Sen. Rand Paul: I #39;m in favor of continuing negotiations with Iran
Hugh Hewitt Interview w/ Sen. Rand Paul.
By: Hugh Hewitt Show
Link:
Sen. Rand Paul: I'm in favor of continuing negotiations with Iran - Video
In just his first week as an official candidate, he's faced the dual headwinds of negative ads highlighting conservative criticism over his foreign policy views as well as charges of sexism for his combative reactions in high-profile interviews.
The early days of a presidential campaign are critically important: It's a first shot for candidates to define themselves at a time when they'll attract a swell of generally positive media coverage and get screen time in front of audiences that don't normally pay attention to politics.
READ: Paul best GOP bet in three swing states, poll says
And this early on Paul was only the second candidate to jump in the race after Ted Cruz newcomers face an onslaught of political media coverage. That means closer than usual scrutiny of a candidate's record and statements, along with incessant horse race evaluations of based on optics and the logistics of campaign rollouts.
"No matter how well-known a candidate may be going into a roll out tour, the goal of any presidential announcement event is to provide the optics and visuals that say, 'Meet the next president of the United States,'" said John Legittino, who led Mitt Romney's national event production.
For Paul, it's widely viewed that his Tuesday announcement in Louisville, Kentucky, successfully set the tone for his campaign. He aimed to appear like a nontraditional candidate with diverse appeal that would help expand the Republican base and make him more electable in a general election. The kickoff event was followed by a media blitz and an early voting state tour that took him through New Hampshire, South Carolina and Iowa. On Saturday, he completes the tour in Nevada.
It was during his media appearances that the narrative of his rollout started shifting gears. On Wednesday morning, Paul clashed with NBC's Savannah Guthrie over what he considered editorialized questions and tried to direct her on how she should conduct an interview. The tense exchange quickly spread and comparisons were drawn to his heated reaction in a different interview two months ago when he shushed a female reporter.
And when Paul was in New Hampshire later on Wednesday, he got aggravated with an Associated Press reporter who asked the senator specifics about his views on abortion ban exceptions.
SEE: Rand Paul says Dems should be grilled on abortion, too
"I gave you about a five-minute answer. Put in my five-minute answer," a frustrated Paul said.
See the rest here:
Rand Paul hits bumps in first week of campaign - CNN.com
Only a few days removed from his splashy debut as a presidential candidate -- complete with a "Defeat the Washington Machine" campaign slogan -- Rand Paul is taking fire from all sides.
The Democratic National Committee is holding daily conference calls with reporters calling the Kentucky Republican senator "extreme" and an "American nightmare." Outside the entrance of Paul's rally here Wednesday, liberal activists from NextGen, a group backed by billionaire hedge fund manager Tom Steyer, held a demonstration targeting Paul over his views on climate change.
And, perhaps most importantly, Republicans aren't sparing Paul.
A GOP group called the Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America released an ad targeting Paul, claiming he opposed sanctions against Iran, a nation in the process of developing a nuclear program. The effort was organized by GOP operative Rick Reed, who previously led the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth" effort against John Kerry when he was the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee. And just to make sure the charge -- decried by some as misleading -- sticks against Paul, the group spent $1 million to air the ad in key states this week. Even the National Rifle Association, one of the most powerful lobbyist groups in Washington, has a sour relationship with Paul because of his association with gun advocacy groups they find too extreme.
The moves reflect Paul's unique status heading into 2016. As a politician who has tried to appeal to broad swaths of the electorate -- not just the Republican base -- he's opened himself up to an assault from all sides.
"He's trying to be an all-inclusive Republican candidate. He's trying to make everyone happy, but in doing so, he's making everyone unhappy," Republican strategist Ron Bonjean told CNN. "And the left doesn't want to see him put together a coalition outside the Republican base. He represents a threat."
READ: Rand Paul: 'I'm putting myself forward as a candidate for president'
Paul's aides and supporters concede that the forces against him are a challenge. But they argue it's a sign of fear of his possible success.
"I think every campaign is going to have that same type of challenge," said Mike Biundo, Paul's top strategist in New Hampshire. "One thing it does prove is that you don't spend a million dollars on a candidate people don't think is a top tier candidate. I think that puts us in a very strong position."
However, the extent of the attacks on Paul underscore a harsh reality that he and his team will face over the course of the campaign: They will be fighting two-front war against Democrats and fellow Republicans.
Read the original:
Rand Paul under fire -- from GOP
The first policy proposalRandPaul announced inhis big speech declaringhis presidential campaign this weekwas an old-fashioned planfor the federal budget. The Republican senatorfrom Kentucky wantsto amend the Constitution torequire a balanced federal budget every year.
The basic idea is to force Congress to spend no more than the governmentreceives in taxes annually. Past versions of the proposed amendment would have also limited Congress's total spendingrelative to the size of the overall economy.
Pauland other proponents on both sides of the aisle say amending the Constitution isthe only way to enforce fiscal discipline in Congress. By puttingan old staple of GOP policy at the top of his agenda, Paul may be able to expandhis appeal among primary voters concerned about the deficit.
Yet the amendment itself isn'ta plan to managethe national debt in the long term, just a broadly stated goal.Reaching it would stillmean hard political choices and contentious negotiations.
A balanced- budget amendment fell one vote short ofpassing Congress in 1995. A few years later,lawmakers and President Clinton balanced the budget anyway amid a rapidly growingeconomy.InClinton's last year in office, thefederal government tookin $236 billion more than itspent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The budget fellinto deficit again underPresident Bush. He reduced taxes, generously expanded Medicare benefits for prescription drugs, and ordered U.S. troops into Iraq and Afghanistan. Collectively, Bush's policies expanded the federal debt by more than $5 trillion.
Then thefinancial crisis struck.With fewer Americans getting paychecks, the government was taking even less in taxes, and spending more on things like unemployment insurance. In addition, President Obama and Congress approved a costly fiscal stimulusin a moderatelysuccessful effort to stabilize the economy.By the end of Obama's first year in office, the deficit had expanded to $1.4 trillion.
Large deficits meantthe federal budgetwas ahotly debated topic again. Republicans used the debt ceiling to force a series of budgetary negotiations. If the debt ceiling had expired, policymakers would have been forced tobalance the budget immediately or risk national default.
In 2011, Republicansagreed to an increase in the ceiling in exchange for reduced spending and promised votes in both chambers on a balanced budget amendment. Itfailed again.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who would later become a vice-presidential candidate, voted against the amendment, saying it wasn't strict enough. He wanted an amendment that would also bar Congress fromraisingtaxeswithout a two-thirds vote.
See original here:
Wonkblog: Why Rand Paul wants Congress to balance the budget every year
Rand Paul gave an interview to the Guardian's Paul Lewis on Friday about criminal justice ... and abruptly walked off when Lewis tried asking an additional question. Here's video of the end of that interview, so you can see for yourself (the full video is also available now on Lewis' Periscope account):
You'll notice that both Paul and Lewis agreed to one more question, and Paul left when Lewis asked a second "last question." But that Paulwalked off quickly and that the lights were turned off madeit lookthat he leftin the middle of it. Optics!
Then, 40 minutes after the interview, Paul's campaign tweeted that CNN staff and not his own had turned the lights out. Crisis averted.
In the short life of his 2016 presidential campaign, Paul has already had several run ins with the media, and although that might endear him to some conservative voters,it's certainlybeen a somewhat-odd performance.
Paul has frequently seemed annoyed by questions he gets or at least not agreedwith the premise of them, which is fine for him to express. But the problem comes in hisdelivery; the shushing and the talking-over and the walking out abruptly doesn't do him any favors. His tweet might have diffused the micro-controversy, but a "thanks for your questions, but I have to go to my next interview," would have gone a long way. Just saying.
And forhow much Paul seems to dislike the media right now, he is showing no signs of scaling back his interview schedule. So there's likely to be more to come.
Hunter Schwarz covers the intersection of politics and pop culture for the Washington Post
Continue reading
See the original post here:
The Fix: No, Rand Paul didnt storm out of an interview