After a horde of Republican Presidential contenders from Gov. Chris Christie to Sen. Ted Cruz descended on Las Vegas to speak in front of the Republican Jewish Coalition — and kiss the ring of PAC billionaire benefactor Sheldon Adelson — one contender’s absence was noted.
Sen. Rand Paul was nowhere to be found. His positions on Israel, foreign aid, drone warfare and intervention make him unpalatable to this particular crowd.
GOP donors there were vocal in their opposition to Paul’s candidacy. According to Time magazine’s Zeke Miller, “Five donors huddled with a reporter pledged to reach into their deep pockets to ensure Paul doesn’t win the GOP nomination.”
And one put it this way: “The best thing that could happen is Ted Cruz and Rand Paul run and steal each other’s support, but if not, we’ll be ready to take Paul down.”
Former White House spokesman and Republican strategist Ari Fleischer — speaking for many of the establishment hawks who define the GOP — put it this way:
“His edges aren’t as sharp as his father’s (Rep. Ron Paul), but there’s still a naiveté that’s going to be a problem. He represents a departure from something a lot of Republicans are used to.”
Republicans — donors, strategists and voters alike — are right to worry about Paul’s outlier positions on foreign policy. In fact, he seems to be increasingly aware of the problem himself.
Adopting President Obama’s language on gay rights, he’s reportedly told GOP donors that he’s “evolving” on foreign policy and Israel, and softening his position against foreign aid. He has reached out to pro-Israel groups to begin a dialogue on those issues, both a recognition that he cannot tune out powerful constituencies and an acknowledgment that his positions may be problematic in 2016.
But where Paul seems to know he needs the GOP establishment to mount a serious run at the Presidency, it’s unclear whether or not the GOP establishment knows it needs Paul, too.
It does. He brings fresh energy, people and ideas to a party that desperately needs an injection of each.
For one, he’s one of few Republican contenders who’s proven he’s willing and interested in reaching out to demographics that have either traditionally been hostile to conservatives or that conservatives have ignored — including women, minorities and young voters. If 2012 proved anything, it’s that a Republican can’t win by simply turning out the same old, white male voters.
Especially where millennials are concerned, it’s crucial that Paul help bring them into the GOP fold.
Paul’s policies and messages square well with this important voting bloc, the largest generation in history, which is set to make up two-thirds of the voting population by 2020.
In particular, they agree with his opposition to NSA spying, his refusal to denounce Edward Snowden as a traitor, his non-interventionist approach to U.S. involvement in conflicts abroad, his skepticism of big government, and his position on drone strikes on American citizens.
On social issues like gay marriage, his nuanced positions present a healthy alternative response to the usual conservative messages that have alienated young people in the past. He’s suggested the GOP needs to “find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues.”
He’s also voiced support for reforming harsh drug sentences, saying, “Someone like myself, I think, could appeal to young people, independents and moderates, because, many of them do think it is a mistake to put people in jail for marijuana use and throw away the key.”
Little wonder that, earlier this year, Paul walloped the other GOP contenders at CPAC — which attracts a young, more libertarian audience — in their straw poll, earning 31%. Ted Cruz, who finished second, came in at 11%.
Skeptics like Salon’s Elias Isquith dismiss Paul’s ability to win over millennials because, they say, he’s still a Southern, white Republican whose economic policies aren’t in sync with theirs. That’s fair, but he doesn’t necessarily need to earn their vote to make a difference in 2016.
Even if Paul’s outreach is intended to boost his own presidential campaign, it has halo benefits for the broader Republican Party — if only the GOP is willing to harness it and not extinguish it. If young voters are shown that Republicans can look and sound like Rand Paul as well as Jeb Bush, Cruz and Christie, maybe — just maybe — the party can win more converts.
GOP hawks are right to be skeptical of Paul’s foreign policy, even as he recalibrates it. But alienating him outright, especially in these early months, might do more harm than good with important voters Republicans need to court. Let him court them. He’s doing the party a huge favor.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by PierzStyx
Connect With Us