Why Rand Paul didn't really blast Jeb Bush on immigration

When potential presidential hopeful Jeb Bush said last weekend that illegal immigration was not a felony, but instead often an “act of love,” he was surely braced for the blowback from conservatives. And it has come.

But on Sunday, the latest rebuke was among the gentlest, and that could suggest that the entire tone of the conversation will change next year.

Speaking to ABC News on Sunday, Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky said Mr. Bush “might have been more artful, maybe, in the way he presented this,” adding that the problem with Bush’s views are that “we can’t invite the whole world.”

Senator Paul appears to have his own designs on a White House run in 2016, and he knows that advocating for immigrants who come into the United States illegally is hardly the way into the hearts of most Republican voters. Indeed, Paul was speaking to ABC News from a conservative summit in New Hampshire, where he appeared to be testing the presidential waters with other hopefuls such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

This was not the time or the place to go soft on illegal immigration.

Yet Paul kept the flamethrower in the closet. He charitably suggested that Bush was not “terrible” for making the comment and added that “people who seek the American Dream are not bad people.”

After all, Paul is not Senator Cruz, whose presidential bid is predicated on turning the Republican base into a quivering ball of outrage. But he’s also not Bush, an electable establishment moderate who appears to be thumbing his nose at the tea party right.

He is attempting to inhabit that infinitesimal space between the two that Mitt Romney navigated so awkwardly as a presidential candidate in 2012.

While Mr. Romney had to tack right from his moderate positions as governor of Massachusetts, Paul will have to tack somewhat to the center if he’s to win establishment support and entertain any realistic hope of winning the Republican nomination, much less the presidency.

Because the Republican establishment knows one thing: It’s all well and good to take a hard line against illegal immigration now, but 2016 could be another matter entirely.

Right now, with a midterm election looming, all this talk of getting tough on illegal immigration won’t hurt Republicans much. It might even help. The profile of people who show up to vote in midterms is older and whiter – in short, the very sort of people most likely to be against illegal immigration. That’s one reason Republicans in the House can hold up immigration reform without inflicting a political cost on their party.

But the profile of the average presidential election voter is younger and browner. 

In other words, if only the midterm election voters had turned out in 2012, we would have a President Romney now. But that’s not what happened, and President Obama routed Romney with huge support from Hispanics, African-Americans, and young Americans.

So on Nov. 5, the day after the 2014 midterm elections are over, the political calculus will change.

The Republican establishment knows it must start making inroads with Hispanics if it wants to win the White House again. That’s one big reason Bush – a fluent Spanish-speaker married to a Mexican wife – has had something of a renaissance in the past few weeks. And it is perhaps one reason Paul went after Bush with kid gloves Sunday.

At the moment, amid the giddiness of an apparent Republican wave coming this November, he’d win huge applause among conservatives for taking on Bush more strongly.

Were he to somehow win the Republican nomination in 2016, however, those applause lines would become a Hillary Clinton ads.

Related stories

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community

Source Article from http://news.yahoo.com/why-rand-paul-didnt-really-blast-jeb-bush-183104185.html
Why Rand Paul didn't really blast Jeb Bush on immigration
http://news.yahoo.com/why-rand-paul-didnt-really-blast-jeb-bush-183104185.html
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results

Why Rand Paul didn't really blast Jeb Bush on immigration

When potential presidential hopeful Jeb Bush said last weekend that illegal immigration was not a felony, but instead often an “act of love,” he was surely braced for the blowback from conservatives. And it has come.

But on Sunday, the latest rebuke was among the gentlest, and that could suggest that the entire tone of the conversation will change next year.

Speaking to ABC News on Sunday, Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky said Mr. Bush “might have been more artful, maybe, in the way he presented this,” adding that the problem with Bush’s views are that “we can’t invite the whole world.”

Senator Paul appears to have his own designs on a White House run in 2016, and he knows that advocating for immigrants who come into the United States illegally is hardly the way into the hearts of most Republican voters. Indeed, Paul was speaking to ABC News from a conservative summit in New Hampshire, where he appeared to be testing the presidential waters with other hopefuls such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

This was not the time or the place to go soft on illegal immigration.

Yet Paul kept the flamethrower in the closet. He charitably suggested that Bush was not “terrible” for making the comment and added that “people who seek the American Dream are not bad people.”

After all, Paul is not Senator Cruz, whose presidential bid is predicated on turning the Republican base into a quivering ball of outrage. But he’s also not Bush, an electable establishment moderate who appears to be thumbing his nose at the tea party right.

He is attempting to inhabit that infinitesimal space between the two that Mitt Romney navigated so awkwardly as a presidential candidate in 2012.

While Mr. Romney had to tack right from his moderate positions as governor of Massachusetts, Paul will have to tack somewhat to the center if he’s to win establishment support and entertain any realistic hope of winning the Republican nomination, much less the presidency.

Because the Republican establishment knows one thing: It’s all well and good to take a hard line against illegal immigration now, but 2016 could be another matter entirely.

Right now, with a midterm election looming, all this talk of getting tough on illegal immigration won’t hurt Republicans much. It might even help. The profile of people who show up to vote in midterms is older and whiter – in short, the very sort of people most likely to be against illegal immigration. That’s one reason Republicans in the House can hold up immigration reform without inflicting a political cost on their party.

But the profile of the average presidential election voter is younger and browner. 

In other words, if only the midterm election voters had turned out in 2012, we would have a President Romney now. But that’s not what happened, and President Obama routed Romney with huge support from Hispanics, African-Americans, and young Americans.

So on Nov. 5, the day after the 2014 midterm elections are over, the political calculus will change.

The Republican establishment knows it must start making inroads with Hispanics if it wants to win the White House again. That’s one big reason Bush – a fluent Spanish-speaker married to a Mexican wife – has had something of a renaissance in the past few weeks. And it is perhaps one reason Paul went after Bush with kid gloves Sunday.

At the moment, amid the giddiness of an apparent Republican wave coming this November, he’d win huge applause among conservatives for taking on Bush more strongly.

Were he to somehow win the Republican nomination in 2016, however, those applause lines would become a Hillary Clinton ads.

Related stories

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community

Source Article from http://news.yahoo.com/why-rand-paul-didnt-really-blast-jeb-bush-183104185.html
Why Rand Paul didn't really blast Jeb Bush on immigration
http://news.yahoo.com/why-rand-paul-didnt-really-blast-jeb-bush-183104185.html
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results

Why Rand Paul didn't really blast Jeb Bush on immigration

When potential presidential hopeful Jeb Bush said last weekend that illegal immigration was not a felony, but instead often an “act of love,” he was surely braced for the blowback from conservatives. And it has come.

But on Sunday, the latest rebuke was among the gentlest, and that could suggest that the entire tone of the conversation will change next year.

Speaking to ABC News on Sunday, Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky said Mr. Bush “might have been more artful, maybe, in the way he presented this,” adding that the problem with Bush’s views are that “we can’t invite the whole world.”

Senator Paul appears to have his own designs on a White House run in 2016, and he knows that advocating for immigrants who come into the United States illegally is hardly the way into the hearts of most Republican voters. Indeed, Paul was speaking to ABC News from a conservative summit in New Hampshire, where he appeared to be testing the presidential waters with other hopefuls such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

This was not the time or the place to go soft on illegal immigration.

Yet Paul kept the flamethrower in the closet. He charitably suggested that Bush was not “terrible” for making the comment and added that “people who seek the American Dream are not bad people.”

After all, Paul is not Senator Cruz, whose presidential bid is predicated on turning the Republican base into a quivering ball of outrage. But he’s also not Bush, an electable establishment moderate who appears to be thumbing his nose at the tea party right.

He is attempting to inhabit that infinitesimal space between the two that Mitt Romney navigated so awkwardly as a presidential candidate in 2012.

While Mr. Romney had to tack right from his moderate positions as governor of Massachusetts, Paul will have to tack somewhat to the center if he’s to win establishment support and entertain any realistic hope of winning the Republican nomination, much less the presidency.

Because the Republican establishment knows one thing: It’s all well and good to take a hard line against illegal immigration now, but 2016 could be another matter entirely.

Right now, with a midterm election looming, all this talk of getting tough on illegal immigration won’t hurt Republicans much. It might even help. The profile of people who show up to vote in midterms is older and whiter – in short, the very sort of people most likely to be against illegal immigration. That’s one reason Republicans in the House can hold up immigration reform without inflicting a political cost on their party.

But the profile of the average presidential election voter is younger and browner. 

In other words, if only the midterm election voters had turned out in 2012, we would have a President Romney now. But that’s not what happened, and President Obama routed Romney with huge support from Hispanics, African-Americans, and young Americans.

So on Nov. 5, the day after the 2014 midterm elections are over, the political calculus will change.

The Republican establishment knows it must start making inroads with Hispanics if it wants to win the White House again. That’s one big reason Bush – a fluent Spanish-speaker married to a Mexican wife – has had something of a renaissance in the past few weeks. And it is perhaps one reason Paul went after Bush with kid gloves Sunday.

At the moment, amid the giddiness of an apparent Republican wave coming this November, he’d win huge applause among conservatives for taking on Bush more strongly.

Were he to somehow win the Republican nomination in 2016, however, those applause lines would become a Hillary Clinton ads.

Related stories

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community

Source Article from http://news.yahoo.com/why-rand-paul-didnt-really-blast-jeb-bush-183104185.html
Why Rand Paul didn't really blast Jeb Bush on immigration
http://news.yahoo.com/why-rand-paul-didnt-really-blast-jeb-bush-183104185.html
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results

Why Rand Paul didn't really blast Jeb Bush on immigration

When potential presidential hopeful Jeb Bush said last weekend that illegal immigration was not a felony, but instead often an “act of love,” he was surely braced for the blowback from conservatives. And it has come.

But on Sunday, the latest rebuke was among the gentlest, and that could suggest that the entire tone of the conversation will change next year.

Speaking to ABC News on Sunday, Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky said Mr. Bush “might have been more artful, maybe, in the way he presented this,” adding that the problem with Bush’s views are that “we can’t invite the whole world.”

Senator Paul appears to have his own designs on a White House run in 2016, and he knows that advocating for immigrants who come into the United States illegally is hardly the way into the hearts of most Republican voters. Indeed, Paul was speaking to ABC News from a conservative summit in New Hampshire, where he appeared to be testing the presidential waters with other hopefuls such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

This was not the time or the place to go soft on illegal immigration.

Yet Paul kept the flamethrower in the closet. He charitably suggested that Bush was not “terrible” for making the comment and added that “people who seek the American Dream are not bad people.”

After all, Paul is not Senator Cruz, whose presidential bid is predicated on turning the Republican base into a quivering ball of outrage. But he’s also not Bush, an electable establishment moderate who appears to be thumbing his nose at the tea party right.

He is attempting to inhabit that infinitesimal space between the two that Mitt Romney navigated so awkwardly as a presidential candidate in 2012.

While Mr. Romney had to tack right from his moderate positions as governor of Massachusetts, Paul will have to tack somewhat to the center if he’s to win establishment support and entertain any realistic hope of winning the Republican nomination, much less the presidency.

Because the Republican establishment knows one thing: It’s all well and good to take a hard line against illegal immigration now, but 2016 could be another matter entirely.

Right now, with a midterm election looming, all this talk of getting tough on illegal immigration won’t hurt Republicans much. It might even help. The profile of people who show up to vote in midterms is older and whiter – in short, the very sort of people most likely to be against illegal immigration. That’s one reason Republicans in the House can hold up immigration reform without inflicting a political cost on their party.

But the profile of the average presidential election voter is younger and browner. 

In other words, if only the midterm election voters had turned out in 2012, we would have a President Romney now. But that’s not what happened, and President Obama routed Romney with huge support from Hispanics, African-Americans, and young Americans.

So on Nov. 5, the day after the 2014 midterm elections are over, the political calculus will change.

The Republican establishment knows it must start making inroads with Hispanics if it wants to win the White House again. That’s one big reason Bush – a fluent Spanish-speaker married to a Mexican wife – has had something of a renaissance in the past few weeks. And it is perhaps one reason Paul went after Bush with kid gloves Sunday.

At the moment, amid the giddiness of an apparent Republican wave coming this November, he’d win huge applause among conservatives for taking on Bush more strongly.

Were he to somehow win the Republican nomination in 2016, however, those applause lines would become a Hillary Clinton ads.

Related stories

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community

Source Article from http://news.yahoo.com/why-rand-paul-didnt-really-blast-jeb-bush-183104185.html
Why Rand Paul didn't really blast Jeb Bush on immigration
http://news.yahoo.com/why-rand-paul-didnt-really-blast-jeb-bush-183104185.html
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results

Why Rand Paul didn't really blast Jeb Bush on immigration

When potential presidential hopeful Jeb Bush said last weekend that illegal immigration was not a felony, but instead often an “act of love,” he was surely braced for the blowback from conservatives. And it has come.

But on Sunday, the latest rebuke was among the gentlest, and that could suggest that the entire tone of the conversation will change next year.

Speaking to ABC News on Sunday, Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky said Mr. Bush “might have been more artful, maybe, in the way he presented this,” adding that the problem with Bush’s views are that “we can’t invite the whole world.”

Senator Paul appears to have his own designs on a White House run in 2016, and he knows that advocating for immigrants who come into the United States illegally is hardly the way into the hearts of most Republican voters. Indeed, Paul was speaking to ABC News from a conservative summit in New Hampshire, where he appeared to be testing the presidential waters with other hopefuls such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

This was not the time or the place to go soft on illegal immigration.

Yet Paul kept the flamethrower in the closet. He charitably suggested that Bush was not “terrible” for making the comment and added that “people who seek the American Dream are not bad people.”

After all, Paul is not Senator Cruz, whose presidential bid is predicated on turning the Republican base into a quivering ball of outrage. But he’s also not Bush, an electable establishment moderate who appears to be thumbing his nose at the tea party right.

He is attempting to inhabit that infinitesimal space between the two that Mitt Romney navigated so awkwardly as a presidential candidate in 2012.

While Mr. Romney had to tack right from his moderate positions as governor of Massachusetts, Paul will have to tack somewhat to the center if he’s to win establishment support and entertain any realistic hope of winning the Republican nomination, much less the presidency.

Because the Republican establishment knows one thing: It’s all well and good to take a hard line against illegal immigration now, but 2016 could be another matter entirely.

Right now, with a midterm election looming, all this talk of getting tough on illegal immigration won’t hurt Republicans much. It might even help. The profile of people who show up to vote in midterms is older and whiter – in short, the very sort of people most likely to be against illegal immigration. That’s one reason Republicans in the House can hold up immigration reform without inflicting a political cost on their party.

But the profile of the average presidential election voter is younger and browner. 

In other words, if only the midterm election voters had turned out in 2012, we would have a President Romney now. But that’s not what happened, and President Obama routed Romney with huge support from Hispanics, African-Americans, and young Americans.

So on Nov. 5, the day after the 2014 midterm elections are over, the political calculus will change.

The Republican establishment knows it must start making inroads with Hispanics if it wants to win the White House again. That’s one big reason Bush – a fluent Spanish-speaker married to a Mexican wife – has had something of a renaissance in the past few weeks. And it is perhaps one reason Paul went after Bush with kid gloves Sunday.

At the moment, amid the giddiness of an apparent Republican wave coming this November, he’d win huge applause among conservatives for taking on Bush more strongly.

Were he to somehow win the Republican nomination in 2016, however, those applause lines would become a Hillary Clinton ads.

Related stories

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community

Source Article from http://news.yahoo.com/why-rand-paul-didnt-really-blast-jeb-bush-183104185.html
Why Rand Paul didn't really blast Jeb Bush on immigration
http://news.yahoo.com/why-rand-paul-didnt-really-blast-jeb-bush-183104185.html
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results

Why Rand Paul didn't really blast Jeb Bush on immigration

When potential presidential hopeful Jeb Bush said last weekend that illegal immigration was not a felony, but instead often an “act of love,” he was surely braced for the blowback from conservatives. And it has come.

But on Sunday, the latest rebuke was among the gentlest, and that could suggest that the entire tone of the conversation will change next year.

Speaking to ABC News on Sunday, Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky said Mr. Bush “might have been more artful, maybe, in the way he presented this,” adding that the problem with Bush’s views are that “we can’t invite the whole world.”

Senator Paul appears to have his own designs on a White House run in 2016, and he knows that advocating for immigrants who come into the United States illegally is hardly the way into the hearts of most Republican voters. Indeed, Paul was speaking to ABC News from a conservative summit in New Hampshire, where he appeared to be testing the presidential waters with other hopefuls such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

This was not the time or the place to go soft on illegal immigration.

Yet Paul kept the flamethrower in the closet. He charitably suggested that Bush was not “terrible” for making the comment and added that “people who seek the American Dream are not bad people.”

After all, Paul is not Senator Cruz, whose presidential bid is predicated on turning the Republican base into a quivering ball of outrage. But he’s also not Bush, an electable establishment moderate who appears to be thumbing his nose at the tea party right.

He is attempting to inhabit that infinitesimal space between the two that Mitt Romney navigated so awkwardly as a presidential candidate in 2012.

While Mr. Romney had to tack right from his moderate positions as governor of Massachusetts, Paul will have to tack somewhat to the center if he’s to win establishment support and entertain any realistic hope of winning the Republican nomination, much less the presidency.

Because the Republican establishment knows one thing: It’s all well and good to take a hard line against illegal immigration now, but 2016 could be another matter entirely.

Right now, with a midterm election looming, all this talk of getting tough on illegal immigration won’t hurt Republicans much. It might even help. The profile of people who show up to vote in midterms is older and whiter – in short, the very sort of people most likely to be against illegal immigration. That’s one reason Republicans in the House can hold up immigration reform without inflicting a political cost on their party.

But the profile of the average presidential election voter is younger and browner. 

In other words, if only the midterm election voters had turned out in 2012, we would have a President Romney now. But that’s not what happened, and President Obama routed Romney with huge support from Hispanics, African-Americans, and young Americans.

So on Nov. 5, the day after the 2014 midterm elections are over, the political calculus will change.

The Republican establishment knows it must start making inroads with Hispanics if it wants to win the White House again. That’s one big reason Bush – a fluent Spanish-speaker married to a Mexican wife – has had something of a renaissance in the past few weeks. And it is perhaps one reason Paul went after Bush with kid gloves Sunday.

At the moment, amid the giddiness of an apparent Republican wave coming this November, he’d win huge applause among conservatives for taking on Bush more strongly.

Were he to somehow win the Republican nomination in 2016, however, those applause lines would become a Hillary Clinton ads.

Related stories

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community

Source Article from http://news.yahoo.com/why-rand-paul-didnt-really-blast-jeb-bush-183104185.html
Why Rand Paul didn't really blast Jeb Bush on immigration
http://news.yahoo.com/why-rand-paul-didnt-really-blast-jeb-bush-183104185.html
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results

Why Rand Paul didn't really blast Jeb Bush on immigration

When potential presidential hopeful Jeb Bush said last weekend that illegal immigration was not a felony, but instead often an “act of love,” he was surely braced for the blowback from conservatives. And it has come.

But on Sunday, the latest rebuke was among the gentlest, and that could suggest that the entire tone of the conversation will change next year.

Speaking to ABC News on Sunday, Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky said Mr. Bush “might have been more artful, maybe, in the way he presented this,” adding that the problem with Bush’s views are that “we can’t invite the whole world.”

Senator Paul appears to have his own designs on a White House run in 2016, and he knows that advocating for immigrants who come into the United States illegally is hardly the way into the hearts of most Republican voters. Indeed, Paul was speaking to ABC News from a conservative summit in New Hampshire, where he appeared to be testing the presidential waters with other hopefuls such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

This was not the time or the place to go soft on illegal immigration.

Yet Paul kept the flamethrower in the closet. He charitably suggested that Bush was not “terrible” for making the comment and added that “people who seek the American Dream are not bad people.”

After all, Paul is not Senator Cruz, whose presidential bid is predicated on turning the Republican base into a quivering ball of outrage. But he’s also not Bush, an electable establishment moderate who appears to be thumbing his nose at the tea party right.

He is attempting to inhabit that infinitesimal space between the two that Mitt Romney navigated so awkwardly as a presidential candidate in 2012.

While Mr. Romney had to tack right from his moderate positions as governor of Massachusetts, Paul will have to tack somewhat to the center if he’s to win establishment support and entertain any realistic hope of winning the Republican nomination, much less the presidency.

Because the Republican establishment knows one thing: It’s all well and good to take a hard line against illegal immigration now, but 2016 could be another matter entirely.

Right now, with a midterm election looming, all this talk of getting tough on illegal immigration won’t hurt Republicans much. It might even help. The profile of people who show up to vote in midterms is older and whiter – in short, the very sort of people most likely to be against illegal immigration. That’s one reason Republicans in the House can hold up immigration reform without inflicting a political cost on their party.

But the profile of the average presidential election voter is younger and browner. 

In other words, if only the midterm election voters had turned out in 2012, we would have a President Romney now. But that’s not what happened, and President Obama routed Romney with huge support from Hispanics, African-Americans, and young Americans.

So on Nov. 5, the day after the 2014 midterm elections are over, the political calculus will change.

The Republican establishment knows it must start making inroads with Hispanics if it wants to win the White House again. That’s one big reason Bush – a fluent Spanish-speaker married to a Mexican wife – has had something of a renaissance in the past few weeks. And it is perhaps one reason Paul went after Bush with kid gloves Sunday.

At the moment, amid the giddiness of an apparent Republican wave coming this November, he’d win huge applause among conservatives for taking on Bush more strongly.

Were he to somehow win the Republican nomination in 2016, however, those applause lines would become a Hillary Clinton ads.

Related stories

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community

Source Article from http://news.yahoo.com/why-rand-paul-didnt-really-blast-jeb-bush-183104185.html
Why Rand Paul didn't really blast Jeb Bush on immigration
http://news.yahoo.com/why-rand-paul-didnt-really-blast-jeb-bush-183104185.html
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results

Why Rand Paul didn't really blast Jeb Bush on immigration

When potential presidential hopeful Jeb Bush said last weekend that illegal immigration was not a felony, but instead often an “act of love,” he was surely braced for the blowback from conservatives. And it has come.

But on Sunday, the latest rebuke was among the gentlest, and that could suggest that the entire tone of the conversation will change next year.

Speaking to ABC News on Sunday, Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky said Mr. Bush “might have been more artful, maybe, in the way he presented this,” adding that the problem with Bush’s views are that “we can’t invite the whole world.”

Senator Paul appears to have his own designs on a White House run in 2016, and he knows that advocating for immigrants who come into the United States illegally is hardly the way into the hearts of most Republican voters. Indeed, Paul was speaking to ABC News from a conservative summit in New Hampshire, where he appeared to be testing the presidential waters with other hopefuls such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

This was not the time or the place to go soft on illegal immigration.

Yet Paul kept the flamethrower in the closet. He charitably suggested that Bush was not “terrible” for making the comment and added that “people who seek the American Dream are not bad people.”

After all, Paul is not Senator Cruz, whose presidential bid is predicated on turning the Republican base into a quivering ball of outrage. But he’s also not Bush, an electable establishment moderate who appears to be thumbing his nose at the tea party right.

He is attempting to inhabit that infinitesimal space between the two that Mitt Romney navigated so awkwardly as a presidential candidate in 2012.

While Mr. Romney had to tack right from his moderate positions as governor of Massachusetts, Paul will have to tack somewhat to the center if he’s to win establishment support and entertain any realistic hope of winning the Republican nomination, much less the presidency.

Because the Republican establishment knows one thing: It’s all well and good to take a hard line against illegal immigration now, but 2016 could be another matter entirely.

Right now, with a midterm election looming, all this talk of getting tough on illegal immigration won’t hurt Republicans much. It might even help. The profile of people who show up to vote in midterms is older and whiter – in short, the very sort of people most likely to be against illegal immigration. That’s one reason Republicans in the House can hold up immigration reform without inflicting a political cost on their party.

But the profile of the average presidential election voter is younger and browner. 

In other words, if only the midterm election voters had turned out in 2012, we would have a President Romney now. But that’s not what happened, and President Obama routed Romney with huge support from Hispanics, African-Americans, and young Americans.

So on Nov. 5, the day after the 2014 midterm elections are over, the political calculus will change.

The Republican establishment knows it must start making inroads with Hispanics if it wants to win the White House again. That’s one big reason Bush – a fluent Spanish-speaker married to a Mexican wife – has had something of a renaissance in the past few weeks. And it is perhaps one reason Paul went after Bush with kid gloves Sunday.

At the moment, amid the giddiness of an apparent Republican wave coming this November, he’d win huge applause among conservatives for taking on Bush more strongly.

Were he to somehow win the Republican nomination in 2016, however, those applause lines would become a Hillary Clinton ads.

Related stories

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community

Source Article from http://news.yahoo.com/why-rand-paul-didnt-really-blast-jeb-bush-183104185.html
Why Rand Paul didn't really blast Jeb Bush on immigration
http://news.yahoo.com/why-rand-paul-didnt-really-blast-jeb-bush-183104185.html
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results

Why Rand Paul didn't really blast Jeb Bush on immigration

When potential presidential hopeful Jeb Bush said last weekend that illegal immigration was not a felony, but instead often an “act of love,” he was surely braced for the blowback from conservatives. And it has come.

But on Sunday, the latest rebuke was among the gentlest, and that could suggest that the entire tone of the conversation will change next year.

Speaking to ABC News on Sunday, Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky said Mr. Bush “might have been more artful, maybe, in the way he presented this,” adding that the problem with Bush’s views are that “we can’t invite the whole world.”

Senator Paul appears to have his own designs on a White House run in 2016, and he knows that advocating for immigrants who come into the United States illegally is hardly the way into the hearts of most Republican voters. Indeed, Paul was speaking to ABC News from a conservative summit in New Hampshire, where he appeared to be testing the presidential waters with other hopefuls such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

This was not the time or the place to go soft on illegal immigration.

Yet Paul kept the flamethrower in the closet. He charitably suggested that Bush was not “terrible” for making the comment and added that “people who seek the American Dream are not bad people.”

After all, Paul is not Senator Cruz, whose presidential bid is predicated on turning the Republican base into a quivering ball of outrage. But he’s also not Bush, an electable establishment moderate who appears to be thumbing his nose at the tea party right.

He is attempting to inhabit that infinitesimal space between the two that Mitt Romney navigated so awkwardly as a presidential candidate in 2012.

While Mr. Romney had to tack right from his moderate positions as governor of Massachusetts, Paul will have to tack somewhat to the center if he’s to win establishment support and entertain any realistic hope of winning the Republican nomination, much less the presidency.

Because the Republican establishment knows one thing: It’s all well and good to take a hard line against illegal immigration now, but 2016 could be another matter entirely.

Right now, with a midterm election looming, all this talk of getting tough on illegal immigration won’t hurt Republicans much. It might even help. The profile of people who show up to vote in midterms is older and whiter – in short, the very sort of people most likely to be against illegal immigration. That’s one reason Republicans in the House can hold up immigration reform without inflicting a political cost on their party.

But the profile of the average presidential election voter is younger and browner. 

In other words, if only the midterm election voters had turned out in 2012, we would have a President Romney now. But that’s not what happened, and President Obama routed Romney with huge support from Hispanics, African-Americans, and young Americans.

So on Nov. 5, the day after the 2014 midterm elections are over, the political calculus will change.

The Republican establishment knows it must start making inroads with Hispanics if it wants to win the White House again. That’s one big reason Bush – a fluent Spanish-speaker married to a Mexican wife – has had something of a renaissance in the past few weeks. And it is perhaps one reason Paul went after Bush with kid gloves Sunday.

At the moment, amid the giddiness of an apparent Republican wave coming this November, he’d win huge applause among conservatives for taking on Bush more strongly.

Were he to somehow win the Republican nomination in 2016, however, those applause lines would become a Hillary Clinton ads.

Related stories

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community

Source Article from http://news.yahoo.com/why-rand-paul-didnt-really-blast-jeb-bush-183104185.html
Why Rand Paul didn't really blast Jeb Bush on immigration
http://news.yahoo.com/why-rand-paul-didnt-really-blast-jeb-bush-183104185.html
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results

The rift over immigration to Britain continues to widen | Peter Kellner

Immigration is not just one of the biggest and most sensitive issues in British politics; it also exposes one of the great and widening rifts between most of the people and much of the political and chattering classes.

During the past fortnight, YouGov has conducted surveys on the issue for the Times and Sunday Times.

• Detailed economic studies, for example by the National Institute for Economic Research, insist that Britain’s economy has benefited from immigration in recent years; but by 57% to 31%, British voters disagree

• Official statistics show the number of immigrants coming to Britain has dropped significantly in the past few years; but only 7% believe this. As many as 73% think immigration is “higher than a few years ago”, while a further 12% think the number “is staying about the same”

• Asked what they believe the government’s target for immigration to be, only 19% know that it is to reduce net immigration from hundreds of thousands a year to tens of thousands.

It’s a moot point whether voters are not paying attention, or simply don’t believe official statistics, economic analyses or politicians’ promises. I suspect that disbelief rather than ignorance is the main explanation. Mountains of YouGov research show how little respect voters have, not just for politicians but for other pillars of British society.

This interpretation would help to explain another set of findings. When people are asked about immigration overall, they think it is far too high and doing great damage. But when the same people are asked about immigrants as people, much of the resentment melts away. We asked respondents to consider seven different groups and say whether we should admit more, fewer or about the same as we do today:

As those figure show, five of the seven groups provoke a positive net response, with more people saying the numbers should be at least as they are today, than saying the numbers should be reduced. As for the other two groups. The rules are already restrictive, with people from outside the European Union already finding it hard to settle here legally if they are seeking low-skilled jobs or just want to join relatives already settled here.

In large measure, then it’s not specific immigration policies that voters reject, but the belief that they are too easily evaded and/or not fully enforced.

That said, there is one feature of current immigration policy that most voters do dislike. By almost 2:1 they want the European Union to scrap the right of free movement throughout the EU. In asking the question we made clear that this freedom cuts both ways, with Britons able to live and work elsewhere in the EU and citizens of other EU countries to settle here. By 52% to 29%, voters want David Cameron to seek to end these rights as part of his proposed renegotiation of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the EU.

The importance of this is underlined by responses to another question. We listed 10 possible issues for renegotiation and asked people to identify up to three that mattered most to them. “Greater control of our borders and immigration from the EU” was the runaway winner, picked by 57%. It was the first choice of every social, political and demographic group. The next two – our ability to determine our own trade policies, and set our own human rights laws – came a distant, joint second, on 27%.

If anything, the political potency of this issue is likely to rise rather than fall in the near future. In just over five weeks’ time Romanians and Bulgarians will be able to live wherever they want within the EU. Expert views differ on how many will want to come to Britain.

Official figures may take some months to settle down – and, even then, may not be believed, should they report figures at the lower end of current predictions.

Immigration, then, is not going to go away as one of the hottest of political potatoes in the run-up to next year’s elections to the European parliament and the following year’s general election. Plainly voters want either new restrictions of free movement within the EU – or persuasive evidence that it’s not as big a problem as most people now think. And moves to stop new immigrants claiming early welfare benefits would certainly be popular.

But the larger challenge is to reconnect the world of political statements, statistical data and economic analyses to the perceptions and experiences of tens of millions of voters. As long as those two worlds remain far apart, I doubt if any government will be given any credit for what it sets out to do or claims to achieve.

Source Article from http://feeds.theguardian.com/c/34708/f/663879/s/34122a04/sc/7/l/0L0Stheguardian0N0Ccommentisfree0C20A130Cnov0C250Crift0Eeu0Eimmigration0Eto0Ebritain/story01.htm
The rift over immigration to Britain continues to widen | Peter Kellner
http://feeds.theguardian.com/c/34708/f/663879/s/34122a04/sc/7/l/0L0Stheguardian0N0Ccommentisfree0C20A130Cnov0C250Crift0Eeu0Eimmigration0Eto0Ebritain/story01.htm
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results