Rand Paul to GOP: Our voter ID push is “offending people”

posted at 4:41 pm on May 9, 2014 by Allahpundit

I’ve been waiting three hours since I saw this tweet for the NYT to publish a transcript or story about what he said, but no dice as I’m writing this. If it happens tonight, I’ll update with a link. The quote’s almost certainly not out of context, though: Remember, Paul told David Axelrod a few weeks ago that he thinks the GOP might be overemphasizing the issue. What’s newsy about this is the tone. Sounds like he’s gone from “maybe this isn’t a great idea” to “let’s drop it, quickly.”

An interesting reply from lefty Benjy Sarlin:

And Paul’s evolution, needless to say, is no accident:

Meeting with black pastors and breaking with the party orthodoxy on voter ID is less important to Rand in building his base for the general election than it is in preemptively defusing the “Paul’s a racist” attacks that will begin the instant he emerges as a serious threat for the nomination. The left (and maybe not just the left) is going to kitchen-sink him on that — his old comments on the Civil Rights Act, his father’s newsletters, having the “Southern Avenger” on staff, even agreeing with Cliven Bundy about federal land-use practices before quickly denouncing him after his comments about blacks went viral. Between Paul’s voter ID skepticism, his outreach to black leaders, and his criticism of racial bias in drug law enforcement and sentencing, he’s trying to vaccinate himself from the “racism” attacks that are assuredly coming, at least to the extent that reporters are forced to mention all of Paul’s conciliatory measures towards minority voters when relaying Democratic talking points on him.

How does this play in the primaries, though? Voter ID is of a piece with immigration reform, I think, in that righties see both issues as very basic rule-of-law stuff. (Whereas lefties, naturally, see them as proxies for racism.) If you can enhance the integrity of elections by imposing a simple ID requirement, you do it; if you can reduce the risk of illegal immigration in the future, even as a condition to a mass amnesty right now, you do it. If Paul’s conceding on one of those issues because he’s eager to impress a core Democratic constituency from whom he’s unlikely to win many extra votes, it opens him up to speculation that he might concede on other important issues once in office. That is to say, in the name of vaccinating himself in the general election, he might be giving himself a bug in the primaries. And there is, of course, a potential rival who’ll be only too happy to make him pay for it: Not only has Ted Cruz praised GOP candidates for defending voter ID, he tried to attach a voter ID measure of his own to the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill last year. Cruz could use this as a proxy issue to convince conservatives that, when push comes to shove, Paul simply can’t be trusted to stand on principle. He has too many liabilities and he’s a bit too eager sometimes to try to atone for those liabilities. (Interestingly, if Paul’s recent flirtation with hawkishness towards Russia continues, some of his libertarian fans may agree.) But that raises a problem of its own:

Right. One of the reasons Perry got nuked in 2012 was his “you don’t have a heart” comment on in-state tuition for illegals. He got pounded for it in the primaries, including by Mitt “Self-deportation” Romney, and then Democrats turned around and pounded Romney on immigration. You might see the same thing on voter ID. Rand calls for a stand-down, Cruz or Rubio or Jeb or whoever tears him apart over it en route to the nomination, and then in the general election Democrats tear that guy apart for tearing Rand apart. They’ll be desperate in 2016 to maintain the high level of black turnout that Obama saw in 2008 and 2012. A GOP civil war on voter ID could be just what they need.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Now on a lighter note I am disappointed that this thread has only 250 comments right now. I was hopping it would have at least 500.

coolrepublica on May 9, 2014 at 8:12 PM

Why are you here, than? Is your life so miserable you can only find joy in laughing at others who aren’t as ignorant as you? And this is supposedly going back to 2007…have you considered seeking therapy?

NotCoach on May 9, 2014 at 9:20 PM

I really can’t stand this any longer.

Bring on the war, I’m done with the foreplay.

Midas on May 9, 2014 at 9:20 PM

He should try appealing to his base.

Black pastors will never be his base. Never.

Bigbullets on May 9, 2014 at 8:43 PM

Who is Rand’s base, really? Who does Rand believe his base is? He is not very smart.

non-nonpartisan on May 9, 2014 at 9:22 PM

Me to Rand Paul: “Shut Up”, he explained.

…and This>

Bring on the war, I’m done with the foreplay.

Midas on May 9, 2014 at 9:20 PM

a5minmajor on May 9, 2014 at 9:26 PM

Who is Rand’s base, really? Who does Rand believe his base he is? He is not very smart self aware.

non-nonpartisan on May 9, 2014 at 9:22 PM

This seems interesting.

astonerii on May 9, 2014 at 9:27 PM

I was hopping it would have at least 500.

coolrepublica on May 9, 2014 at 8:12 PM

Hopping…something that my beloved relative who suffered a heart attach will never be able to do again.

Thanks for rubbing it in.

steebo77 on May 9, 2014 at 9:12 PM

She got a writing trophy in high school that she is very proud of I will have you know.

slickwillie2001 on May 9, 2014 at 9:29 PM

Why are you here, than? Is your life so miserable you can only find joy in laughing at others who aren’t as ignorant as you? And this is supposedly going back to 2007…have you considered seeking therapy?

NotCoach on May 9, 2014 at 9:20 PM

I am not here for you, just in case you were wondering.

coolrepublica on May 9, 2014 at 9:29 PM

I am not here for you, just in case you were wondering.

coolrepublica on May 9, 2014 at 9:29 PM

I think I made it pretty clear what I am wondering.

NotCoach on May 9, 2014 at 9:34 PM

I’d think a lot of more these “outreach tours” if just once in a blue moon, the other side came out and said, “well, you know, I think he heard us voter ID…but we have to do a better job on fraud, too.”

Which of course isn’t going to happen. So “outreach tours” are nothing more than “concession tours.”

EastofEden on May 9, 2014 at 9:38 PM

Who is Rand’s base, really? Who does Rand believe his base is? He is not very smart.

non-nonpartisan on May 9, 2014 at 9:22 PM

It’s NOT black pastors or their congregations.

If he’s intending to run for president as a Republican, then hypothetically Republicans are his base.

As Republican, I could vote for him. Mainly because I admire the unbridled craziness in his father. It’s going to take a crazy man to undo the damage Obama has done.

That being said, he’s not in my top five for choices.

Bigbullets on May 9, 2014 at 9:38 PM

I think I made it pretty clear what I am wondering.

NotCoach on May 9, 2014 at 9:34 PM

A part of me is here for the hypocrisy, but stay for the sanctimonious BS. The other part is here because I am a free human being and can do what the F I want. Anymore questions?

coolrepublica on May 9, 2014 at 9:39 PM

I’m offended at the thought that you can vote without an ID, thereby allowing fraudulent voters to wipe out my legal vote. I’m offended that the NAACP and other hypocritical groups REQUIRE ID if you want to join them to protest this kind of stuff. I’m offended that it’s somehow objectionable to require ID to vote.

Where has common sense gone? There are too many stupid people in our nation. We’re circling the drain…

xNavigator on May 9, 2014 at 9:44 PM

The more this guy speaks, the more he offends me…. Cruz – West 2016…..

angrymike on May 9, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Anymore questions?

coolrepublica on May 9, 2014 at 9:39 PM

Do you feel that bitterness is healthy?

Bigbullets on May 9, 2014 at 9:44 PM

This seems interesting.

astonerii on May 9, 2014 at 9:27 PM

I think I already know who Rand is, and who he believes he is. I agree with you that he isn’t very self-aware. Do you believe he’s very smart?

non-nonpartisan on May 9, 2014 at 9:44 PM

There are too many stupid immoral people in our nation. We’re circling the drain…

xNavigator on May 9, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Do you really think they are stupid? They do it because they are selfish and to them winning is the only thing.

astonerii on May 9, 2014 at 9:45 PM

I want to vomit.

JellyToast on May 9, 2014 at 9:46 PM

A part of me is here for the hypocrisy, but stay for the sanctimonious BS. The other part is here because I am a free human being and can do what the F I want. Anymore questions?

coolrepublica on May 9, 2014 at 9:39 PM

Well, sure. What is this hypocrisy you speak of?

Do you feel that bitterness is healthy?

Bigbullets on May 9, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Misery loves company, but I’m not sure if this place fits the bill.

NotCoach on May 9, 2014 at 9:47 PM

If you can enhance the integrity of elections by imposing a simple ID requirement, you do it

Since that form of vote fraud is so rare as to be virtually non-existent imposing the ID requirement won’t enhance integrity one iota. Everyone knows this. Nobody who want to skew a vote is going to find hundred or thousands of people and get them to vote fraudulently (which is the only case where ID actually helps).

So having taken off the table a sudden deep regard for democracy (from the same people who routinely argue we need to revoke suffrage from every group that doesn’t vote for them) what are we left with?

Oh yeah an obvious attempt to disenfranchise the poor and minorities.

It’s not like they’re real voters, right?

Tlaloc on May 9, 2014 at 9:47 PM

Do you feel that bitterness is healthy?

Bigbullets on May 9, 2014 at 9:44 PM

I do not know bitterness. But I love answering questions. D

coolrepublica on May 9, 2014 at 9:48 PM

It’s NOT black pastors or their congregations.

If he’s intending to run for president as a Republican, then hypothetically Republicans are his base.

As Republican, I could vote for him. Mainly because I admire the unbridled craziness in his father. It’s going to take a crazy man to undo the damage Obama has done.

That being said, he’s not in my top five for choices.

Bigbullets on May 9, 2014 at 9:38 PM

“hypothetically”…and that’s why I asked my questions about him. He’s self-important and somewhat psychologically unstable, like his dear old dad. I do not admire those qualities.

non-nonpartisan on May 9, 2014 at 9:50 PM

I think I already know who Rand is, and who he believes he is. I agree with you that he isn’t very self-aware. Do you believe he’s very smart?

non-nonpartisan on May 9, 2014 at 9:44 PM

If he is not smart, he certainly is devious. He suckered hundreds of HotAir people into thinking he was sane. He never felt, … authentic to me. You know those people you meet that just simply creep you out just by being there? That is what I have always felt about him. Same thing with Rubio, I never bought his shtick either.
Of course, the first time I heard him speak was his first on the senate floor coming out speech. The one everyone else was fawning over because of the soft bigotry of lower expectations based on his Hispanic background. You cannot equate and say that the nation has two legitimate possible paths it can go down; One being the socialist welfare state and the other capitalism, and be a conservative in your heart.

astonerii on May 9, 2014 at 9:51 PM

***TRIGGER WARNING***
 

Oh yeah an obvious attempt to disenfranchise the poor and minorities.
 
It’s not like they’re real voters, right?
 
Tlaloc on May 9, 2014 at 9:47 PM

 
Good to see you again, Tlaloc. We missed you finishing up the
 

Insurers: 80-90% of ObamaCare enrollees are paying their premiums, not 67% like that House committee said

 
thread where you and righty45 helped show that Obamacare only covered 5 million previously-uninsured people, and all for the low, low cost of just $1.76 trillion.
 
FWIW, that’s $341K per person covered.
 
(Thanks again for your link, btw.)

rogerb on May 9, 2014 at 9:52 PM

“Paul told David Axelrod” tells me a lot.

tenore on May 9, 2014 at 9:59 PM

“hypothetically”…and that’s why I asked my questions about him. He’s self-important and somewhat psychologically unstable, like his dear old dad. I do not admire those qualities.

non-nonpartisan on May 9, 2014 at 9:50 PM

Even a little bit?

I think the craziness element is vastly underrated in Presidential candidates. The uncertainty. No sane person will ever do what needs to be done to avert the train wreck this countries is approaching.

Bigbullets on May 9, 2014 at 10:00 PM

Hey.. I don’t want to show my ID for anything anymore. Why should I?

Maybe I’ll just go down to the bank and demand a loan and when they want to see some ID I’ll just scream “I’m offended!”

Why do some people always want to know my name? Where I live? My birth date. It makes me feel uncomfortable.

Why do I even need a license? I know how to drive a car without one. I think it’s offensive.

Hey.. how come some people who get offended some how matter more than when I get offended? Like.. If you say you are offended because I ask to see your ID to vote for the President of the United States… how come that matters more than when I get offended if you don’t want to show it?

It’s like.. when you get offended when I say “Jesus” cuz you don’t like Jesus. But if I get offended because you don’t like Jesus nobody cares.

JellyToast on May 9, 2014 at 10:00 PM

Another pandering Republican. I don’t care if voter ID offends some people,
it is the only way there is even a hope of an honest election. However, once
the GOP exercises its right to be the stupidest party in history by passing
immigration “reform” under Obama, voter ID won’t even help. Most illegals
will be registered and voting by mail or internet by 2016. The last chance
the GOP and the country have to survive is to reestablish the rule of law
with respect to immigration. The left is claiming it is a civil/human right’s
abuse to even ask if someone is in the country legally. With that attitude,
there will never be any enforcement. Never.

giatny on May 9, 2014 at 10:01 PM

I do not know bitterness. But I love answering questions. D

coolrepublica on May 9, 2014 at 9:48 PM

What do you feel was Hannibal’s primary failure during the Punic Wars?

Bigbullets on May 9, 2014 at 10:01 PM

Oh yeah an obvious attempt to disenfranchise the poor and minorities.

It’s not like they’re real voters, right?

Tlaloc on May 9, 2014 at 9:47 PM

Careful that the wind doesn’t knock over your straw man.

Bigbullets on May 9, 2014 at 10:03 PM

I think I already know who Rand is, and who he believes he is. I agree with you that he isn’t very self-aware. Do you believe he’s very smart?

non-nonpartisan on May 9, 2014 at 9:44 PM

I think we can impugn his motives and principles without impugning his intelligence. By all accounts, he seems to be fairly intelligent.

Bigbullets on May 9, 2014 at 10:06 PM

Who is Rand’s base, really? Who does Rand believe his base is? He is not very smart.

non-nonpartisan on May 9, 2014 at 9:22 PM

Paultards and increasingly, the GOP Establishment.

Christie is dead as a candidate and Jeb Bush is non-starter. Suddenly, the GOP establishment only hope to stop a rightwing favorite like Cruz is Paul. And the fact that Paul just slides further left each passing day is just icing on the cake for them.

Norwegian on May 9, 2014 at 10:16 PM

Good to see you again, Tlaloc …

you and righty45 helped show that Obamacare only covered 5 million previously-uninsured people, and all for the low, low cost of just $1.76 trillion.

FWIW, that’s $341K per person covered.

(Thanks again for your link, btw.)

rogerb on May 9, 2014 at 9:52 PM

Awesome!

You’re a treasure, rogerb …

ShainS on May 9, 2014 at 10:17 PM

Even a little bit?

No, not even a little bit.

I think the craziness element is vastly underrated in Presidential candidates. The uncertainty.

I don’t agree with this. Ron Paul often talks a good game, but then I look at his words and deeds, and don’t trust him. He’s a squish and a panderer, and not therefore not reliable enough. Like Rand.

No sane person will ever do what needs to be done to avert the train wreck this countries is approaching.

Bigbullets on May 9, 2014 at 10:00 PM

It depends on how you define “sane,” I think.

non-nonpartisan on May 9, 2014 at 10:20 PM

I think we can impugn his motives and principles without impugning his intelligence. By all accounts, he seems to be fairly intelligent.

Bigbullets on May 9, 2014 at 10:06 PM

By declaring that Rand is “not very intelligent,” I’m impugning his intelligence? Interesting.

non-nonpartisan on May 9, 2014 at 10:24 PM

One more clown comment like that and ol’ Aqua Buddha might need to stop working on getting his next gig and start working on keeping the job he already has.

Knott Buyinit on May 9, 2014 at 10:33 PM

Voter ID is only offensive to those who are in favor of voter fraud. Can we please have a list of all the countries who do require voter ID?

scrubjay on May 9, 2014 at 10:34 PM

The apple has fallen far from the tree. Ron Paul wasn’t afraid to be disliked due to his steadfast principles. Rand will say anything to gain a measure of acceptance.

Scottie on May 9, 2014 at 10:35 PM

Rand Paul is dropping off my plate of Presidential Contenders. He’s listening to black pastors and now believes voter i.d. is wrong? So a bunch of Jeremiah Wrights, who hate Republicans anyway, want to keep the ability to steal elections intact and now he wants to let them?

I believe you have to point out all the things you can’t do without an i.d. and then blame the Democrats for not wanting people to have access to that stuff. The Republicans should be out there offering to get i.d. for anyone who doesn’t have one. I’ll bet there are very few people, in this country, who don’t have a picture i.d.

If Rand Paul isn’t smart enough to figure this is a Democrat scam, I can’t imagine him negotiating with someone like Putin. The Democrats are playing to keep the Senate. They have their IRS in place, no voter I.D., in place, and many election sites run by Democrats. All I can say is you can’t steal a landslide, so Republicans better get moving.

bflat879 on May 9, 2014 at 10:38 PM

The apple has fallen far from the tree. Ron Paul wasn’t afraid to be disliked due to his steadfast principles. Rand will say anything to gain a measure of acceptance.

Scottie on May 9, 2014 at 10:35 PM

Ron Paul wasn’t a politician. He was a propagandist/activist/ideologue.

During a 22 years tenure in Congress, there was a single bill authored by Paul that was signed into law – one authorizing the sale of a federal customhouse.

Rand is clearly more ambitious.

joana on May 9, 2014 at 10:40 PM

Rand Paul is dropping off my plate of Presidential Contenders. He’s listening to black pastors and now believes voter i.d. is wrong? So a bunch of Jeremiah Wrights, who hate Republicans anyway, want to keep the ability to steal elections intact and now he wants to let them?

I believe you have to point out all the things you can’t do without an i.d. and then blame the Democrats for not wanting people to have access to that stuff. The Republicans should be out there offering to get i.d. for anyone who doesn’t have one. I’ll bet there are very few people, in this country, who don’t have a picture i.d.

If Rand Paul isn’t smart enough to figure this is a Democrat scam, I can’t imagine him negotiating with someone like Putin. The Democrats are playing to keep the Senate. They have their IRS in place, no voter I.D., in place, and many election sites run by Democrats. All I can say is you can’t steal a landslide, so Republicans better get moving.

bflat879 on May 9, 2014 at 10:38 PM

He acknowledge how some folks might be offended. I doubt he wants to let Democrats steal elections.

Don’t be so credulous.

joana on May 9, 2014 at 10:42 PM

“He says GOP needs to lay off voter ID. ‘It’s offending people.’”

You will never see a liberal say something like that about an issue conservatives hold dear, such as gun rights.

NihonFan on May 9, 2014 at 10:52 PM

Ron Paul wasn’t a politician. He was a propagandist/activist/ideologue.

During a 22 years tenure in Congress, there was a single bill authored by Paul that was signed into law – one authorizing the sale of a federal customhouse.

Rand is clearly more ambitious.

joana on May 9, 2014 at 10:40 PM

According to your logic an ambitious politician has dozens of authored bills signed into law…
And how has more and more law been beneficial to America? It hasn’t, things have gotten worse.

Sorry but I want a statesman. Someone who realizes that things need to revert and this isn’t accomplished by pandering to different blocs.

But the bottom line is Ron ran on a platform and rarely wavered, whereas Rand changes his stripes depending on the audience.

Scottie on May 9, 2014 at 10:59 PM

In 2010, Rand Paul instantly reversed himself on Civil Rights, because some lefties called him a racist. In 2014 he’s reversed himself on voter ID because some lefties called him a racist.

White conservative voters cannot be adequately represented by someone who will do what the left wants rather than be called a racist.

David Blue on May 9, 2014 at 11:15 PM

Showing an ID is too much (offensive) when voting? IF that is the case, then Congress should make law that a right thumbprint is required on all ballets cast, and counted, in any election in the U.S. That’s their job. We have the technology. Let the computers do their work to verify one person, one vote. Doesn’t seem to me that humans are up to the task (too much?) of verifying whether or not a person has the right to vote (or how many times a person votes). I’m confident that rightful voters would not object to such a law.

Netclimber on May 9, 2014 at 11:17 PM

According to your logic an ambitious politician has dozens of authored bills signed into law…
And how has more and more law been beneficial to America? It hasn’t, things have gotten worse.

a platform and rarely wavered, whereas Rand changes his stripes depending on the audience.

Scottie on May 9, 2014 at 10:59 PM

Hmm, wasn’t this one of the main criticism levelled at Obama, that he didn’t author any important piece legislation during his time in the Senate, and that he was content with voting present…

jimver on May 9, 2014 at 11:25 PM

Hmm, wasn’t this one of the main criticism levelled at Obama, that he didn’t author any important piece legislation during his time in the Senate, and that he was content with voting present…

jimver on May 9, 2014 at 11:25 PM

Try again and think harder

Voting “present” =/= authoring “important” legislation

Why do you think Ron Paul was called “Dr. No” – certainly not because he voted present…

Scottie on May 9, 2014 at 11:33 PM

According to your logic an ambitious politician has dozens of authored bills signed into law…
And how has more and more law been beneficial to America? It hasn’t, things have gotten worse.

Sorry but I want a statesman. Someone who realizes that things need to revert and this isn’t accomplished by pandering to different blocs.

But the bottom line is Ron ran on a platform and rarely wavered, whereas Rand changes his stripes depending on the audience.

Scottie on May 9, 2014 at 10:59 PM

Not necessarily. However, if in 22 years, half of them in the majority, 14 of them with a President of your own party, you have your name in a single piece of legislation – and a completely meaningless one – it’s fair to say policy making isn’t your priority, isn’t it? And that’s fine, there’s a place for politicians in that ilk. His all or nothing approach suits the goals of a propagandist though, not of a policy maker, at least in the American political system, which is designed to promote compromise and gradualism.

As for accomplishing things, first of all one needs to understand that absolutely nothing can or will be reversed without winning elections. And for that, we need Republicans who can doublespeak properly. Without coming across as phony or as flip-floppers. And Rand Paul is doing that well – notice how not even AP has been able to accuse him of flip-flopping. Has Rand Paul actually questioned voting-ID laws? Has he done anything to curb voting ID-laws? Has he even suggested he would? He’s merely showed empathy.

Being good at this has never prevented Obama and other presidents (Reagan was quite capable as well, Clinton was fantastic) from being tenacious and uncompromising after being elected. One can change the tone and the rhetoric without changing principles or intentions.

joana on May 9, 2014 at 11:37 PM

People here should read the most important part of the article (that obviously AP didn’t quote because he wants to rile you up – most of you are an easy target):

And, notably, he did not on Friday denounce voter ID laws as bad policy or take back previous statements in which he had said it was not unreasonable for voters to be required to show identification at the polls. He says these laws should be left to the states. (Kentucky does not have a restrictive voter identification statute.)

joana on May 9, 2014 at 11:46 PM

Why do you think Ron Paul was called “Dr. No” – certainly not because he voted present…

Scottie on May 9, 2014 at 11:33 PM

Oh, so voting ‘no’ is considered an accomplishment, while voting present not so much…and yet the evidence contradicts you, voting present served Obama better than Herr Doktor’s contrarian stance and the default ‘no’ voting…one ended up becoming the president, the other one retired without leaving much in terms of a legacy…

jimver on May 9, 2014 at 11:52 PM

When some lilly white leftwing moron starts lecturing you about how asking for voter ID discriminates against blacks, please bring this up:

http://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/three-forms-id-acceptable-voter-registration

The government of black South Africa requires voters to have one of three valid forms of ID.

If they can get it right there, there is zero reason for anyone here to prove who they are and that they are only voting once.

FrankT on May 9, 2014 at 11:56 PM

In 2014 he’s reversed himself on voter ID because some lefties called him a racist.

David Blue on May 9, 2014 at 11:15 PM

Except he didn’t.

joana on May 9, 2014 at 11:58 PM

To Joana

…suits the goals of a propagandist though, not of a policy maker

Sorry, there are more positions than simply propagandist or policy maker.

at least in the American political system, which is designed to promote compromise and gradualism.

Please go back and read the fundamental differences argued between Jefferson and Hamilton.

As for accomplishing things, first of all one needs to understand that absolutely nothing can or will be reversed without winning elections. And for that, we need Republicans

But wasn’t Obamacare care upheld by an ostensibly republican dominated supreme court?

As for Rand, I’d like to see a transcript regarding this whole speech. I get context as much as the next guy. But my issues with Rand go deeper than this latest alleged gaffe. And there is no way you can simply write it off as strategy (like Obama saying he’d be the most transparent President ever).

Being good at this has never prevented Obama and other presidents (Reagan was quite capable as well, Clinton was fantastic) from being tenacious and uncompromising after being elected. One can change the tone and the rhetoric without changing principles or intentions.

What a metric to measure shills by: lying to the American public.
We agree Obama is a disaster, Clinton was a disaster, and Reagan signed into law amnesty for millions of democrat voters —- whats your point?

Scottie on May 9, 2014 at 11:59 PM

Wow! Rand is rapidly deteriorating as a viable candidate. Who’s more offended? Blacks being stoked by activists or, as the polls show, the majority of common sense Americans who think it is a no brainer that everyone should be required to show a qualified ID in order to vote to ensure the integrity of everyone’s vote. Rand is succumbing to the consultants who are nothing more than indoctrinated sycophants of big government.

polmom on May 10, 2014 at 12:05 AM

Rand Paul often makes conflict statements in front of different groups.

Rand Paul is so FAKE!

sohumm on May 10, 2014 at 12:08 AM

Simple problem, simple solution. In the U.S., money seems to be the problem to enact the solution.

Netclimber on May 10, 2014 at 12:08 AM

Sorry, there are more positions than simply propagandist or policy maker.

Sure, but if there’s someone who categorically falls on a camp and not the other is Ron Paul.

Please go back and read the fundamental differences argued between Jefferson and Hamilton.

I don’t need to read about Hamilton vs Jefferson, but I’m not sure why do you think it’s relevant here. It’s a matter of legislative process, not of scope and power.

But wasn’t Obamacare care upheld by an ostensibly republican dominated supreme court?

As for Rand, I’d like to see a transcript regarding this whole speech. I get context as much as the next guy. But my issues with Rand go deeper than this latest alleged gaffe. And there is no way you can simply write it off as strategy (like Obama saying he’d be the most transparent President ever).

The SCOTUS is hardly “ostensibly republican”. The mandate was uphold, yes. Not sure what’s the relevance here either. The reason there’s an Obamacare is because Democrats won tons of elections and had a trifecta with a super majority in the Senate.

What do you mean by “writing it off as strategy”? Again, he didn’t reverse his position on voting-ID laws, that’s explicitly noted in the article. Just doing some good old doublespeak.

What a metric to measure shills by: lying to the American public.
We agree Obama is a disaster, Clinton was a disaster, and Reagan signed into law amnesty for millions of democrat voters —- whats your point?

Again, not sure what your point is. That it’s not worth to win elections? That there’s no point in the democratic process? I have little use for that sort of nihilistic views – that’s just me, they’re surely respectable.

And I wouldn’t call it lying. Did he lie? Politics is about persuading people; and not to agree with the totality of your world-view, rather to give you their trust and vote. It is what it is, it is what it’s always been since the Roman Senate.

joana on May 10, 2014 at 12:13 AM

What a metric to measure shills by: lying to the American public.
We agree Obama is a disaster, Clinton was a disaster, and Reagan signed into law amnesty for millions of democrat voters —- whats your point?

Scottie on May 9, 2014 at 11:59 PM

That if you don’t win elections, you’re as good as dead, as far as effecting any policy change goes…alternatively, one can always start hashtags and/or rant on blogs about liberal media bias, leftist radicalism, common core, obamacare and everything under the sun…it’s been working so well for our side so far…

jimver on May 10, 2014 at 12:16 AM

it is what it’s always been since the Roman Senate.

Et Tu Brute?

Scottie on May 10, 2014 at 12:20 AM

The reason there’s an Obamacare is because Democrats won tons of elections and had a trifecta with a super majority in the Senate.

joana on May 10, 2014 at 12:13 AM

.
The reason the ACA stands “as the law-of-the-land” is because too many Americans have grown too lazy to participate in the political process.

These Americans are more interested in planning and carrying out their recreational activities. They don’t realize how close they are to losing the right to live like they do.

Until they they can be made to believe that their continued practicing of these activities is genuinely in jeopardy, they’re not gonna budge.

That’s how we ended up with Obama, and a Democrat trifecta super majority in the Senate.

listens2glenn on May 10, 2014 at 12:27 AM

‘Our voter ID push is “offending people”’ This is the article everyone is referring to here, right?

Netclimber on May 10, 2014 at 12:36 AM

These Americans are more interested in planning and carrying out their recreational activities. They don’t realize how close they are to losing the right to live like they do.

listens2glenn on May 10, 2014 at 12:27 AM

Yep.

“It can’t happen here …”

I suspect they were saying that in pre-Revolutionary Russia, pre-Nazi Germany, pre-Mao China, pre-Pol Pot Cambodia, et. al.

ShainS on May 10, 2014 at 12:37 AM

.
The reason the ACA stands “as the law-of-the-land” is because too many Americans have grown too lazy to participate in the political process.

These Americans are more interested in planning and carrying out their recreational activities. They don’t realize how close they are to losing the right to live like they do.

Until they they can be made to believe that their continued practicing of these activities is genuinely in jeopardy, they’re not gonna budge.

That’s how we ended up with Obama, and a Democrat trifecta super majority in the Senate.

listens2glenn on May 10, 2014 at 12:27 AM

And what do you think it should be done about that? Besides the crazy fantasies of civil wars? Wait for a collective epiphany?

joana on May 10, 2014 at 12:43 AM

.

The reason the ACA stands “as the law-of-the-land” is because too many Americans have grown too lazy to participate in the political process.

These Americans are more interested in planning and carrying out their recreational activities. They don’t realize how close they are to losing the right to live like they do.

Until they they can be made to believe that their continued practicing of these activities is genuinely in jeopardy, they’re not gonna budge.

That’s how we ended up with Obama, and a Democrat trifecta super majority in the Senate.

listens2glenn on May 10, 2014 at 12:27 AM

In the meantime, the opposite is true about the libs, they are more and more active and vocal and involved, when it comes to political participation, and with the demographics shift that favor them…you need all the help (and every trick in the bag) you can get to win elections, if you are a R…

jimver on May 10, 2014 at 12:44 AM

And what do you think it should be done about that? Besides the crazy fantasies of civil wars? Wait for a collective epiphany?

joana on May 10, 2014 at 12:43 AM

:)

jimver on May 10, 2014 at 12:46 AM

I voted here in TN in local elections last week.

I smiled at the sign on the door before I walked in,

PHOTO ID REQUIRED TO VOTE.

Moesart on May 10, 2014 at 12:58 AM

This is a good start. We elect our people in congress to make laws for our benefit, not for their monetary benefit. A photo ID can be bought. A thumbprint is indisputable. It’s really very simple.

Netclimber on May 10, 2014 at 1:53 AM

Since that form of vote fraud is so rare as to be virtually non-existent imposing the ID requirement won’t enhance integrity one iota. Everyone knows this. Nobody who want to skew a vote is going to find hundred or thousands of people and get them to vote fraudulently (which is the only case where ID actually helps).

So having taken off the table a sudden deep regard for democracy (from the same people who routinely argue we need to revoke suffrage from every group that doesn’t vote for them) what are we left with?

Oh yeah an obvious attempt to disenfranchise the poor and minorities.

It’s not like they’re real voters, right?

Tlaloc on May 9, 2014 at 9:47 PM

A DOJ report on NC voter ID law prior to the DOJ bringing suit found minorities were NOT going to be disenfranchised by the law.

The issue isn’t the number of fraudulent votes. It’s the balance of reality vs fraudulent votes in tight elections.

Read up on Al Franken’s election, or Christine Gregoire election in Washington State.

Franken’s election MN had over 2000 fraudulent votes cast. Franken won by ~200 votes. There were enough convictions that year to change the outcome of the race.

In Gregoire’s election on the third re-count (the first 2 favoring Rossi the Republican) election officials weeks later finally ‘found’ some ballots in the trunk of a clerk’s car. She won -finally- by ~100 votes.

Lets face it, progressives are good at stealing elections. They’ve a century of practice. Any idea, law, method to make elections fair, real, true will be TRASHED by progressives.

Why do you think Obama had the IRS, ATF, OSHA harass, intimidate, delay a little .org named TRUE THE VOTE. It scared the crap out of him! Can’t have none of that TRUE THE VOTE chit going on!

“Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.” Stalin

old school on May 10, 2014 at 2:04 AM

Paul Diverges From His Party Over Voter ID

MEMPHIS — Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky broke Friday with fellow Republicans who have pushed for stricter voting laws as a way to crack down on fraud at the polls, saying that the focus on such measures alienates and insults African-Americans and hurts the party.

“Everybody’s gone completely crazy on this voter ID thing,” Mr. Paul said in an interview. “I think it’s wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because it’s offending people.”

Pander is the word that immediately comes to mind after reading his statement.

Now let’s take a look at some polling data:

Rasmussen Poll: 78 Percent of Voters Support Voter ID Laws

The article was posted on March 25, 2014. The poll was conducted between March 20 – 21 of 1,000 likely voters, with a margin of error of +/- 3%.

Six out of 10 respondents said laws that require voters to provide proof of citizenship do not discriminate, up three points from a year ago, while 29 percent said that the requirement does discriminate.


North Carolina – Survey Finds Wide Support for Voter ID Law

The poll was conducted for Elon University between February 24 – 28, 2013.

Poll: Voter ID laws have support of a majority of Americans

The article was published by the Washington Post on August 11, 2012.

Almost three-quarters of all Americans support the idea that people should have to show photo identification to vote, even though they are nearly as concerned about voter suppression as they are about fraud in presidential elections, according to a new Washington Post poll.

Sorry Senator, but the vast majority of Americans disagree.

john.frank on May 10, 2014 at 2:15 AM

On my nonexistent world, that form of vote fraud is so rare as to be virtually non-existent

Tlaloc on May 9, 2014 at 9:47 PM

You’re an unusually bad liar.

Democrat Vote/Voter Fraud can be traced all the way back to 1960, if not earlier. In that Presidential election, over a hundred Illinois election officials were after the fact formally charged with voter fraud and/or vote fraud. The Activist Democrat Judges in Illinois conveniently tossed out all of the charges.

Later on, your Democrat Media in 2001 tried to prove that the 500 +/- vote margin in the Florida election was fraudulent. The fact that they did so proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they and their DNC owners knew all along that such a tiny number of votes could swing the entire election.

And then there is Al Franken…please tell us how many elections the Republicans have “stolen” over the past half century, OK?

DISMISSED -

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2014 at 2:31 AM

Yeaeaeah. Stick a fork in him.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 10, 2014 at 2:33 AM

Hopefully Democrats can ease on their radical and extremist positions on election integrity laws and we can all work together to improve them.

joana on May 9, 2014 at 7:20 PM

Democrats, especially moderate/center-left Dems, support Voter ID laws. The only people opposed to them are hardcore liberals that will never vote for a GOP candidate anyway.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 10, 2014 at 2:38 AM

Democrats, especially moderate/center-left Dems, support Voter ID laws. The only people opposed to them are hardcore liberals that will never vote for a GOP candidate anyway.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 10, 2014 at 2:38 AM

I don’t care. That’s what Republican politicians should say – obviously not to attract liberal voters, rather to come across as reasonable to centrists.

Which is exactly what Paul is doing. It’s a matter of tone and rhetoric. Makes him look empathetic and reasonable without diluting the principles.

joana on May 10, 2014 at 2:41 AM

I was saying what our candidates should publicly say. Not what they should believe, surely not what I believe.

joana on May 9, 2014 at 8:15 PM

Because candidates at the national level often win when they drop a lifetime worth of principles and start sounding like pandering, prevaracating automatons?

Worked well for Kerry and Romney, at least.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 10, 2014 at 2:51 AM

Because candidates at the national level often win when they drop a lifetime worth of principles and start sounding like pandering, prevaracating automatons?

Worked well for Kerry and Romney, at least.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 10, 2014 at 2:51 AM

I’ve already explained this.

As for accomplishing things, first of all one needs to understand that absolutely nothing can or will be reversed without winning elections. And for that, we need Republicans who can doublespeak properly. Without coming across as phony or as flip-floppers. And Rand Paul is doing that well – notice how not even AP has been able to accuse him of flip-flopping. Has Rand Paul actually questioned voting-ID laws? Has he done anything to curb voting ID-laws? Has he even suggested he would? He’s merely showed empathy.

People here should read the most important part of the article (that obviously AP didn’t quote because he wants to rile you up – most of you are an easy target):

And, notably, he did not on Friday denounce voter ID laws as bad policy or take back previous statements in which he had said it was not unreasonable for voters to be required to show identification at the polls. He says these laws should be left to the states. (Kentucky does not have a restrictive voter identification statute.)

joana on May 9, 2014 at 11:46 PM

Pandering is bad; expressing empathy and reasonableness is good.

The difference between one and the other? Political skills.

joana on May 10, 2014 at 2:55 AM

Which is exactly what Paul is doing. It’s a matter of tone and rhetoric. Makes him look empathetic and reasonable without diluting the principles.

joana on May 10, 2014 at 2:41 AM

No it doesn’t; it makes him look weak to his base. He’s acting like a candidate who won the nomination and now has to attract centrists and swing-voters, even though we’re a year and a half away from the primaries and he’s probably not the prohibitive favorite (though he’s in the Top 3).

None of this is going to matter if he gets the GOP nod; we’re going to hear 24/7 about how he’s a nutcase that worshipped Aqua Buddha, a racist who didn’t think the CRA was necessary, and a “dangerous extremist” who once fillibustered in support of terrorists because he was against drone strikes. Which is why pandering to anything left of the very moderate center-left is worthless. Besides, a GOP candidate can win in 2016 with just a coalition of “RINOs,” tea party types, “TruCons,” and a handful of Frum-brand centrists.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 10, 2014 at 2:57 AM

Pandering is bad; expressing empathy and reasonableness is good.

The difference between one and the other? Political skills.

joana on May 10, 2014 at 2:55 AM

No, the difference is perspective. You want Rand to look good, so to you it looks like empathy. To others, it will look like pandering.

When the 24/7 news cycle after Rand’s nomination is dominated by his previous comments about the CRA, he’s not going to look very “empathetic.” Which is why he doesn’t need to play these bull**** pandering games. Just be a smart, polished, articulate libertarian, but cut out the libertarian policies that would alienate his base. I absolutely think a libertarian candidate can win if they keep the focus off of social issues.

He’s already done a good job of emulating the parts of his father that made Ron Paul a cult figure but dropping the dovish isolationist nonsense that stopped Ron from ever being a serious challenger at the national level. That’s been one of his best political machinations; he never explicitly endorsed his father’s policies, so it’s not a flip-flop if he articulates a bellicose, muscular foreign policy during the primaries.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 10, 2014 at 3:04 AM

I don’t need to read about Hamilton vs Jefferson, but I’m not sure why do you think it’s relevant here. It’s a matter of legislative process, not of scope and power.

joana on May 10, 2014 at 12:13 AM

So “real” conservatives need to read Voegelin, Kirk, and back issues from the 1960′s of National Review, but shouldn’t bother with the debates between our country’s actual founders? Awesome.

By the way, Prof. Joana, you never mentioned if Strauss is also on our required reading list.

Ever read Cato’s Letters? Gives a very good contextual framework for understanding the arguments in the Federalist Papers.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 10, 2014 at 3:09 AM


No it doesn’t; it makes him look weak to his base.
He’s acting like a candidate who won the nomination and now has to attract centrists and swing-voters, even though we’re a year and a half away from the primaries and he’s probably not the prohibitive favorite (though he’s in the Top 3).

None of this is going to matter if he gets the GOP nod; we’re going to hear 24/7 about how he’s a nutcase that worshipped Aqua Buddha, a racist who didn’t think the CRA was necessary, and a “dangerous extremist” who once fillibustered in support of terrorists because he was against drone strikes. Which is why pandering to anything left of the very moderate center-left is worthless. Besides, a GOP candidate can win in 2016 with just a coalition of “RINOs,” tea party types, “TruCons,” and a handful of Frum-brand centrists.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 10, 2014 at 2:57 AM

What base? The only segment of the base that might be alienated by bleeding heart rhetoric are the people here, TruCons. Protip: no candidate is winning the presidential nomination without alienating this part of the base. You guys love flaming and fighting rhetoric too much; to please you, a candidate makes himself unacceptable to the rest of the world and the largest part of the base acts accordingly. Cain, Bachmann and Perry were the HotAir favourites two years ago, they were all gone after NH.

In the end, he believes in voting-ID laws. Why does it matter if he doesn’t go around rubbing them on the face of people who oppose them?

joana on May 10, 2014 at 3:15 AM

“Yay! I’m no longer the kook in the family!”
- Ron Paul

Ronnie on May 10, 2014 at 3:18 AM

So “real” conservatives need to read Voegelin, Kirk, and back issues from the 1960′s of National Review, but shouldn’t bother with the debates between our country’s actual founders? Awesome.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 10, 2014 at 3:09 AM

I don’t need to read them because I remember their arguments very well. Still can’t see the relevancy for the issue at hand.

Strauss is too esoteric, obscure and unapproachable to me. I quickly moved to reading him vicariously through Jaffa and secondary sources.

joana on May 10, 2014 at 3:22 AM

In the end, he believes in voting-ID laws. Why does it matter if he doesn’t go around rubbing them on the face of people who oppose them?

joana on May 10, 2014 at 3:15 AM

Who is rubbing it in anyone’s face? If anything, Rand is rubbing it into his conservative base’s face by playing into the leftist conceit that Voter ID is a racial issue. By admitting that Voter ID laws are “offensive,” Rand is conceding that Voter ID is a racial issue, even though it isn’t.

The base I’m referring to would be the vast majority of Republicans who offer their full-throated support to Voter ID laws and who don’t need them to be sanitized and bawdlerized as “election integrity laws.” Such a mawkish, castrated turn of phrase. You know, if we actually pick our battles, we can fight this garbage doublespeak instead of giving in and playing their game. Heard anybody talk about a “man-caused disaster” lately? Surrending isn’t always smart politics. Fighting isn’t always just a sop to the base.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 10, 2014 at 3:25 AM

Strauss is too esoteric, obscure and unapproachable to me. I quickly moved to reading him vicariously through Jaffa and secondary sources.

joana on May 10, 2014 at 3:22 AM

Esoteric and upapproachable? Yup, that’s pretty much the entire canon of political philosophy. Jaffa’s alright, but he comes off as an egomaniac in interviews. That might be a product of his age, though.

Honestly, I’ve read very little 20th century philosophy that wasn’t forced on me at academic gunpoint (Rawls, Foucault, Buber, Heidegger). On my own, I’ve basically kept to people who dabble in religion like Weber and Eliade. A bit of Scruton, though I didn’t realize he was even considered a “conservative philosopher.”

Politics is contested on a daily basis and has millions of real life examples and applications. I don’t see the purpose of dabbling in philosophical minutiae in a field that is so focused on the moment.

If I ever have a taste for circumlocution, there’s plenty of that in 20th century fiction (Pynchon, Barth, DeLillo).

Good Solid B-Plus on May 10, 2014 at 3:32 AM

You know what offends me?

Voter fraud!

And pro-illegal alien amnesty politicians like Rand Paul.

bluegill on May 10, 2014 at 3:34 AM

In the end, he believes in voting-ID laws. Why does it matter if he doesn’t go around rubbing them on the face of people who oppose them?
joana on May 10, 2014 at 3:15 AM

He is helping to legitimize the idea that voter ID laws are racist. He should be pushing back hard against that vicious smear and should tell the truth.

bluegill on May 10, 2014 at 3:38 AM

If we’re going to adopt the joana style of politics, the pragmatic, focus-groupped approach, then let’s take things to the logical extreme. We should have our political strategists and thinktanks stop doing studies and white papers that only 12 people will read, and we should start grooming actors at a young age to be our future candidates.

It’s basically what the left did with Obama, except to the nth degree. Their method was finding a young, ambitious, sort-of-talented but not so talented that they’ll go off the reservation politician with a story that will appeal to a lot of people (first black President!), and then groom them from a young age to be a candidate even if they have extremely few actual acheivements.

We can go more hardcore than that. Find someone even younger, with no interest in politics but an acute interest in being famous, and let them treat it like the world’s grandest movie. It’ll be method acting of the highest order. When they do get elected, we know they’ll implement conservative policies because they have no ideas, policies or principles of their own, so they’re forced to rely on their viziers.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 10, 2014 at 3:43 AM

He is helping to legitimize the idea that voter ID laws are racist. He should be pushing back hard against that vicious smear and should tell the truth.

bluegill on May 10, 2014 at 3:38 AM

Yup. By taking this approach he’s conceding that it’s about race, when it clearly isn’t. If most Democrats thought this was about race, they wouldn’t continue to support it in polling year after year. You wouldn’t see examples like the ones posted above about local politicians in places like Rhode Island and Massachusetts working to implement Voter ID laws. Clearly, to most sane people, Voter ID is not a racial issue. Our candidates shouldn’t treat it like one.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 10, 2014 at 3:46 AM

Screw Rand Paul. I’ve had enough of his schtick.

I am now of the opinion that America may need to have a civil war to clean out all the dregs of society.

UODuckMan on May 10, 2014 at 4:10 AM

Has Rands Paul “evolved” or just demonstrated that he’s another hack with no real principles he considers worth defending?

Nomas on May 10, 2014 at 6:45 AM

Has Rands Paul “evolved” or just demonstrated that he’s another hack with no real principles he considers worth defending?

Nomas on May 10, 2014 at 6:45 AM

Color me crazy, but I’m going with hack with no real principles.

TxAnn56 on May 10, 2014 at 6:49 AM

They’ll be desperate in 2016 to maintain the high level of black turnout that Obama saw in 2008 and 2012.

Bwahahahahaha…

Yeah, desperate is the right word. Democrats know that black participation will only be as heavy with another black candidate.

They might even throw Hillary under the bus while pushing another black candidate to get that type of turnout again.

ButterflyDragon on May 10, 2014 at 6:57 AM

Apparently the NSA has accumulated some pretty good dirt on Rand…
See Ya!

trs on May 10, 2014 at 7:24 AM

You gotta love this. Back in February the NAACP in North Carolina held a rally and a march to protest North Carolina’s recent voter I.D. laws. To participate in the rally, each person was required to present – wait for it – a photo I.D.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/08/naacp-requires-marchers-protesting-north-carolina-voter-id-law-to-show-photo-id/

TarheelBen on May 10, 2014 at 7:44 AM

The statement, “The Nut never falls far from the tree” still applies. And it applies here. Although both Ron and Rand Paul have a strong following, it is statements like this that have always narrowed the interest among the MAJORITY for both of them. Ron is notorious for stating 4 great positions and then he would state a 5th that would override the previous 4. Just when they seem to be on a good path they adopt something stupid.

If voter I.D. offends blacks, is it the other people who are wrong and should adapt? Surly not, voter ID is just a sign of a civil society. Are we to continue to reduce the civility of our society for people who come from other lands who do not adopt civil principals.

What is it we are allowing people to come to our country for? A) To make us more like them? B) Allow them to pursue a better life by becoming more like us?

Nat George on May 10, 2014 at 7:45 AM

For starters, every Republican politician should start calling them election integrity laws.

Additionally, expressions like “black voters”, “inner cities political machines”, “Philadelphia”, “Cook County machine”, “immigrants”, etc, should never be used when talking about election integrity laws.

The only thing that matters is putting voting-ID laws in the books at the minimal political cost.

joana on May 9, 2014 at 8:06 PM

You’ve really lost me here. I’ve never heard anybody say that voter I.D. laws were passed just for “black voters,” “immigrants,” or for folks in “Philadelphia.” When a state passes a voter I.D. law it generally applies to everyone in the state, regardless of race or where they live.

TarheelBen on May 10, 2014 at 8:06 AM

If voter ID goes away and/or amnesty becomes law, there will be no more GOP. That is fact.

stenwin77 on May 10, 2014 at 8:08 AM

Rand, I’m sure the vast majority of what we believe offends someone. Its sort of impossible to take any political position and not offend anyone.

The question here is whether people should be required to present some kind of ID before participating in our civic process.

The request for ID checks is not unreasonable. Go to a bank, drive a car, etc and you need ID. The only people that don’t have ID in this country are illegal immigrants and that’s only in places where they don’t issue such IDs to illegal immigrants.

Every citizen has ID. Saying otherwise is asinine. Requiring it is not a big deal. A driver’s license would be sufficient.

Karmashock on May 10, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Who’s been pushing hard for voter ID lately? I don’t even hear this come up at all. This should be a state by state requirement and each state should have some form of ID required of it’s citizens. We have a drivers license or a photo ID that is free issued in our state. What is so difficult about that? Those students at Howard need to start thinking about their futures and forget what the grievance crowd is brain washing them with about what happened in pre-civil rights days. The killing of MLK was a terrible paradigm for this country.

Kissmygrits on May 10, 2014 at 8:56 AM

Rand Paul’s PANDERING to the left is offending ME. Identification is required to board airplanes, cash checks, purchase alcohol–even to go visit Rand Paul’s office. It’s NOT too much to ask to secure the vote.

Armyspouse on May 10, 2014 at 8:57 AM

Color me crazy, but I’m going with hack with no real principles.

TxAnn56 on May 10, 2014 at 6:49 AM

Aren’t you the one who frequently complains about how Texas and the Houston area in particular is being destroyed by illegal aliens? Rand Paul is pro-amnesty.

Yes, I guess I will color you crazy.

bw222 on May 10, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7