Mediaboss Marketing

Rand Pauls presidential campaign, by many recent accounts, is sputtering. The candidate, according to the Atlantics Molly Ball, is flailing. His campaign, reports National Journals Josh Kraushaar, has been called a disaster.

These judgments, even if true, are provisional. Pretty much any candidate in the Republican pack is one killer debate performance, one strong poll result, one especially good fundraising report away from a narrative of resurgence.

But there is little question that the initial, ineffable appeal of the Paul campaign has faded. In March 2013, when Paul filibustered against the governments possible use of Hellfire missiles to murder civilians in San Francisco cafes and Houston restaurants this seemed to make sense to some people at the time many conservatives were swept away. His voice, once lonely, wrote Noah Rothman, grew in stature. ... It was poetic. It was romantic.

Compare this with Pauls recent filibuster of the Patriot Act. The Senate gallery was staged with supporters wearing Stand With Rand T-shirts. Pauls online campaign store offered a filibuster starter pack for $30, including a spy blocker for your computers video camera and a shirt reading The NSA knows I bought this Rand Paul tshirt. Pauls Senate colleagues found themselves dragged into the middle of an infomercial. And many were not pleased.

Once it was Mr. Smith goes to Washington. Now it is Mr. Smith uses Senate procedure to conduct a fundraising campaign on a national security issue that he distorts to serve his political interests.

Sen. Rand Paul, (R-Ky.), who announced he's running for president in 2016, is known for his belief in limited government. Here his take on Obamacare, the Constitution and more, in his own words. (Julie Percha/The Washington Post)

The romance is gone. The bitterness and conspiratorial hints remain. Paul recently blamed the rise of the Islamic State on Republican hawks. Under pressure, Paul conceded, I could have stated it better. But this was a gaffe of excessive clarity. Pauls foreign policy libertarianism is founded on the belief that an aggressively fought war against terrorism actually produces terrorism that the United States has somehow earned the enmity it faces.

And Pauls accusation goes further. People here in [Washington] think Im making a huge mistake, he said on the Senate floor. Some of them I think secretly want there to be an attack on the United States so they can blame it on me.

Paul likes to present himself as a voice of reason and outreach. But he is prone to rhetorical recklessness. Which of Pauls rivals, in this case, would be secretly pleased about the killing of Americans if it helped justify a political argument? Any names? Paul, by his account, is facing not only opponents but monsters.

According to Paul, it is hawks and neocons who glory for war, who really think wars always the answer. Some, as weve seen, secretly want there to be an attack on the United States. Sen. John McCain wants 15 wars more. Paul has accused former vice president Dick Cheney of supporting the Iraq war in order to benefit his former employer, Halliburton. Pauls charges are often nasty, often ad hominem, often involve the questioning of motives. In democratic discourse, this type of argument is a conversation stopper. How can you find agreement with scheming warmongers?

See the rest here:
The romance with Rand Paul is gone - The Washington Post