Archive for the ‘Rand Paul’ Category

Rand Paul 2016: Inside his campaign’s downward spiral – POLITICO

Rand Paul, once seen as a top-tier contender, finds his presidential hopes fading fast as he grapples with deep fundraising and organizational problems that have left his campaign badly hobbled.

Interviews with more than a dozen sources close to the Kentucky senator, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity, painted a picture of an underfunded and understaffed campaign beaten down by low morale.

Story Continued Below

They described an operation that pitted a cerebral chief strategist against an intense campaign manager who once got into a physical altercation with the candidates bodyguard. And they portrayed an undisciplined politician who wasnt willing to do what it took to win a man who obsessed over trivial matters like flight times, peppered aides with demands for more time off from campaigning and once chose to go on a spring-break jaunt rather than woo a powerful donor.

They sketched a portrait of a candidate who, as he fell further behind in polls, no longer seemed able to break through. Paul, lionized as the most interesting man in politics in a Time magazine cover story last year, was supposed to reinvent the Republican Party with his message of free-market libertarianism, his vision of a restrained foreign policy and his outreach to minorities.

Instead, he has been overshadowed by louder voices like Donald Trumps and better-funded figures like Jeb Bush. His theory of the 2016 primary that Republican voters would reward a candidate who promised fresh ideas and an unconventional approach has not been borne out in reality.

At Pauls campaign headquarters on Capitol Hill, morale has begun to sink. At least one key aide recently departed, and others have had conversations with rival campaigns.

Its such a negative environment, said one Paul aide. Everyone is on edge, and no one is having any fun. They need to recapture some of their positive mojo, and fast.

***

Easily the biggest problem confronting Paul is his fundraising or lack thereof. Paul has taken in just $13 million, a fraction of what all of his major rivals for the Republican nomination have raised and far less than Paul hoped.

Those close to Paul say theres a simple reason for his lack of success: Hes simply not willing to do the stroking and courting that powerful donors expect. Hes downright allergic, they say, to the idea of forging relationships with the goal of pumping people for dough. And while hes had no shortage of opportunities to mix and mingle with some of the Republican Partys wealthiest figures, Paul has expressed frustration that donors want so much face time.

Hes even turned away the Koch brothers. When the billionaire industrialists convene their network of conservative benefactors in Southern California this week, Republican candidates like Bush, Marco Rubio and Scott Walker will be in attendance. But Paul wont be. The senator, the Koch summits baffled organizers said, turned down an invitation. Paul has said he will instead be campaigning in Iowa.

While rival presidential candidates cultivate sugar daddy contributors, Paul doesnt yet have one. Peter Thiel, the eccentric Northern California venture capitalist, had once been seen as the the kind of person who could give millions. But Thiel, who helped to fund Ron Pauls 2012 presidential campaign, is now unlikely to be a major contributor. The senator had once lavished attention on the billionaire the two had a long lunch meeting at the 2012 Republican National Convention but no longer does. Since Paul launched his presidential campaign in April, one source said, his personal contacts with Thiel have been few and far between.

At times, Paul has simply seemed uninterested in playing the donor game. Earlier this year, the senator had agreed to speak at the Dialog Retreat, a gathering hosted by Auren Hoffman, a prominent investor with deep ties in the well-heeled Silicon Valley world. But just before he was to appear at Hoffmans, Paul pulled out so that he could take his family on a spring-break excursion to Florida. Pauls aides were aghast, realizing theyd missed an opportunity to cultivate the very type of donors likely to be receptive to his small-government philosophy.

A Paul spokesman, Sergio Gor, declined to comment other than to say that scheduling conflicts come up all the time. (Hoffman did not respond to requests for comment.)

Paul had once hoped to establish a national network of bundlers who would collect cash from an array of contributors and interest groups. But as he stalls in national polls, those expectations are being scaled back. Former Ambassador Cathy Bailey and South Carolina academic and businessman Mallory Factor were among those once seen as potential major sources of funding, campaign sources said, but have begun to drift away.

In an interview over the weekend, Factor praised Paul, saying hed make an excellent president and vowed to provide him with financial backing. But others were catching his eye. Ive spoken to other candidates, he said. (Bailey did not respond to a request for comment.)

Paul has had to confront another challenge: expanding and professionalizing the activist-driven operation his father Ron used to establish himself as a libertarian force. The senator had once hoped to develop an apparatus that would allow him to nationalize his political brand but instead finds himself with a skeletal operation that has suffered from disorganization and dysfunction.

The confusion starts at the top and dates back to the campaigns earliest days. One of the first major collisions took place late last year, after Paul tapped Chip Englander, who spearheaded Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauners 2014 run, to serve as his campaign manager. At the time, Englander told those around him that he expected to have a broad list of powers typically allotted to campaign managers, including oversight of budgetary decision making, hiring and firing authority and unfettered access to the candidate.

But Pauls longtime chief strategist, Doug Stafford, had other ideas. Stafford would be running the show, the chief strategist said at the time, while Englander would be the implementer in other words, an administrative position focused simply on making the trains run on time. When word traveled back to Englander, said one source close to the campaign, he vented to others. Among his complaints: Staffords decision to bring on Marianne Copenhaver, a Web designer with a history of provocative statements. (For example, in one Facebook post, she wrote: Side note: A big fk you to Lindsey Graham and John McCain.)

Stafford is now on better terms with Englander, who was not bothered by the implementer term, campaign sources said. (Implementer is a compliment to Chip, said Gor.) The campaign manager has also taken on some key powers. Englander, for example, played a major role in hiring Tony Fabrizio, a veteran GOP pollster. But the early run-in created uncertainty in an organization that was just getting off the ground.

In Paul world, Stafford and Englander who share an office in campaign headquarters, their desks just a few feet apart cut diametrically opposite personalities. While Stafford, Pauls closest political confidant, has a reputation for being laid-back and introspective, Englander is known to be intense a mile-a-minute kind of guy, in the words of one friend.

At times, some in the campaign have questioned whether his intensity has gone too far and whether it will ultimately distract from his job of keeping the campaign moving. In April, Englander was in New Hampshire with Paul for a campaign event. The senator was mingling with the crowd while John Baeza, a 280-pound retired New York police detective and Paul family loyalist, stood behind him and provided security. Englander barged over, convinced that the ex-cop was getting in the way of supporters eager to snap pictures with the senator.

What the fk, Baeza? Englander said, grabbing his shoulder. Why are you always getting in our fking shot?

Dont ever put your hands on me again, the bodyguard fired back.

Two aides were taken aback at the treatment of Baeza, who is considered essentially a member of the Paul family. Gor maintained that the interaction was not out of the ordinary. It would be any senior staffs duty to ensure staff is not in the way of supporters when Sen. Paul is out on the trail, he said. (Baeza declined to comment.)

The staff serving beneath Stafford and Englander, meanwhile, is undermanned and overworked. While other presidential candidates have hired multiple aides to oversee their day-to-day scheduling, for example, Paul has only a few. The job is not for the faint of heart: In recent weeks, two overwhelmed schedulers, Cheyenne Foster, who worked on the presidential campaign, and Jessica Newman, who worked in the Senate office, have departed.

Those tasked with crafting Pauls schedule say the process is like playing a game of three-dimensional chess. Rather than letting his campaign team determine his travel schedule, as is customary for busy presidential candidates, Paul often demands sign-off on minute details, going so far as to request detailed lists of possible flight schedules and routes. Paul who has complained that running for president is not really a lot of fun can be prone to asking for time off the campaign trail and can be prickly about the most mundane commitments. Shortly before attending an event in Monterey, California, last month, he griped about having to do a photo line with supporters even though it had been on his schedule for weeks.

Another worry has been the press office, which has been overseen by two aides, Gor and Eleanor May, both of whom are regarded as competent but lacking the deep experience of many counterparts on rival Republican campaigns. While Bush has filled his campaign with senior communications strategists, Paul has no one playing that role full time.

Pauls campaign has tried in vain to add more muscle. Stafford, for example, embarked on a months-long quest to woo Josh Holmes, the top architect of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnells 2014 reelection campaign, that began last year and extended into the current one. But Holmes, widely considered a rising Republican Party star, said he was uninterested in getting involved in a primary campaign. He is instead working at a newly established political consulting firm.

Winning over top talent has at times been a frustration. At one point, Stafford talked to Danny Diaz, a hard-charging operative with a knack for digging up opposition research. (Diaz would ultimately accept the job of campaign manager for Bush.) At another, he talked to Jon Downs, a respected media strategist who worked for Pauls father. (Downs also went to work for Bush.) And early on, before Englander was tapped for the campaign manager job, the Paul team talked to Ward Baker about the post. (Baker, an ex-Marine who played a key role for the party as a strategist in the 2014 midterms, opted for a top job at the National Republican Senatorial Committee.)

Some Paul advisers may be starting to think about their future employment. Rex Elsass, a veteran media consultant who is working for the Kentucky senator, recently had a phone conversation with Beth Hansen, the campaign manager for Ohio Gov. John Kasich. In that conversation, according to one source, Elsass, who formerly worked for Kasich, told Hansen that, if at any point in the future Paul was no longer in the contest, hed be open to going to work for the Ohio governor should he still be in the race.

In a brief interview on Monday, Elsass insisted that he isnt interested in jumping. Im totally committed 150 percent to Rand, who, he said, would be the partys best nominee.

It cant be that fun over there these days. The candidate is dipping in the polls, the money is tight and its hard to tell your message that Im the anti-establishment candidate when Donald Trump is crowding out that base, said Kellyanne Conway, a Republican pollster who was brought onto Newt Gingrichs 2012 primary campaign after he endured a summer of turmoil.

This is a marathon, not a sprint, and candidates will fluctuate in the polls, said Gor. Our team will have organizational advantages like no one else. Sen. Paul continues to resonate outside of the D.C. bubble; weve had large crowds and enthusiastic support at every single stop.

But Pauls problems go beyond money or organization. In a campaign now dominated by other candidates, he has struggled to accomplish perhaps his chief objective: winning over an expansive swath of the Republican electorate, including those who didnt support his father.

Paul seems to have lost his mojo in broadening the base of his support, said Scott Reed, the chief strategist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Pauls allies insist that all is not lost. On the fundraising front, while Thiel may no longer be the sugar daddy they hoped hed be, another major donor may be ready to step up for the senator: Andrew Beal, a Texas banker who has a reported net worth of $11 billion. Beal, a poker-playing libertarian, has contributed $50,000 to a super PAC supporting Paul and may give far more.

There are also indications that Paul recognizes the need to broaden his tight inner circle. Chris LaCivita, a political veteran who orchestrated the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacks on John Kerry; Steve Munisteri, a former Texas Republican Party chairman; and Fabrizio, the longtime party pollster, have taken on increasingly assertive roles in recent weeks.

And in a crowded field of Republican candidates, Paul can lay claim to something few others can: a committed group of activist supporters who will go to work for him.

Rand has a strong team, and his support has deep, deep roots, said Jesse Benton, who managed Pauls 2010 Senate bid and is now overseeing one of his super PACs. Hell be just fine.

But with little cash, and with other candidates like Trump sucking oxygen out of the race, Paul may be running short on time.

He hasnt had a great start, and I dont know whether its too late, said Ed Rollins, a veteran of Republican presidential campaigns. Others have stepped into that void, and I dont see him in the top three or four anymore.

Read the rest here:
Rand Paul 2016: Inside his campaign's downward spiral - POLITICO

Rand Paul Will Do Whatever It Takes to Block Donald Trumps …

Senator Rand Paulemerges as a sharp critic of John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, and other unrepentant supporters of the Iraq War and new fights with Iran.

Rand Paul addresses supporters in Bowling Green, Kentucky. (AP Photo / Ed Reinke)

The steadiest critique of President-elect Donald Trumps most unsettling prospects for secretary of state is coming from a Republican: Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.1

Paul is objectingin interviews, statements, and opinion piecesfor the right reasons. The senator says he is afraid that several of the candidates for the position areunrepentant advocates for unthinking regime change and unnecessary war.2

Asked about reports that Trump is considering John Bolton, who served as George W. Bushs ambassador to the United Nations, and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani for the secretary of state position,Paul says,Giuliani and Bolton are out there on the extreme. I dont think theyre very diplomatic. And I think you want the chief diplomat to be diplomatic.3

Both Bolton and Giuliani have advocated for regime change in Iran...that sounds like war. Rand Paul

Appearing Sunday on CBSs Face the Nation,Paul argued that Bolton might be better as a secretary of war, but he is certainly not a diplomat or someone who acts in a diplomatic way or thinks that diplomacy might be an alternative to war.4

As an example, the Kentuckian noted that Both Bolton and Giuliani have advocated for regime change in Iran, and that doesnt sound like diplomacythat sounds like war.5

With the next Senate likely to include 52 Republicans and 48 Democrats and independents who caucus as Democrats, Republican skepticism about Trump Cabinet picks is a big deal. As Paul says:Its a very close vote.6

If just a few Republicans dissent, and if Democrats develop spines, some of the most troubling of the president-elects selections could be blocked.7

Paul is prepared to dissent.8

Ill do whatever it takes to stop someone like John Bolton being secretary of state, the senator says.Hes opposed to everything Donald Trump ran on: that the Iraq war was a mistake, regime change made us less safe in the Middle East, including in IraqI dont know how a President Trump could appoint someone whos diametrically opposed to everything Donald Trump ran on.9

LIKE THIS? GET MORE OF OUR BEST REPORTING AND ANALYSIS

Paul is just as sharp in his criticism of New Yorks former mayor.

If you look at Giulianis statements, you will find he has advocated bombing Iran, he has advocated for intervention, to my knowledge hes never admitted the Iraq war was a mistake, Paul told Politico last week. To me, a big part of what Donald Trump said, in hundreds of speeches, was that the Iraq war was a mistake. I dont know how you could appoint someone to be in charge of the Department of State who believes the Iraq war was a benefit.11

Paul does not think he will stand alone as a Republican dissenter.12

There are several potential Republican votes against someone like a Bolton, possibly Giuliani, Paul said on Face the Nation. The other thing Giuliani is going to stir up is: it is going to be a hornets nest on all the financial stuff.13

Paul, who used a 2016 bid for the Republican presidential nomination to object to regime change, bloated Pentagon budgets, and mass surveillance,suggested on Sunday that 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney would be a more even-keel pick for Secretary of State. But the senator noted that Romney backed the Iraq War, and he said he would be asking sharp questions if Romney were to be nominated.14

Im not sure I would call him unrepentant. I would say that he is somebody who has supported the Iraq war and I would want to hear more, says Paul. I think we should askno matter what the stature of the person, we should ask, What are your beliefs? Was the Iraq war a mistake? Are you for regime change? 15

Romney might pass muster.16

But if a Bolton or a Giuliani is nominated, Paul suggests that his opposition would include all of the tools, would include the filibuster as well, but I hate to prematurely offer that up.17

What Rand Paul does offer up is the possibility of dialogue: What Id like to have is a public debate. People need to ask the question: Have you learned the lessons of the Iraq war?18

Here is the original post:
Rand Paul Will Do Whatever It Takes to Block Donald Trumps ...

Rand Paul Continues To Do Rand-Paul-Like Stuff | RedState

Just a couple of days ago I posted on Rand Pauls declared intention to oppose either Rudy Giuliani or John Bolton if they were to be nominated to be secretary of state. As I pointed out at the time, Pauls reasoning is little short of bizarre, even when judged by the rather high bar Paul has set for declaring any of his actions abnormal. Now he has a new target, CIA Director-designate Mike Pompeo:

Transcript via The Hill:

The libertarian senator said on CBSs Face the Nation that it concerns him that Pompeo supported the Patriot Act.

But I would say that with Pompeo, hes going to have to also answer to my liking whether or not hes still for torture, whether or not hes for waterboarding, Paul said.

Thats important.

Paul noted that Pompeo has also supported expanding the powers of the National Security Agency (NSA).

Many of the NSA powers were done, I think, in secret without the knowledge of most members of Congress, he said.

Even some members who are authors or co-authors of the Patriot Act said, We never intended for them to collect all that data in Utah. And they didnt tell us.

One of the questions he said he would ask Pompeo would be whether there are secret programs that even Congress doesnt know about, Paul said.

As I said in the other post, Paul can oppose nominees for whatever reason he chooses. What he cant do is pretend that his behavior is anything other than petulant. The Patriot Act is the law of the land. If Paul doesnt like it, he should change it. Pompeo cant do anything about it at the CIA which doesnt have a charter to operate domestically or even against US citizens. The NSA, not the CIA, is involved in data collection. Whatever your view on that activity sane people should be able to agree that grilling a guy who will have nothing to do with another agencys program is wrong. Finally, waterboarding is not now, nor has it ever been torture. The use of waterboarding had been seemingly put off limits by Congress and whether Pompeo supports using it or not it is not a subject hell have to deal with.

This is Rand Paul falling back on the batsh** crazy antics that made his old man famous in a vain attempt to make himself relevant after sucking up to Mitch McConnell for the past four years. It isnt going to work.

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Originally posted here:
Rand Paul Continues To Do Rand-Paul-Like Stuff | RedState

Rand Paul | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

BILL

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-11-17 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-11-17 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

BILL

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-09-29 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-09-29 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

BILL

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-09-28 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-09-28 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

BILL

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-07-13 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-07-13 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

BILL

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-07-07 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-07-07 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

BILL

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-06-09 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-06-09 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

BILL

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-05-26 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-05-26 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

BILL

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-05-19 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-05-19 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

BILL

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-05-10 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-05-10 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

BILL

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-04-14 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-04-14 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

BILL

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-04-13 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-04-13 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

BILL

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-04-07 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-04-07 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

BILL

This bill has the status Passed Senate

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-03-17 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-06-21 [displayText] => Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote. [externalActionCode] => 17000 [description] => Passed Senate )

This bill has the status Passed Senate

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-03-17 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-06-21 [displayText] => Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote. [externalActionCode] => 17000 [description] => Passed Senate )

BILL

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-03-17 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2016-03-17 [displayText] => Introduced in Senate [externalActionCode] => 10000 [description] => Introduced )

Read the original here:
Rand Paul | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Paul Rand – Wikipedia

Not to be confused with the American politician Rand Paul.

Paul Rand (August 15, 1914 November 26, 1996) was an American art director and graphic designer, best known for his corporate logo designs, including the logos for IBM, UPS, Enron, Morningstar, Inc., Westinghouse, ABC, and NeXT. He was one of the first American commercial artists to embrace and practice the Swiss Style of graphic design.

Rand was a professor emeritus of graphic design at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut from 1956 to 1969, and from 1974 to 1985.[1][2] He was inducted into the New York Art Directors Club Hall of Fame in 1972.

Paul Rand (Peretz Rosenbaum) was born on August 15, 1914 in Brooklyn, New York.[3] He embraced design at a very young age, painting signs for his father's grocery store as well as for school events at P.S. 109.[4] Rand's father did not believe art could provide his son with a sufficient livelihood, and so he required Paul to attend Manhattan's Haaren High School while taking night classes at the Pratt Institute. Rand was largely "self-taught" as a designer, learning about the works of Cassandre and Moholy-Nagy from European magazines such as Gebrauchsgraphik."[5] Rand Also attended Parsons The New School for Design and the Art Students League of New York.[1]

His career began with humble assignments, starting with a part-time position creating stock images for a syndicate that supplied graphics to various newspapers and magazines.[4] Between his class assignments and his work, Rand was able to amass a fairly large portfolio, largely influenced by the German advertising style Sachplakat (object poster) as well as the works of Gustav Jensen. It was around this time that he decided to camouflage the overtly Jewish identity conveyed by his name, Peretz Rosenbaum, shortening his forename to 'Paul' and taking 'Rand' from an uncle to form a Madison Avenue-friendly surname. Morris Wyszogrod, a friend and associate of Rand, noted that "he figured that 'Paul Rand,' four letters here, four letters there, would create a nice symbol. So he became Paul Rand."[3] Roy R. Behrens notes the importance of this new title: "Rand's new persona, which served as the brand name for his many accomplishments, was the first corporate identity he created, and it may also eventually prove to be the most enduring."[3] Indeed, Rand was rapidly moving into the forefront of his profession. In his early twenties, he was producing work that began to garner international acclaim, notably his designs on the covers of Direction magazine, which Rand produced for no fee in exchange for full artistic freedom.[4] Among the accolades Rand received were those of Lszl Moholy-Nagy:

The reputation Rand so rapidly amassed in his prodigious twenties never dissipated; rather, it only managed to increase through the years as his influential works and writings firmly established him as the minence grise of his profession.[5]

Although Rand was most famous for the corporate logos he created in the 1950s and 1960s, his early work in page design was the initial source of his reputation. In 1936, Rand was given the job of setting the page layout for an Apparel Arts (now GQ) magazine anniversary issue.[4] "His remarkable talent for transforming mundane photographs into dynamic compositions, which [. . .] gave editorial weight to the page" earned Rand a full-time job, as well as an offer to take over as art director for the Esquire-Coronet magazines. Initially, Rand refused this offer, claiming that he was not yet at the level the job required, but a year later he decided to go ahead with it, taking over responsibility for Esquire's fashion pages at the young age of twenty-three.[6]

The cover art for Direction magazine proved to be an important step in the development of the "Paul Rand look" that was not as yet fully developed.[4] The December 1940 cover, which uses barbed wire to present the magazine as both a war-torn gift and a crucifix, is indicative of the artistic freedom Rand enjoyed at Direction; in Thoughts on Design Rand notes that it "is significant that the crucifix, aside from its religious implications, is a demonstration of pure plastic form as well . . . a perfect union of the aggressive vertical (male) and the passive horizontal (female)."[7]

Rand's most widely known contributions to design are his corporate identities, many of which are still in use. IBM, ABC, Cummins Engine, UPS, and the now-infamous[8]Enron, among many others, owe Rand their graphical heritage.[5] One of his strengths, as Moholy-Nagy pointed out,[4] was his ability as a salesman to explain the needs his identities would address for the corporation. According to graphic designer Louis Danziger:

Rand's defining corporate identity was his IBM logo in 1956, which as Mark Favermann notes "was not just an identity but a basic design philosophy which permeated corporate consciousness and public awareness."[9] The logo was modified by Rand in 1960. The striped logo was created in 1972. The stripes were introduced as a half-toning technique to make the IBM mark slightly less heavy and more dynamic. Two variations of the "striped" logo were designed; one with eight stripes, one with thirteen stripes. The bolder mark with eight stripes was intended as the company's default logo, while the more delicate thirteen stripe version was used for situations where a more refined look was required, such as IBM executive stationery and business cards. Rand also designed packaging, marketing materials and assorted communications for IBM from the late 1950s until the late 1990s, including the well known Eye-Bee-M poster. Ford appointed Rand in the 1960s to redesign their corporate logo, but afterwards chose not to use his modernized design.[6]

Although the logos may be interpreted as simplistic, Rand was quick to point out in A Designer's Art that "ideas do not need to be esoteric to be original or exciting."[7] His Westinghouse trademark, created in 1960, epitomizes that ideal of minimalism while proving Rand's point that a logo "cannot survive unless it is designed with the utmost simplicity and restraint."[7] Rand remained vital as he aged, continuing to produce important corporate identities into the eighties and nineties with a rumored $100,000 price per single design.[5] The most notable of his later works was his collaboration with Steve Jobs for the NeXT Computer corporate identity; Rand's simple black box breaks the company name into two lines, producing a visual harmony that endeared the logogram to Jobs. Steve Jobs was pleased: just prior to Rand's death in 1996, his former client labeled him "the greatest living graphic designer."[3]

Rand devoted his final years to design work and the writing of his memoirs. In 1996, he died of cancer at age 82 in Norwalk, Connecticut.[10] He is buried in Beth El Cemetery.[11]

Though Rand was a recluse in his creative process, doing the vast majority of the design load despite having a large staff at varying points in his career, he was very interested in producing books of theory to illuminate his philosophies. Lszl Moholy-Nagy may have incited Rand's zeal for knowledge when he asked his colleague, at their first meeting, if he read art criticism. Rand said no, prompting Moholy-Nagy to reply "Pity."[4] Heller elaborates on this meeting's impact, noting; "from that moment on, Rand devoured books by the leading philosophers on art, including Roger Fry, Alfred North Whitehead, and John Dewey."[4] These theoreticians would have a lasting impression on Rand's work; in a 1995 interview with Michael Kroeger discussing, among other topics, the importance of Dewey's Art as Experience, Rand elaborates on Dewey's appeal:

Dewey is an important source for Rand's underlying sentiment in graphic design; on page one of Rand's groundbreaking Thoughts on Design, the author begins drawing lines from Dewey's philosophy to the need for "functional-aesthetic perfection" in modern art. Among the ideas Rand pushed in Thoughts on Design was the practice of creating graphic works capable of retaining recognizable quality even after being blurred or mutilated, a test Rand routinely performed on his corporate identities.[7]

During Rand's later career, he became increasingly agitated about the rise of postmodernist theory and aesthetic in design. In 1992, Rand resigned his position at Yale in protest of the appointment of postmodern and feminist designer Sheila Levrant de Bretteville, and convinced his colleague, Armin Hofmann to do the same.[13] In justification of his resignation, Rand penned the article "Confusion and Chaos: The Seduction of Contemporary Graphic Design," in which he denounced the postmodern movement as "faddish and frivolous" and "harbor[ing] its own built-in boredom".[14]

Despite the importance graphic designers place on his book Thoughts on Design, subsequent works such as From Lascaux to Brooklyn (1996), compounded accusations of Rand being "reactionary and hostile to new ideas about design."[4]Steven Heller defends Rand's later ideas, calling the designer "an enemy of mediocrity, a radical modernist" while Favermann considers the period one of "a reactionary, angry old man."[4][9] Regardless of this dispute, Rand's contribution to modern graphic design theory in total is widely considered intrinsic to the profession's development.[6]

The core ideology that drove Rand's career, and hence his lasting influence, was the modernist philosophy he so revered. He celebrated the works of artists from Paul Czanne to Jan Tschichold, and constantly attempted to draw the connections between their creative output and significant applications in graphic design. In A Designer's Art Rand clearly demonstrates his appreciation for the underlying connections:

See more here:
Paul Rand - Wikipedia