters registered in BOTH Va. & Md. Is an over-emphasis?
That's the way... (uh huh, uh huh) The way I like it (uh huh, uh huh)!!!
Play it AGAIN, ChuckHam!!!
Second verse, a little bit louder and a little bit worse!!!
Let us not forget, it was JC who made the national speed limit 55MPH.
Ol’ Rand’s batting a thousand today, isn’t he? Quite a deliberate flame-out.
Uh no. That was Nixon.
Fine with me, the more time folks have to see the crazy the better.
Hey the Paulistas Version 2 still see no issue with the guy. so get ready for another “He van win” fiasco a’la Romney.
Rand continues to reveal himself gradually and I think fewer and fewer will like what they see. And his statement concerning an emphasis on voter fraud is actually pretty non-sensical.
If there have been any Republican office holders emphasizing voter fraud to any significant extent, then I missed it. Some commentators mention it, but the move to require voter ID in many states hasn’t included too much discussion of voter fraud.
It’s the Dims like Obama and Holder fighting voter ID and any control on who votes that have been squealing and claiming there is no voter fraud, and that any check on who votes is the ever present (according to the Dims) “voter suppression”.
I don't agree with your assessment of Ron Paul. He is flawed, for sure, but it was his arrogant talk-down-to-us supporters that made it impossible to support Ron Paul. They knew everything.
I'm seeing Rand Paul more as someone who is all over the place, kind of an ADHD mind. Rand hasn't been against war-mongering, so I'd be surprised if he's imrpessing his dad's supporters. He came out on the side of the Bundy's eventually, but he didn't have the natural instincts to do so during the fast-moving events.
I thought there was hope for Rand Paul. But now it seems that he's got DC disease and he's more interested in forming a coalition than he is in developing his core values.
Rand Paul is not our saviour.
I think Republicans are prohibited from filing suits that allege voter fraud.
What an idoit!
Very true. Ron Paul may have had a chance, but his maniacal supporters drove everybody off. It was like Howard Dean and his orange-caps.
and those same supporters are on the Rand train for the most part .and they haven’t changed.
post 24 exactly!!
Maaaaannnnnnnnnn!!! I gotta stop doing drugs before dinner...
no longer any doubt.
it’s gonna have to be Ted Cruz
Ever notice how a lot of the criticism of republicans comes from republicans?
It’s as if they lay awake at night thinking “How can I help the democrats again?”
But democrats almost never criticize fellow democrats.
They remain focused on taking out the opposition, not each other.
Don’t forget the voting by provision. You show up at a voting precint and aren’t listed so you get a ‘provisional’ ballot that is ‘supposedly’ checked later.
I watched a group of folks do this at TWO voting places one night and I’m sure they went to more. I was just watching those two (I followed them to the second one).
If it’s a liberal site, quoting a conservative, you can bet it’s out of context to give a false impression of what he meant.
They want to use Paul’s comments to lead us to believe he is against investigating voter fraud.
I've heard there is some sort of agreemnt from past years, but I don't think it prohibits Republicans from discussing voter fraud and presenting the evidence to the public (if such an agreement exists). If any Repubican politician is even dicussing voter fraud very often, then I couldn't name him or her.
It's been folks like John Fund and other journalists who occasionally pop up with a vote fraud story that are about the only ones making the case to the public. Of course, many belive fraud exists including those who work to get voter ID laws passed. It's just not discussed openly very often.
Back peddling and trying to look all so ‘rational’ (read that as acceptable to the GOPelite)
Here’s the reason — Democrats thinking are mostly HOMOGENEOUS.
You hardly find one person straying from their ideology.
Abortion, higher taxes, more government control... they ALMOST ALL think alike.
so, what is there to criticize?
Republicans are really more DIVERSE in thought when it comes to the issues.
Not all are pro-life, not all are for smaller government, not all are for lower or simplified taxes, etc.
Therefore, because of the diversity of thought on issues, it goes without saying that one Republican can and will criticize the other’s policies.
Rand Paul is well on his way to becoming John McCain’s replacement.
One NEVER hears Republicans talking about Democrats getting nailed time after time after for vote fraud and intimidation.
And here is this idiot saying Republicans are over-emphasizing it.
And Obama and Holder have been throwing down the race card at every opportunity in recent comments on voter ID laws in various states.
And I think my point still stands that, unlike what Rand Paul seems to say, there are no Republican politicians working to present the vote fraud case to the public, certainly no overemphasis. Just a few journalists making the case occasionally.
and some people seem to have over-empahsized Rand Paul as an alternative to a Democratic president in 2017
Yes indeed, your point still stands. I happen to agree with it.
indeed, how could they emphasize it LESS than they are now????
Paulista being a Paulista.
I have noticed a lot of that going on.
What’s so unforgiveable about this comment? You can agree/disagree with his statement, but at the end of the day what is its impact? Nothing.