“The measure of a man is what he does with power.” ~Plato
help support the most conservative online site
click the pic
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.
Rand Paul's immigration speech...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.[Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg]
Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.
Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.
Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.
If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...
This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.
Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reformLatinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]
[but he's not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]
Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
Rand Paul On Shutdown: "Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb Idea"I said throughout the whole battle that shutting down the government was a dumb idea. Even though it did appear as if I was participating in it, I said it was a dumb idea. And the reason I voted for it, though, is that it's a conundrum. Here's the conundrum. We have a $17 trillion debt and people at home tell me you can't give the president a blank check. We just can't keep raising the debt ceiling without conditions. So unconditionally raising the debt ceiling, nobody at home wants me to vote for that and I can't vote for that. But the conundrum is if I don't we do approach these deadlines. So there is an impasse. In 2011, though, we had this impasse and the president did negotiate. We got the sequester. If we were to extend the sequester from discretionary spending to all the entitlements we would actually fix our problem within a few years.[Posted on 11/19/2013 12:16:51 PM by Third Person]
Rand Paul. Fraud. All one needs to know.
did you hear it? Beep…..beep…..beep…..beep…...
I will say this: he’s right about not going to deport 12 million people. I know some Freepers will admit this, and some will not. Either way, I think we all agree that after that, he went straight downhill.
Hahahaha!!!
Why? We didn’t import them. Just make it so there is no reason to come here. Go after the businesses that hire them. That’s what we did in the 1950’s.
Demagnitize the country.
lolz
Oh, I agree we can and should redo our entire border and welfare system as a start. If we did that, and deported the felons as they were arrested for whatever crimes they were doing, this problem would unravel itself in a few years for the most part.
But until we do two things with welfare: stop giving it to non citizens PERIOD…and shorten the time we give it to citizens, this problem is with us to stay. Them’s the facts. I don’t like them, but they are true nonetheless.
What’s so funny…...
Rand Paul wants to round up 12 million illegals and force them to get a governmnet issued card like some sort of big government stooge.
If you reward them with work permits illegals can get better and better jobs.
It’s all a matter of will. But you are right, we won’t. Not because we cant, just that we will not. Wanting our cake and eating it too is the mindset that dooms us.
There will be more of it from Rand.
I agree.
I don’t think its just will. Its our system: Short story:
We recently had arrested our former bookkeeper for embezzling about 200 K from us over 3 years. We provided all the forensic info to the DA and the financial crimes officer, provided her home address and school schedule….and it took 5 months to cuff her.
Multiply this by 12 million. ACTUALLY it’s worse than that. Being here illegally is just a single misdemeanor. It’s not even a felony, and it doesn’t count as a separate crime every day you’re here. Again, sorry to be the bearer of reality. Also, no one is going to hand over all the info on each illegal like we did our single felon. This is our system.
So, when do we get this done? Around 900 years from now? Trust me, not gonna happen. Just isn’t. Can’t. But we can make the problem largely benign in about 2-3-4 years if we would reform welfare and secure the border. Period.
“The measure of a man is what he does with power.” ~Plato
help support the most conservative online site
click the pic
Yes, I hate to be the bearer of reality…..liberals are not the only ones who avoid it sometimes.
That doesn’t disprove what I said at all. His plan is crap, which I said. There are more than two answers to this question, and most of them are wrong. His plan is wrong, though part of his premise is right. That’s all I said.
Sorry, reality sucks sometimes.
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.
