Rand Paul’s PAC clarifies: He never said he opposed voter ID laws, did he?

posted at 3:21 pm on May 13, 2014 by Allahpundit

A belated response to the uproar after 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.


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

Meow. There is a Moby on thread. Can you guess which nom is the Moby?

Bmore on May 13, 2014 at 5:59 PM

Meow. There is a Moby on thread. Can you guess which nom is the Moby?

Bmore on May 13, 2014 at 5:59 PM

I’m sorry, I didn’t quite hear you.

Did you say moby or moron?

Dolce Far Niente on May 13, 2014 at 6:03 PM

For somebody who is supposed to be so principled he sure either says a lot of stuff he doesn’t mean or a lot of stuff he does mean but is sorry he lets slip.In either case I won’t vote for a weathervane.

redware on May 13, 2014 at 5:57 PM

What stuff did he say that he didn’t mean? What stuff did he let slip?

Skipity on May 13, 2014 at 6:06 PM

What stuff did he say that he didn’t mean? What stuff did he let slip?
Skipity on May 13, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Skipity, you were the one calling many HotAir commenters racist for saying the reaction to Sterling’s private phone call was overblown, so it’s no surprise to see you now have no problem with Paul giving legitimacy to the absurd idea that voter ID laws can reasonably be seen as “racist.”

bluegill on May 13, 2014 at 6:10 PM

200+ comments. Yeah!

coolrepublica on May 13, 2014 at 6:11 PM

I couldn’t care less about Rand Paul’s transparently phony efforts to make himself seem more acceptable to Democrats and to non-conservatives, but I do care that he is hurting the efforts for voter ID laws by giving liberals more ammunition and legitimacy in their drive to paint voter ID requirements as “racist.”

bluegill on May 13, 2014 at 5:49 PM

That’s a legit concern.

So you think that a court or state legislature might sway to the side of implementing voter ID, but then the opposition pulls out the quote “I think the GOP might be over-emphasizing it to the point of offending people” and it’s like that OJ Simpson try on the Glove moment all over again.

Is that what you mean?

Skipity on May 13, 2014 at 6:11 PM

You implement conservative policy by winning elections, not by making loud self-righteous proclamations.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 5:34 PM

That worked real well from 2001 – 2006 when the Republicans implemented no conservative policies but simply served as a placeholder for the Democrats until they could recapture the White House and Congress.

bw222 on May 13, 2014 at 6:16 PM

“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.”

At the point pinhead started talking about principles, as if they were mere strategies, he blew up his creds

Wonder who he means by ‘everyone’

He cant mean the RINOs.

entagor on May 13, 2014 at 6:20 PM

What stuff did he say that he didn’t mean? What stuff did he let slip?
Skipity on May 13, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Skipity, you were the one calling many HotAir commenters racist for saying the reaction to Sterling’s private phone call was overblown, so it’s no surprise to see you now have no problem with Paul giving legitimacy to the absurd idea that voter ID laws can reasonably be seen as “racist.”

bluegill on May 13, 2014 at 6:10 PM

I don’t see how that’s an answer to my questions . . .

What stuff did he say that he didn’t mean? What stuff did he let slip?
Skipity on May 13, 2014 at 6:06 PM

But OK. In that same vein I can see how it would offend you that someone thinks anything short of turning on the Auschwitz shower gas is racism.

Or is that even racism?

Skipity on May 13, 2014 at 6:22 PM

coolrepublica on May 13, 2014 at 6:11 PM

Just curious as to your answer to this from a separate Paul thread.

Bmore on May 13, 2014 at 6:24 PM

Answer there if you prefer.

Bmore on May 13, 2014 at 6:27 PM

Skipity, you were the one calling many HotAir commenters racist for saying the reaction to Sterling’s private phone call was overblown, so it’s no surprise to see you now have no problem with Paul giving legitimacy to the absurd idea that voter ID laws can reasonably be seen as “racist.”

bluegill on May 13, 2014 at 6:10 PM

HA may have reached a new low for trolls with Skipity … and that’s really saying something.

bw222 on May 13, 2014 at 6:27 PM

it’s no surprise to see you now have no problem with Paul giving legitimacy to the absurd idea that voter ID laws can reasonably be seen as “racist.”

bluegill on May 13, 2014 at 6:10 PM

To jump in here — I don’t think that’s what Rand was doing. I think he’s planning on running for President of the United States and doesn’t want to get bogged down on something that everyone agrees is a state issue.

Same with abortion.

If everyone here took a moment to understand libertarian ideas, I don’t think any of what Rand has said would be surprising to you.

Could it be that simple?

Timin203 on May 13, 2014 at 6:32 PM

HA may have reached a new low for trolls with Skipity … and that’s really saying something.

bw222 on May 13, 2014 at 6:27 PM

Sweet. First a new meaning for the word transparent (still don’t know what that new meaning is) and now a new low for trolls.

A new low.

For trolls.

As in I have gone further and lower in trolling than anyone in the HISTORY OF THE INTERNET.

That’s about as cogent as your other assertion . . . so at least you got consistency.

Skipity on May 13, 2014 at 6:43 PM

“If you like your views, you can keep your views To yourself.”

ncjetsfan on May 13, 2014 at 6:51 PM

cEngaging in ad hominem attacks does you no favors. You’ve been defending Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, up and down this thread, which makes you a Rand Paul supporter. The relationship of father to son has been likened by at least one of Rand Paul’s staffers as that of a business CEO to to the company President. The son uses his father’s organization and contacts to further his own ambitions–which are his father’s ambitions, as well. And so on. We’re talking about less than one degree of separation between the two, literally and ideologically.

So you’re still being disingenuous. Personally, I like it when Paul supporters are straight-up about their beliefs, as crazy and hateful as some of those beliefs are. At least they’re being honest.

troyriser_gopftw on May 13, 2014 at 5:40 PM

So, my evident scorn for libertarians, big l or not, wasn’t evident? Did you miss my antipathy for Paulite/Rothbardian ideas? My disdain for Ron Paul wasn’t a clue?

You are the ultimate example of everything that is wrong with TruCons.

You might not care for ad hominems, but you sure are an expert with non sequiturs.

Defending Rand Paul doesn’t make me a Rand Paul supporter, let alone a Ron Paul supporter or a libertarian. I don’t belong to clubs – I’ve criticized Rand Paul in the past and will do it again in the future if it’s warranted. But hey, you have me all figured out: I must be a Ron Paul supporter. Funnily enough, just last week I was accused of being a Ron Paul hater in this same site.Of course, that’s just too complicated for someone like you, isn’t it?

That primitive and over-emotional analytical grid that gives no space to nuance or critical thought is one of the main traits of TruCons. You must either be 0% or 100% on someone’s side and everything must be one-dimensional.

If the issue is politics, then I’ll praise good politics and attack bad politics. It isn’t ideological, it has nothing to do with personal preferences.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 6:52 PM

Just curious as to your answer to this from a separate Paul thread.

Bmore on May 13, 2014 at 6:24 PM

My answer is Paul is going on a listening tour and saying “hey, I see where you are coming from and I am not dismissing them.” Paul is doing actual listening.

I support the idea of having voter ID card, but when I hear politicians blatantly state that their main reason for having those laws is to keep democrats from voting, it makes me not want to support it as much. Because it scream, we’re doing this to keep democratic voters i.e minorities from getting their voices heard. And that’s not good. You can’t blame black people who hear those politicians as well not be too thrilled about what is going on.

So if Paul can go and listen to minorities state their concerns about various issues, and come out understanding where they are coming from, it is a good thing. After all, what is the point of doing a listening tour if all you want to do is talk at people.

coolrepublica on May 13, 2014 at 6:54 PM

Why can’t Rand window dress what he’s saying to get elected but Obama can?

Notorious GOP on May 13, 2014 at 6:55 PM

That worked real well from 2001 – 2006 when the Republicans implemented no conservative policies but simply served as a placeholder for the Democrats until they could recapture the White House and Congress.

bw222 on May 13, 2014 at 6:16 PM

Exactly. Because people were fooled by their righteous proclamations instead of criticizing their policies. It wasn’t patriotic or something.

And do you know who was in full support of the Bush/Chenney/Hastert/DeLay GOP?

Levin, the talk radio hosts and the army of TruCons that now are so disgusted by the establishment.

That’s the biggest irony of it all.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 6:55 PM

Rand appears to mean (this week) that Republicans talk too much (“go crazy”) about voter ID, when in fact it is mostly Dems who bang the drum about it, seeking to fire up a minority base who might not be inspired to vote when Teh Won isn’t on the ballot. Conservatives only seem to talk about it when some activist judge or Atty Gen acts to overturn properly passed legislation among the states.

He is giving credence to the meme that 1) yeah, voter fraud might ON VERY RARE OCCASIONS occur, but to talk about it is racist and offensive and 2) Pubs just go crazy about it (the racists).

“Now, some people have said that biting the heads off chickens is something the Republican Party is just too focused on. While its true that we need a national discussion over chicken head-biting, we shouldn’t be concentrating on this as the only issue our party is talking about.”

Dolce Far Niente on May 13, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Why can’t Rand window dress what he’s saying to get elected but Obama can?

Notorious GOP on May 13, 2014 at 6:55 PM

Rand can too.

The only people who think he can’t are the crazies. And people who’re scared of Rand Paul for his stance on security stuff like the NSA and such (like our own AllahPundit) will obviously try to leverage on this and use it to rile up the simpletons against Paul.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 6:58 PM

So you think that a court or state legislature might sway to the side of implementing voter ID, but then the opposition pulls out the quote “I think the GOP might be over-emphasizing it to the point of offending people” and it’s like that OJ Simpson try on the Glove moment all over again.
Is that what you mean?
Skipity on May 13, 2014 at 6:11 PM

No. Rand Paul is a prominent Republican, and he is helping legitimize the “voter ID requirements are racist” argument. As a potential party nominee, he would influence how others in the party approach this issue, and this will have an effect on public opinion. He is conceding part of the argument, apparently in a transparent, phony and ultimately unsuccessful attempt to moderate his persona and to try to get people who normally hate conservatives to like him.

Skipity, why are you always so eager to accept the claims that “conservatives are racist” and scold conservatives for not shutting up in the face of liberals’ threatening to scream “racism!”?

Maybe it’s crazy, but I’d like to see a conservative candidate clearly stand for what is right, especially on an issue as obvious as voter ID requirements, which, by the way, have great support among the electorate.

bluegill on May 13, 2014 at 7:00 PM

Rand can too.

The only people who think he can’t are the crazies. And people who’re scared of Rand Paul for his stance on security stuff like the NSA and such (like our own AllahPundit) will obviously try to leverage on this and use it to rile up the simpletons against Paul.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 6:58 PM

Allah’s not scared of his stance on NSA. . .at least I’ve never viewed it that way.

I just find it odd that they get mad at Mitt and John for not being tougher/shrewd in their ways than they do Rand as if there’s already a pre-conceived bias against him.

Notorious GOP on May 13, 2014 at 7:02 PM

damn socons trucons

davidk on May 13, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Cool! the fish and peanut butter flame war.

davidk on May 13, 2014 at 7:07 PM

Allah’s not scared of his stance on NSA. . .at least I’ve never viewed it that way.

I just find it odd that they get mad at Mitt and John for not being tougher/shrewd in their ways than they do Rand as if there’s already a pre-conceived bias against him.

Notorious GOP on May 13, 2014 at 7:02 PM

We disagree on the first point. Always thought AP’s open hostility toward Rand Paul is engineered by his disliking of Paul’s positions’ on internal security issues (and AP might very well have a point on the issues) – surely I might be wrong but I doubt it.

Fully agreed with the second paragraph.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 7:08 PM

Maybe it’s crazy, but I’d like to see a conservative candidate clearly stand for what is right, especially on an issue as obvious as voter ID requirements, which, by the way, have great support among the electorate.

bluegill on May 13, 2014 at 7:00 PM

You hear a leader saying “I see where you are coming from. I disagree – but I see where you are coming from” as a sign of weakness or impurity or wishy-washyness.

I was like that too . . . as a teenager.

Skipity on May 13, 2014 at 7:12 PM

You have to pander a little to get elected..just look at the last 3 presidents..once you’re elected you can run your own agenda.

Nobody will eve get elected President if they spoke the truth the way HA commentators (myself included) would like to see.

You have to be realistic when it comes to elections, especially a national election that has to bring in voters from multiple states with their own issues.

I don’t like it but it is the way the “smart game” is played.

celt on May 13, 2014 at 7:19 PM

coolrepublica on May 13, 2014 at 6:54 PM

And that’s how Republicans…..Let me quote the question.

How have Republicans made it a race issue?

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 2:02 PM

Your answer as to how Republicans made it a race issue is.

My answer is Paul is going on a listening tour and saying “hey, I see where you are coming from and I am not dismissing them.” Paul is doing actual listening.

I support the idea of having voter ID card, but when I hear politicians blatantly state that their main reason for having those laws is to keep democrats from voting, it makes me not want to support it as much. Because it scream, we’re doing this to keep democratic voters i.e minorities from getting their voices heard. And that’s not good. You can’t blame black people who hear those politicians as well not be too thrilled about what is going on.

So if Paul can go and listen to minorities state their concerns about various issues, and come out understanding where they are coming from, it is a good thing. After all, what is the point of doing a listening tour if all you want to do is talk at people.

coolrepublica on May 13, 2014 at 6:54 PM

You got wordy, not an answer to be seen.

Bmore on May 13, 2014 at 7:21 PM

You have to pander a little to get elected..just look at the last 3 presidents..once you’re elected you can run your own agenda.

Nobody will eve get elected President if they spoke the truth the way HA commentators (myself included) would like to see.

You have to be realistic when it comes to elections, especially a national election that has to bring in voters from multiple states with their own issues.

I don’t like it but it is the way the “smart game” is played.

celt on May 13, 2014 at 7:19 PM

Well put.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 7:22 PM

Guys who can doublespeak without changing their core positions on the issue -hence not opening themselves to accusations of flip-flopping (like Romney)- fare better in electoral terms.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 5:31 PM

You are an idiot.

kcewa on May 13, 2014 at 7:22 PM

You are an idiot.

kcewa on May 13, 2014 at 7:22 PM

Aww, aren’t your arguments powerful and persuasive? Now, do you feel better?

Candidates who are able to master the art of doublespeaking without changing their core, policy, positions on the issue -hence not opening themselves to accusations of flip-flopping (like Romney)- fare better in electoral terms.

Cold, hard, truth.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 7:31 PM

Just so you have it at hand, an excerpt of your comment. I did this to isolate the part of your comment I am curious about. Emphasis added to be clear.

I actually don’t mind people asking for id before voting, but republicans have made it into a race issue and they seem oblivious to that fact.

coolrepublica on May 10, 2014 at 1:38 PM

Bmore on May 13, 2014 at 7:30 PM

Bmore on May 13, 2014 at 7:31 PM

joana on May 13, 2014 at 7:31 PM

Right. Because lying to people earns their respect /

lineholder on May 13, 2014 at 7:34 PM

Bye crazies. And thanks for the attention suckers.

joana on May 8, 2014 at 1:00 AM

ShainS on May 13, 2014 at 7:34 PM

Those claiming that voter ID laws are somehow “racist” have as much credibility as those claiming that 9/11 was an inside job.

Shame on Rand Paul for giving any deference whatsoever to such an abhorrent, often insincere argument.

bluegill on May 13, 2014 at 7:40 PM

“It’s a GOPe message – Rand now sleeps with the squishes.” — Mitch ‘Don Vito’ McCorleone

tanked59 on May 13, 2014 at 7:42 PM

I actually don’t mind people asking for id before voting, but republicans have made it into a race issue and they seem oblivious to that fact.

coolrepublica on May 10, 2014 at 1:38 PM

Bmore on May 13, 2014 at 7:30 PM

Bmore on May 13, 2014 at 7:31 PM

what this guy mean by this?

coolrepublica on May 13, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Trucon, Trucon, (Insert incorrect race prediction) Low information voter (Insert insincere concern for vets) Moron, Trucon (Insert predicting some poll could climb to 600 percent) Listen to what I’m telling you, yadda yadda Trucon.

joana

hawkdriver on May 13, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Those claiming that voter ID laws are somehow “racist” have as much credibility as those claiming that 9/11 was an inside job.

Shame on Rand Paul for giving any deference whatsoever to such an abhorrent, often insincere argument.

bluegill on May 13, 2014 at 7:40 PM

Amen Bluegill, well said.

hawkdriver on May 13, 2014 at 7:47 PM

what this guy mean by this?

coolrepublica on May 13, 2014 at 7:45 PM

What did this fine, upstanding Obama voter mean by this:

http://youtu.be/PZwng4omanI

bluegill on May 13, 2014 at 7:48 PM

Right. Because lying to people earns their respect /

lineholder on May 13, 2014 at 7:34 PM

But who lied? Nobody’s lied.

It’s about messaging; not being tone deaf and exercise some judgement on what and how you tell to whom.

Reagan was an expert at this stuff. As one of his staffers asked when the press was pouting that his commercials and positions were misleading “Do you actually believe women smile when they clean their ovens”?

Frankly, Augustinian and Kantian ethics on truth and lying don’t belong in politics.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 7:50 PM

So, my evident scorn for libertarians, big l or not, wasn’t evident? Did you miss my antipathy for Paulite/Rothbardian ideas? My disdain for Ron Paul wasn’t a clue?

joana on May 13, 2014 at 6:52 PM

Oh yeah, you totally hate Rand Paul, which is why you’ve been talking up his political acumen for a solid week and a half now.

You’re such a big fan of doublespeak, so surely you realize that Rand is still his father’s son at heart, right? If elected, he’ll be our most libertarian President ever. He’ll be as isolationist as electorally possible, he’ll push Austrian economics, he’ll push for drug legalization…well, if he can do all those things without killing his re-election bid, that is.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 13, 2014 at 7:51 PM

joana on May 13, 2014 at 7:50 PM

But of course, what could I have been thinking, poor ignorant Trucon that I am….

Misleading people is a trait to be achieved in politics, and this builds a base that is loyal to you, and this builds your brand over time, and this is always ALWAYS the kind of leadership this nation is in need of. ///////

Our country is facing tough times, and we need leaders who are going to be straight up with us about what lies ahead. Hard as it may be, that’s what they need to do.

We’d respect them a lot more for that than for this all nonsense they keep spouting.

I’m guessing you don’t believe the American people deserve even that much of respect from those in politics.

lineholder on May 13, 2014 at 7:57 PM

what this guy mean by this?

coolrepublica on May 13, 2014 at 7:45 PM

My goodness. Really? So……..

what this guy mean by this?

is your final answer.

Bmore on May 13, 2014 at 7:58 PM

Guys who can doublespeak without changing their core positions on the issue -hence not opening themselves to accusations of flip-flopping (like Romney)- fare better in electoral terms.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 5:31 PM

As always, Miss Manners reveals her peculiar o_Our Team motivations.

o_Our Team needs to win.

Okay. What does o_Our Team stand for?

Winning! Ya losers! Get psychiatric help.

She (and not just she, of course) literally does not care what her Current Favorite says or does- if he’s a blatant liar, she admires him as a canny politician. If he changes into a Hasbro toy, he’s doing what is necessary to appeal to the broader electorate. Since she has no core values beyond R®, what he does or does not do is immaterial, as long as she’s on the Winning! Side. What’s weird is that Winning! and the GOPe are hardly aquainted.

Interesting in a looking-at-a-bug-under-a-microscope kind of way.

Dolce Far Niente on May 13, 2014 at 8:00 PM


Oh yeah, you totally hate Rand Paul, which is why you’ve been talking up his political acumen for a solid week and a half now.

You’re such a big fan of doublespeak, so surely you realize that Rand is still his father’s son at heart, right? If elected, he’ll be our most libertarian President ever. He’ll be as isolationist as electorally possible, he’ll push Austrian economics, he’ll push for drug legalization…well, if he can do all those things without killing his re-election bid, that is.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 13, 2014 at 7:51 PM

Of course. Except when I was being attacked by his fans because I was bashing the Paulite candidate in North Caroline that Paul pathetically decided to endorse and support.

I merely supported him over this issue as I would with anyone else.

Then again, as I said above, this is too complicated for TruCons to process. To them, it’s either 0% or 100%.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 8:00 PM

Frankly, Augustinian and Kantian ethics on truth and lying don’t belong in politics.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 7:50 PM

Okay, sure, push that line of logic. Politics is purely Bismarckian, pragmatic, “art of the possible,” etc. Then don’t be surprised when we have what we do today, a political class that is perfectly fine with stagnation and outright decline as long as they can maintain their own lifestyle and cushy sinecures.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 13, 2014 at 8:00 PM

Amen Bluegill, well said.

hawkdriver on May 13, 2014 at 7:47 PM

You sound a wee bit warn out. Am I correct in thinking KeninCT has returned?

Bmore on May 13, 2014 at 8:01 PM

Of course. Except when I was being attacked by his fans because I was bashing the Paulite candidate in North Caroline that Paul pathetically decided to endorse and support.

I merely supported him over this issue as I would with anyone else.

Then again, as I said above, this is too complicated for TruCons to process. To them, it’s either 0% or 100%.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 8:00 PM

Here, here.

People should respond to what Paul means, not what he says.

Bigbullets on May 13, 2014 at 8:03 PM

Trucon, Trucon, (Insert incorrect race prediction) Low information voter (Insert insincere concern for vets) Moron, Trucon (Insert predicting some poll could climb to 600 percent) Listen to what I’m telling you, yadda yadda Trucon.

joana

hawkdriver on May 13, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Nope, incomplete. You have completely forgotten to add appropriate ad hominem attacks and reflections on the poster’s mental health

Dolce Far Niente on May 13, 2014 at 8:04 PM

I disagree with Paul.

I think it is racist to have millions of people without ID. How do they function in the modern world without ID. That is racist.

Paul shouldn’t say it is okay.

petunia on May 13, 2014 at 8:06 PM

But of course, what could I have been thinking, poor ignorant Trucon that I am….

Misleading people is a trait to be achieved in politics, and this builds a base that is loyal to you, and this builds your brand over time, and this is always ALWAYS the kind of leadership this nation is in need of. ///////

Our country is facing tough times, and we need leaders who are going to be straight up with us about what lies ahead. Hard as it may be, that’s what they need to do.

We’d respect them a lot more for that than for this all nonsense they keep spouting.

I’m guessing you don’t believe the American people deserve even that much of respect from those in politics.

lineholder on May 13, 2014 at 7:57 PM

They can do that after being elected.

What America desperately needs, in my view, is the implementation of conservative public policies.

Not some vanity-based, emotional, culture war. Actually perhaps that’s necessary as well and it’s absolutely fine for you -and many politicians- to engage on it, but, for once, I’d like to see top Republican politicians worried about winning elections first and foremost and doing it cleverly.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Joana is right about one thing; American politics works mainly through incremental change. But it’s much easier to incrementally give things to people than it is to take them away.

Look at the only major issue the left consistently loses on: the 2nd Amendment. Why? Because people don’t like giving up their guns, especially when they feel they have a right to gun ownership.

Now look at where the left wins. They win on abortion by framing it as “reproductive rights.” They won (sort or) on healthcare by arguing that health care should be a right for all Americans (and when it comes to Medicare/Medicaid, they’ve already won that debate). They’re winning on SSM because they argue marriage is a right.

Reversing directions on these issues has to be done incrementally, yes, but it’s not going to get done by pandering, go-along-to-get-along politicians who are only interested in playing the game because it advances their own career.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 13, 2014 at 8:07 PM

Heard him on Hannity, and he sounded like an idiot. Kept trying to change the subject to voting rights for prisoners.

Ronnie on May 13, 2014 at 8:10 PM

joana on May 13, 2014 at 8:06 PM</blockquote

When all they do is doublespeak, how do voters know when they truly support Conservative positions and when they do not?

If there is nothing in their behavior that establishes them as dependable, reliable and trustworthy, then why should voters blindly give them the benefit of those traits?

As to your last point, it doesn't exactly surprise me that you would prefer having politicians state their positions in a manner that is political expedient to themselves first and foremost rather than deal with the situations at hand in the context what is right for this nation and it's people. That's become the general mindset in the realm of politics.

lineholder on May 13, 2014 at 8:12 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on May 13, 2014 at 8:07 PM

This is actually the reason a lot of Social Conservatives I know have withdrawn from national politics.

They focus on state/local, working with cultural emphasis, to change hearts and minds.

lineholder on May 13, 2014 at 8:14 PM

Miss Manners 2 weeks ago: subject Rand Paul

Most people appreciate bluntness and honesty on these issues. They’re tired of those that promise the moon and don’t deliver anything.

joana on April 29, 2014 at 12:16 AM

Miss Manners today:subject Rand Paul

…any Republican who does some properly executed hypocritical doublespeak gets the TruCon crowd restless.

Stop being so emotional dimwits.

Dolce Far Niente on May 13, 2014 at 8:15 PM

What America desperately needs, in my view, is the implementation of conservative public policies.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Okay, and where’s the evidence that establishment politicians will implement any conservative policies? Dubya had both houses of Congress and didn’t do very much that would be considered conservative.

NCLB, Medicare Part D, TARP (which worked, for the record, but it wasn’t exactly a favorite of his conservative base, and it elicited one of his worst ever soundbites with that “abandoning my free market principles to save the free market” gibberish)…the standard line is to say he got “sidetracked” by the War on Terror, but if anything the public’s preoccupation with terrorism should have made it easier to implement some conservative policies under the table, as it were.

I think the GOP field has a whole host of candidates who would get into office and then just do whatever is safest according to their advisers and polling. Which is why I’m most firmly behind Cruz and Walker, not because I think they’re perfect, but because I think they are ideological at heart and will try their best to enact conservative policies.

Why hasn’t Obama been as adept at politics as Clinton was? Because Obama is an ideologue. He was willing to sacrifice political cachet if it meant instituting a substantial shift leftward, which is exactly what he did with Obamacare. Of course, we managed to still lose in 2012 even after Obama sacrificed so much political capital getting Obamacare passed, but that was just a stroke of luck for him.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 13, 2014 at 8:19 PM

You have to pander a little to get elected..just look at the last 3 presidents..once you’re elected you can run your own agenda.

celt on May 13, 2014 at 7:19 PM

Clinton was pragmatic and never had the blind support that Obama has. Obama can do virtually anything and get away with it. Obama also has the advantage of being black (half-black). Lots of guilt-challenged whites voted for Obama to prove they were not racist.

President Bush43 was far more moderate than Candidate Bush43. I believe Bush43 was far less honest with his base than Obama, who campaigned on “fundamentally transforming America.”

bw222 on May 13, 2014 at 8:19 PM

, for once, I’d like to see top Republican politicians worried about winning elections first and foremost and doing it cleverly.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Hey, Miss Manners thinks top Republicans don’t know how to win elections!

Her answer: nominating someone who is who will say anything; pander to anyone; avoid controversy and triangulate like hell. Much like those moderate and electable Republican Presidents Mitt and John (who have shown us their severely conservative chops time after time.
Top. Men.)

Dolce Far Niente on May 13, 2014 at 8:23 PM

Hard to call Hillary a “cult figure” without acknowledging Paul (like it or not) similar status.

Seems like every political party wants to put up the progeny of their Wing up for the Great Show (1600 Penn. Ave)in 2016.

Not much can be done, but lets call it for what it is.

BlaxPac on May 13, 2014 at 4:45 PM

Ron is/was definitely a cult figure. His fans were borderline zealots.

I’m not sure Rand is the same. He’s tried pretty hard to distance himself from the “Cult of RONPAUL” on some issues.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 13, 2014 at 8:25 PM

Clinton was pragmatic and never had the blind support that Obama has. Obama can do virtually anything and get away with it. Obama also has the advantage of being black (half-black). Lots of guilt-challenged whites voted for Obama to prove they were not racist.

President Bush43 was far more moderate than Candidate Bush43. I believe Bush43 was far less honest with his base than Obama, who campaigned on “fundamentally transforming America.”

bw222 on May 13, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Clinton was pragmatic, but he also wasn’t all that ideological. I think he was primarily interested in politics because he found the power seductive. Democrats still like him because they like him personally, and because they remember that he happened to be President during a robust economy. But if you look at a Democrat’s ideological wishlist in 1992, how much of that did Clinton accomplish by 2001? Honestly, very little of it. He was willing to triangulate and shift positions when it helped his re-election.

Obama, by contrast, is a straight-up ideologue. I think he was actually exhibiting a rare moment of honesty when he said he’d be fine with being a one-termer as long as he passed healthcare, because he knows Obamacare is a Trojan horse that will pull the country permanently leftward if it stays implemented.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 13, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Bigbullets on May 13, 2014 at 8:03 PM

Looks like the answer to your question that had gone without being answered finally has in fact been answered.

what this guy mean by this?

coolrepublica on May 13, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Painful. Congratulations! A satisfactory answer? Perhaps. ; )

Bmore on May 13, 2014 at 8:40 PM

That primitive and over-emotional analytical grid that gives no space to nuance or critical thought is one of the main traits of TruCons. You must either be 0% or 100% on someone’s side and everything must be one-dimensional.

If the issue is politics, then I’ll praise good politics and attack bad politics. It isn’t ideological, it has nothing to do with personal preferences.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 6:52 PM

‘TruCon’? ‘One-dimensional’? ‘Primitive’? Just how long did it take you to come up with that little diatribe, anyway? Between bouts of three-dimensional chess? While composing sonatas rivaling Bach?

It’s strange: I usually get the smug, superior vibe you’re giving off from liberal commenters on Daily Beast, WaPo, or the NYT. Their problem, for the most part, is one of insularity; that is, they hang around too much with their like-minded pals, where the same ideas bounce around like ping pong balls on the walls of a cave. It makes them foolish over time.

When you defend Rand Paul’s position on his miserable attempt at a positioning statement regarding voter ID laws, you’re supporting Rand Paul, not his position, because his position is insupportable. Voter ID laws are a valid response to the very real threat of massive voter fraud.

troyriser_gopftw on May 13, 2014 at 9:10 PM

Pathetic. I’ll vote for him if he’s the nominee but this is about as slimy as Obama who would say or do anything to get elected.

I support the idea of having voter ID card, but when I hear politicians blatantly state that their main reason for having those laws is to keep democrats from voting, it makes me not want to support it as much.

coolrepublica on May 13, 2014 at 6:54 PM

What Republican has said they want voter Id to keep anyone from voting legally-Democrat, or Republican, black or white or latino? The purpose behind voter ID is to try to help make sure every vote is legal. Illegal votes dilute the legal ones. Voter fraud hurts every legal voter.

Do you have a link to a politician (not a Democrat projecting that the main reason for photo ID laws is to prevent blacks or democrats from voting) but from a politician who says s/he supports voter ID specifically to keep Democrats from voting legally?

talkingpoints on May 13, 2014 at 9:20 PM

Looks like the answer to your question that had gone without being answered finally has in fact been answered.

Bmore on May 13, 2014 at 8:40 PM

Unpossible. I only ask questions that have no answers.

Bigbullets on May 13, 2014 at 9:21 PM

I support the idea of having voter ID card, but when I hear politicians blatantly state that their main reason for having those laws is to keep democrats from voting, it makes me not want to support it as much.

coolrepublica on May 13, 2014 at 6:54 PM

I support any measure that keeps democrats from voting.

Bigbullets on May 13, 2014 at 9:24 PM

Sounds like he’s trying to have it both ways, to curry as much favor as he can with various voting blocs. I have no respect for that and will no longer consider him someone worth my vote. Next.

blackgriffin on May 13, 2014 at 9:28 PM

I support the idea of having voter ID card, but when I hear politicians blatantly state that their main reason for having those laws is to keep democrats from voting, it makes me not want to support it as much.

coolrepublica on May 13, 2014 at 6:54 PM

In today’s America 90%+++ of all fraudulent voting benefits the Democrats. You don’t see the GOP in some obscure county in the middle of South Dakota trying to register non-citizens or working to get people to vote multiple times.

One of the biggest problems is college students who vote absentee at their parents’ address and again at their college address in another state.

bw222 on May 13, 2014 at 9:28 PM

Rand Paul’s PAC clarifies: He never said he opposed voter ID laws, did he?

Same thing as….

Marco Rubio’s PAC clarifies: He never said he supports amnesty, did he?

Rand Paul is turning into a huge joke or his true colors are shining. By the time 2016 rolls around: Jeb, Marco and Rand will all have said about the same intelligent things on all issues.

How many other phony decent men/women want to step up and eat their shoes trying to be all things to all people?

CommieJuice on May 13, 2014 at 9:46 PM

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?

Just another ‘clarification’.

thatsafactjack on May 13, 2014 at 9:55 PM

Ron is/was definitely a cult figure. His fans were borderline zealots.

IMHO, they crossed the border legally, but not sanely.

The only people worse than the Paulbots have been the OFA Progs, and damn they are some hardcore lockstep dancers too.

I’m not sure Rand is the same. He’s tried pretty hard to distance himself from the “Cult of RONPAUL” on some issues.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 13, 2014 at 8:25 PM

Yeah, but at the end of the day, HOW far has he gone…and has he gone far enough?

I understand in the light he wants to be judged as his own man, but if he’s serious about being the alternative from the Progressives or the GOP Establishment, he’s gonna have to stick to his believes when they are nudged (drop-kicked?) back into center ring.

Either he believes it or he doesn’t, if it’s the latter, then what makes him any more special than anyone else running for President?

We already got a inexperienced (1 term Senator) winner in the Oval Office now….how well has that been working out?

BlaxPac on May 13, 2014 at 9:56 PM

I am extremely wary of Scott Walker, due to concerns I have about his position on amnesty (though I will pay attention to what Walker says about the issue moving forward), but how on earth could Walker not be better than this fraudulent fool Rand Paul, who is pro-amnesty, is afraid to promote voter ID laws, and doesn’t always seem ready for primetime in major, live interviews.

What the hell is the argument for supporting Rand for president? He threw his support behind McConnell, when he is supposed to be some kind of “tea party favorite.”

bluegill on May 13, 2014 at 10:24 PM

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?
Just another ‘clarification’.

thatsafactjack on May 13, 2014 at 9:55 PM

Reminds me of Paul Ryan’s “exploited Americans” term to describe illegal aliens.

Thatsafactjack, is there anyone who looks strong on the amnesty issue? Is Walker as bad as he sounds in some interviews? Or has he perhaps been misunderstood? I really want to support a solid conservative who is strong on the amnesty issue.

bluegill on May 13, 2014 at 10:28 PM

I’m glad you’re so understanding on the topic, Rand. Wait till you have an election stolen from you the way Mitt did.

John the Libertarian on May 13, 2014 at 10:33 PM

I’m glad you’re so understanding on the topic, Rand. Wait till you have an election stolen from you the way Mitt did.

John the Libertarian on May 13, 2014 at 10:33 PM

Just wondering. Are you serious or joking?

coolrepublica on May 13, 2014 at 10:48 PM

Just wondering. Are you serious or joking?
coolrepublica on May 13, 2014 at 10:48 PM

Just wondering. Why do you support voter fraud? Why do you and other liberals want to protect people who vote multiple times?

bluegill on May 13, 2014 at 10:54 PM

No. Rand Paul is a prominent Republican, and he is helping legitimize the “voter ID requirements are racist” argument ….

He is conceding part of the argument, apparently in a transparent, phony and ultimately unsuccessful attempt to moderate his persona and to try to get people who normally hate conservatives to like him.

Maybe it’s crazy, but I’d like to see a conservative candidate clearly stand for what is right, especially on an issue as obvious as voter ID requirements, which, by the way, have great support among the electorate.

bluegill on May 13, 2014 at 7:00 PM

Beautifully said

I wish you were running

Rand Paul’s words can now be used against any real conservative, which might be why he poisoned the pond. If he really believed what he said, he is useless, if he did not believe what he said, he is scurrilous.

He jumped the shark on this one. I am pretty disgusted with what passes for ‘GOP’ these days. Bunch of mealy mouth phonies

entagor on May 13, 2014 at 10:55 PM

Just wondering. Are you serious or joking?

coolrepublica on May 13, 2014 at 10:48 PM

37,000 fraudulent voters in NC alone? I seriously doubt Obama won fairly.

John the Libertarian on May 13, 2014 at 11:07 PM

Everything to everybody… he’s a politician.

V7_Sport on May 13, 2014 at 11:08 PM

Down here we call that crawfishing (swimming backwards)

Kermit on May 14, 2014 at 12:00 AM

Spin, spin, spin.

He was out pandering to build himself up as “the fresh young Republican face who can relate to young people and Negroes,” and was caught out. It’s that simple.

If you believe Voter ID is good and necessary policy, why would you not talk about it? It seems Rand is just as cynical as any other politician. The one thing you could count on his Daddy for was that he would say exactly what he thought at all times without mincing words.

AGAIN: Rand Paul will NEVER be on a national Republican ticket.

Adjoran on May 14, 2014 at 12:26 AM

And Rob Portman the RINO boy on FOX.

Did you hear that mushy crap he was spouting??

Yep. That’s the way to lose your base and a THIRD election!

Sherman1864 on May 14, 2014 at 4:33 AM

Rand must have a lot of beeping sounds coming from his head as he slams the campaign machine into reverse.

Don L on May 14, 2014 at 5:20 AM

I think it’s wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because it’s offending people.”

I hate to remind todays leaders that our revolution had a massive amount of offense: the patriots and the loyalists.

BTW: They crucified a man once because he offended people.

Whatever happened to our leaders telling the truth and doing what is right and stop following the danged sheep into the wolves’ den.

Don L on May 14, 2014 at 5:27 AM

TIRED of them playing da race card, for whenever voter id comes up, considering the FRAUD the dems pull, it should be a requirement.
Like do some of these GOP’s think they can bRIBE the hispanic voters to vote gop with amnesty?
DEMS already got the minoritys with the race card.
so keeping illegials from violating our voting laws should be in the constitution
anyway, here is a list of other items you need photo ID for and nobody ever says these are RACIST.
THINGS YOU NEED A PHOTO ID FOR
adopt a pet
purchase a home
purchase an automobile
purchase a gun
obtain a bank account
obtain a credit card
obtain a passport
write a check
make a credit card purchase
apply for a loan to purchase anything
to prove your age
to get married
to receive a marriage license
to drive
to buy a house
to close on a house
to get medical care
to get on a plane
to get insurance on anything
to get a job
to get a post office box
to get a hunting license
to get a fishing license
to get a business license
to cash a paycheck
rent an apartment
rent a hotel room
rent a car
rent furniture
rent tools and equipment
receive welfare
receive social security
receive food stamps
buy cigarettes
buy alcohol
buy a bus ticket
buy a cell phone
buy any antihistimine
go in to a casino
go in to a bar
go to college
have your water turned on
have your electricity turned on
have your cable turned on
have your gas turned on
obtain trash pick up service
pick up a package from the post office
pick up a package from fed ex
pick up a package from ups
pick up a prescription
BUT ASKING FOR A PHOTO ID TO PROVE VOTER ELIGILITY IS LABELED RACIST. .

sniffles1999 on May 14, 2014 at 7:30 AM

It’s really quite simple: I’m not encouraging, nor voting for Rand Paul. Don’t like him. Don’t trust him.

avagreen on May 14, 2014 at 8:27 AM

And doublespeak is a politician’s best friend.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 4:00 PM

So giving people the impression that you’ll say anything to pander to any political group, and then “clarify” your position later …

… is a politician’s best friend?

Or is it the reason that no one trusts politicians, and a whole lot of people don’t even bother to vote?

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 14, 2014 at 10:41 AM

Rand must have a lot of beeping sounds coming from his head as he slams the campaign machine into reverse.
Don L on May 14, 2014 at 5:20 AM

Very good.

Sherman1864 on May 14, 2014 at 11:24 AM

I knew the real Rand Paul would reveal himself

Brock Robamney on May 15, 2014 at 5:08 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3