The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: flip flopping
The New Rand Paul Vs. The Old Rand Paul

The New Rand Paul Vs. The Old Rand Paul

By Doyle McManus, Los Angeles Times (MCT)

Rand Paul, the heretofore libertarian senator from Kentucky, gave a foreign policy speech to Republican grandees in New York last week with a clear message: I’m not an isolationist like my dad.

The senator’s peppery father, the thoroughly libertarian former Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, hardly ever saw a U.S. military intervention he liked. He said George W. Bush’s war in Iraq was nuts, suggested that the United States could live with a nuclear Iran and thought stationing U.S. troops overseas was just an expensive way to invite trouble.

On Thursday evening in a Manhattan ballroom, Sen. Paul, a probable GOP candidate for president in 2016, declared himself an advocate of “conservative realism” and named as his models Ronald Reagan, Dwight D. Eisenhower and even (on free trade, not military adventures) George W. Bush.

“The war on terror is not over, and America cannot disengage from the world,” Paul said. Speaking in a way likely to make Dad shudder, he called military force “indispensable … when vital American interests are attacked and threatened,” and said he supports airstrikes against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (but not arming Syrian rebels, whom he considers unreliable).

But the most intriguing aspect of the speech wasn’t Paul’s attempt to distance himself from his father; it was his attempt to distance himself from himself.

The old Rand, who ran for the Senate expressing strong libertarian views in 2010, is quite different from the new Rand, who’s gearing up for a possible presidential campaign.

Take the war on terror. A year ago, Paul gained national attention for his filibuster over drone strikes against U.S. members of Al Qaeda. And only a few months ago, Paul said he didn’t see any need to act against Islamic State. “Why should we choose a side?” he asked in a June 19 column in the Wall Street Journal.

But after the group beheaded two American journalists in Syria, the new Rand Paul abruptly turned 180 degrees. “If I had been in President Obama’s shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS,” he said.

Then there’s U.S. aid to Israel. When he arrived in the Senate in 2011, the old Rand Paul proposed eliminating all foreign aid, including the roughly $3 billion a year that goes to the Jewish state. “Should we be giving free money or welfare to a wealthy nation? I don’t think so,” he told ABC News.

But when that position provoked fury from pro-Israel Republicans, the new Rand Paul backed down, voted in favor of renewed military aid and insisted that his point had been “misconstrued.”

In domestic affairs, the old Rand Paul, like his father, disliked federal civil rights laws barring racial discrimination by privately owned businesses such as rental apartments, hotels and restaurants.

“I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time, I do believe in private ownership,” he said in a 2010 interview.

When that kicked up a furor, the new Rand Paul issued a hasty clarification. “I would have voted yes,” he said, if he had been in Congress when the 1964 Civil Rights bill came up.

More recently, the new Rand Paul has not only called for reforming federal drug sentencing laws, which he says discriminate against African Americans, he says he would plow some of the money now spent on prisons into federal job training programs.

“I was blown away because I was thinking, this doesn’t sound like libertarianism to me,” the Rev. Kevin Cosby, a Louisville, Ky., civil rights leader who has advised Paul, told the New Yorker. “This sounds like big government.”

And on the social issues dear to a big chunk of the Republican electorate, Paul has been equally difficult to pin down. Like his father, he has vigorously opposed abortion rights, even in cases of rape or incest. He’s introduced the Life at Conception Act, which would guarantee federal civil rights to embryos beginning “at the moment of fertilization.”

But the new Rand Paul roiled the waters by saying he didn’t have a problem with Plan B, the day-after pill that may stop a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.

All those newfound nuances may make Paul more palatable to a broader cross-section of primary voters if he decides to seek the Republican nomination in 2016.

But he’s also created a problem for himself. Some of his original admirers aren’t sure they like him much anymore. Matt Welch, editor of the libertarian magazine Reason, wrote that Paul was guilty of “slipperiness” at best, “flip-floppery” at worst.

Paul gets tetchy when reporters ask him about all those seeming changes in position, insisting that he’s being willfully misunderstood. A politician can get away with that when it’s only reporters who are asking.

But if he runs, the new Rand Paul will face real live opponents like Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz. They won’t let him sidle away from the exotic positions once championed by the old Rand Paul; they’ll insist that the new Rand Paul recant, rebut or reaffirm them. And that could mean a splendid debate, pitting the two Rand Pauls against each other — on live television, in split-screen.

Doyle McManus is a columnist for The Los Angeles Times. Readers may send him email at doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com

Photo: Talk Radio News Service via Flickr

Want more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Does Rand Paul Want To Repeal All Executive Orders? Depends When You Ask

Does Rand Paul Want To Repeal All Executive Orders? Depends When You Ask

Does Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) want to repeal the Emancipation Proclamation? It depends on when you ask him.

Senator Paul raised the subject during a Thursday night appearance in Manchester, New Hampshire. During a question-and-answer session with Republican activists, a young man reportedly asked Paul, “If you were to receive the presidency, would you repeal previous executive orders and actually restrain the power of the presidency?”

“I think the first executive order that I would issue would be to repeal all previous executive orders,” Paul replied, as quoted by Real Clear Politics.

This would be problematic for a number of reasons. Although Republicans would presumably love to do away with President Obama’s executive order protecting some young immigrants from deportation, for example, repealing others would be a tougher sell. Would Paul really want to reverse President Lincoln’s order freeing the slaves, President Truman’s order desegregating the armed forces, or President Kennedy’s order barring discrimination in the federal government?

Well, not when you put it that way.

“Well, I mean, I think those are good points, and it was an offhand comment, so obviously, I don’t want to repeal the Emancipation Proclamation and things like that,” Paul told Real Clear Politics when questioned on the broader impact of his plan. “Technically, you’d have to look and see exactly what that would mean, but the bottom line is it’s a generalized statement that I think too much is done by executive order, particularly under this president. Too much power has gravitated to the executive.”

In reality, President Obama has issued fewer executive orders than any president since Franklin Roosevelt. But still, Paul’s point is clear: He was speaking extemporaneously, and doesn’t actually want to repeal all executive orders.

That excuse would be easier to swallow if Paul hadn’t made the same promise to the Louisville Chamber of Commerce in August:

Asked directly if he would issue executive orders as president, Paul said the only circumstance would be to overturn the ones made by his predecessors.

“Only to undo executive orders. There’s thousands of them that can be undone,” said Paul. “And I would use executive orders to undo executive orders that have encroached on our jurisprudence, our ability to defend ourselves, the right to a trial, all of those I would undo through executive order.”

Paul later backed away from that comment in much the same way, telling reporters that “It wasn’t sort of a response of exactness.”

In fairness to Senator Paul, it seems highly unlikely that he really wants to resegregate the military in an effort to roll back executive overreach. But his clunky attempt to get on both sides of the issue has become a theme for him, which has repeated itself on Medicare, immigration, foreign aid, and a multitude of other topics.

His Democratic rivals have taken notice.

“Rand Paul’s problem isn’t that he changes positions — it’s that he insists that he can simultaneously hold multiple, contradictory positions on a litany of key issues,” Democratic National Committee press secretary Michael Czin said in a statement. “As Paul gears up for a presidential run, he changes positions to suit the moment or to match the views of the group in front of him. From confronting ISIL to ending aid to Israel to whether he supports the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act, Rand Paul disingenuously tries to have it every way.”

Paul may be able to get away with clunky flip-flopping in the Senate, but it will become a major liability for him if he pursues the presidency in 2016. Clearly, Democrats are ready and eager to attack his lack of consistency. If Paul isn’t careful, they could set the narrative for him long before the first votes are cast.

Photo: Talk Radio News Service via Flickr

Want more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

GOP Turns Crist’s Republican Past Against Him

GOP Turns Crist’s Republican Past Against Him

To become the next governor of Florida, Charlie Crist needs to do everything he can to convince Democrats that he’s truly one of them, while reassuring Republicans that he’s still the same moderate he’s always been. That’s just politics. But no matter how persuasive he is, Crist can’t totally hide from his Republican past.

A conservative group is now taking advantage of Crist’s history, by sending a robocall to voters featuring Crist spouting some not-so-liberal views.

“Hi, this is Charlie Crist calling to set the record straight. I’m pro-life. I oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants, I support traditional marriage, and I have never supported a new tax or big spending program. It’s sad that in his fourth try for governor my opponent has resorted to distortions and untruths,” he says in the recording. “Floridians need a consistent, conservative governor that they can trust. I would appreciate your vote on Election Day.”

As the Miami Herald reports, the call was sponsored by a political committee called The Conservatives. The recording is of Crist in 2006, when he was running in the Republican primary for governor. His opponent, Tom Gallagher, accused him of being a moderate, so Crist — like the true politician he is — reassured voters that he was a far-right conservative. Ironically, he also criticized Gallagher at the time for flip-flopping on his positions.

“Talking about being a conservative after a political lifetime of liberalism just isn’t believeable,” he said of his opponent.

Now Republicans are using the same argument against Crist, whose campaign for governor as a Democrat looks very different from the 2006 edition.

“It’s hard to believe that someone can go from a Ronald Reagan Republican to a Barack Obama liberal in a short period of time. It’s pretty dramatic,” Crist’s opponent, Republican governor Rick Scott, said in an AP interview.

Democrats won’t necessarily believe that the robocall actually features Crist’s voice, or that it represents his current beliefs. All voters have to do is look at Crist’s website to see that he explicitly disagrees with everything he said back when he was running as a Republican. His website accuses Scott of being “anti-choice,” states that Florida needs to support its DREAMers, and that “all Floridians should be able to marry the person they love.”

The Crist campaign views this robocall as a “shady voter suppression tactic.”

“Republicans are so desperate they’re not even bothering to cover their tracks: They’re targeting Democratic primary voters with a robocall that’s nearly a decade old, hoping to fool them into thinking it’s new,” spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said. “Republicans are running scared — so they’re trying to suppress the vote. But it won’t work.”

Crist and Scott are still essentially tied in the polls, with the Real Clear Politicspoll average showing Scott ahead by only 0.8 percent.

Photo: Mike Cohen via Flickr

Interested in U.S. politics? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Exclusive: Anti-Tax Crusader Speaks Out Against Default “Experiment”

As president of Americans for Tax Reform, the right-wing activist and lobbyist Grover Norquist defers to nobody in his zeal to slash government spending and cut taxes, no matter the consequences. His organization’s famed “anti-tax pledge” bears the signature of nearly every Republican member of Congress — and all of them evidently fear that he would denounce them for violating its stringent terms.

Yet as the White House, Senate and House leaders struggle to reach agreement on spending and taxes before the August 2 debt limit doomsday, even Norquist appeared to waver — suggesting to the Washington Post editorial board on Tuesday that he wouldn’t attack Congress for letting the Bush tax cuts expire, before following up with strong statement Thursday indicating the opposite.

If Norquist is flipping and flopping, the reason is simple. Unlike the Tea Party Republicans, but much like his supporters in the business community, he is troubled by the potential consequences of an impending and unprecedented default. As Norquist told The National Memo today in an interview:

“I am not an advocate or adherent of the position I have heard some state, that a default would be ‘not a big deal’ or ‘would strengthen the hand of those arguing for limited government.’ I worry that handing the executive branch control over what bills to pay is not a wise move….even when they would have less cash to spend.”

Norquist went on to say that “a ‘shutdown’ or ‘default’ or ‘wobbly walk around the rim of default’ would be, as my mother would say, ‘unhelpful.’ How unhelpful? I don’t know, [and I’m] not real interested in finding out. Let’s experiment on a smaller country.”

Leaving aside his trademark flippancy, Norquist’s concern that a default “experiment” might go badly wrong puts him in direct conflict with Tea Party Republicans — such as Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), now a leading presidential contender — who insist they won’t vote to raise the debt limit and don’t fear the consequences. Clearly, he is concerned by the consequences, as are many business leaders at companies that have donated heavily to Americans for Tax Reform.

At the same time that Norquist acknowledges the dangers of default, he bristles at the notion of tolerating any tax increase on anybody as part of a debt limit deal. He sounds as if he means to hold House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to the pledge, even as reports of their negotiations with the White House claim that the Republican leaders are considering a deal that would include revenue increases.

“I support Boehner and McConnell’s stated positions that they want significant, real, enforceable spending restraint and no tax hike in return for a hike in the debt ceiling,” said Norquist. “They are willing to compromise on the size of the spending restraint. Not on the tax hike.” He obliquely warned both leaders that “it is key for the GOP not to be seen putting their fingerprints on a tax hike or phony spending cuts. That would make it difficult to go to unaffiliated voters in 2012 and argue that [Republicans] are the antidote to Obama spending.”

But there is a contradiction in Norquist’s position as well as the positions taken by Boehner and McConnell — if only President Obama were willing to draw it out rather than surrender to his opponents, as news reports suggest he is now preparing to do. Anyone who regards default as perilous to the nation’s economic health and safety, including even the most anti-tax conservatives, should be willing to reach an honest compromise with Democrats to avert that fate.

In a poker game, Norquist’s admission that he worries about default would be considered a “tell” — the involuntary signal of a bluff. Neither he nor the Republican leaders on Capitol Hill want to take the country over the default cliff. But the president doesn’t seem to be able to see past all the huffing and bluffing.

Watch The National Memo’s Editor-in-Chief Discuss The Piece On MSNBC’s Morning Joe On Friday