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

Too late. The damage is done.

Bigbullets on May 13, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Just think if he had said that instead.

Bigbullets on May 13, 2014 at 3:26 PM

“Rand Paul believes in voter ID laws. He just doesn’t think Republicans should talk about them so much.”

Good enough?

No because it’s still absurd, since NO ONE on the national stage is even talking about it.

nobar on May 13, 2014 at 3:28 PM

he’ll try to appeal to the various factions who want “a new GOP,”

I don’t want a ‘new GOP’ precisely because that’s open to interpretation.

I want the GOP to stand up for it’s platform, to be the GOP it has promised to be, and that includes enforcing existing federal immigration law and repealing ObamaCare.

They talked that talk, they need to walk that walk. Until they do, they are just proving that they’ve become dependent on donor cash and will dance to the donor’s tune while singing an entirely different tune to the base for votes.

thatsafactjack on May 13, 2014 at 3:28 PM

Uh people? He is trying to run for President here. His story is going to change just like any other politician. And if people here thought he was really any different form any other politician, you are being naive with yourself.

Johnnyreb on May 13, 2014 at 3:29 PM

Then why didn’t he point that out in the beginning? Knowing what an important topic it was, and how “offending” someone has become the playing field of hypocrites and meme spinners, how could he have not led off his comment by making that clear?

Mimzey on May 13, 2014 at 3:30 PM

Rand Paul should quit explaining to people. People will do what they want and Rand Paul should continue what he is doing. When something is working you keep doing it.

Rand is not going to win the Hotair primary and that is the last primary he should ever want to win. For every guy who says I am done with Rand, 4 guys say I am starting to agree with him. That’s the kind of thing that is good. It’s like the stock market. A trader is never going to win all the trades. He can lose money on 50 trades and win with 30. He wants the winning of those 30 to be bigger than the 50 losses than he is on his way to great wealth.

Rand Paul should follow his political instincts. I think they are good.

coolrepublica on May 13, 2014 at 3:30 PM

Uh people? He is trying to run for President here. His story is going to change just like any other politician. And if people here thought he was really any different form any other politician, you are being naive with yourself.

Johnnyreb on May 13, 2014 at 3:29 PM

Which makes him attractive……how exactly?

Bitter Clinger on May 13, 2014 at 3:31 PM

The GOP knows what the base wants. They prove it every election season when they tell all the right lies to get elected and then betray us to appease their big cash donors.

GOP, stop lying. Be public servants for a change and keep your campaign promises.

thatsafactjack on May 13, 2014 at 3:32 PM

The backlash to Paul’s foolish remarks must have been a tsunami of criticism.

He deserved it. Pandering to those “offended” by voter id laws excuses their dishonesty and racializing of a legitimate issue, the integrity of elections.

He obviously is desperate to break the Democrats’ hold on the black vote. Trying to out-pander Democrats is the wrong way to do it.

novaculus on May 13, 2014 at 3:33 PM

It’s fine to say that “voter ID offends group X”.

That may, in fact, be true though I think in this case it’s probably true only of the table-pounding advocates within that group.

The fact that it offends some subset of some group does not then mean that it is bad, or that it is wrong, or that it’s not a goal worth pursuing.

It just means – from my mindset – that those people are wrong. It just means you have to accept you’re going to lose the votes of the table-bangers.

And, since in this case those making the noise are vanishingly unlikely ever to vote for a Republican anyway, my response is to let them be offended and move forward.

Those not in the grievance subset of that group might be swayed by noting that virtually every representative government on every continent that has nation-states with representative government require ID to vote, with the exception of the US.

The grievance-mongers never will be and must be ignored.

JEM on May 13, 2014 at 3:34 PM

So the man can’t speak for himself anymore? Only his PAC speaks for him now? Is this done through telepathy or something?

If he can’t explain himself then, I’m sorry, his PAC just isn’t a proxy. Say what you mean or don’t bother to say anything.

ajacksonian on May 13, 2014 at 3:34 PM

He never said he opposed voter ID laws, did he?

Well, no – he just said that we shouldn’t talk about voter ID laws, and voter fraud, because he THINKS that “it’s offending people”.

Rand Paul spends half of his time saying stupid stuff, and the other half “clarifying” his statements.

Pork-Chop on May 13, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Sorry Rand. You just aren’t ready.

crankyoldlady on May 13, 2014 at 3:35 PM

He just doesn’t think Republicans should talk about them so much.”

Really? Who is talking about them? The only ones who are talking about them are the Democrats and the idiots who think they are “offensive.”

melle1228 on May 13, 2014 at 3:36 PM

ROFL

-Mr. Rand, as a preznidentul candidate can you give us your views on issues A, B, and C and how your administration would deal with them?

“No. Next question.”

Bishop on May 13, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Rand Paul’s thinking is as curly cue as his hair. He’s tryin’ so hard not to be his sprayed roach dad that he’s twisted his Lib-speech into unknown territory.

vnvet on May 13, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Which makes him attractive……how exactly?

Bitter Clinger on May 13, 2014 at 3:31 PM

I didn’t say he was. Not sure where you got that from my post. I am just saying he is a typical politician, and if people believe (as some do here) that he is some sort of hyper-conservative Tea Party guru, they are wrong.

Johnnyreb on May 13, 2014 at 3:37 PM

So the man can’t speak for himself anymore? Only his PAC speaks for him now? Is this done through telepathy or something?

If he can’t explain himself then, I’m sorry, his PAC just isn’t a proxy. Say what you mean or don’t bother to say anything.

ajacksonian on May 13, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Indeed.

Kind of puts the lie that candidates and their PAC’s can’t coordinate into a new light.

Bitter Clinger on May 13, 2014 at 3:38 PM

By the way, Rand, or ‘Rand’s Pac’, as the case may be, I’m still offended that we have a pressing need for voter ID laws because our elections aren’t as clean, fair, and untainted by voter fraud, as they can reasonably be. Every vote cast by someone who isn’t an eligible voter disenfranchises a legitimate, eligible voter.

thatsafactjack on May 13, 2014 at 3:38 PM

Yep. Politicians lie. All of them. Exaggeration and hyperbole, then a soft walkback when challenged. More than just a guilty pleasure. Survival!

butch on May 13, 2014 at 3:38 PM

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.

I think this is probably the case. Standing on principle but failing to build an alliance that could win national elections is probably considered, from Rand’s viewpoint, one the major stumbling blocks that prevented his father from winning a national election.

But of all the issues for Rand to hedge on, this is not it! Even if it offends people for Voter ID to be implemented, it is the best means we have of protecting the integrity of our elections.

He’ll lose states like NC over this type of thing. Over 70% of people in this state want voter ID. We’ve had to work hard to get it into place, too.

Rand’s not helping one bit on that front.

lineholder on May 13, 2014 at 3:38 PM

I’m so confused, is this hate Rand Paul week, or Love him week? If over 65% of Americans no longer trust the Mainstream Media, then why does the blogsphere insist on carrying their poisons water?

oscarwilde on May 13, 2014 at 3:39 PM

I didn’t say he was. Not sure where you got that from my post. I am just saying he is a typical politician, and if people believe (as some do here) that he is some sort of hyper-conservative Tea Party guru, they are wrong.

Johnnyreb on May 13, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Ah, my bad. I misinterpreted your post.

And you’re exactly right.

Bitter Clinger on May 13, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Ronald Reagan’s party of bold colors seems very far away.

David Blue on May 13, 2014 at 3:39 PM

No. He just thinks we should support it by never talking about it if it causes black people to be upset.

will77jeff on May 13, 2014 at 3:39 PM

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

I guess that depends on what your definition of is, is…

Gohawgs on May 13, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Screw this fraud Rand Paul. He made comments legitimizing the idiotic idea that voter ID pause are racist.

bluegill on May 13, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Voter ID laws, that is.

bluegill on May 13, 2014 at 3:40 PM

He’s dead to me.

Akzed on May 13, 2014 at 3:41 PM

“Rand Paul believes in voter ID laws. He just doesn’t think Republicans should talk about them so much.”

…Rand Paul doesn’t heed his own advice……on numerous topics!……who does that remind me of?

KOOLAID2 on May 13, 2014 at 3:41 PM

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

Good one..and I’ll BET he’s “Severely Conservative!”

ToddPA on May 13, 2014 at 3:41 PM

He’s a nut. Once you come to terms with that, dismissing him is quite easy. He can’t win anything.

HotAirian on May 13, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Ooookay, Lizard Man it is.

Bishop on May 13, 2014 at 3:45 PM

The GOP knows what the base wants. They prove it every election season when they tell all the right lies to get elected and then betray us to appease their big cash donors.

GOP, stop lying. Be public servants for a change and keep your campaign promises.

thatsafactjack on May 13, 2014 at 3:32 PM

E.g., every one of them that goes pro-amnesty does so after getting elected as a border hawk. They’re all hypocrites.

David Blue on May 13, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Just think if he had said that instead.

Bigbullets on May 13, 2014 at 3:26 PM

He DID say that “instead.”

AP just went with the NYTimes tweet about the article instead of the article because he knew the crowd around here would hem and haw.

I wonder when we’re gonna stop letting NYTimes reporters and MSNBC Hosts pick our candidates. . .

Skipity on May 13, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Good one..and I’ll BET he’s “Severely Conservative!”

ToddPA on May 13, 2014 at 3:41 PM

:D

David Blue on May 13, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Mitch McConnell is for voter ID. In public.

butch on May 13, 2014 at 3:46 PM

David Blue on May 13, 2014 at 3:45 PM

They’re all members of the same political class, and each one looks in the mirror and dreams of becoming class President, and will say or do ‘whatever it takes’.

thatsafactjack on May 13, 2014 at 3:48 PM

thatsafactjack on May 13, 2014 at 3:28 PM

Exactly!

I would have said that the GOP (and now Rand Paul) need some cojones but you said it so much better than I will defer …

Chuck Ef on May 13, 2014 at 3:49 PM

Tune in next week, when Rand proclaims:

“I’m no waaaays Taaaaard”

ToddPA on May 13, 2014 at 3:51 PM

I guess we should all be “undercover conservatives.” Hold conservative values, but never speak of them.

HornHiAceDeuce on May 13, 2014 at 3:53 PM

Is it too much to expect of politicians, or their aides, to be able to Google themselves before releasing statements about critical issues?
Yeah, right, they’re so busy.

Another Drew on May 13, 2014 at 3:54 PM

This is my biggest problem with Paul. He panders too much. It is like he is telling whoever is listening what he thinks they want to hear. When one starts comparing these statements he ends up all over the place. If he ever got elected then who knows what he would do.

That is not a very glowing endorsement.

tkc882 on May 13, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Tune in next week, when Rand proclaims:

“I’m no waaaays Taaaaard”

ToddPA on May 13, 2014 at 3:51 PM

That was my question, when does he start altering his speeches for the audience.

Bishop on May 13, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Rand Paul should follow his political instincts. I think they are good.

coolrepublica on May 13, 2014 at 3:30 PM

LOL. Rand Paul is turning out to be a disaster as a possible candidate. His pandering is alienating far more voters than it’s attracting.

TarheelBen on May 13, 2014 at 3:56 PM

I guess we should all be “undercover conservatives.” Hold conservative values, but never speak of them.

HornHiAceDeuce on May 13, 2014 at 3:53 PM

In a nutshell, what the Establishment GOP thinks of us rubes.

Bitter Clinger on May 13, 2014 at 3:56 PM

So, Rand Paul’s plan is to not talk about it and then in the middle of the night, maybe on a holiday weekend, ram it down everyone’s throats much like how Obamacare was enacted? Is that what I am getting from him?

astonerii on May 13, 2014 at 3:57 PM

I think that Rand Paul is not very thoughtful when he blurts out his attention-getting remarks/bombs. Is he more interested in keeping his name in the news than in being clear about his political philosophy?

Rand Paul is NOT presidential material…at least at this time.

onlineanalyst on May 13, 2014 at 3:57 PM

He DID say that “instead.”

AP just went with the NYTimes tweet about the article instead of the article because he knew the crowd around here would hem and haw.

I wonder when we’re gonna stop letting NYTimes reporters and MSNBC Hosts pick our candidates. . .

Skipity on May 13, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Obfuscation.

You’re fooling no one.

Bigbullets on May 13, 2014 at 3:58 PM

This was very clear reading the original article – in fact, it was explicitly stated in it that Paul’s position on voter-ID was exactly the same it ever was: he’s for voter-ID laws. I mentioned that multiple times.

And doublespeak is a politician’s best friend.

That muddle theory is just nonsense from nobodies. As if Obama in 2008 (and to a large extent, Bush in 2000), didn’t basically run on intentionally hyper-muddled messaging.

Rand Paul is building an image of an empathetic and reasonable politician who “listens to the other side” without giving in on the issues – that would open him to accusations of flip-flopping.

Well, no – he just said that we shouldn’t talk about voter ID laws, and voter fraud, because he THINKS that “it’s offending people”.

Pork-Chop on May 13, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Someone has serious reading comprehension problem.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Pandering is an art form, of sorts: pander too much and one comes across as an unprincipled hack willing to say and do anything to get elected (see Crist, Charlie), but pander too little and one comes across as an unelectable, bright-eyed, babe-in-the-woods amateur without the Machiavellian chops for high office. Somehow, Rand Paul is managing to come across as that rare hybrid, simultaneously both amateurish and unprincipled.

I had my doubts about Rand Paul, wondering if he was anything like his whackadoo father. Short answer? Just like his dad. Worse, even.

No, thanks.

troyriser_gopftw on May 13, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Obfuscation.

You’re fooling no one.

Bigbullets on May 13, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Can you elaborate?

I’d like to see you trying to actually present a counter-argument to his point.

Here’s what I think: the reason why you replied with such an empty personal attack is because you can’t really refute what he said.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 4:02 PM

Rand Paul is building an image of an empathetic and reasonable politician who “listens to the other side” without giving in on the issues – that would open him to accusations of flip-flopping.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Actually no.. he sounds like a politician PERIOD! Pandering and telling the masses what they wish to hear, and when he gets heat for it back tracking. Color me surprised that a pandering, wishy washy politician impresses you..

melle1228 on May 13, 2014 at 4:04 PM

I had my doubts about Rand Paul, wondering if he was anything like his whackadoo father. Short answer? Just like his dad. Worse, even.

No, thanks.

troyriser_gopftw on May 13, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Say what you will about his Dad, but his Father never wavered in his convictions. He might have been a nut case, but he was firm in his beliefs and did not pander for votes.

Johnnyreb on May 13, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Here’s what I think: the reason why you replied with such an empty personal attack is because you can’t really refute what he said.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 4:02 PM

Heh.

butch on May 13, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Pandering is an art form, of sorts: pander too much and one comes across as an unprincipled hack willing to say and do anything to get elected (see Crist, Charlie), but pander too little and one comes across as an unelectable, bright-eyed, babe-in-the-woods amateur without the Machiavellian chops for high office. Somehow, Rand Paul is managing to come across as that rare hybrid, simultaneously both amateurish and unprincipled.

I had my doubts about Rand Paul, wondering if he was anything like his whackadoo father. Short answer? Just like his dad. Worse, even.

No, thanks.

troyriser_gopftw on May 13, 2014 at 4:01 PM

I agree.

Except Rand Paul is doing it very well.

Actually, both the polls and the reaction of HotAir commentators shows he’s improving his stock as a potential nominee.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 4:05 PM

lol…was waiting for jojo dancer to arrive.

bazil9 on May 13, 2014 at 4:05 PM

I think that Rand Paul is not very thoughtful when he blurts out his attention-getting remarks/bombs. Is he more interested in keeping his name in the news than in being clear about his political philosophy?

Rand Paul is NOT presidential material…at least at this time.

onlineanalyst on May 13, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Exactly! Instead of finding a way of combating the idiotic narrative that the Democrats have about voter idea we are going to go along with how offensive it is (wink, wink)…

I mean let’s not express how the Demo thinking that minorities can’t obtain identification is at the very heart, racist and infantization of minorities.

melle1228 on May 13, 2014 at 4:07 PM

Actually no.. he sounds like a politician PERIOD! Pandering and telling the masses what they wish to hear, and when he gets heat for it back tracking. Color me surprised that a pandering, wishy washy politician impresses you..

melle1228 on May 13, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Really?

Then you’ll surely show us when exactly he changed his position on voter-ID laws at all or backtracked on it.

I mean, you’re accusing him of backtracking in a post that basically says he isn’t backtracking.

That his position on voter-ID hadn’t changed was actually the point of the original article.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 4:07 PM

lol…was waiting for jojo dancer to arrive.

bazil9 on May 13, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Of course she is here. Any thread that goes against Conservative or Republican principles, she is sure to show up and screech TRUCON!!!

melle1228 on May 13, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Really?

Then you’ll surely show us when exactly he changed his position on voter-ID laws at all or backtracked on it.

I mean, you’re accusing him of backtracking in a post that basically says he isn’t backtracking.

That his position on voter-ID hadn’t changed was actually the point of the original article.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 4:07 PM

We shouldn’t talk about it, because it “offends” people, but now his PAC is talking about it, because clearly it offended the base. Backtracking 101 my dear…

melle1228 on May 13, 2014 at 4:09 PM

lol…was waiting for jojo dancer to arrive.

bazil9 on May 13, 2014 at 4:05 PM

You’re stupid and dumb and make stupid and dumb people look smart in comparison, stupid dummy. You’re dumb. Stupid.

Bishop on May 13, 2014 at 4:09 PM

You’re stupid and dumb and make stupid and dumb people look smart in comparison, stupid dummy. You’re dumb. Stupid.

Bishop on May 13, 2014 at 4:09 PM

You forgot to add “trucon poopyhead”

melle1228 on May 13, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Master Democrat Biannual Plan: Just watch while Republicans

1. Shoot own foot,
2. Shove foot in mouth,
3. Shove head up butt.

Instead of a TurDuckEn, it’s a FooMouButten.

Marcola on May 13, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Paulbots, Skipity and joana, are here to spin wildly for their cult leader.

TarheelBen on May 13, 2014 at 4:13 PM

butch on May 13, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Yep. Something about pots meeting kettles comes to mind.

And the definition of irony applies.

lineholder on May 13, 2014 at 4:13 PM

melle1228 on May 13, 2014 at 4:11 PM

You can get stuffed too, moron commie dimwit nutjob. Joana and I stand above the fray and refuse to hurl insults unlike you jackhole nutjobs who are stupid and can’t see the TRUTH! Dope.

Bishop on May 13, 2014 at 4:14 PM

melle1228 on May 13, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Don’t forget..that’s Trucon, with a capital “T”. And if you can throw in the trademark symbol, that works great in adding emphasis.

lineholder on May 13, 2014 at 4:15 PM

You can get stuffed too, moron commie dimwit nutjob. Joana and I stand above the fray and refuse to hurl insults unlike you jackhole nutjobs who are stupid and can’t see the TRUTH! Dope.

Bishop on May 13, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Hush, or I will bring a picture of Palin on a cross out to make you and Joana’s head explode.

melle1228 on May 13, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Someone has serious reading comprehension problem.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Someone has a serious grammar and spelling problem.

Bishop on May 13, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Another negative posting on Rand Paul.
Much to do about pretty much nothing Rand Paul actually said.

However, the interpretation of what he said has many up in arms!

Amjean on May 13, 2014 at 4:17 PM

How much time can y’all spend on cannibalizing each other endlessly? Doesn’t it get boring. Why not talk about something like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/13/american-beverage-institute_n_5310917.html

libfreeordie on May 13, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Don’t forget..that’s Trucon, with a capital “T”. And if you can throw in the trademark symbol, that works great in adding emphasis.

lineholder on May 13, 2014 at 4:15 PM

You know, it’s ironic. When Ron Paul was a candidate, if you disagreed with any of his positions, his supporters would go nuts and call you “Neocon.”

TarheelBen on May 13, 2014 at 4:18 PM

You talk about things you believe in in order to promote them and if they are not currently law get them to be the law.
You do not talk about things you do not believe in because why would you?
So, which is it for Paul, the man who believes in effectively no borders for this nation. Does he believe that we should have a secure voting system where citizens can reliably elect representatives? Does he believe that citizens have no right to have their own nation and thus no right to prevent others from interfering in their elections?

astonerii on May 13, 2014 at 4:18 PM

melle1228 on May 13, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Me and Joana offer serious political insight and all you commie dimwit nutjobs can offer in return are insults.

You have read comprehension probl.

Bishop on May 13, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Say what you will about his Dad, but his Father never wavered in his convictions. He might have been a nut case, but he was firm in his beliefs and did not pander for votes.

Johnnyreb on May 13, 2014 at 4:05 PM

True, but so did my Uncle Robert…but then again, Robert had usually had his 5pm cocktail every hour on the hour.

Paul has some strong convictions I do agree with, and some I don’t: unfortunately for him, like most self-confessed/anointed Libertarians, his chances of being President is roughly that of Spike Lee growing up enough to shop in the Men’s section: Sure, it COULD happen, but…

Not to mention, if he had the strength of his convictions in regards to Voter ID, why go the mushy-spine route of having the Press Secretary’s Press Secretary give “clarification”?

Man up and do it your damn self on the tv/radio like you do about everything else!

BlaxPac on May 13, 2014 at 4:19 PM

How much time can y’all spend on cannibalizing each other endlessly? Doesn’t it get boring. Why not talk about something like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/13/american-beverage-institute_n_5310917.html

libfreeordie on May 13, 2014 at 4:18 PM

That’s the great thing about us, we can actually disagree.

What did you ever do with your “If you don’t vote for Obama then you are a racist” signs from 2008?

Bishop on May 13, 2014 at 4:21 PM

How much time can y’all spend on cannibalizing each other endlessly? Doesn’t it get boring. Why not talk about something like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/13/american-beverage-institute_n_5310917.html

libfreeordie on May 13, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Trucons – the other white meat.. mmmmmm yum..

Or is that racist?

melle1228 on May 13, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Rand Paul is to principled conservative candidate as …

joana is to courteous, well-reasoned debater.

Dolce Far Niente on May 13, 2014 at 4:22 PM

TarheelBen on May 13, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Welcome to the world of Classical and Operant Conditioning through the eyes of Political Marketing 101.

lineholder on May 13, 2014 at 4:22 PM

AP

We shouldn’t talk about it, because it “offends” people, but now his PAC is talking about it, because clearly it offended the base. Backtracking 101 my dear…

melle1228 on May 13, 2014 at 4:09 PM

You’re making up stuff. I reckon you can’t even recognize it. Perhaps it’s neurological?

He said one should be careful about how they talk about voter-ID laws – avoid making a big fuss about them and be careful with some offensive connotations. He also said he believes voter-ID laws are necessary.

His PAC is now saying he believes voter-ID laws are necessary but that one shouldn’t make such a big fuss about them.

So apparently you believe he backtracked from saying voter-ID laws are necessary but one should talk about them with parsimony and carefully to aying voter-ID laws are necessary but one should talk about them with parsimony and carefully.

That’s it, isn’t it?

Again: is it neurological?

joana on May 13, 2014 at 4:24 PM

Say what you will about his Dad, but his Father never wavered in his convictions. He might have been a nut case, but he was firm in his beliefs and did not pander for votes.

Johnnyreb on May 13, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Untrue. Ron Paul himself admitted that he wrote those inflammatory articles in Carto’s ‘Spotlight’ magazine (and later website) because the more inflammatory they were (“The Animals Are Coming! The Animals Are Coming!”), the more money poured into his campaign coffers.

And his convictions? Which one? The conviction that a cabal of Jewish bankers headed by the Rothschild family intends to make slaves of us all? How about that Illuminati crap that Ron Paul sold through Alex Jones’ conspiracy movie, ‘Endgame’? Those aren’t convictions; those are hate-filled conspiracy theories. Ascribing to such fringe beliefs does not make him a man of conviction. Those beliefs make him a weirdo nutjob unfit for public office, and if his son Rand Paul secretly or not-so-secretly shares those beliefs, the same is true for him.

troyriser_gopftw on May 13, 2014 at 4:24 PM

Another negative posting on Rand Paul.
Much to do about pretty much nothing Rand Paul actually said.

However, the interpretation of what he said has many up in arms!

Amjean on May 13, 2014 at 4:17 PM

If Rand wants to be our candidate he needs to learn how to put his positions across clearly and consistently. It’s not that hard. So far he’s failed at this most fundamental of tasks.

I’m guessing his failure is because he’s more interested in maintaining/building his credibility with the DC elite than he is about changing things.

kcewa on May 13, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Again: is it neurological?
joana on May 13, 2014 at 4:24 PM

You are so much fun. You have actually become a parody of your former self.

melle1228 on May 13, 2014 at 4:27 PM

His PAC is now saying he believes voter-ID laws are necessary but that one shouldn’t make such a big fuss about them.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 4:24 PM

Who’s making a big fuss about them, besides him, Obama, Holder (who is suing my state) and Al Sharpton?

TarheelBen on May 13, 2014 at 4:27 PM

Rand Paul is to principled conservative candidate as …

joana is to courteous, well-reasoned debater.

Dolce Far Niente on May 13, 2014 at 4:22 PM

I believe we have a thread winner!!

Bitter Clinger on May 13, 2014 at 4:29 PM

Who’s making a big fuss about them, besides him, Obama, Holder (who is suing my state) and Al Sharpton?

TarheelBen on May 13, 2014 at 4:27 PM

This^^^

His position gave legitimacy to the Dems when they say that voter ID laws are racist. Instead of explaining why they aren’t offensive, he said we just shouldn’t talk about them. I find that line of think completely offensive.

Are voters such infants that they can’t talk about things that might hurt their little feelings? Or should voters confront these things head on? When did it become acceptable to make infants of the American populace. Don’t we have enough of that already?

melle1228 on May 13, 2014 at 4:30 PM


If Rand wants to be our candidate he needs to learn how to put his positions across clearly and consistently. It’s not that hard. So far he’s failed at this most fundamental of tasks.

I’m guessing his failure is because he’s more interested in maintaining/building his credibility with the DC elite than he is about changing things.

kcewa on May 13, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Isn’t that exactly the problem?

To be YOUR candidate, the guy would need to be a firebrand blowhard. It’s not about being clear and consistent: he’s clearly and consistently stated he believes voter-ID laws are necessary but that isn’t enough.

The simple fact he’s expressed empathy toward the other side made you suspicious.

And yet that’s what successful national politicians ought to do. That’s how Obama got elected in the first place.

No guy with an intransigent and fighting rhetoric would be the GOP nominee – and surely won’t have a chance at winning a presidential election.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Bye crazies. And thanks for the attention suckers.

joana on May 8, 2014 at 1:00 AM

bazil9 on May 13, 2014 at 4:31 PM

Who’s making a big fuss about them, besides him, Obama, Holder (who is suing my state) and Al Sharpton?

TarheelBen on May 13, 2014 at 4:27 PM

joana has her Rand cheerleading outfit on.

“Just go with it. She’s on a roll.”

Bitter Clinger on May 13, 2014 at 4:31 PM

You are so much fun. You have actually become a parody of your former self.

melle1228 on May 13, 2014 at 4:27 PM

Nobody cares.

Why don’t you actually address the argument:


So apparently you believe he backtracked from saying voter-ID laws are necessary but one should talk about them with parsimony and carefully to saying voter-ID laws are necessary but one should talk about them with parsimony and carefully.

That’s it, isn’t it?

joana on May 13, 2014 at 4:31 PM

The simple fact he’s expressed empathy toward the other side made you suspicious.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Empathy towards a side that says that uses racism as a bludgeon for everything. Yeah, because Democrats have such empathy for us.

No guy with an intransigent and fighting rhetoric would be the GOP nominee – and surely won’t have a chance at winning a presidential election.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Yeah how’d the nice guy routine work out for McCain and Romney.. Obama was such a “nice guy” to both of them..

melle1228 on May 13, 2014 at 4:32 PM

joana on May 13, 2014 at 4:31 PM

You might want to double-check that sentence in bold…unless you meant to be repetitive in your claims?

lineholder on May 13, 2014 at 4:33 PM

Nobody cares.

Why don’t you actually address the argument:

So apparently you believe he backtracked from saying voter-ID laws are necessary but one should talk about them with parsimony and carefully to saying voter-ID laws are necessary but one should talk about them with parsimony and carefully.

That’s it, isn’t it?

joana on May 13, 2014 at 4:31 PM

Sorry it is my “neurological” problem that keeps me from addressing you. I have “cantengagecrazyitis” of the brain..

melle1228 on May 13, 2014 at 4:34 PM

Bye crazies. And thanks for the attention suckers.

joana on May 8, 2014 at 1:00 AM

bazil9 on May 13, 2014 at 4:31 PM

Ha! Is that for real? If so, it’s a keeper. Where from?

butch on May 13, 2014 at 4:35 PM

Sorry it is my “neurological” problem that keeps me from addressing you. I have “cantengagecrazyitis” of the brain..

melle1228 on May 13, 2014 at 4:34 PM

ROTF-

bazil9 on May 13, 2014 at 4:35 PM

Obfuscation.

You’re fooling no one.

Bigbullets on May 13, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Good.

It’s not my intention to fool anyone.

Skipity on May 13, 2014 at 4:35 PM

Rand Paul is building an image of an empathetic and reasonable politician who “listens to the other side” without giving in on the issues – that would open him to accusations of flip-flopping.

Well, no – he just said that we shouldn’t talk about voter ID laws, and voter fraud, because he THINKS that “it’s offending people”.

Pork-Chop on May 13, 2014 at 3:35 PM
Someone has serious reading comprehension problem.

joana on May 13, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Yeah, an empathetic and reasonable politician that listens to the other side. Sounds a lot like the national perception of McCain and Romney prior to the general election. Then McCain became a dangerous sociopath with an uncontrollable temper, and Romney became an idealogue who hates women and doesn’t pay his taxes.

So positioning yourself as being the eminently reasonable “adult” politician works well in the primary, not so well in the general. A typical political campaign isn’t going to beat a cult figure like Hillary in 2016.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 13, 2014 at 4:35 PM

bazil9 on May 13, 2014 at 4:31 PM

Ha! Is that for real? If so, it’s a keeper. Where from?

butch on May 13, 2014 at 4:35 PM

Sure is-

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2014/05/08/the-gops-foot-shooting-addiction/comment-page-1/

bazil9 on May 13, 2014 at 4:37 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3