Rand Paul couldn’t be more out of sync with the eight members of the bipartisan group of senators that presented an immigration reform plan in January. While he has little in common with the four Democrats, he is particularly at odds with three of the four Republicans in the group. Paul is already seen as one of the chief rivals of Marco Rubio in the 2016 presidential race. More than that, in the weeks since the plan was unveiled, the Kentucky senator has become embroiled in a public feud with John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Both ridiculed his filibuster about the possibility that the U.S. government could use drone attacks on American citizens and McCain even called Paul a “wacko bird.” But today Paul will announce his support for the key element of their immigration proposal that has drawn the most fire from conservatives: a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
While Paul is not endorsing the gang of eight’s draft, the plan he unveils this morning will be similar on the most contentious elements of the immigration debate. This shows that although Paul appears to be at war with the bulk of the GOP caucus on foreign policy and views the attempt of the Republican National Committee to streamline the presidential nominating process as a direct threat to his candidacy, he is on board with both groups when it comes to a key issue on which many in the party believes it must change if it is to have a chance to win national elections in the future.
Many on the right took aim at the autopsy of the 2012 election presented by the RNC yesterday. They were not just mad about the proposed changes to the 2016 presidential race that angered Paul’s supporters, but were also offended by its conclusions that the party must embrace immigration reform if it is to have a chance to win the Hispanic vote. But if a lot of conservatives are still digging in their heels on what they consider an “amnesty” plan put forward by McCain, Graham and Rubio, Paul seems to agree with the so-called GOP establishment that demonizing illegals is not a coherent approach to the problem or good politics.
Paul’s endorsement of a path to citizenship makes sense because the draconian view of immigration taken by many conservatives is at odds with his libertarian principles. It also makes sense for a man who hopes to expand the narrow if fervent following that supported his father Ron’s presidential campaigns. Like other Republicans who are serious about winning the White House in 2016, Paul knows getting Hispanic votes is crucial to his party’s future.
While Paul can’t really compete with a son of Cuban immigrants like Rubio for the love of Hispanic voters, his speech—which will be peppered with Spanish phrases, his love for Hispanic culture and mentions of his own immigrant forebears—shows that he is nonetheless interested in presenting himself as a truly national candidate.
With so many conservatives still unwilling to drop their opposition to a path to citizenship for illegals, this can’t be viewed as a new consensus within the Republican Party. But with Paul putting himself on the same side as his antagonists on foreign policy on this issue, it’s becoming increasingly clear that opposition to immigration reform is the past, not the future of the Republican Party. With the right’s new hero embracing the same position on immigration as the men he described last week in his CPAC speech as being “stale and moss-covered,” Paul has moved the ball on immigration a bit farther down the field.
Rand Paul in advocating this, just painted himself into the corner where the big pile of RINO droppings is. Any Republican advocating any kind of amnesty is committing political suicide.
Do you know the meaning of "RINO"? Those are the reasonable ones among the GOP whom the "true" Republican deride as "Republican In Name Only" and want to drive out of their "big tent."
Reasonable ones? Oh, yes.. you mean the collaborators in the GOP who just bend over and take in the back door from Fuhrer Obama and ask for another. That big tent nonsense is RINO speak from Bushiecrat 43. Time to collapse that tent send you Demotards back to the sess pool of the DNC where you belong.
"The Republican Party, both in this state and nationally, is a broad party. There is room in our tent for many views; indeed, the divergence of views is one of our strengths." n nThat's "RINO speak from Bushiecrat 43"?! Sorry, you are too ignorant and obnoxious to engage with. (What, pray tell, is a "sess[sic] pool?)
If you don't what sess pool is, your the ignorant one. Get back on your knees for your Lord Barry Omighty and be quiet.
It might help if you paused for a deep breath, gathered your "thoughts," and read over what you have written before posting. And if you don't own a dictionary, then use Spell Check. (Do you know the meaning of "[sic]" and the difference between "your" and "you're"?)
It might help if you had a better job than basement blogger for the Democrat Party. Shut your hole toolbox.
So, you aren't going to pause for breath and to read over your perfervid, agrammatic, orthographically challenged pensees before you launch them, and you aren't going to eschew the ad hominems and stupid insults, or every say anything very intelligent. Now, we know exactly what to expect from you. n n(And it's pretty childish to give a thumbs down to whoever contests you, but then it is entirely in keeping with your approach to discourse.)
Mr. Tobin: Please explain how the GOP will, in the foreseeable future, be able to attract a meaningful portion of the 11 million mexican votes that will be up for grabs if you approve a "path to citizenship". Don't you realize they are strongly liberal in all of their key views except abortion? And that has not stopped them from voting Dem nearly every time. And, even if over time mexicans can be wooed to the GOP, how long will that take? If it is anything beyond 2016, it will be meaningless, because another Dem president will cement the Liberal Leviathan for eternity (it probably already is, but the last hope is gone for sure by 2016 if not a Republican as POTUS).
I share your concerns about the future of the Republican Party (and earnestly hope Rand Paul will have no more than a minor role in it). I would point out, however, that 44 years ago, that is in early 1965, after Johnson trounced Goldwater, it seemed unlikely that we would ever have another Republican president.
The elites of this country are traitors. Republicans are NEVER going to win a majority of the votes of 3rd world immigrants. All the elites will accomplish is turning America into another hellhole 3rd world country. Then when that happens the rich elites can live in their walled, guarded, mini-cities and travel by damn helicopters like they do in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Everybody should read Victor Davis Hanson's many columns on what life is like in California now; not a pretty picture.
Before people throw Rand under the BUS, he is demanding border security before anyone gets citzenship and that congress not the administration determins if the border is secure.
No, no path to citizenship if they crossed illegally, for any reason. Count them, control them, tax them, but don't give them citizenship under any circumstances other than time in the armed forces, perhaps.
That's the problem, he's asking for the border to be secure first, Obama just wants to give them citizenship, I think he's getting out front.