Timothy Elkin at Rand Paul Rally for Greg Brannon
Timothy Elkin speaks at the Rand Paul Rally for Greg Brannon on May 5, 2014.
By: pundithouse
Originally posted here:
Timothy Elkin at Rand Paul Rally for Greg Brannon - Video
Former Vice President Al Gore discusses the politics of Climate Change
Former Vice President Al Gore responds to skepticism about climate change voiced by Republican Sens. Marco Rubio and Rand Paul.
By: UChi Pol
Link:
Former Vice President Al Gore discusses the politics of Climate Change - Video
U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-K.Y. Win McNamee, Getty Images
WASHINGTONSen. Rand Paul made his latest threat Monday to delay nominations, this time President Barack Obama's picks for vacancies on the Federal Reserve Board.
Paul, R-Ky., said he would slow work on all three Fed nominees unless Democrats allow a vote on his bill giving Congress more oversight over the central bank's actions.
Paul, considered a 2016 GOP presidential contender, said his bill would bring "much needed transparency" to the Fed. It would eliminate curbs on Fed audits by the Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative agency, and allow greater oversight by lawmakers on Fed actions including the money it has been pumping into the economy to reinforce the slow-moving recovery.
Critics have said the measure would increase the risk that lawmakers would put political pressure on Fed decisions.
Obama has nominated Stanley Fischer to become Fed vice chairman, and Lael Brainard and Jerome Powell to become Fed members.
The three are expected to eventually win Senate confirmation, whatever Paul does. Under changes Democrats pushed through last November to the chamber's procedures for ending filibusters, or procedural delays, only a simple majority is needed for most nominations, not the previous, harder-to-reach threshold of 60 votes.
Democrats said Paul's threat would have no real impact.
"This is completely predictable but effectively meaningless since Republicans are already obstructing virtually all nominees," said Adam Jentleson, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
Paul is no stranger to the practice of threatening to hold up nominations. It has become an oft-used tactic in his quest to seek information or votes on other measures.
The rest is here:
Rand Paul threatens to block two more Fed nominations
Also...
Adding Insult to Injury
Rand Paul, the ACLU and the Medias Fascination with an Unorthodox Republican
Heres a head-spinning moment.
Rand Paul wrote the following in yesterdays New York Times: I agree with the ACLU.
And thats just the latest evidence that he is planning a different kind of Republican presidential campaign.
The Kentucky senator is quite consciously reaching out beyond the usual, staunchly conservative GOP base. That may reflect his analysis of what a Republican needs to do to win the White House in 2016. It may reflect the latitude he has as the son of perennial candidate Ron Paul. Or it may just be who he is.
My sense is that Paul is winning grudging respect in the media for going outside the usual Republican comfort zoneor at least gratitude for livening things up.
He is zigging while others are zagging, as we see in an interview the senator gave the Times the other day:
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.
Read the original:
KURTZ: Rand Paul, the ACLU, and the media's fascination with an unorthodox Republican
For about three days.
Last week, Rand Paul edgily, and correctly, urged his fellow Republicans to make peace with African-Americans by maybe not trying so hard to prevent them from voting. Yesterday, Pauls senior adviser, Paul Doug Stafford, explained what Paul really meant. And what he really meant was well, not very much:
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, Stafford said in a statement Monday. In terms of the specifics of voter ID laws, Senator Paul believes it's up to each state to decide that type of issue.
Voting is already handled at the state level. Throwing up your hands and letting the states decide means Republicans can keep on keepin on erecting bureaucratic impediments to voting. Keep in mind, though, that Pauls original heterodoxy didnt take him very far out on a limb. What he told the Times was, Everybodys gone completely crazy on this voter ID thing. I think its wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because its offending people. Paul was not arguing against vote suppression on moral grounds but practical grounds (its offending people). He wasnt asking Republicans to stop engaging in vote suppression altogether. Taken literally, he wasnt even asking them to stop being crazy about vote suppression. He was just asking them not to be too crazy.
As a political instinct, Pauls original, pre-walkback line was probably shrewd. Vote suppression tactics have suffered a series of legal setbacks. Federal courts in Wisconsin, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania have all struck down Republican-drafted laws designed to restrict voting. Two judges who originally upheld voter-ID laws, John Paul Stevens and Richard Posner, have repudiated their original support.
The political logic of constructing impediments to voting appears perfectly sound. Voting is a fundamentally irrational act, in the sense that it confers no tangible benefit. Making it less convenient is likely to discourage voters with the least flexibility and wherewithal, shearing a small, disproportionately Democratic slice of voters off the electorate. The photo-ID requirement poses no obstacle to the 89 percent of us who own one. But to the 11% percent of Americans (and 25 percent of African-Americans) who lack one, the impediment is substantial. Imagine you had to travel to the DMV or some other state office to get a card merely so you can vote. If you cant drive and probably lack much job flexibility, thats not a burden youre likely to take on without enormous motivation. The widespread Republican drive to limit polling stations and restrict early and weekend voting has the same effect.
The trouble, for Republicans, is that vote suppression creates an opposing force. It allows Democrats to (correctly) place Republicans within the history of odious tactics designed to limit the political power of minorities, and thus making the act of voting itself a form of political protest. Conservatives like Ross Douthat have argued that vote suppression probably inspires more Democrats to register and vote than it keeps away from the polls.
Pauls original point got at the dilemma in a different way. Smart Republican strategists understand that, even though their party will never win the black vote, the marginal difference between winning 10 to 15 percent of the black vote, as the party did not long ago, and winning 5 percent of the black vote is substantial. The GOP is never going to rebuild its reputation when they are upholding such an odious American tradition. The Republican candidate who rebuilds his partys reputation with black America is probably not going to be the one who disagrees with major sections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and has surrounded himself with white supremacists. But the broader strategy Paul is identifying makes enough sense that somebody is bound to eventually take it up, even if its not him.
Update: Tuesday, Paul spoke with Sean Hannity, and abandoned his deviation completely. Paul assured Hannity he fully agrees with the Republican vote suppression strategy on substance, and that his only argument is that Republicans should "emphasize" other issues without changing their policies:
PAUL: No I agree, theres nothing wrong with it. To see Eric Holder youve got to show your drivers license to get in the building. So I dont really object to having some rules for how we vote. I show my drivers license every time I vote in Kentuckyand I dont feel like it is a great burden. So its funny that it got reported that way.
Original post:
Rand Paul Was Right About Republican Vote Suppression