Mediaboss Marketing

Rand Paul tells theWashington Posts Dave Weigel that Thursdays Republican presidential debate will pit himagainst rivals who want to blow up the world. He has reason to use stark language. After weeks of negative press, single-digit poll numbers, and lackluster fundraising, Senator Paul needs a Giuliani momentsomething that will do for his campaign what a showdown with Americas mayor did for his fathers effort after the first debate of 2007.

In fact, Rand Paul has the opportunity to do much more than his father ever could. But hes missing it: Rands Giuliani moment is the Iran deal, and it calls for action, not words.

Rands support forthe deal would transform the politics of the Republican race at a stroke.He would also risk losing rather than gaining supportwhen the deal was announced, 30 percent of Republicans supported it, and those votes could have been Rands. Polls since then have been mixed and most indicate Republicans oppose the diplomatic effort, evenoverwhelmingly so.

But thats where the Giuliani example is relevant: no pollster or campaign professionalwould have told Ron Paul to stand up to Giuliani like thaton an issue, national security and terrorism, that Giuliani owned and where Republican voters overwhelmingly disagreed with the Texas congressman. But Ron Paul did it anyway, and in so doing he pulled off something political pros usually believe is impossible or irrelevant: he changed voters minds.

He didnt change nearly enough to win a single primary, of course, either in 2008 or in 2012. But Rand Paul starts from a stronger position and higher profile than his father had before that debate. If Rand dared, instead of being yet another single-term senator vying for the nomination, he could overnight become the most important player in the GOPon the biggest foreign-policy issue of the day. Hed get invited to every talk show as the one Republican with the audacity to side with the president to make a deal for peace. Hed be denounced, too, by every neocon outlet. In other words, hed get the full-spectrum attentionthat Donald Trump now commands, knocking himout of the headlines, if not off the top of the polls.

Hed also be a legislative leader, a man Democrats and Republicans alike would have to court ahead of the vote on Iran. The pressure would be extraordinary, but if he stood by his support for the deal, he would have a polarizing and rallying effect, bringing other Republicans aroundhowever many could be brought aroundand shattering the GOPpro-war consensus that the neoconservative media has worked so hard to create.

Rand would perhaps even be in a position to demand legislative concessions from the Democrats and Obama; leadership would also be leverage. That might not be enough to defund Planned Parenthoodbut consider what the public would be presented with if Rand Paul clearly supported the president on issues like Iran and sentencing reform but clearly separated from Obama and the Democrats on abortion and taxes. Hed give all voters something to think about, cutting across the left-right divide that has only meant defeat for Republicans in the last two presidential elections.

Instead, the strategy Rands team have devised for him is much more cautious, and its dividend so far has been dwindling support. But it doesnt matter if a candidate drops into the single digits in the pre-primary season, and even if Rands fundraising could be betterBush, Cruz, and Rubio beat him easily last quarterhes still a top-tier candidate. His playbook is to win on bread-and-butter Republican issues, demonstrating his support for tax cuts by literally cutting through the tax code with a chainsaw, courting Christian conservatives by calling for an end to federal funds for Planned Parenthood, keeping his libertarian supporters on board by opposing the NSAs domestic surveillance, and reaching out to several groups at onceincluding libertarians, Christians, and some liberalswith criminal-justice reform.

His approach to two thorny questionsimmigration and foreign policyhas been in line with this bread-and-butter strategy. Theres a vocal and somewhat large bloc of voters who say they want to restrict immigration, and while they may not tend not to vote in such a way as to prove their commitmentTom Tancredo would have been a force in 2008 if they did, and John McCain would not have been the GOP nomineean appeal to restrict immigration certainly wont lose Rand many primary votes. By contrast, explicit noninterventionist appeals wont win many: there arent legions of foreign-policy voters to begin with, and what few there are in the Republican Party are mostly hawks.

The logic of this play-it-safe strategy is impeccable. But its a logic that works against Rand Paul: after all, if voters want a bread-and-butter Republican, they have better options. Ted Cruz is a better orator, Marco Rubio is more charismatic, Scott Walker has an executive record. Christian conservatives arent going to choose Rand Paul over spiritual kin like Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee just because Rand, like the rest of the field, is antiabortion. (For one thing, the religious right suspects that in his bones Rand Paul is just too libertarian to fight till he bleeds againstsame-sex marriage.) Pauls foreign-policy maneuvering, meanwhile, has the curious effect of leaving him the candidate least liked by hawks but no longer much loved by doves. What his campaign team has devised isactually a winning strategy for Scott Walkeror even Jeb Bush.

Visit link:
Is Rand Paul Missing His Giuliani Moment? | The American ...