BluegrassBulletin.com

Shocking Allegation Of Racial Discrimination Leveled At GOP

If you needed any more evidence that the left is trying to ratchet up racial tensions in the country in order to inspire more hatred toward the "white republicans" look no further.  Read this article by guest columnist David Drumm, published at Jonathan Turley's site.

Although Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) does not believe “there is any particular evidence of polls barring African Americans from voting,” there is plenty of evidence that States are making it more difficult for African Americans to vote. Paul is using a strawman argument to recast the voting issue to one in which African Americans are prohibited from voting. Preventing African Americans from voting is the intended result of Republican efforts in numerous states. Using analysis of voting habits, Republicans have passed laws that intentionally create voting difficulties for groups that traditionally vote Democratic. Jim Crow has been dressed up a little, to become James Crow, Esq., but statistically speaking, the results are the same. (emphasis added)

Is he serious?  What, is there some secret meeting going on behind closed doors with men in white hoods plotting against African Americans?  And this is being accomplished by enacting laws through the public legislative process?

Here's where it gets really silly.  The so-called "Jim Crow, Esq." laws he is talking about include measures designed to prevent voter fraud, not prevent legitimate voters from voting. He cites North Carolina as one of the worst culprits.

In North Carolina, voter suppression has been taken to new levels. Among the new measures are:

• The end of pre-registration for 16 & 17 year olds
• A ban on paid voter registration drives
• Elimination of same day voter registration
• A provision allowing voters to be challenged by any registered voter of the county in which they vote rather than just their precinct
• A week sliced off Early Voting
• Elimination of straight party ticket voting
• Authorization of vigilante poll observers, lots of them, with expanded range of interference
• An expansion of the scope of who may examine registration records and challenge voters
• A repeal of out-of-precinct voting
• A repeal of the current mandate for high-school registration drives
• Elimination of flexibility in opening early voting sites at different hours within a county

If Republicans can’t win by getting more votes than Democrats, they’ll lessen the number of Democratic voters and achieve an identical result.

What a horrible accusation to level.  The only goal of such provocative and misguided rhetoric must be to inspire hatred toward republicans.  This guy is a disgrace.

Hillary's Cornonation Being Planned As We Speak

I had the chance to sit down with some highly placed, "in the know", insiders within the GOP chain of command recently and during one of our casual conversations the topic of 2016 came up.  I concluded that the GOP is pretty sure the next opponent for the White House will be Hillary and that she has a decided advantage.

Now the RNC chairman Reince Priebus has had to duck questions about the involvement of the Fox broadcasting company in putting a mini-series about Hillary on the air.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus is brushing aside a report of Fox’s involvement in a planned Hillary Clinton miniseries on NBC.

Priebus was asked Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” about a New York Times report that Fox Television Stations is in talks to produce and distribute the miniseries being planned to air on NBC.

Priebus has been on a media tour defending his threat to pull GOP primary debates from NBC and CNN if they move forward with planned Clinton specials. NBC responded by reiterating that NBC Entertainment was involved in the project, a separate division than NBC News.

Think about this for a minute.  If the major networks are colluding to air a mini-series about Hillary Clinton, isn't this about as close to manipulative propagandizing as you can get?

She is already measuring for the drapes!

Mitch's Jacket Has A Loose Thread

I waited to see how the world would react to the email blast that outed McConnell campaign manager and Paul camp insider Jesse Benton for having said in a secretly taped interview that he was "holding his nose" for the next two years working for McConnell so that he could play the longer game of helping Rand win the GOP nomination, and hopefully the White House.

The story was being pushed by the democrats and by the Bevin campaign.  No big surprise there.  Alison Lundergan Grimes took the high road and refused to comment, satisfied to see how much damage the republicans could do to themselves.

But now that it has broken out of the hardly heard of blogosphere into the main at POLITICO, USA Today and elsewhere, McConnell had to do some damage control and so tweeted a photo of him laughing alongside Benton pinching his nostrils.

I am going to guess, but I don't think this was as much of a happy moment for these guys as they would like for you to think.

McConnell isn't a softy when it comes to loyalty.  He's a pretty hard nosed guy when it comes to performance.  And everybody saw right through the Benton hire from the beginning, as it related to both McConnell's motivation, and Benton's.  So Benton's comment in that secret recording fits the narrative that everybody already suspected.  A staged photo can't fix that.

What McConnell will be hoping for is that the story dies.  But now that he has a so-called TEA party opponent in the primary, the story isn't likely to die on its own.  McConnell, Benton and Paul all need to think very carefully about how they are going to deal with this issue and speak from the same script.  Benton's comment clearly did damage to the plans of both men.

Will it change the outcome of the McConnell/Bevin or the eventual McConnell/Grimes race?  I doubt it.  McConnell is clearly the one to beat, and it's his seat to lose. 

But in two days time McConnell and Paul have done little to repair the damage of this one little paper cut.  Maybe they figure it will go away.  Maybe it will, but don't forget, a thousand little cuts can bleed one into a very desperate condition, and one loose thread if pulled on hard enough, can unravel even the emperors clothes.

If this has legs on Sunday, and then again on Monday, these guys better be ready with something good.

Interesting Appraisal Of Rand Paul's Foreign Policy

I've been corrected in the past for referring to Ron Paul and Rand Paul's foreign policy as "isolationism".  I've been told they are "non-interventionists" not "isolationists".  I was unaware that the later term is considered to be a slur "intended to link the target with the ignominious record of Americans in the 1930s who were slow to recognize the threat from Nazi Germany." [POLITICO]

In the POLITICO piece the author suggests that there is a concerted effort to paint Rand as an "isolationist".

"Remember when your older brothers and sisters used to prank you by warning about the monster under your bed? In a similar way, Washington’s war hawks are gearing up to scare you with another phantom devil: isolationism.

If you feel like you’ve already been hearing increasing warnings about isolationism, you’re right. Pundits, journalists, and now a whole new think-tank initiative are warning about this dangerous ideology."

But listen to how the defense of Rand is being developed.  Do you see any similarities to the kind of strategy used by the Obama team?

"You should know three things about these claims. The first is that they are nonsense. Rand Paul, Rep. Justin Amash, and other skeptics of reckless foreign wars and secret government spying on Americans aren’t isolationists. They’re prudent conservatives who take the Constitution seriously and rose to power amid the wreckage of the George W. Bush administration, which destroyed the GOP advantage on national security and provided a good example of how not to conduct foreign policy."

First of all they didn't "rise to power amid the wreckage of the George W. Bush administration".  They rose to power in reaction to the Obama administration.

Furthermore, I'm not sure that in hindsight George W. Bush will be seen as creating "wreckage" in foreign policy at all.  That's Obama's line.

America was firmly behind President Bush, cheering him on in Iraq and Afghanistan after Osama Bin Laden took down the twin towers nine months into his first term.  We were thrilled to be hunting down terrorists and "bringing them to justice."  Revisionist history will not work here.

Furthermore, the POLITICO piece makes another gaffe when trying to make the point that a more globally aware foreign policy is the wrong course to pursue.

"Coincidentally, perhaps, the third thing you should know is that the people trying to create anxiety about isolationism favor an interventionist military policy that has fallen out of favor with the public. After the twin disasters of Iraq and now Afghanistan, they are pawing the ground for more wars in Syria and Iran. Accordingly, they are trying to claim “internationalism” for themselves, so that they can look prudent and modest — in comparison with the ideology that failed to recognize the threat from Adolf Hitler."

I'm not convinced that protecting America from the growing threat of radical Islam has "fallen out of favor with the public".  Even Rand Paul seems to understand that the public is much more inclined to stop the current administration from funding the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt than to continue pursuing the "hands off" approach that Obama has taken.  In fact, I predict that most Americans see the "Arab Spring", riots around the world, Iran's nuclear program and radical Islam as much more of a problem for us now than they did during the George W. Bush terms of office.

I get the distinction between "isolationist" and "non-interventionist" but the author of the POLITICO editorial is living in a dream world if he thinks America has lost its more hawkish appetite. 

It's not that we don't have the stomach for war anymore, it's just that we've grown tired of fighting wars without quick, decisive, overwhelming victories.  We don't like long engagements which suggest that the suppliers of the arms and equipment have lobbied Congress and the president to keep the gravy train for them coming at the expense of American lives and treasure.

Let some little despot rise up and threaten to kill our children and I think you'd find our people very willing to watch us squash him like a bug.

Surely to goodness Rand knows this as well as anybody.  And if he doesn't yet, he better learn it.  He's runnning for commander in chief of a country that doesn't, and shouldn't, take threats lightly.

Kentucky Is Ground Zero For The GOP

The future of the Republican Party's ability to compete on the national stage is being decided in Kentucky.  In 2010 Rand Paul came from nowhere, representing what many mainstreamers considered to be a dangerous fringe and is now locked in a battle for the GOP presidential nomination half way through his first term.

Mitch McConnell, who helped to build a stronger republican party in Kentucky while at the same time working inch by inch to become the most powerful republican in America, is being targeted by the libertarian wing of the GOP as representing all that is wrong with Washington.

And though Rand has made a peace offering to Chris Christie to end their war of words, the fact remains that the divisions in the party don't exist only as between Caintuck and Joisey.  There is a battle right here in the land of Daniel Boone where epic battles between waring factions have been part of the history of this dark and bloody ground since long before the famous pioneer encountered Indians at the Cumberland Gap.

Rand seems to be winning the battle for the high ground.  His principled stands against domestic spying, drone usage and foreign entanglements appeal to a wider audience than the "cut taxes" message which has defined republican politics for more than a decade.

And while Christie represents more of a moderate wing of the party than McConnell does, it is likely that Christie's appeal will shrivel in light of the combined efforts of McConnell's more rock ribbed republican allies and Rand's new generation of civil libertarians, fiscal conservatives and non-interventionists.  After all, it's Christie's brand of "make nice" politics which is the deal killer with the TEA party folks.

While Mitch needs to walk a bit of a tight-rope with some of the more traditional supporters of republicanism, his connections with Rand and his ideology could go a long way to building a new and stronger republican party over which he could then mentor as the majority leader with a hand picked president from his own state in the White House.

If the folks in Kentucky don't see the incredible potential for our future, and that of the GOP in this new mix of politics, then they are missing a very big and important point.

Mitch isn't the enemy of the GOP.  He is the catalyst to help bring about the shift Rand's folks have, up to now, only dreamed about.

Ruh Ro: Rand May Get A Senate Vote On Egypt That Could Hurt McConnell

Rand Paul has been a very vocal opponent of sending aid to Egypt while roads and bridges in the United States, and particularly Kentucky, are in need of repair or replacement.  And now it looks like he might get a floor vote on one of two possible measures to cut off that aid.  But, one source says, this might hurt McConnell.

The Senate might vote this week on a proposal from Sen. Rand Paul that would cut U.S. aid to Egypt, sources said....

Democrats believe a vote on Egypt would be difficult for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a long-time defender of foreign aid. A McConnell spokesman declined comment. When asked several weeks ago about his position on assistance to Egypt, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the Obama administration is taking a look at aid but declined further comment. The administration has delayed a sale of four fighter jets to Egypt in recent days, however....

Top Senate foreign policy voices like Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) have called for a suspension of aid to Egypt in the wake of the ouster of President Mohamed Morsi by the Egyptian military. They argue that a coup occurred in Egypt, a designation that would result in a loss of aid from the U.S. and one that the Obama administration has declined to make.

In otherwords the democrats who control the agenda and determine which bills get voted on and which don't, have calculated that allowing Rand's bills to get a vote might hurt Mitch McConnell and so they are playing THAT game.

It's all politics all the time.

Rand Paul And Chris Christie Finding Headlines

There's the old story of a small town that had only one lawyer who was about to go broke, until another lawyer moved into town and then they both got rich suing each others clients.  Well, the struggle for Rand Paul and Chris Christie to get enough attention to be a contender for the 2016 GOP primary is getting easier.

Every day it seems Rand is lobbing shots at Christie who is firing back at Rand, and both men are getting plenty of headlines over the feud.

Now Rand is calling Christie "cheap and sad", or at least that's how POLITICO is reporting it.

“It’s really, I think, kind of sad and cheap that he would use the cloak of 9/11 victims and say, I’m the only one who cares about these victims. Hogwash,” Paul said on Monday to Sean Hannity on Fox News. “If he cared about protecting this country, maybe he wouldn’t be in this ‘give me, give me, give me all of the money’ that you have in Washington or don’t have and he would be more fiscally responsive and know the way we defend our country.”

Meanwhile, the Clintons are secretly enjoying the Weiner scandal which has brought Bill's bad behavior and Hillary's moment in the sun back into focus.  The media is in full "help Hillary" mode already and I'm sure that both Rand and Chris see that playing out.  Their job now is to remain relevant and get their own kind of attention.

What a goofy way to choose candidates don't you think?  I mean, having to play the left wing media like this is what is truly a sad and cheap comment on out ability to dig ourselves out of the hole we are in.

Related articles

The 2016 GOP Primary Race Is Underway, Says One

Ted Cruz: I stand with Rand Paul against Chris Christie's attacks

The 2016 GOP Primary Race Is Underway, Says One

Rand Paul is still "considering" a run for the White House in 2016.  Chris Christie is scrambling for attention.  And in the process both men have lobbed shots at each other signaling to one commentator that the 2016 GOP primary race is underway.

On Friday, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) slammed New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for his recent positions — from the Hurricane Sandy Relief Bill to his views on gun control —saying they would likely alienate GOP primary voters.

Paul, who is reportedly leaning heavily towards a 2016 presidential run, said on The Laura Ingraham Show: “I think criticizing the Second Amendment movement and the over-the-top ‘give me my money’ stuff, ‘I want all 60 billion now or I’ll throw a tantrum,’ I don’t think that’s going to play well in the Republican primary.”

“You have some Republicans backing down like Christie backing down and criticizing the NRA, and I think that doesn’t do any good,” Paul said, according to a transcript.

“I think he may be solidifying his support with Democrats in New Jersey and maybe liberal Republicans,” Paul said of Christie’s recent positions. [Policymic]

And Christie is out to marginalize Rand and the libertarians who support him. 

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) on Thursday offered a clear broadside against Republicans drifting toward a more libertarian view of foreign policy, lumping Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in with them and suggesting they explain their position to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

“As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought,” Christie said.

Asked whether he includes Paul — a fellow potential 2016 presidential candidate — in his criticism, Christie didn’t back down.

“You can name any one of them that’s engaged in this,” he said. “I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. … I’m very nervous about the direction this is moving in.” [Washington Post]

And what's really weird is that in a sense both men are accusing the other of being too liberal for the republican party, while at the same time each is claiming to be the more conservative!

If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see? - Alice In Wonderland

Will House Vote Against Food Stamps Hurt The GOP?

Pundits from all over the political spectrum are commenting today about the decision of House Republicans to pass a Farm Bill without food stamps in it.  Some are saying the vote is one more indication that the GOP is embracing a new form of conservatism, the Rand Paul type, which envisions a leaner and smaller government.  But others are taking issue with that approach.

People like Paul Krugman are calling that kind of thinking "bunk".  He says that the GOP can't reverse the trend they saw in 2012 with "libertarian populism" saying that the problem was not that the GOP didn't have a good message, he says the GOP is missing an important fact about republicans.  Krugman says that the GOP needs to realize that it has a lot of "white" unemployed people who need government programs registered and ready to vote for their candidates, but that any slap at their needs (government programs) will keep them from voting again.

Others are saying that the GOP needs to stay on the same track cut taxes, reduce government programs and follow the more traditional agenda.

While predicting voter behavior might be a good business, it is very risky.  When those in power have the ability to affect the lives of millions, those out of power have little to gain by merely being critical.  They need to assess the circumstances facing real people, examine the way in which their opponents are trying to deal with those problems and come up with better solutions.

The idea that helping corporations save money at the top means more jobs are going to trickle down doesn't seem to be borne out in the reality facing many Americans.

The GOP needs more than a slogan, or a better "message".  First they need better ideas, and second they need to make their case with the people.

The Psychology Of Choosing The Next President

This is an interesting observation.

In America, we don't just pick presidents for who they are. We sometimes elect them because they're the opposite of the last guy.

This might be a form of psychological therapy, whereby we attempt to "work out" our past problems, but it seems to fulfill some sort of atavistic desire to exorcise demons.

In the wake of presidents like Johnson and Nixon and events like Vietnam and Watergate, a peanut farmer named Jimmy Carter became the beneficiary of this urge. After enduring eight years of George W. Bush's Texas swagger and malapropisms, we turned to a law professor named Barack Obama.

Each time, it was as if America said, "Let's do something entirely different. Let's spin the wheel."

The article goes on to muse whether the current scandals surrounding the Obama presidency might mean that Rand Paul's chances have improved.

You might assume that this is a prime opening for Sen. Rand Paul, a libertarian-leaning conservative. And while there is little doubt that he has a chance, the truth is that the scandals might hurt both Rubio and Paul, for the simple fact that they are both unlucky enough to be U.S. senators serving in Washington, D.C.

In the decades prior to Watergate, the U.S. Senate was perhaps the stepping-stone to the presidency. This is not to say that men were elected to the presidency directly from the upper chamber (though that did happen for Kennedy), but Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon had all served in the Senate.

After Watergate, something interesting happened. The next president to have served in the U.S. Senate — and let's be honest, he was there for a cup of coffee — was Barack Obama.

One could assume that this was merely a coincidence, or one could assume that it spoke to something larger — that the public decided to cast its lot with men who were removed from the trappings of power in Washington, D.C.

I think Rand needs to heed this observation and stay much closer to the people, developing a more populist message which keeps the core of his principles intact but speaking more frequently about the "power of the people". Continued talk about the corrupting influence of Washington DC should push him more and more to speak on camera from locations as far away from the Potomac as possible.

I for one think, as I even said about his father, that America is ready to do what the old joke suggests: treat politicians like a baby's diaper, deserving of frequent changes and Rand Paul would certainly be a change.

Posted from my I-Pad with Blogsy