Mediaboss Marketing

If theres one thing that has distinguished Rand Paul as a likely presidential candidate, its his relentless skepticism toward military intervention overseas.

In a Republican Party more often defined by the John McCain wing of military muscularity, Paul has been staking out a more dovish position, hoping to connect with a war-weary public. His critics call that isolationism.

Just last week, the Kentucky senator declared in the Wall Street Journal that Hillary is too hawkish:

To interventionists like former Secretary of StateHillary Clinton, we would caution that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria created a haven for the Islamic State. We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn't get her way and the Obama administration did not bring about regime change in Syria. That new regime might well be ISISMrs. Clinton was also eager to shoot first in Syria before asking some important questions.

But now Paul is, shall we say, modulating his rhetoric a bit. He says in a statement:

If I were president, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily.

Clearly, the senator wants to avoid any hint of being viewed as soft on ISIS. Hes never going to be Ted Cruz, who recently called for bombing ISIS back to the Stone Age. But its a dilemma that many Republicans (and some Democrats) are facing just as the Bush era of constant warfare seemed to be fading.

And heres Mitt Romney joining the debate with a Washington Post op-ed:

Russia invades, China bullies, Iran spins centrifuges, the Islamic State (a terrorist threat beyond anything that weve seen, according to the defense secretary ) threatens and Washington slashes the military.

The tone of the political argument is shifting. As a Post front-pager put it:

Read more:
KURTZ: Republicans Evolving on ISIS Rand Paul takes tougher stance on terrorism