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.
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
Yep.
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.
WTF ?!?
It's what gave us Romney, and Obama. The only thing that Conservatives seem to agree on is the scope and power of the federal government is too large, but instead of focusing on what unites us we focus on our differences. As a Christian, I see the same thing with Christian denominations tearing each other apart over minor differences, while being completely apathetic to the attacks of Satan and his angels.
How many Democrats are actively involved in furthering the agenda of Conservatism and the GOP ? Almost none. We have an epidemic of this behavior of “Republicans” undermining the agenda of Conservatism. That’s a HUGE difference.
I’m incredibly weary of this goober.
BS article by a Muslim blogger who hates Rand Paul.
Just watch the video, folks.
How do you over-emphasize corruption of our system of government at it’s very core?
Has this guy had a stroke? Anyone notice a sagging lip? Is he now signing his name sloppily with the opposite hand?
What a freaking looney tune this guy has turned into.
Just ho-ing for campaign ca$h.
When one precinct in Philly reports 116% for Obama, something slightly odd is going on, but if Rand wants Democrats elected in 2014 and 2016 I guess we all say, “At this point in time, what difference does it make!”
It's getting more and more distasteful, though. And harder to do.
Ron Paul earns a grudging respect; he’s consistent and makes very valid points from his heart. With Rand Paul, the closer the attention paid him the oilier he seems.
He may know what’s right, but isn’t about to give up being a Washington diva to get it done.
I may have to steal that phrase...cuz goober pretty much describes many politicians...and in the case of RP (either one) goober fits so freaking well, can’t believe I haven’t used the term already.
And weary? Oh yeah...and we’ve got a lot of days before any election.
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.