Mediaboss Marketing

Sen. Rand Paul said President Barack Obama made one important point in his remarks on Wednesday saying that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant was neither Islamic nor a state, but questioned the constitutionality of the presidents strategy.

Ultimately, civilized Islam will have to step up. We need to do everything we can to protect ourselves, Im all in for saying we have to combat ISIS, Paul said Wednesday on Hannity. So I think it is important not only for the American public but for the world and for the Islamic world to point out that this is not a true form of Islam, this is an abhorrent form.

Paul pushed back against whether Obama was trying to diminish their importance, saying instead that the president was aiming to underscore that ISIL is not a true or accurate depiction of Islam. The Kentucky Republican repeated that the U.S. will need Muslim nations in the area as allies in the region in the fight against ISIL.

But they have to step up, because frankly they have been allowing too much of this to go on, Paul said, adding that he thinks Saudi Arabia has aided and abetted the rise of ISIS.

(Also on POLITICO: Obama: U.S. chasing ISIL 'wherever they exist')

Paul said the president made one important point in this distinction.

Now lets make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents. And the vast majority of ISILs victims have been Muslim, Obama said in his address Wednesday. And ISIL is certainly not a state It is recognized by no government, nor by the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple.

However, Paul did hit the president on his handling of foreign policy, saying the country is absolutely not safer.

Libya is a disaster. Libya is a jihadist wonderland, the jihadists are swimming in the embassy swimming pool, Paul said, who also pointed to Syria and Iraq.

(Also on POLITICO: Hill mixed on Obama speech)

Continue reading here:
Paul to 'civilized Islam': Step up

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has arguably been the Republican Party's most vocal advocate of a more cautious and restrained approach to foreign policy and military intervention abroad. But his base of support doesn't lean as libertarian as you might think.

A couple of data sets show why. First is asomewhat surprising finding in the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Reid J. Epstein writes:

The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that 44% of the people who hold a favorable view of the Kentucky Republican want the U.S. to become more involved in world affairs. About a third of Mr. Pauls supporters said the country should become less involved and 17% said the current level of engagement is appropriate.

In other words, among Paul fans, there are many hawks, despite his cautionary rhetoric when it comes to intervening abroad.

Second, consider new polldata from the Pew Research Center indicating the Republican Party -- and more notably, tea party Republicans -- has grown much more concerned in recent months that the government is not doing enough to protect the country from terror threats.

A November 2013 Pew poll, coming in the wake of the leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden about sweeping government surveillance, showed the GOP was evenly divided between concerns about civil liberties and safety. The tea party, in which Paul is a major star, was much more concerned about civil liberties.

But as worries about the threat posed by the Islamic State and unrest in Syria and Iraq have risen, so to has anxiety that the government's anti-terror policies are not doing enough to protect America, as the following chart shows.

Last fall, just 33 percent of tea party Republicans said they were more concerned the government's anti-terror policies were not going far enough to protect Americans than they were about them infringing on civil liberties. That number has shot up to 59 percent. Among all Republicans, it has jumped by 23 points.Democrats and independents have moved more modestly in the direction of concerns about about safety.

All of which leads us to Paul's notably hawkish position on the Islamic State, which caught some by surprise considering his careful views on intervention, but are consistent with the political demands of the day.

Paul wondered why people were caught off guard when they learned he is in favor of striking against the Islamic State, at least with congressional approval.

Read more:
Rand Pauls base is more hawkish than meets the eye

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a possible presidential candidate in 2016, said Wednesday an "overwhelming" majority in Congress including him would vote to authorize military intervention against militants in northern Iraq and Syria if President Barack Obama lays out a specific strategy and seeks approval when he addresses the nation tonight.

Speaking to The Associated Press ahead of a visit to the early-voting state of New Hampshire, Paul's comments mark his continued evolution on foreign policy as he tries to shed an "isolationist" label. Hours before Obama was scheduled to discuss the Islamic State militant group responsible for growing violence in Iraq and Syria, Paul said the president can't escalate U.S. military involvement on his own.

"The constitution and our founding fathers were very clear: the powers of war were given to Congress," Paul said. "This is a big deal. This is not a minor part of the constitution."

Paul said he'd vote to intervene against the militants, who took responsibility for recently beheading two American journalists.

"From a practical point of view, the country is more unified and it becomes a more bipartisan challenge and more bipartisan war if we all vote to do it. I think it would be an overwhelming vote for (intervention) because I think ISIS is a threat," Paul said, using one of the acronyms for the group.

Foreign policy has been thorny for Paul. He has emerged as a leading anti-interventionist in the Republican party and been challenged for, among other things, his support for cutting military spending and bases around the world and opposition to any troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it was his support for cutting foreign aid, including to longtime U.S. ally Israel, that had critics decrying Paul as an "isolationist."

Paul on Wednesday used another global hotspot, Libya, to rap Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former secretary of state whom Republicans have tried to taint over the handling of the attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi that left four Americans dead. Clinton is a potential Democratic candidate for president in 2016 and Paul said she was part of a failed policy that not only left U.S. personnel exposed to danger but destabilized Libya after the fall of Moammar Gadhafi.

"I think errors were made but really it was the six months leading up to it when there were multiple requests for more security and Hillary Clinton turned them down," he said.

Paul said the secular governments the administration supported in the region weren't strong enough and left a vacuum that has been filled by radical regimes and jihadists.

"It's much worse off now," he said. "America is much more threatened by Libya now than we were under a Libya run by Gadhafi."

The rest is here:
Paul shifts on foreign policy as he eyes 2016 bid

MSNBC #39;s Special on Sen. Rand Paul #39;s Guatemalan Medical Mission Trip - Aug 31, 2014

By: SenatorRandPaul

See more here:
MSNBC's Special on Sen. Rand Paul's Guatemalan Medical Mission Trip - Aug 31, 2014 - Video

A brand new Zogby Analytics poll of likely Republican presidential primary voters shows Kentucky Senator Rand Paul and former Massachusetts Governor (and 2012 GOP nominee) Mitt Romney tied at 15% in a very crowded field of potential candidates. The online poll of 212 likely Republican presidential primary voters was conducted September 3 and 4 and has a margin of sampling error of +/-6.9 points.

Here is how all the candidates stack up:

Obviously, this is early and has much to do with name recognition. However, what is striking is the two top contenders represent two completely different sides of the GOPs likely voters. Paul, who actually outpolls Romney 15.2% to 14.6% (which of course is statistically insignificant), draws his support mainly from men (among whom he leads Romney 16% to 12%), while Romney is ahead among women 17%-14%. Paul captures 64% of the small amount of 18-29 year olds, while Romney gets only 4%. Romney, on the other hand leads handily among 30-49 year olds and voters over 65 19% to zero among the former and 24% to 5% among the latter. Among 50-64 year olds, Paul is ahead 15% to 9%.

Registered Republicans like Mitt over Rand by a factor of 17% to 8%, but among the almost three in ten self-described independents, Rand leads 31% to 10%. Among the 85% self-described conservatives, the two leaders are about tied 18% for Paul, 16% for Romney. Paul is the choice among those with college degrees; Romney is backed by those without college degrees.

Protestants choose Paul 21% to 14%, especially those are Born Again/Evangelical 24% to 9%. Both big city and rural voters favor Paul by big margins. The two are closer among small city and suburban voters. NASCAR Fans want Paul 23% to 9% over Romney, but Investor Investor Class voters prefer Romney 22% to 5%.

Certainly there is a long way to go and there is a long list of other contenders, including Huckabee who shows real strength among those who attend church services at least weekly a trait that could help him win Iowa again. For now, the real dynamic within the GOP is best personalized in the forms of Rand Paul and Mitt Romney. This is a classic split.

Read the rest here:
Rand and Mitt Tied for 2016: A Tale of Two GOPs