Posted on 05/13/2014 3:16:19 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A belated response to the uproar after Rand Paul told an NYT reporter that the GOP’s voter-ID push was “offending people.” After reading this, I think the Guardian has his position right: “Rand Paul believes in voter ID laws. He just doesn’t think Republicans should talk about them so much.”
Good enough?
[T]his statement comes from Paul’s former chief of staff and current PAC director.
“Senator Paul was having a larger discussion about criminal justice reform and restoration of voting rights, two issues he has been speaking about around the country and pushing for in state and federal legislation.
“In the course of that discussion, he reiterated a point he has made before that while there may be some instances of voter fraud, it should not be a defining issue of the Republican Party, as it is an issue that is perhaps perceived in a way it is not intended. At no point did Senator Paul come out against voter ID laws. In terms of the specifics of voter ID laws, Senator Paul believes it’s up to each state to decide that type of issue.”
The full quote reported by the Times (which itself noted that Paul said nothing about opposing voter ID laws) was, “Everybody’s gone completely crazy on this voter ID thing. I think it’s wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because it’s offending people.” Obvious question: How much effort on voter ID is too much, before it crosses into what Paul would regard as Crazytown? If state legislatures controlled by Republicans move to pass voter ID laws, as Paul allegedly would prefer, they’re going to have floor debates with Democrats. Should they drop the bills in the name of avoiding that? This reminds me a little of what he told Axelrod a few weeks ago about abortion. He agrees with most Republicans on that issue too, but emphasizing that no laws will change unless and until pro-lifers make more headway in persuading voters was his way of signaling, I thought, that the issue wouldn’t be a priority for him as president. He’s signaling the same thing on voter ID, even to the point of stressing that it’s not a federal issue. He believes in ID requirements for voting, he just … doesn’t want to talk about it, and clearly he thinks other big-name Republicans shouldn’t be talking much either.
Iowa conservative Steve Deace can’t help noticing that this habit of difference-splitting, in which Paul is forever pinballing between libertarians, conservatives, and the Democratic constituencies he’s trying to woo, keeps producing muddles:
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident with Rand.
In 2013, Rand wrote an op-ed for The Washington Times that was to the left of the “gang of 8” on amnesty. Rand said he would “normalize the status of 11 million undocumented citizens.” So we’ve gone from “illegal aliens,” to “illegal immigrants,” to “undocumented immigrants” in the Leftist media currently, to “undocumented citizens” according to Rand. Does anybody know how one gets to be an “undocumented citizen” of Canada, since they have replaced us as the best country in the world for the middle class on Barack Hussein Obama’s watch?
Rand has admirably sponsored pro-life legislation in the U.S. Senate that would declare an unborn child a “person” under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution from the moment of conception, without exception. But in a CNN interview last year, he said there were “thousands” of exceptions that make it okay to kill babies, and last month told an audience “My personal religious belief is that life begins at the very beginning, but the country is in the middle, [and] we’re not changing any of the laws until the country is persuaded otherwise.”…
Rand gave three totally different answers in the span of two weeks on Russia’s incursion into Ukraine. Rand praised Anthony Kennedy for “avoiding a cultural war” by declaring the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. Apparently in Rand-world inflaming a cultural war that leads to unprecedented attacks on religious liberty and free speech is avoidance. Kennedy’s opinion was so egregious that fellow Justice Antonin Scalia criticized it as “confusing” and “rootless” for its “shifting justifications.” Rand called the plan to try and defund Obamacare his base supported “a dumb idea” even though he admitted “it did appear as if I was participating in it.”
It’s not his take on voter ID per se that risks hurting him. It’s the perception Deace describes, that Paul’s getting too cute in trying to reconcile different interests on his mission to make the party’s tent bigger, that’ll cause problems for him in the primary (especially if Cruz jumps in and positions himself as the man of clear, consistent conservative conviction). Above all, righties want someone in office whom they can trust will defend their values. The more Paul takes positions like this one — let’s be for voter ID but not talk about it — the harder that is. But now I wonder if maybe I’m missing the point of what he’s trying to do. All along, I’ve thought his chief appeal was as a man of principle — libertarian on many issues, conservative on a few, but unafraid to buck either side to defend his beliefs. I thought that’s how he’d run in 2016, precisely because he’s interested in showing righties that he’ll defend their values relentlessly in office. Maybe, though, he’s starting to re-position himself the same way that Rubio’s re-positioning as an establishment candidate. Maybe Paul’s new brand is less about standing on principle than about (as strange as it is to say it for a member of the Paul family) electability, forging an unorthodox new right-wing platform that supposedly gives the GOP its best chance in the general. Maybe he looked at the likelihood of Cruz running and figured it was folly to try to out-conservative him; instead, he’ll try to appeal to the various factions who want “a new GOP,” even if it leaves him open to attacks from Cruz on issues like voter ID. He’ll remain formally in favor of voter ID laws because he recognizes that it’s a litmus test for lots of primary voters, but when it comes to his priorities, you know what you’re getting — less spending, less NSA, a more “modest” foreign policy with little to no foreign aid, and a better chance of liberalizing drug laws than you’d have with any other candidate. The rest is window dressing.
But isn’t our whole system just a matter of the will of the people? Any really?
Obama carried out the will of liberals/communists. Power is about exercising ones will. He did things the system in place at the time rejected. He forced his will on it. He changed it. We could do the same. We wont, no. But we could. And that it is just a matter of will once you get past the details.
Randie’s PAC must be taking flak, donations must be dwindling.
I didn’t say the lack of will was not part of the equation. Again, it’s not “either or” - it is a lack of will, but it’s also a logistical reality. And no, 99% of the country does not share the typical Freep notions on the issue of deport. They just don’t. Even those who agree with the Freep notion on every other aspect of immigration…...
So call it will, or majority, or reality, or the fact that you cannot unravel 70 years of a porous border working with opposite supply/demand labor curves - in some kind of massive police action. And before you think its just will….imagine some Lois Lerner of immigration targeting conservative owned businesses first.
We need to all take a breath here and work on what should happen. Secure the border first, with a clean bill. (Won’t happen til Obama’s gone). Then stop welfare to non citizens, and shorten it to citizens. If we just did those things, then this issue would solve itself.
There is no other way.
That works for me. But there are parts to the equation not being addressed here that are in the pipe. We are going to collapse. Soon. The numbers all show it coming like a train at us.
When the reality of it hits, the 99% (love that ;) are likely to take a different view and suddenly develop the logistical ability to preserve their toys as best they can. I do not disagree with your layout as the world exists today, here in the now. But history shows just how fast we can turn on a dime. In all things.
I agree. Clean border bill and the rest will take care of itself. We’ll need nothing else. And that will not happen while Obama is president.
However, what could happen while Obama is president is approval of the comprehensive immigration plan.
This will become unlikely if the pubs take the Senate and the House. Therefore, if Boehner actually wants it done, then they have to do it now. Even Boehner won’t betray the election and push it before the vote. That would kill Republican chances.
Therefore, using his newfound penchant for breaking the Hastert rule, the time to accomplish that approval in the House would be the lame duck session following the midterms.
Chamber of Commerce Republican senators and representatives will have the numbers by siding with the democrats to send that bill quickly to the president.
What is the calculus on the republican/conservative base reaction and the 2016 presidential election? The liberal republicans think they will ride it out as presidential passion envelopes the country.
I don’t disagree with any of what you said….and obviously our society and economy have set us up for any number of potential black swan scenarios that will/can change everything.
I am talking about now, as it is.
pretty good analysis…….
Is there such a thing as a vote of no confidence in a speaker?
After Boehner again broke the Hastert rule last week, it is probably necessary to replace him now.
***A bill that reauthorized the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which was criticized on the right as unnecessary interference by the federal government in the free market, passed the House in violation of the so-called “Hastert Rule” Thursday.
The bill passed 297-117 overall. 106 Republicans voted “yea” while 116 Republicans voted “nay.” One Democrat, embattled Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), voted no as well, while 191 Democrats voted yes.***
If there’s not, there should be…...
I wish you were right…..really, I do, but there are many on talk radio (Ingraham) and punditry (Coulter) and on FR who very much do think that anything short of mass deport equals pro amnesty.
And don’t forget, the GOP Primary for 2012 involved a couple of debates where the race was to see who could have the most mast-rbatory program for deportation……a race to distance oneself from Perrys misguided “heartless” comment.
Paul has no real core values, he is like 99 percent of the other politicians.
I would still vote for Paul in a general election but he is making it harder with each confusing policy proclamation.
IMMEDIATELY.
Then we’re doomed, because that would take a police force roughly equal to the entire population of the country.
But its nowhere near 40 million anyway.
But go ahead, enjoy your double delusion.
Please see post 34!! There is more delusion on this than maybe you realize.
1. Border Patrol provides 40 MILLION
2. “12 Million” has been used for decades
3. Build wall
4. Fine employers for hiring ILLEGAL INVADERS
5. Stop all taxpayer funded benefits to ILLEGAL INVADERS
6. Deport ALL ILLEGAL INVADERS
7. Self-Deportation will follow
8. We have a “pathway to citizenship” - it’s called LEGAL IMMIGRATION
9. Stop rewarding ILLEGAL INVADERS
Obviously you support ILLEGAL INVADERS and I suggest you relocate to Mehico!!!!
Calm down and get off of your high horse. I said what, 3,4, times in this thread that I was simply stating an unhappy reality that I did not cause and do not like….but it’s reality anyway. So you are just being an ignorant troll. I wish this situation did not exist, but I am adult enough to understand what caused it, and what can reverse it. You want to have a mental m-st-rb-tion party about fantasies that will never happen.
Now, having said that, if we did your ideas 3 and 5, and added to 5 a reform of welfare for legal citizens - then you are right, 7 would happen over a period of years. You are correct that welfare is CRITICAL to this issue.
Any pathway to citizenship and voting rights is just absurd and should be opposed at every turn.
Also, if it were 40 million, and it’s not, I’m sure it’s gone way down in the last 5-6 years due to the economy - then you would be looking at a total transformation of an entire population to vaporize 11-12%. That would be like an Hispanic Rapture. It aint 40 mill and it ain’t gonna happen for the 10,12,15 mill or whatever it is. Just isn’t. Blame me if you want to, but it’s not my fault.
You have exposed yourself as a typical GOP-Establishment liberal.
Good Bye, GOPER!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.