Mediaboss Marketing

Dave Fahrenthold wrote a big piece in today's Post on Rand Paul'sevolution (to be nice) or flip-floppery (to be not so nice) on a variety of issues -- from how to deal with the Islamic State to what to do with Medicare -- in advance of his near certain 2016 presidential bid. It's a great piece and contains two absolutely critical sentences when it comes to understanding what makes Rand different from his father, Ron, who ran for president in 2008 and 2012. Here they are:

As the prospect of a 2016 presidential bid looms larger, Paul is making it clear that he did not come to Washington to be a purist like his father, former congressman Ron Paul.He came to be a politician, like everybody else.

Then, later in the piece, Dave quotes a "longtime [Paul] friend and adviser" saying:Rands a pragmatist. He realizes weve got a really large federal government....I think that Rand has a picture of what a utopia would look like. And hes very realistic about how long it would take to get there.

For those paying close attention to Rand Paul since he arrived in the Senate in 2011 -- and I count myself among that group -- it's been clear for a very long time that he is not a facsimile of his father. Not only is Rand more naturally able as a campaigner than his father -- that's not saying all that much -- but he is also far more willing to tweak and adjust his policy positions to appeal to an electorate that is broader than simply the libertarian wing of the GOP base.

That flexibility has always been cast -- including by me -- as something that works in Paul's favor in a likely presidential bid. After all, we learned in 2008 and 2012 that running as a pure libertarian doesn't win you much other than a loyal, loud and too-small following. (Ron Paul didn't win a single caucus or primary in either 2008 or 2012.)But, Fahrenthold's piece raises the specter that Rand's willingness to massage where he stands could have far more politically painful consequences.

The first, and perhaps most important, is that much of Paul's early support in places like Iowa and New Hampshire comes from the hardcore libertarian base who not only voted for his father but also volunteered and donated money. These are the cause people, not the campaign people. And they are not likely to be all that keen on someone who sees them as one point of a triangulation strategy.

Fahrenthold also quotes social conservative leaders raising questions about just how committed Rand is to working to make abortion illegal and/or roll back gay marriage. While Paul was never going to be the "social conservative guy" in the 2016 field -- that's likely to be Texas Sen. Ted Cruz -- he also can't afford to have that segment of the party actively opposed to him. Social conservatives have become a dominant voice in the Iowa caucuses and remain a major factor in the South Carolina primary as well.

Remember that the most important anything a politician can be -- or at least be perceived to be -- is authentic. Voters like to vote for people that they think a) have convictions and b) are willing to stick by those convictions even in the face of public disagreement. Of course, the best politicians are the ones who give off the impression of being utterly steadfast in their principles while also adjusting those principles to fit the times and the mood of the electorate. Think Bill Clinton.

That's who Matt Lewis, a columnist at the conservative Daily Caller website, sees when analyzing Rand's dexterity on position taking. Writes Lewis:

No, Rand Paul is not in danger of entering John Kerry territory. Kerry wouldn't dare attempt to pull something like this off. He knew he didn't have what it takes to get us to suspend reality and embrace his delusions of grandeur.

Read more from the original source:
The Fix: Rand Paul Ron Paul. Is that good thing or a bad thing?

Though he's come around some to the idea of launching a military strike against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as its militants storm the Middle East, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, argued Monday on "CBS This Morning" that heeding President Obama's request to arm Syrian rebels would be "a mistake."

"They're the weakest fighting force there," Paul said of the moderate Syrian rebels, pointing to a non-aggression pact with ISIS they reached last week. "Most of the arms we've given to the so-called moderate rebels have wound up in the hands of ISIS because ISIS simply takes it from them, or is given them, or we mistakenly actually give it to some of the radicals. So the intervention in Syria has created a safe haven for ISIS and has made our problem much more difficult."

Particularly in light of the recent ceasefire, Paul assessed, the rebels' interests lie in overthrowing Syrian President Bashar Assad. "They don't really care what ISIS does," he said.

Known for the non-interventionist foreign policy views that largely inform his libertarian reputation, Paul has previously cautioned against the U.S. getting involved with staving off ISIS's advance. But on Monday he acknowledged he's shifted in favor of supporting military action against the group, which continues to capture territory in Iraq and Syria, and recently beheaded two American journalists and one British journalist.

"I am like most Americans - I am influenced by the beheading of Americans, now the beheading of a British journalist," Paul said. " I think it's going to unite the world against ISIS."

He reiterated his oft-cited case that his footing on military action abroad has always been dictated by the Constitution. While Mr. Obama has requested funding approval from Congress, he's also said he has the authority to OK air strikes, which have already begun in Iraq and soon may spill into Syria.

"I've always said that the president is required by the Constitution to come to Congress," Paul said. "So since the beginning of my public life, I've always said Congress declares war, not the president.

"...The president used to agree with me," he went on. "It's actually the president who's changed his position. Back when he ran for office, he said that no president should unilaterally go to war without the consent and the authority of Congress. I still maintain that view and always have maintained that view."

Paul reserved some censure for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who stands to potentially face him in the 2016 presidential election. He said their decision to intervene in Syria "helped to create the situation that we now face with ISIS," though many have speculated that heavier U.S. engagement would have helped stem the Syrian civil war that fueled the al Qaeda-inspired insurgency in neighboring Iraq.

"Had we bombed Syria last year, had the president actually got what he wanted and what Hillary Clinton wanted and to bomb the heck out of Assad, my guess is ISIS would now be in Damascus," Paul said. "We may well have had ISIS in charge in Damascus now because they've been arming and creating a safe haven for them. As it is, I think ISIS is more of a threat to us now because of the arming of the Islamist rebels in Syria."

More here:
Rand Paul: Obama's request to arm rebels in ISIS fight "a mistake"

Dave Fahrenthold wrote a big piece in today's Post on Rand Paul'sevolution (to be nice) or flip-floppery (to be not so nice) on a variety of issues -- from how to deal with the Islamic State to what to do with Medicare -- in advance of his near certain 2016 presidential bid. It's a great piece and contains two absolutely critical sentences when it comes to understanding what makes Rand different from his father, Ron, who ran for president in 2008 and 2012. Here they are:

As the prospect of a 2016 presidential bid looms larger, Paul is making it clear that he did not come to Washington to be a purist like his father, former congressman Ron Paul.He came to be a politician, like everybody else.

Then, later in the piece, Dave quotes a "longtime [Paul] friend and adviser" saying:Rands a pragmatist. He realizes weve got a really large federal government....I think that Rand has a picture of what a utopia would look like. And hes very realistic about how long it would take to get there.

For those paying close attention to Rand Paul since he arrived in the Senate in 2011 -- and I count myself among that group -- it's been clear for a very long time that he is not a facsimile of his father. Not only is Rand more naturally able as a campaigner than his father -- that's not saying all that much -- but he is also far more willing to tweak and adjust his policy positions to appeal to an electorate that is broader than simply the libertarian wing of the GOP base.

That flexibility has always been cast -- including by me -- as something that works in Paul's favor in a likely presidential bid. After all, we learned in 2008 and 2012 that running as a pure libertarian doesn't win you much other than a loyal, loud and too-small following. (Ron Paul didn't win a single caucus or primary in either 2008 or 2012.)But, Fahrenthold's piece raises the specter that Rand's willingness to massage where he stands could have far more politically painful consequences.

The first, and perhaps most important, is that much of Paul's early support in places like Iowa and New Hampshire comes from the hardcore libertarian base who not only voted for his father but also volunteered and donated money. These are the cause people, not the campaign people. And they are not likely to be all that keen on someone who sees them as one point of a triangulation strategy.

Fahrenthold also quotes social conservative leaders raising questions about just how committed Rand is to working to make abortion illegal and/or roll back gay marriage. While Paul was never going to be the "social conservative guy" in the 2016 field -- that's likely to be Texas Sen. Ted Cruz -- he also can't afford to have that segment of the party actively opposed to him. Social conservatives have become a dominant voice in the Iowa caucuses and remain a major factor in the South Carolina primary as well.

Remember that the most important anything a politician can be -- or at least be perceived to be -- is authentic. Voters like to vote for people that they think a) have convictions and b) are willing to stick by those convictions even in the face of public disagreement. Of course, the best politicians are the ones who give off the impression of being utterly steadfast in their principles while also adjusting those principles to fit the times and the mood of the electorate. Think Bill Clinton.

That's who Matt Lewis, a columnist at the conservative Daily Caller website, sees when analyzing Rand's dexterity on position taking. Writes Lewis:

No, Rand Paul is not in danger of entering John Kerry territory. Kerry wouldn't dare attempt to pull something like this off. He knew he didn't have what it takes to get us to suspend reality and embrace his delusions of grandeur.

Excerpt from:
Rand Paul Ron Paul. Is that good thing or a bad thing?

By Ashley Killough, CNN

updated 8:26 AM EDT, Tue September 16, 2014

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, is considering a presidential bid in 2016.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Washington (CNN) -- Sen. Rand Paul has gotten questions from the media lately at nearly every stop and in almost every interview about where he stands on combating the threat of ISIS.

Because he's seriously thinking about running for president, his positions on major issues are being carefully scrutinized.

In an interview Monday on Fox News, Paul was asked: "If a vote were to come to Congress to ask you to go to war against ISIS -- and to call it that -- would you vote yes?"

"Yes," he responded, though he added that he'd try to sunset the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, a measure that the Obama administration is using as the legal basis for airstrikes against ISIS.

It was passed shortly after the 9/11 attacks and has been used for military action against terrorism ever since.

"I do favor doing something about ISIS. I would vote yes," he continued.

Link:
War against ISIS: What does Rand Paul's 'yes' mean?

By Leigh Ann Caldwell, CNN

updated 12:05 PM EDT, Mon September 15, 2014

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

(CNN) -- Libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul is the most popular Republican among the crowded list of potential presidential candidates in New Hampshire, according to a new CNN/ORC poll out Monday. The same poll finds that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a commanding lead among potential Democratic candidates in the Granite State.

The Kentucky senator -- who has made three trips to New Hampshire, the first primary state, in recent months -- garnered 15% of support among registered Republicans and Independents likely to vote in the 2016 Republican primary.

But with a margin of error of 5 percentage points, Paul's lead is negligible. The rest of the crowd is close behind. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan each obtained 10% of support. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee follow closely along with 9%.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and 2012 Republican candidate Rick Santorum, who have not been as active on the presidential circuit, round out the pack of 12 potential candidates with 3% support.

As for the Democratic race, Clinton has a commanding lead among registered Democrats and Independents likely to vote in the 2016 Democratic primary. Clinton, who made her first trip to Iowa in more than six years over the weekend, had 60% of support in the New Hampshire poll.

New Hampshire Senate race in dead heat

Far behind Clinton are Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Vice President Joe Biden, with 11% and 8% respectively.

Read more here:
Paul, Clinton top presidential poll in New Hampshire