Getty Images
Ordinarily, when there are questions about where a politician stands on a given issue, he or she will deliver a speech and clarify matters. But sometimes, even after the speech, we still can't be sure.
Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) sent out word Monday night that he would deliver remarks on Tuesday endorsing comprehensive immigration reform, including a pathway to citizenship. Soon after, Paul aides backed off, saying the senator's position was more nuanced. The Republican eventually delivered the speech, and still left everyone wondering. The New York Times felt compelled to say Paul "strongly implied" his support for citizenship provisions in a reform plan.
So, where does that leave us? Rand Paul apparently supports a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the United States, but he doesn't want to say he supports a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the United States.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) supports allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States, receive legal status and eventually apply to become citizens. But he would rather not use the term "pathway to citizenship," he said Tuesday.
The senator eventually told reporters he doesn't want to "get trapped too much" in "descriptive terms."
There is an explanation for the rhetorical acrobatics. For many on the right, "amnesty" was a word intended to shut down debate over immigration policy, so Republicans were conditioned to reject it. But as the debate progressed, conservatives grew to hate the "pathway to citizenship" phrase, too, leading politicians like Paul -- a darling of Tea Party activists -- to avoid it, even when they endorse the substance of it.
In other words, Paul wants to be part of a constructive policy solution, without getting yelled at by the far-right GOP base. No Profile in Courage Award for you, senator.
That said, the fact that the Kentucky Republican is now on board with comprehensive immigration reform is itself a dramatic development, not just because reform proponents just picked up another high-profile ally, but also because Rand Paul looked to be a lost cause on the issue.
Joe Sonka had a great piece yesterday with a refresher for those of us who'd forgotten just how anti-immigrant Paul has been in recent years.
One of Rand Paul's first acts as a U.S. senator was to sponsor a constitutional amendment aimed at stopping "anchor babies," gutting the 14th amendment to prevent all of those Mexican ladies from giving birth to U.S. citizens.
When he was running for Senate, he also described the incredibly popular DREAM Act -- which would provide a path to citizenship for those brought to America by their immigrant parents as a child -- like so: "Washington liberals are trying to push through the so-called DREAM Act, which creates an official path to Democrat voter registration for 2 million college-age illegal immigrants," said Paul, also referring to the bill as "the Washington elitists' roundabout way of giving amnesty to illegal immigrant students and undermining the rule of law."
Paul also liked to use the noun "illegals" to describe these criminal "threats to our national security" who mooched off our welfare system, which is why he consistently supported Arizona's draconian SB 1070 law.
And if you look at Sen. Paul's government website this morning, you'll see that he even wants to go the extra step of "making English the official language of all documents and contracts," so you "illegals" can take your tilde and go back to where you came from.
Adam Serwer added that Paul also used to endorse the bizarre "Amero" conspiracy -- a concept cooked up by the far-right fringe that said there was a secret plan to merge Canada, the United States, and Mexico and create a "borderless mass continent" under a single currency called the "Amero."
As recently as 2011, Paul co-sponsored legislation to end the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship.
I won't speculate as to why the Republican senator has changed his mind so dramatically, but it's nevertheless clear yesterday's Rand Paul bears no resemblance to the Rand Paul of a couple of years ago, at least when it comes to immigration policy.
Leave a Comment:
Can you blame any politician for watching their statements when every word is dissected and construed by the media and public?
Let's be fair and reserve our judgement for actions not words.
Sounds to me as if you want us to reserve our judgement until after the nut-jobs get elected.
Freedom of the press was deemed important because our founders wanted to ensure that we the people were well informed on the doings of our elected officials. If a politician is guarding himself from scrutiny then he is in truth trying to deceive. Who wants to elect someone into power that refuses to tell them where they stand?
The real problem is that politicians will say anything to get elected. They tell a veterans group one thing and college students another. They are soft on immigration at a gathering in an area where latinos vote then get tough when at a tea party rally.
If you enjoy being an uninformed duped voter then turn off your TV,quit reading the paper and get a life --before some new GW bush type gets elected and denies you the opportunity!
Let's be fair and reserve our judgement for actions not words.
Well, wake me up when this loser actually does something other than talk.
I couldn't agree more that a politician will say anything you want to hear and the media and public will interpret their words to conform to their personal beliefs or ideologies. That's why when I hear a politician is one way or the other it is important to look at their voting record which reveals their true stance on relative issues.
That's all politely noncommittal and unbiased, but this isn't some thoughtful and polished politician, this is Rand Paul. That means you have to eat all the fruit loops that go with being Rand Paul, not just the tasty little purple ones.
Once again, this is RAND PAUL. Don't look for sensible in a cereal bowl of crazy.
You are right Paul, FromDownHere DOES believe that we shouldn't "say" anything until after they get elected when we can't do anything about them or what they do:
Yea, look where that's got us!!! Sorry, I think we need to scrutinize everything they say and speak up NOW before they get elected!! If they are being so careful that they can't speak freely, well, then, don't you think that is a sign that they are hiding something?
Immigration reform is life changing legislation for millions of people and Senators like Rand Paul are instrumental to it's passage. Would we dim that slight glimmer of hope just to satisfy the need to trash someone with an "R" behind their name? I would think encouragement is in order to help guide our politicians to do what's right for the people no matter the party they represent.
I've heard and not believed a theory that Democrats are self defeatists, now I'm not so sure.
Party affiliation is hardly the reason why Rand Paul is dismissed as a non-serious Senator. There are a few, still. Rob Portman, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski come to mind. And... and... um. That's actually harder to do than I thought! LOL
Methinks that Rochester is being overly generous today!
If you enjoy being an uninformed duped voter then turn off your TV,quit reading the paper and get a life --before some new GW bush type gets elected and denies you the opportunity!
Paul is having a seriously bad day today! A corrected sentence is If you enjoy being an uninformed duped voter then turn
offon your TV,quitcontinue reading the corporately owned paper andgetforget having a life -- because another GW Bush (jeb maybe) is coming along to get elected and deny you any opportunity other than moving from the middle class to the poor class.Really? In looking down the list of current US Senators, I had a real difficult time coming up with even three that didn't bug me for one reason or another.
Here, sort by party and take a look for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators
Truth be told, however, there are about a half-dozen that I don't even recognize. I suppose I should assume they're doing a decent, quiet job outside the limelight. Benefit of the doubt and all that jazz.
This isn't that complicated. Most Republicans want cheap labor and will settle for immigrants until Americans are willing to give up the right to a living wage. Once that is accomplished they will push for ethnic purity. In the meantime, they don't want immigrants voting unless they can bamboozle them the way they do religious zealots and rural hunters. The only disagreement among Republicans is how to market it.
The senator eventually told reporters he doesn't want to "get trapped too much" in "descriptive terms."
This is just an update of something we heard- and ALSO regarding immigration- last year: "I'm running for President, for Pete's sake!"
What the heck is more deceptive than refusing to make a stand on any position?
If the idiots don't want to lead then why are they running?
Damn Paul, repukes do not want to lead or govern, they just want to rule!
Rule?
Like ruling over healthcare with Federal mandates.
Rand Paul 2016
So much worse than huge insurance companies with deep pockets and well-funded lobbyists telling you what treatment they will and won't pay for. BTW, you still get insurance from private-sector companies that are more interested in healthy profits than healthy clients.
But he would rather not use the term "pathway to citizenship," he said Tuesday.
How 'bout "voucher" for citizenship?
The senator eventually told reporters he doesn't want to "get trapped too much" in "descriptive terms."
Try using semaphore, maybe?
Uh, he discovered that latino Americans vote?
Maybe so Paul, but the repuke party is working hard on 'curing' that problem.
Kind of a reminder of Laura Bush and her (previously stated publicly) support of gay rights. Now her old conditioning comes out:
"Never disagree with your MAN in public."
"descriptive terms"?
W-T-F is that?
They want to be seen as 'doing something' on immigration without doing anything on immigration.
""descriptive terms"?
W-T-F is that?"
I assume adjectives and adverbs. Only takers use those, not producers....I suppose.
honesty, the hallmark of good men and women down through the ages. oh, honesty, where did you go? being a good politician used to mean being truthful,honest, caring about people, trying to do your best for your country. something happened 20 or 30 years ago to change the way politicians talked about the issues and the problems we face as a nation. a candidate used to say ; this is what i believe and stand for. today they say; this is what i stand for, and within 24 hours they and their staffs will modify and change that statement at least 4 times. no wonder people are sick of polititions. no wonder the congresses approval rating is so low. think how refreshing it would be to turn back the clock to ike or jfk. when they said something they meant it. oh, honesty, where have you gone!
It looks like somebody actually believes the winner of a CPAC straw poll has a real chance of winning the presidency.
Assuming that Michele Bachmann won't be campaigning for the nomination again in 2016, then all eyes are on Rand Paul.
Run, Rand. Please run.
On Hannity's radio program yesterday Paul completely hedged his "position", he and Hannity larded it up with drones flying the border and some sort of Xanadu-like guarantee that no single person ever breach a twentyfive hundred mile border... Rand Paul is a liar/weasel...
So you like the status quo?
I do not.
Rand Paul 2016.
Talk as he may, Sen. Rand Paul cares only about himself, what he has and what he must protect in an Establishment Paradise which is the US Congress, and what he may lose, should the forces of change succeed.
Long ago the ordinary citizen had been warned about the baneful effect of turning elective office from a post of Honour to a place of Profit, with potentially disastrous consequences. In the 2nd decade of the 21st century, the reality is merely playing out.
Read more at
http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-establishment-paradise-part-three.html
with both repuknican and dumbocrap politicians wading waist deep in the big money trough.
"I won't speculate as to why the Republican senator has changed his mind so dramatically, but it's nevertheless clear yesterday's Rand Paul bears no resemblance to the Rand Paul of a couple of years ago, at least when it comes to immigration policy."
It's because he wants to run for president. Duh. Rand Paul is mistaken if he thinks he is going to cover-up his record.
Did I hear him say at one point that he is okay with some sort of legal status as long as they pay taxes? Why must they pay taxes when the corporations and wealthy agra-businesses and casino mogals who are hiring them do not pay their share of taxes?
In other words, Paul wants to be part of a constructive policy solution, by talking out of both sides of his mouth so as to not offend either the party's wealthy funders who want the cheap labor or the reich wing bases who have been sold on hating the browns.
It's a complex matter. Republicans want to coax the Latino vote while keeping them from voting.