There were two reasons why I did not believe (until yesterday) that Rand Paul's maniacal, fanatical hostility to the Patriot Act and U.S. national security in general had anything to do with cynical campaign fundraising pitches: (1) I have no doubt whatsoever that his fanaticism is sincere and very, very real, and (2) I couldn't for the life of me figure out how gratuitously and egregiously insulting and alienating his own party would motivate that same party to rally to his banner, including filling his campaign warchest.
And, once again, my instincts have proven prescient:
Some of the biggest donors and fundraisers in the Republican Party, still uncertain who should get their support in 2016, are sprinkling their money around a presidential field that grows by the day.
The largesse born of their indecision has a notable exception: Rand Paul.
The Kentucky senator has aggressively tried to raise money around his effort to curtail the surveillance powers of the National Security Agency, emailing supporters and posting messages on social media imploring people to "celebrate this victory" with their cash.
In doing so, he's exacerbated the perception among some of the GOP's most generous donors that his positions on foreign policy make him an unacceptable choice for the White House. This is especially so to those who consider an aggressive posture abroad and support for Israel paramount.
"I do not know of a single person in Mitt Romney's donor network who will be with Rand Paul," said Phil Rosen, a Manhattan attorney and top fundraiser for the 2012 Republican nominee. Rosen said he met with Paul and politely told him he wouldn't be supporting him "because of his isolationist and libertarian policies."
Rosen hasn't settled on his choice in next year's primary contest but expects to decide soon from a short list. Other prominent donors are doing the same, with some willing to give money to multiple candidates in the early stages of the campaign, but not to Paul.
Among them: Las Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson, New York hedge fund pioneer Michael Steinhardt and Ken Abramowitz, founder of a venture capital firm in New York. All three have given money to South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, who announced his presidential campaign on Monday by saying he wants "to be president to defeat the enemies trying to kill us."
i.e. Graham's in the race to talk up national security since ex-UN ambassador John Bolton declined to similarly embarrass himself.
Those donors, like many of the Republican Party's biggest spenders, are looking for the strongest candidate on foreign policy, especially on the protection of Israel. That's become the centerpiece of not only Graham's campaign, but also is a featured aspect of the bids of Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Texas Senator Ted Cruz.
"Graham in particular has a terrific record in Congress and is experienced and articulate," said Steinhardt, who is also giving to former New York Governor George Pataki and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.
Indeed, several groups, including the Foundation For A Secure & Prosperous America and another headed up by Ambassador Bolton, are mobilizing to preemptively reduce Senator Paul's daddy-legacy candidacy to a proverbial grease spot on the 2016 floor:
"I've spoken to well over 1,000 major Republican donors and can remember only one who agreed with Rand Paul on foreign policy," Bolton said. "The views he represents are a tiny, tiny minority within the Republican Party."
Which begs the rhetorical question of whether Senator Paul believed that he could hide his congenital umbilical to his father's loopy ideas as a Ronulan trojan horse within the GOP long enough to actually make it all the way to Cleveland next summer, and the bona fide question of why he thought that possible when he has now conclusively proven that he doesn't possess anywhere near that level of discretion. Rand Paul is a libertarian ideologue and he wears it proudly, like a hairlip. Which is fine for him, but not when you need the open wallets of the party in which you're concealing yourself in order to vicariously fulfill your progenitor's lifelong dream.
Senator Paul is spouting the usual line of cash-strapped, long-shot candidates - he's "counting on small-dollar donations raised primarily online" from "outside the usual Republican circles, particularly from college-aged voters with a distaste for military engagement and others who put civil liberties at the forefront of their concerns" - or, in other words, people without very much, if any, disposable income. Or, instead of tapping proven gushers, Rand is trying to squeeze a whole bunch of little dry wells. Running an "unconventional" campaign without cash but on a highly energized "live wire" shoe string. Well, good luck with that, Senator, because you're going to need as much good fortune as you lack in your campaign bank account. Remember how Barack Obama also had such a campaign in 2008? He also had a billion dollars in which for it to wallow naked.
Political warchests are like the scene in Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe right before Peter Pevensie is about to lead the Narnians into doomed battle against the forces of Jadis The White Witch. They're beholding how hopelessly outnumbered they are, and Peter's centaur lieutenant turns to him and encouragingly says, "Sire, numbers do not win a battle". And Peter, never taking his eyes off the huge enemy ranks, replies, "No; but I bet they help".
Can Rand Paul win his doomed battle without a single "Aslan" donor? I guess we'll <snicker> find out.
No comments:
Post a Comment