Rand Paul Endorsed Mark Sanford for Congress

Senator Rand Paul just endorsed Mark Sanford in his race for Congress.  Hopefully that will help send Sanford over the top as right now he is behind in his race against Stephen Colbert's wife.  Although Mark Sanford has an irresponsible personal life, he did receive the highest grade of any Governor in the country from the Cato Institute, so he clearly would be a great addition to Congress:

"More than anything, Washington needs strong and consistent voices for fiscal responsibility and liberty," Paul said in a statement. "Mark has proven during his time in office that watching out for taxpayers and holding the line on spending are his top priorities. What we absolutely cannot afford is someone like his opponent, who will be yet another vote for a return to the [Rep. Nancy] Pelosi speakership, for disastrous programs like Obamacare, and for more spending and debt. I am pleased to endorse Mark and stand with him in this race."

Paul has made no secret of his presidential ambitions, and South Carolina, one of the early primary states, is a place he will be spending a lot of time in the lead up to 2016. CNN reported that Paul is laying the groundwork there with a number of events in June, where he will woo both rank and file Republicans and conservative activists.

Paul's endorsement for Sanford comes one week after his father, former Congressman and many-time presidential candidate Ron Paul, endorsed the former governor.

"Rand has been an incredible advocate for both today's and tomorrow's taxpayers in the way he's pushed for fiscal sustainability in Washington," Sanford said of the younger Paul's endorsement. "It goes back to this larger idea of walking the walk, and governing in the same way you campaign. I think in looking at my own record, there's been a consistent theme of looking out for taxpayers and the bottom line. And unfortunately, with respect to my opponent, it simply isn't believable that she would be an independent voice given who has been funding her campaign."

Rand Paul Thinks the WSJ Editorial Board Are Like Children in the Schoolyard

Rand Paul responds to the WSJ with a Letter to the Editor:

The Journal wants those of us who believe in the Bill of Rights to shut up about civil liberties in the wake of the Boston bombings ("Enemy Combatants in Boston," Review & Outlook, April 22). Like children in the schoolyard you chant: "See, look at these bombers, they don't deserve trials or lawyers!"

But the Journal wants to gloat about a case where the evidence has already been paraded across every television in America. Most of us have seen enough of the tragedy in Boston that I doubt anyone can conceive that a jury will find Dzhokhar Tsarnaev innocent in a court of law.

...

What the Journal ignores are the difficult cases where guilt or innocence can be more elusive. What if the evidence is not very clear? What if the suspect is an American college student, perhaps an Arab-American, whose parents have been here for three generations? Does that person have the right to a trial? Yes.

Because some terrorists will battle us here at home doesn't mean we want the laws of war or martial law at home. The Bill of Rights still needs to reign supreme. Our soldiers have sacrificed life and limb for our Constitution—it seems the least we can do is defend them in the homeland.

Great Politico Story on Rand Paul Going Mainstream

A must read piece on Rand Paul and his political strategy:

"He can be a serious presidential candidate because he represents a segment of Republicanism that hasn't had a voice," said Steve Schmidt, who ran John McCain's 2008 campaign, speaking of Paul's libertarian views. "But he can't just be a neater package of his dad — that won't work. He needs to convey his own domestic and foreign vision, and continue to overcome the kook factor, which he inherited."

...

Rand has tried to maintain this delicate balance by latching onto hot issues at strategic times — like drones, immigration and gun control — that at once thrust him onto the national stage and also appeal to libertarians. "He's either remarkably lucky or he instinctively knows how to effectively drive a media story," said Brian Jones, a Republican political and communications strategist.

Many Republican strategists have indeed been impressed with Rand's natural communication and political skills as he skillfully maneuvered himself into the center of a number of high-profile battles — including his successful filibuster of U.S. drone policy that attracted copious media attention and bipartisan support.

The Advisory Board of Ron Paul's Think Tank Has Come Close to Ruining Rand Paul's Chances in 2016? Really?

People keep trying to make Rand Paul answer for every idiotic and fringe action of his father.  The latest is forming a new think tank called the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, which, in the words of Walter Russell Mead, has an advisory board full of "Putin shills, Serb genocide apologists, 9/11 truthers, and pro-Confederate loons."  Mr. Mead then says "Ron Paul has come close to wrecking his son's presidential hopes, and there is no telling just how much more trouble he and his friends will be making."

First, who cares?  Can you imagine the negative ad?  "Lew Rockwell sits on an advisory board for a think tank run by his father.  Rand Paul should have to answer for that".  People's first reaction will be "Lew is a funny way to spell Lou".    This is pure nitpicky inside the beltway stuff that nobody cares about except the chattering classes.  In America, we generally don't judge people by who their parents are, judging people on their own individual merits.  Let's just take a look at some recent Presidents (and wannabe Presidents) to see how their dads stack up.  Obama's father was a drunk, a bigamist and a wife beater.  Al Gore's father voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Clinton's stepfather was a drunk and wife beater and his biological father had 3 secret marriages before he married his Clinton's mother.

What's much more important than what his father does is how he comes across to the American people.  My guess is that a Senator who continues to do pro bono work as a doctor and famously stands up for what he believes in is going to come across pretty well.

Rand Paul: We Must Include National Security in Immigration Reform

From his latest piece in the Washington Times:

Any meaningful immigration reform must implement strong national security protections. After the Boston tragedy, there are basic questions: How did two individuals immigrate to the United States from a known hotbed of Islamic extremism, the Chechen Republic in Russia, to then allegedly commit acts of terrorism? Were there any safeguards? Could this have been prevented?

Does the immigration reform proposal before us address this?

Our immigration and visa system should give more scrutiny to individuals from high-risk areas of the world. We know that our flawed visa system was a significant part of the intelligence failure that led to Sept. 11. As National Review's Kevin Williamson noted, "If our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, particularly the State Department, had been doing a minimally competent job vis-a-vis visa overstays and application screening, at least 15 of the 19 [hijackers on 9/11] would have been caught."

...

In 2002, Congress created the National Security Registration System, but it was suspended in 2011 by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet A. Napolitano. We know that system had problems, but the basic premise behind it — that extra screening is necessary for immigrants from nations that have a higher population of extremists — needs to be revisited and reinstituted. This should be a part of any comprehensive immigration reform.

In my home state of Kentucky, our refugee program has proven to be a problem. On Jan. 29, two Iraqi citizens living in Bowling Green, Ky., were sentenced to long prison terms for participating in terrorism and providing material support to terrorists while living in the United States. Does the current immigration reform address how this might have happened? Regardless, we need more scrutiny when accepting refugees from high-risk nations.

Rand Paul Discusses Orphan Diseases on Senate Floor

Public Policy Polling Full Results Show Rand Paul Lead in New Hampshire in 2016 Race

Public Policy Polling just released their full results from their poll of New Hampshire voters on the 2016 race.  In a 9 way race, Rand Paul leads the entire Republican field with 28%, followed by Rubio at 25% and Chris Christie at a paltry 14%.  People like Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan don't even break into double digits. 

What's interesting is that even though Rubio is generally thought of as more establishment friendly and electable, Rand Paul actually does better in a trial heat against Hillary Clinton thanks to quite a few self-described "liberals" crossing over and surprisingly a slightly better score among non-whites..  

Amongst Republican primary voters, Rand Paul does best with the very conservative and the very liberal and leads among independents 32% to 17% for Rubio.  What is interesting is that there appears to be a gender gap forming within the Republican primary with men overwhelmingly favoring Rand Paul by 10 points while women prefer Rubio by 5 points.

I realize it's early but these are very interesting results nonetheless.  PPP is a Democratic party affiliated shop but they did excellent work during the GOP primary season.  What these results show is that Rand Paul could attract some crossover voters in the general election, as well as the primaries and that could help him win the nomination and possibly the Presidency.