Mediaboss Marketing

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky speaks to guests gathered for the Republican Party of Iowas Lincoln Dinner at the Iowa Events Center on May 16, 2015 in Des Moines.

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

What if Sen. Rand Paul is forcing the most substantive debate of the Republican nominating contest so far and killing it at the same time?

On Sunday night, Paul took to the Senate floor to continue his fight against the governments bulk collection of metadata. By any objective measure, he was raising important questions. The first was whether the government has gone too far in its fight againstterrorists. Since Pauls a constitutional conservative who has argued this ground before, it wasnt surprising he made this case. In fact, it aligns with the central tenets of the conservative bloc of the Republican Party that believes that lawmakers should remain vigilant aboutcedingtoo much power to government. It was in keeping with William Buckleys line about conservatives being the ones who stand athwart history and yell stop.

So far in the Republican primary process the national security debate has been thin: Obama is weak and the proper response is strength. Whether you agree with Pauls national security positions or not, he has injected some complexity into the conversation that might force the debate into something more than a choice between weak and strong. Doing so will give voters a better window into the foreign policy views the candidates actually do hold, and presumably that would help voters make a better choice.

The problem for Paul is that, in a nearly half-hourlong speech on the Senate floor, his case may have been swallowed up by a claim he made near the end: People here in town think Im making a huge mistake. Some of them, I think, secretly want there to be an attack on the United States so they can blame it on me.

Paul gave his opponents a chance to dismiss his arguments as nutty and to take umbrage while promoting just the worldview that Paul was trying to challenge.Immediately, he faced several charges: He was being thin-skinned (he turned a policy debate into a personal one),narcissistic(its not all about you, senator), and finally, that he had lost his bearings in the debate, which isnt what you want in a president who will face tougher challenges than criticism from Senate colleagues.

Rick Santorum took the biggest swing:

Aswise readers pointed out, its quite likely that if there were an attack during the period the Patriot Act was on pause, someone would blame Paul, even if the accusation was unfair. His efforts made it so that the law expired without being immediately replaced. This is different, however, than saying lawmakers were rooting for an attack. And, even if they were, its not really germane to Paulsargument and smacked of late-night dorm-room desperation. It will not be listed in the examples of grace under pressure, which detracts from Pauls larger and genuine claim to be someone who takes on unpopular fights in the service of his beliefsa demonstration of the courage voters often say they want above all.

PaulsSenate colleagues leveledtwo charges: He was lying about the nature of the surveillance program, and he wasfundraisingoff the public fracas he was instigating.He wouldnt be the first to have tried to raise money off of grandstanding on foreign policy, but by Monday morning, Paul was backing off the claim, saying it was the hyperbole that sometimes slips into political debate. The senator likes to paint in broad strokes.He once claimed that the majority in Washington wants to deploy ground troops as the answer to every ongoing conflict. Politicians aresusceptibleto bouts of hyperbole, but after too many, every human on the planet is going to get sick to their stomach of them. Or, to speak less hyperbolically, theyll think youre just crying wolf.

The Paul forces see this as a classic case of Washington versus the rest of America. Paul is advocating a position that has support out in the country, his advisers believe, and it only highlights how disconnected the Senate is from the real world. Other Republican strategists make the obvious case that it riles up Pauls base and adds to his campaign coffers, which he needs.

Pauls public fight and partial successes battling for his cause might bring in the group of nontraditional voters Paul hopes will give him a leg up in the Republican contests. But, while it might expand his chances in one area, it is going to create difficulties among traditional national security Republicans. Those voters are hearing a constant drumbeat from other Republicans that the world is more dangerous than ever and that Paul is weak on national defense. Hillary Clinton, they will argue, is to the right of Paul on foreign policy. For primary and caucus voterswho care about national defense, this is going to make it harder to embrace Paul as the candidate who will ensure safety.

Rand Paul has done what Republican Party voters say they want: He has stood up for his principles. The question is whether in taking his stand he has weakened his platform.

Go here to see the original:
Rand Pauls outrageous claim hurt his cause: The Kentucky ...

Story highlights

That haul is just a fraction of the $20 million the campaign of retired brain surgeon Ben Carson says it is on track to post for the third quarter -- half of that money coming in in September alone.

Paul's third quarter total is well under the $7 million the libertarian firebrand raised in the second quarter. Part of that money was transferred from his Senate committee, a practice allowed under campaign finance laws, Gor said.

Paul was one of the first candidates to announce his bid, but has been polling in the low single digits in the race for the Republican nomination, but he has no plans to follow in the footsteps of low-polling Govs. Rick Perry of Texas and Scott Walker of Wisconsin and pull out of the race.

"Rand Paul's campaign is on an upswing, despite what a lot of reporters have written out there," Gor said. "Polls go up and down and this is literally a marathon and not a sprint. The fact that we are raising more than we're spending is a great indication that we're in this for the long haul."

Gor said Paul's campaign had raised $750,000 of its total for the quarter just since the CNN debate on Sept. 16, which he said was an indication that the base was excited by what he called the senator's "strong showing" at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California.

RELATED: Rand Paul: I'll outlast 'clown' Donald Trump

Paul has struggled to gain traction in a campaign season that has been dominated by so-called outsider candidates -- like Donald Trump, Carson and more recently Carly Fiorina -- who have never been elected to public office. Still, his campaign argues it has a built in advantage because of his father's, former Rep. Ron Paul, past White House bids and can benefit from networks already established in early states like Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, rather than having to build them from scratch.

The campaign has hired on new staffers in Nevada in recent weeks, though officials will not provide specific numbers on staffing levels.

"We've always said we'll have enough money to compete," Gor said.

Gor argued that while other campaigns - like Jeb Bush's and Carson's -- may bring in more money, Paul's small-donor focus is a good indicator of interest in his run. His campaign had more than 100,000 individual donors in the second quarter, compared to fewer than 10,000 for Bush, Gor said.

Paul, who is also running for re-election to the Senate, expects to participate in the next debate on CNBC on Oct. 28 -- another chance to make his case to voters before a large television audience.

"We're pleased that Sen. Paul will once again be on the main stage," said Gor.

Despite the campaign's view, it is not yet clear who will meet the criteria spelled out by CNBC. The network announced Wednesday that candidates must have an average of at least 3% among recognized national polls in order to participate in their primetime debate. Candidates who can't clear 3% will be relegated to the second-tier debate. Paul is one of several candidates hovering around the 3% mark in an average of recent national polls.

Read more here:
Rand Paul raises $2.5 million in 3rd quarter - CNNPolitics.com

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) will report around $2.5 million in donations to his presidential campaign, a dip from his first quarter, though his campaign is emphasizing that more money started to roll in recently.

"Not only are we in for the long haul but weve seen an uptick in crowds and support," said Paul's spokesman Sergio Gor. "Since the last debate weve raised $750,000."

One of the first candidates to officially declare for the White House, Paul had raised close to $7 million from April through June. That was slightly more than his father, former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, raised in the comparable period of his 2012 bid. But in the next quarter of that campaign, Ron Paul raised$8 million.

Gor emphasized that the new Paul campaign was on an "upward trend," especially since the second presidential debate. Paul had used thatforum emphasize his more libertarian stances, something some key Paul donors had privately asked for. "That was due to a solid debate performance that got our crowd excited," said Gor. "We're a solid campaign and our fundraising pace is doubling."

But the dropoff from the first quarter, coupled with thetroubles of two pro-Paul super PACs, could aid the ongoing efforts of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) to lure supporters into his camp. The weeks between the first and second debate saw one pro-Paul super PAC's leaders indicted, and another (less active) pro-Paul PAC announce that it was pausing its efforts until the candidate improved in the polls. The campaign has $2 million cash on hand, having already spent $250,000 to help the Republican Party of Kentucky pay for a presidential caucus. That will let Paul seek a Senate re-election as he tries toforgeahead in the White House race -- something the campaign says it has more than enough money and momentum to do.

David Weigel is a national political correspondent covering the 2016 election and ideological movements.

Read more:
Rand Paul raises $2.5 million in second quarter - The ...

Story highlights

Paul criticized Cruz for breaching Senate decorum, saying the Texan could not accomplish any of his legislative priorities because of how much his GOP colleagues despise him.

"Ted has chosen to make this really personal and chosen to call people dishonest in leadership and call them names, which really goes against the decorum and also against the rules of the Senate, and as a consequence he can't get anything done legislatively," Paul said in an interview on Fox News Radio on Tuesday. "He is pretty much done for ... and it's really because of personal relationships, or lack of personal relationships, and it is a problem."

Paul said he was "still just as hardcore" in taking on the establishment as Cruz, but has declined to call colleagues names.

Last month, Cruz said on the Senate floor that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had lied to him.

Paul and Cruz have had a close relationship as two of the most libertarian members of the Senate GOP. But even though they were both elected with tea party support, they have increasingly forged different paths to power in the Senate.

Paul has allied himself with fellow Kentuckian McConnell, endorsing the Senate majority leader during his re-election bid last year when the ultimate insider faced down a conservative primary challenger. McConnell reciprocated the favor by endorsing Paul's presidential bid this year.

Paul's critique of Cruz came on the same day the Texas senator unveiled a leadership team of libertarians who supported Paul's father, former Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

The "Liberty Leaders for Cruz" coalition featured Iowans saying Ron Paul's legacy was best perpetuated by Cruz.

"The biggest thing about Ted Cruz was that I knew he had been endorsed by Ron Paul and by Rand Paul," said county supervisor Crystal McIntyre Tuesday, speaking of Cruz's Senate race.

Original post:
Rand Paul rebukes Ted Cruz as their rift widens ...

Story highlights

In the aftermath of rival Ben Carson saying he wouldn't be able to support someone who subscribes to Islam to lead the country, the Kentucky senator said unequivocally that he believed the current president was born in the United States and is Christian. In the past, some other Republicans -- including GOP front-runner Donald Trump -- have at times publicly doubted the President's heritage and faith.

Paul said voters would nevertheless have an "honest question" about Muslims seeking the highest office.

"Do you believe literally that a woman should be stoned to death for adultery? Do you believe that when someone steals something, their hand should be cut off?" said Paul to CNN's Wolf Biltzer "The Situation Room."

Paul said he could back a Muslim "if they support the things that made America great -- constitutional principles, Bill of Rights -- but some of those are inconsistent with the interpretation of the Quran that's being put forward."

Paul, once a rising Republican star, now sits at the back of the 15-member GOP presidential field, according to national polling.

Paul, an opthamologist, told Blitzer on Tuesday that while he respected those who wished to forgo certain vaccinations, he would still suggest that his patients take them.

"I recommend that they do, but I also recommend freedom," Paul said. "I think in a free country, that ought to be your option."

More here:
Rand Paul: Yes, Obama is a Christian - CNNPolitics.com