CNN and Newt Gingrich: Rand Paul Most Interesting Person in Republican Partty
Newt Gingrich on State of the Union with Candy Crowley talks about Rand Paul and the GOP in 2016 - 3/23/14.
By: Rand Fan
View post:
CNN and Newt Gingrich: Rand Paul Most Interesting Person in Republican Partty - Video
Sen. Rand Paul Appears on Fox and Friends with Brian Kilmeade - March 25, 2014
By: SenatorRandPaul
See the article here:
Sen. Rand Paul Appears on Fox and Friends with Brian Kilmeade - March 25, 2014 - Video
Washington (CNN) - Rand Paul has long been very open about his ambitions for higher office, telling CNN as early as November 2012, just weeks after the last presidential election, of his interest in running for the White House.
And the Republican senator from Kentucky is on top of the pack in CNN's most recent poll in the hypothetical race for the 2016 GOP nomination.
Now, Paul's become the first of the potential Republican White House contenders to put together a political organization in all 50 states. It's the latest sign that the senator is working to assemble a much wider network than his father, former Rep. Ron Paul, did when the longtime congressman from Texas made bids for the GOP nomination in 2008 and 2012 with extremely strong but narrow backing from libertarian-leaning voters.
A senior adviser to Paul confirms to CNN that the senator's 50-state network, first reported earlier Thursday by the Washington Post's Robert Costa, includes more than 200 people, including many who in the past have backed more tradition Republicans. The network is set up through Rand Paul Victory, the umbrella organization that includes Rand PAC, which is the senator's political action committee, and Rand Paul 2016, his Senate re-election campaign.
"It's a mix of folks that will help with finance efforts and with grassroots activist outreach. The people are a blend of traditional Republicans, conservative activists, and libertarians," Doug Stafford, Paul's chief political adviser, told CNN.
Another Paul aide said that the evolving organization means that there are "people ready and waiting to help" when Paul travels across the country.
The first-term senator has been making the rounds in the crucial early voting states in the presidential primary and caucus calendar, such as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and Nevada, and has addressed grassroots conservative audiences across the country.
Paul's efforts in building a network in Iowa, which kicks off the caucus and primary season, are well underway.
"A lot of Iowans are excited about the prospect of Senator Paul running for President. They've seen his ability to unite a broad spectrum of conservatives and attract young people and independents," David Fischer, co-chairman of Ron Paul's 2012 efforts in Iowa and a former co-chairman of the state's Republican party, told CNN.
But Paul has also traveled to spots that GOP lawmakers rarely venture. The most recent example: earlier this month Paul gave a speech at the historically liberal-leaning University of California at Berkeley, where he talked about the National Security Agency's surveillance program and the Republican Party's need for change.
Read the original here:
Sen. Rand Paul is a Different Kind of Republican. He will drag the party, kicking and screaming, toward a new kind of conservatism that appeals more to todays youth, who embrace liberty and are skeptical of foreign intervention. The millennials will flock to him. Rand Paul also would like you to know that the Pentagon must keep buying Tomahawk missiles.
Thats the thesis of Pauls column at Breitbart.com, which begins with a pledge of allegiance to Ronald Reagans policy of Peace through Strength. Paul is outraged that the Obama administrations latest budget calls for the Department of Defense to buy fewer new Tomahawk missiles in 2015, and then no missiles at all after that. While the eventual zeroing out of Tomahawk procurement has yet to make much of an impact in the mainstream press, the right-wing media has been bubbling with outrage on the subject for days already.
Pauls Op-Ed makes more sense if you believe, as he implies, that Obama plans to get rid of all Tomahawk missiles, rather than that his Defense Department plans to stop buying new ones. This is a mistake and will weaken our defenses, Paul says. There are reportedly no plans to replace it with another comparable weapon, or any weapon, for that matter. (This is, obviously, untrue.)
Wait, isnt Paul supposed to be the libertarian anti-interventionist Republican? The only one who is actually serious about cutting the size of the government, including the bloated military budget? He is, yes, but that doesnt make him some hippie.
Nobody wants to cut spending, including Pentagon waste and abuse, more than me. I agree with former Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen who has said that the greatest threat to our national security is the national debt.
But I dont want to cut weapons that have been integral to maintaining a strong military.
We should retain our strength and strategic advantages while looking for ways to reform the Pentagon and cut waste.
Here we see Paul trying to thread the needle by adopting a form of the Obama wants us to be weak argument that is compatible with his oft-stated belief that defense spending can be (and should be) deeply cut without harming our national defense. That position, along with his general dove-ishness, is what makes him a unique figure among modern Republicans, who have long been hypocrites on the subject of government spending. But that position is also what may make Paul open to attacks for being weak on national defense in a Republican presidential primary contest. So here is his bumper sticker solution: Cut waste, not missiles.
Paul then links to Sen. Tom Coburns exhaustive study of what Sen. Tom Coburn believes the Pentagon should not be spending money on. Its an interesting document, and worth reading. Coburn is one of the few Washington Republicans who is quite sincere in his (completely wrongheaded) belief that the national debt is a severe problem that must be dealt with by any means necessary, including the gutting of popular programs and agencies. Coburns report finds that a lot of Pentagon research grants fund scientific studies that are only tangentially related to defense. DARPA spends a (poorly overseen) fortune on pie-in-the-sky sci-fi research. The Pentagon is funding a few very expensive elementary schools on American soil for reasons dating back to the era of legal segregation. It operates a massive chain of domestic grocery stores and commissaries as a legacy of a program that perhaps made more sense in the 19th century.
So there is indeed a ton of non-defense-related stuff (or waste in Coburn-speak) in the Pentagon budget. That is because after years of conservative deficit hysteria combined with belligerent warmongering, it eventually became easier to fund stuff that our elected representatives feel the government ought to fund including scientific research and development in a variety of fields by saying it was vital to our national security and sticking it in the sacrosanct Pentagon budget. Maybe the Pentagon shouldnt fund some of these things. But many of these things also keep a lot of civilians and veterans employed, and they are funding a great deal of scientific research. Coburn says that other agencies should fund the non-defense programs the Pentagon currently funds. But in this political environment, the more likely outcome of taking these things out of the Pentagon budget is that they will not be funded at all.
Read more: