DEACE: Rand Paul: We’re all racists now

[William R]

DEACE: Rand Paul: We’re all racists now

’m sure Rand will be getting all kinds of thank you cards from Republicans for voter ID after the lamestream media asks them this question repeatedly: “Senator Rand Paul says so-called voter ID laws are offensive to African-Americans, and your own party leadership believes it needs to diversify to win elections again. So why are you proposing policies that even Rand Paul agrees drives African-American voters away? Those are Rand Paul’s words, not just the words of your Democrat opponents.”

Yikes! With friends like Rand Paul doing your messaging, who needs MSNBC? Rand also forgot to mention we can’t call President Obama by his full name (McCain 2008), and that we shouldn’t talk about Benghazi either because the consultants say it doesn’t matter (Romney 2012).


What’s happening here is Team Rand is so concerned about his presidential aspirations, they have forgotten their first love. He was sent there to complete his father’s mission of dismantling statism’s foundation, not just repaint the walls. If we wanted a passive-aggressive president who made up his worldview as he went along, Romney would be in office.

Rand Paul has been a fantastic U.S. senator for the most part, but running for and being president is much different than the Senate. How you message your vision is just as important in that capacity as what your vision is. We want the Rand Paul who helped save us from fighting alongside al Qaeda in Syria, and filibustered on behalf of the 4th Amendment. We want a standard bearer that doesn’t force us to make a false choice between liberty and morality, but realizes you can’t have one without the other.

There is still time for Rand to right his ship, but that time is running short. The Iowa Caucuses will begin in just six months, and if I know my home state this version of Rand Paul isn’t going to win here. Instead, Iowa Republicans will “agree to disagree” with this Rand Paul that he’s ready for primetime.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ow/?page=1&utm_medium=RSS&utm_source=RSS_Feed

 

[jtstellar]

’m sure Rand will be getting all kinds of thank you cards from Republicans for voter ID after the lamestream media asks them this question repeatedly: “Senator Rand Paul says so-called voter ID laws are offensive to African-Americans, and your own party leadership believes it needs to diversify to win elections again. So why are you proposing policies that even Rand Paul agrees drives African-American voters away? Those are Rand Paul’s words, not just the words of your Democrat opponents.”

Yikes! With friends like Rand Paul doing your messaging, who needs MSNBC? Rand also forgot to mention we can’t call President Obama by his full name (McCain 2008), and that we shouldn’t talk about Benghazi either because the consultants say it doesn’t matter (Romney 2012).


What’s happening here is Team Rand is so concerned about his presidential aspirations, they have forgotten their first love. He was sent there to complete his father’s mission of dismantling statism’s foundation, not just repaint the walls. If we wanted a passive-aggressive president who made up his worldview as he went along, Romney would be in office.

Rand Paul has been a fantastic U.S. senator for the most part, but running for and being president is much different than the Senate. How you message your vision is just as important in that capacity as what your vision is. We want the Rand Paul who helped save us from fighting alongside al Qaeda in Syria, and filibustered on behalf of the 4th Amendment. We want a standard bearer that doesn’t force us to make a false choice between liberty and morality, but realizes you can’t have one without the other.

There is still time for Rand to right his ship, but that time is running short. The Iowa Caucuses will begin in just six months, and if I know my home state this version of Rand Paul isn’t going to win here. Instead, Iowa Republicans will “agree to disagree” with this Rand Paul that he’s ready for primetime.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ow/?page=1&utm_medium=RSS&utm_source=RSS_Feed

some people out there are confused.. all of a sudden conservative ideologies are resonating, then they see it was what the founders believed, this then turned to anger, that somehow it was always within them, but they just didn't take it forcefully enough to the liberals, so it's not time to make any gestures to liberals. he is wrong, gop and conservatives didn't understand things by and large. they were wrong until recently educated by ron paul and other constitutionalists. they didn't sway the country because they were wrong, not because they didn't make their case more forcefully.

 

[William R]

Sorry, but no more excuses for Rand. He really stepped in it this time.

 

[jtstellar]

Sorry, but no more excuses for Rand. He really stepped in it this time.

rand doesn't want to divide people.

 

[twomp]

Steve Deace would rather the GOP nominate Huckabee then promptly lose the election.

 

[WD-NY]

Definitely not a big fan of Deace, but he nailed why Rand's comments on Voter ID were so dumb (politically-speaking)

Rand’s latest step to what our insipid ruling class calls “maturing” is to play the race card against those of us who think you ought to show photo identification to vote. Because nothing says “racist” like demanding people to show the same documentation to vote that is also required to buy Sudafed. How come when minorities have to show photo I.D. to get a library card the public library isn’t racist? Unfortunately, there’s no time for commons sense while Rand is pandering like this:

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky broke Friday with fellow Republicans who have pushed for stricter voting laws as a way to crack down on fraud at the polls, saying that the focus on such measures alienates and insults African-Americans and hurts the party.
“Everybody’s gone completely crazy on this voter ID thing,” Mr. Paul said in an interview. “I think it’s wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because it’s offending people.”


There you go, folks. We can’t uphold the rule of law because its “offending people.” Viva la Revolution! Come on, shouldn’t the “surrender caucus” have a libertarian wing for its “big tent” as well?


In just one paragraph, Rand Paul violated almost every one of the 10 commandments of political warfare from my new book “Rules for Patriots: How Conservatives Can Win Again.” He abandoned his base, he allowed his opponents to define him, he accepted the premise of his opponent’s argument, he got put on the defensive, etc.

 

[AuH20]

rand doesn't want to divide people.

'They' divide themselves by their own volition and seek to create state granted privileges when there should be none. I wish Rand would understand this, but he wants to be a slave to the poisons of cultural marxism.

 

[AuH20]

’m sure Rand will be getting all kinds of thank you cards from Republicans for voter ID after the lamestream media asks them this question repeatedly: “Senator Rand Paul says so-called voter ID laws are offensive to African-Americans, and your own party leadership believes it needs to diversify to win elections again. So why are you proposing policies that even Rand Paul agrees drives African-American voters away? Those are Rand Paul’s words, not just the words of your Democrat opponents.”

Yikes! With friends like Rand Paul doing your messaging, who needs MSNBC? Rand also forgot to mention we can’t call President Obama by his full name (McCain 2008), and that we shouldn’t talk about Benghazi either because the consultants say it doesn’t matter (Romney 2012).


What’s happening here is Team Rand is so concerned about his presidential aspirations, they have forgotten their first love. He was sent there to complete his father’s mission of dismantling statism’s foundation, not just repaint the walls. If we wanted a passive-aggressive president who made up his worldview as he went along, Romney would be in office.

Rand Paul has been a fantastic U.S. senator for the most part, but running for and being president is much different than the Senate. How you message your vision is just as important in that capacity as what your vision is. We want the Rand Paul who helped save us from fighting alongside al Qaeda in Syria, and filibustered on behalf of the 4th Amendment. We want a standard bearer that doesn’t force us to make a false choice between liberty and morality, but realizes you can’t have one without the other.

There is still time for Rand to right his ship, but that time is running short. The Iowa Caucuses will begin in just six months, and if I know my home state this version of Rand Paul isn’t going to win here. Instead, Iowa Republicans will “agree to disagree” with this Rand Paul that he’s ready for primetime.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ow/?page=1&utm_medium=RSS&utm_source=RSS_Feed

This should be Rand's logo going forward since he simply wants to blend in with the Borg.

 

[Crashland]

Deace was already a lost cause.

 

[Guitarzan]

When I look at Steve Deace, he reminds me of Michelle Bachman's husband if you catch my drift.


But back on topic...Rand told the truth...and Deace HATES the truth...if you catch my drift.

 

[jtstellar]

i don't agree with your sentiments. rand unites people. also notice most of this comes from social gops who have a long track record against others, including other good libertarian aspects

 

[AuH20]

Deace was already a lost cause.

Nevertheless, all that Deace has outlined is accurate. Rand Paul has conflated voter ID with cross burning.

 

[Brett85]

Everything Deace said in this article is going to be repeated by Rand's opponents like Cruz and Santorum in the GOP debates. It's going to be brutal. So many unnecessary self inflicted wounds.

 

[jtstellar]

Everything Deace said in this article is going to be repeated by Rand's opponents like Cruz and Santorum in the GOP debates. It's going to be brutal. So many unnecessary self inflicted wounds.

if you are afraid of what less refined spirits say then one shouldn't engage in changing things for the better in the first place. there are many ladders down but one should go there by choice, not in a midst of confusion brought by others, especially those with a bad history.

 

[AuH20]

Everything Deace said in this article is going to be repeated by Rand's opponents like Cruz and Santorum in the GOP debates. It's going to be brutal. So many unnecessary self inflicted wounds.

He's so fixated by the general that he completely forgot that he's going to get stigmatized and summarily stomped on in the primaries. Who in their right mind casts negative aspersions on their own core voters? Rand Paul apparently does.

 

[Kotin]

Steve Deace would rather the GOP nominate Huckabee then promptly lose the election.

agreed.

Deface is a lost cause and I honestly don't give a shit.. We don't need his support.

He goes out of his way to bitch about rand in anyway possible.. He did the same with Ron.. Fuck him.

 

[jtstellar]

He's so fixated by the general that he completely forgot that he's going to get stigmatized and summarily stomped on in the primaries. Who in their right mind casts negative aspersions on their own core voters? Rand Paul apparently does.

you can be simply good without inciting opponent hate and group conflict. the bad of the other side doesn't imply your wellness

 

[carlton]

Everything Deace said in this article is going to be repeated by Rand's opponents like Cruz and Santorum in the GOP debates. It's going to be brutal. So many unnecessary self inflicted wounds.

Rand will be fine, he's quick on his feet and far more intelligent than any other of the prospective GOP nominees. Just checked the teaparty.org comments on Rand's page, not so bad. His recent story on DailyCaller has virtually no negative comments. All Rand has to do, come the debates, is reiterate what he has said, that he supports voter ID measures but that he doesn't think it should be the sole focus of debate on the right. Sometimes I think Rand articulates his strategy a bit too publicly because he's right here, if the GOP just shut up on the matter until after 2014, it will be in a better position to affect that change.


BTW, I don't think anyone should be required to have a federal or even state ID.

 

[Crashland]

Well, I guess nothing to do now but wait and see. I wouldn't underestimate Rand's ability to turn a potentially bad situation on its head.

 

[carlton]

This should be Rand's logo going forward since he simply wants to blend in with the Borg.

Surrender flag huh? Well I oppose most federal regulation and that would also apply to elections. IMO Rand's stance here is consistent with his beliefs on less government control, but I think he articulated it poorly here and was kinda tone deaf.