Rand Paul and Voter ID


I met Rand Paul on a flight from Nashville to D.C. 

Conservatives are great with military strategy but suck at political strategy. The issue of voter ID for me has become akin to the the Bush vs. Gore case back in 2,000 where a lot of Democrats are still sour over that and believe that Bush stole the election. The reality is that even the most liberal estimates of possible voter fraud would not overcome the margin of victory in the last two Presidential elections. Obama ran the table when it came to electoral votes.

I believe that the use of photo ID would improve the integrity of elections at a local and national level. I also believe that the bar against using photo ID for voting is way too low – most poor and older people have a form of photo ID, whether it is for driving, obtaining a library card or signing up for some form of entitlement. The number of poor, black people who don’t have an ID is probably extremely low and states can implement measures to help those few who don’t.

Texas, a state that has many people in rural areas who should have photo ID problems had no systemic problems in their last election even though voter ID was required. There were a couple of issues but the election officials worked with those affected to ensure that they were able to vote and no legitimate person was denied the ability to vote.

Unfortunately, for many black people, the issue of voter ID brings up a lot of emotions from memories of voter suppression in the past. Rand Paul has been working hard to broaden the GOP base because he believes, and rightly so, that the GOP has real solutions that can lift many black people out of poverty and into the middle class. But there are decades of mistrust between the black community and the GOP and you cannot erase that when one of your party’s priority issue is something that reinforces that mistrust.

So rather than lead with an issue that has not affected the last two national elections, Rand starts with issues that gets the black community listening and possibly more support from the minority community. 

Rand is also correct that it is a state’s rights issue because each state is charged with holding elections and choosing electors who go to Washington to vote for their state. That is a Constitutional issue, the Federal government cannot mandate it. The government could issue a photo ID Social Security Card that could be used for identification at a voting booth. And if Rand does win, his DOJ pick would be able to side with the states trying to implement voter ID laws before the Supreme Court.

I’m personally all for photo ID to ensure election integrity. But I would rather deal with it after the next Presidential election rather than make it a deal-breaker for the next GOP candidate. If the GOP can broaden its base and win the trust of many, it will be much easier to sit down and have a conversation about election integrity especially when you have proved that you are interested in helping their voting bloc get out of poverty and succeed.





What Did You Know and When Did You Know It?


Part of what annoys me about some media liberals is that they have a problem with timelines and the truth. For instance, many Americans supported Cliven Bundy over the BLM land grab and felt that the federal government was encroaching on too many private citizens and what should be a states issue. However, when Cliven went off the reservation with some very clumsily worded opinions that and very bad comparisons, both conservatives and liberals alike denounced them. However, liberals have continued to try to tie conservatives to Cliven Bundy that it was his racism that brought people together.

Nothing could be further from the truth. When conservatives found out, they distanced themselves from those remarks. When we found out the truth of something, we acted accordingly.

On the other hand, do you remember candidate Barack Obama who attended Reverend Wright’s church for 25 years and sat under all kinds of black racist garbage being spewed from the pulpit? He did nothing until it became public and then he had to distance himself.

Or consider Benghazi where Susan Rice and Barack Obama continually spun this tale of a anti-Muslim video causing spontaneous attacks when they knew right from the beginning that it was not from the video. And all the testimony and evidence points to a White House coverup. What did you know and when did you know it?

The same goes for Obamacare where our President criss crossed the country telling everyone that costs were going to go down and that you could keep your plan and your doctors. Now we find out that they knew well in advance that none of these things were going to be true which explains why President Obama delayed so many parts of the mandate so often. What did you know and when did you know it?

So our President, rather than change course when he discovers the truth of something as we would expect any reasonable person, he instead spins, obfuscates, pivots, covers up, obstructs, and tries to hide behind the shield of the Office. But you can only keep spinning the plates on a spindle for so long and now the plates are crashing down all around the President. These cover ups are far worse than what former President Nixon did that made him shut the lights off early on his presidency and leave behind the Watergate legacy.

What did you know and when did you know it?