Subject: ​Correct The Record Friday October 24, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:53:12 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Friday October 24, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: Gates: @HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/> “made a singular contribution to
strengthening this country’s relationships with allies.”
content.time.com/time/specials/… <http://t.co/GdhAqhAbKm> [10/24/14, 12:36
p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/525687182787223552>]

*Correct The Record*‏@CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> has "dedicated her life to empowering
women around the world through politics and philanthropy."
http://time.com/70904/hillary-clinton-2014-time-100/ …
<http://t.co/4lodndITCb> [10/24/14, 11:56 a.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/525677101987282944>]

*Correct The Record*‏@CorrectRecord: Malala: "A world with more women
leaders will be a better world, and Hillary Clinton is helping make that
possible." via @TIME <https://twitter.com/TIME> [10/24/14, 11:49 a.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/525675337003180033>]

*Headlines:*

*Texas Tribune: UT/TT Poll: Cruz, Perry Lead GOP Presidential Pack
<http://www.texastribune.org/2014/10/24/uttt-poll-cruz-perry-lead-gop-presidential-pack/>*

“Democrats, on the other hand, have a straight-up front-runner in Hillary
Clinton, who has the support of 60 percent of likely Democratic voters in
Texas, according to the poll. She’s followed by U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren
of Massachusetts, at 13 percent, and Vice President Joe Biden, at 10
percent.”

*CBS News: Rand Paul calls for restraint in U.S. military engagement
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rand-paul-calls-for-restraint-in-u-s-military-engagement/>*

“[Rand Paul] called Libya an example of ‘the wrong way to do things,’
criticizing President Obama and Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
for engaging in war without "[anticipating] the consequences.’”

*CNN: Rand Paul plants feet between both sides of foreign policy debate
<http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/23/politics/rand-paul-foreign-policy/index.html?hpt=po_t1>*

"'For months, Rand Paul has been twisting in the wind, trying to explain
his foreign policy vision,' [Michael Czin, press secretary for the
Democratic National Committee] said. 'The fact is, a speech defending the
indefensible won't make Paul's worldview any more palatable to the American
people.'"

 *The Courier-Journal: Rand Paul: In foreign policy "America cannot
disengage"
<http://www.courier-journal.com/story/politics-blog/2014/10/24/kentucky-sen-rand-paul-in-foreign-policy-america-cannot-disengage-from-the-world/17832547/>*

A potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate, Paul has sought to
offer more detailed thoughts on his world view, clearly a deliberate effort
to counter his image in some circles as merely an isolationist in different
clothing.

*Vox: Rand Paul just gave one of the most important foreign policy speeches
in decades
<http://www.vox.com/2014/10/24/7053561/rand-paul-foreign-policy-speech>*

“Sen. Rand Paul just gave one of the most important speeches on foreign
policy since George W. Bush declared war on Iraq. But instead of declaring
war on another country, Paul declared war on his own party. Or, at least,
its entire approach to foreign policy.”

*The Atlantic: Rand Paul Sketches an Alternative to Hawks Like Bush and
Clinton
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/rand-paul-offers-an-alternative-to-hawks-like-bush-and-clinton/381851/>*

“On the off-chance that Paul and Hillary Clinton face one another in a
presidential election, Thursday's speech offers a portent of Paul
attack-ads to come.”

*Associated Press, via Wall Street Journal: Poll Shows Martha Coakley
Slipping as Hillary Clinton Visits
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/10/24/poll-shows-martha-coakley-slipping-as-hillary-clinton-visits/>*

Hillary Clinton is campaigning with Martha Coakley in Boston, amid a new
poll showing the Democratic gubernatorial candidate trailing in the race.

*New York Times: Toxic Partisanship? Bill Clinton Says He Had It Worse Than
Obama
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/us/politics/toxic-partisanship-bill-clinton-says-he-had-it-worse-than-obama.html>*

“Whatever Mr. Clinton’s motivations, his comments, which he has repeated
regularly when the topic comes up, do not permit Mr. Obama to excuse his
legislative setbacks by simply citing hyper-partisanship. As one former
White House aide to Mr. Clinton put it: ‘They impeached our guy.’”

*Articles:*

*Texas Tribune: UT/TT Poll: Cruz, Perry Lead GOP Presidential Pack
<http://www.texastribune.org/2014/10/24/uttt-poll-cruz-perry-lead-gop-presidential-pack/>*

By Ross Ramsey

October 24, 2014

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz remains the top presidential choice of Texas Republican
voters, but Gov. Rick Perry is starting to close the gap between the two,
according to the latest University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll.

It might not seem that way at first glance. While 27 percent of likely
Republican voters say Cruz would be their choice in a hypothetical primary
for the 2016 presidential nomination, only 14 percent choose Perry. Author
and former surgeon Ben Carson is looming in the governor’s rearview mirror,
with 10 percent, followed by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, U.S. Sen. Rand
Paul of Kentucky and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, each at 7 percent.

But in the June UT/TT Poll, Perry was running fourth, with 7 percent, while
Cruz was way out in front with 33 percent of the respondents at his side. A
year ago, Cruz had a 3-to-1 lead over the governor.

“Rick Perry’s political instincts about how to respond to law and order at
the border are still pretty good,” said Jim Henson, co-director of the poll
and director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at
Austin. “Everyone else is milling around in the middle of the pack.”

Other Republicans included in the survey — U.S. Sens. Paul Ryan of
Wisconsin and Marco Rubio of Florida, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie,
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, former U.S. Sen.
Rick Santorum and Ohio Gov. John Kasich — each come in with 4 percent or
less. Eleven percent of the likely Republican voters say they haven’t
thought enough about the race to have a favorite.

Texas voters have favorable impressions of the two Republicans currently at
the top of the GOP pileup, with 44 percent saying they have a very or
somewhat favorable opinion of Cruz and 45 percent saying the same about
Perry. More than a third of the voters — 36 percent — have an unfavorable
opinion of Cruz; 40 percent have an unfavorable impression of Perry.

“This race on the Republican side shows that there is no heir to the
throne,” said Daron Shaw, co-director of the poll and a professor of
government at UT-Austin. He said the GOP tends to nominate candidates for
president who finished in second place four years prior. “There’s no
runner-up looking for the title this time.”

Shaw said the numbers are still volatile and the changes in the standings
are relatively small. But he added that Perry’s profile is rising some.
“You guys in the media love second acts, and Perry is a great second act,”
he said.

Democrats, on the other hand, have a straight-up front-runner in Hillary
Clinton, who has the support of 60 percent of likely Democratic voters in
Texas, according to the poll. She’s followed by U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren
of Massachusetts, at 13 percent, and Vice President Joe Biden, at 10
percent.

Other potential Democratic candidates — New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, former
Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, former U.S. Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia and
Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley — each get support from 2 percent or less of
voters, and 13 percent of the Democratic likely voters said they have no
favorite.

“The not-Hillary vote is sort of befuddled right now,” Shaw said.

According to the poll, Perry gets better job reviews than either the
president or Congress, with 46 percent of Texas voters saying they approve
of his performance and 38 percent saying they don’t. Among those who feel
strongly about it, 22 percent approve and 27 percent disapprove of the
governor’s work in office.

President Obama gets good reviews from 36 percent of Texans and bad reviews
from 57 percent. And most of the voters who disapprove — 48 percent — say
they strongly disapprove. Only 14 percent strongly approve of his
performance.

Texas voters have hard views of Congress, with 14 percent saying they
approve of its job performance and 71 percent saying they disapprove. Among
those who feel strongly, 2 percent approve and 41 percent disapprove.

“The president remains deeply unpopular, and I think we’re seeing that
expressed in races from governor to dog-catcher,” Henson said. “Anyone
wondering why the president has been turning up in so many ads on TV can
find their answer right here.”

The University of Texas/Texas Tribune internet survey of 1,200 registered
voters was conducted from Oct. 10 to Oct. 19 and has an overall margin of
error of +/- 2.83 percentage points. Among 866 likely voters in the
head-to-head general election races, the margin of error is +/- 3.33
percent. Among 560 likely Republican primary voters, the margin of error is
+/- 4.14 percent, and among 429 likely Democratic primary voters, the
margin of error is +/- 4.73 percent. Numbers in the charts might not add up
to 100 percent because of rounding.

*CBS News: Rand Paul calls for restraint in U.S. military engagement
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rand-paul-calls-for-restraint-in-u-s-military-engagement/>*

By Hannah Fraser-Chanpong

October 24, 2014 1:41 a.m. EDT

NEW YORK -- Echoing previous warnings against intervention abroad, Kentucky
Sen. Rand Paul is urging the United States to be cautious about using
military force and pressed instead for diplomatic settlements.

"Americans want strength and leadership, but it doesn't mean that we see
war as the only solution," Paul said Thursday during a dinner hosted by the
Center for the National Interest in New York City.

The comments are widely considered to be the potential 2016 Republican
presidential candidate's first comprehensive outline of his foreign policy
views.

"Yes, we need a hammer ready, but not every civil war is a nail," Paul
said. "There is a time to eliminate our enemies but there is also a time to
cultivate allies."

Paul described the use of force as "an indispensible part of defending our
country" but insisted it should be a last resort and only initiated through
Congress.

He called Libya an example of "the wrong way to do things," criticizing
President Obama and Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for engaging
in war without "[anticipating] the consequences."

"Today, Libya is a jihadist wonderland, a sanctuary and a safe haven for
terror groups across North Africa," Paul said.

On the U.S. strategy to combat ISIS, Paul voiced his support for airstrikes
against the terrorist group but rejected supplying Syrian rebel groups with
weapons, which he says wind up in enemy hands.

"The ultimate sad irony is that we're forced to fight against the very
weapons we send the Syrian rebels," he said. "ISIS is stronger because of
our weapons."

Paul also used his speech to push back against critics within his own party
who have called his views "isolationist."

"The war on terror is not over, and America cannot disengage from the
world," Paul said.

He called his approach to foreign policy "common sense conservative
realism," and a "return to traditional Republican values."

Paul is considering a bid for the presidency, but recent reports, including
one Thursday based on an interview aboard his flight to New York for the
event, say he will not make a decision until next spring.

*CNN: Rand Paul plants feet between both sides of foreign policy debate
<http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/23/politics/rand-paul-foreign-policy/index.html?hpt=po_t1>*

By Ashley Killough

October 24, 2014

 (CNN) -- For the first time since facing an onslaught of criticism this
year over his foreign policy views, Sen. Rand Paul spelled out his national
security principles Thursday in a comprehensive speech.

The Kentucky Republican, who's aggressively laying groundwork for a
potential presidential campaign, sought to paint himself as a champion of
"conservative realism," a doctrine that skates between the hawkish and
dovish ends of the foreign policy spectrum.

"Yes, we need a hammer ready, but not every civil war is a nail," he said
in New York at the Center for the National Interest, a think-tank founded
by former President Richard Nixon.

"We need a foreign policy that recognized our limits, preserves our might
and a common sense conservative realism of strength and action," he added.

Paul attempted to address critics that characterize his views as
isolationist and was aiming to approach his speech Thursday from the
perspective of a major, would-be U.S. leader, rather than a lawmaker, a
spokesman told CNN before the speech.

He sketched out how and when he would advocate for the use of force, saying
he would only do so if he felt the United States or its interests were
threatened. He said he supported the response to al Qaeda after 9/11, for
example, but disagrees with the continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan.

"It's hard to understand our current objective. Stalemate and perpetual
policing seems to be our mission now in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria," he said.
" A precondition for the use of force must be a clear end and a goal."

He went on to underscore his widely known position that a president should
seek authorization from Congress before taking military action. Paul
recycled his own criticism that President Barack Obama, "urged on by
(former Secretary of State) Hillary Clinton," took action in Libya without
approval, yet now the country is a "sanctuary for terror groups across
North Africa."

"America shouldn't fight wars where the best outcome is stalemate."

"America shouldn't fight wars where the best outcome is stalemate. America
shouldn't fight wars when there is no plan for victory. America shouldn't
fight wars that aren't authorized by the American people," he said.

"America should and will fight wars when the consequences -- intended and
unintended -- are worth the sacrifice," he continued. "The war on terror is
not over, and America cannot disengage from the world."

He also talked at length about maintaining diplomatic relationships abroad
and expressed support for using sanctions to underwrite diplomacy against
countries such as Russia and Iran. And he reiterated a stance he has
consistently taken: that the country's debt is one of its biggest national
security threats.

His speech comes as he attempts to further distance himself from the more
libertarian views trumpeted by his father, three-time presidential
candidate and former congressman Ron Paul. With an eye on the presidency,
Rand Paul has sought to broaden his appeal to establishment Republicans and
even Democrats.

The attention has attracted close scrutiny of his views and past statements
on foreign policy, as Paul has been known to frequently break with his own
party and lean toward staying out of foreign entanglements. (Last month he
slammed hawkish lawmakers for being "barnacled enablers" that have "never
met a war they didn't like.")

He was widely panned this year when he evolved in his opinion about the
crisis in Ukraine, as well as the threat of ISIS in the Middle East, as
both situations continued to worsen.

On ISIS, for example, he penned an opinion piece earlier this summer openly
questioning the value of launching airstrikes against militants in Iraq.

But not long after the beheading of American James Foley, Paul became
supportive of a U.S.-led air campaign against the terrorist organization --
a change that critics made sure to highlight as a massive flip-flop but
what Paul reluctantly admitted as a change in views based on the situation
at hand, the "realist" side of his worldview.

Thursday night, he stressed his support for airstrikes as a way to
"rebalance" the region but reiterated his opposition to another key part of
Obama's strategy: arming Syrian rebels to fight ISIS militants.

He expressed doubt that ISIS will be dismantled in the future, saying in
the end it will be up to the countries in the region to take care of the
situation.

Michael Czin, press secretary for the Democratic National Committee, argued
that Paul won't be able to overcome confusion about Paul's foreign policy
with just one speech.

"For months, Rand Paul has been twisting in the wind, trying to explain his
foreign policy vision," he said. "The fact is, a speech defending the
indefensible won't make Paul's worldview any more palatable to the American
people."

*The Courier-Journal: Rand Paul: In foreign policy "America cannot
disengage"
<http://www.courier-journal.com/story/politics-blog/2014/10/24/kentucky-sen-rand-paul-in-foreign-policy-america-cannot-disengage-from-the-world/17832547/>*

By James R. Carroll

October 24, 2014 12:46 p.m. EDT

WASHINGTON - In what was billed as a major foreign policy speech, Kentucky
Sen. Rand Paul Thursday told a New York foreign policy think tank that
"America cannot disengage from the world," but its actions should recognize
limits and be governed by "conservative realism."

A potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate, Paul has sought to
offer more detailed thoughts on his world view, clearly a deliberate effort
to counter his image in some circles as merely an isolationist in different
clothing.

Paul addressed the Center for the National Interest Thursday evening,
offering a perspective on international affairs that ranged widely and drew
from multiple sources, including historian Francis Fukuyama, President
Ronald Reagan, foreign policy theorist-historian George F. Kennan, young
Pakistani activist Malala Yousafzai and others.

We are going to reprint the text of the speech here, but first wanted to
note that the Democratic National Committee already has dismissed his
remarks as another example of the senator's political and philosophical
inconsistency.

The DNC said that the Kentuckian previously had characterized himself as a
"constitutional conservative," "libertarian conservative," "originalist,"
"realist," "libertarian-ish," "moderate on the foreign-policy spectrum" and
"non-interventionist."

"For months, Rand Paul has been twisting in the wind, trying to explain his
foreign policy vision," DNC Press Secretary Michael Czin said in a
statement. "The fact is, a speech defending the indefensible won't make
Paul's worldview any more palatable to the American people."

"Paul's been clear about his goal: he wants to see America retreat from our
responsibilities around the world," Czin said. "That includes support for a
fringe proposal to end our membership in the United Nations, ending all aid
to our allies like Israel and slashing programs that help developing
nations combat major public health crises."

But anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist was reported on Twitter as saying
after Paul's remarks, "I think I just heard Ronald Reagan speaking."

That prompted Bill Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, to
tweet: "No, that was George McGovern." That's a reference to the late
senator from South Dakota (and decorated World War II bomber pilot) who was
the 1972 Democratic Party presidential nominee who campaigned against the
Vietnam War.

So you can see Paul did not settle the debate over the brand of his foreign
policy, even among conservatives.

*Vox: Rand Paul just gave one of the most important foreign policy speeches
in decades
<http://www.vox.com/2014/10/24/7053561/rand-paul-foreign-policy-speech>*

By Zack Beauchamp

October 24, 2014 11:10 a.m. EDT

Sen. Rand Paul just gave one of the most important speeches on foreign
policy since George W. Bush declared war on Iraq. But instead of declaring
war on another country, Paul declared war on his own party. Or, at least,
its entire approach to foreign policy.

In his address last night at the Center for the National Interest — a think
tank founded by Richard Nixon — Paul gave, for the first time, a
comprehensive picture of how he thinks about foreign policy. His moderate
non-interventionism is a far cry from his father's absolutist desire for
America to exit the world stage. But Paul's stance is light years away from
the hyper-hawk neoconservatism that's dominated Republican foreign policy
thinking for decades.

Paul is signaling that, when he runs for president in 2016, he isn't going
to move toward the Republican foreign policy consensus; he's going to run
at it, with a battering ram. If he wins, he could remake the Republican
Party as we know it. But if he loses, this speech may well be the reason.

Paul tacks to Obama's right — but not the way you think

In the speech, Paul outlined four basic principles for conducting foreign
policy.

First, "war is necessary when America is attacked or threatened, when vital
American interests are attacked and threatened, and when we have exhausted
all other measures short of war." But not otherwise.

Second, "Congress, the people's representative, must authorize the decision
to intervene." No more war without express authorization.

Third, "peace and security require a commitment to diplomacy and
leadership." That means expanding trade ties and diplomatic links around
the world.

Fourth, "we are only as strong as our economy." For Paul, the national debt
and slow growth are national security crises.

In the abstract, this doesn't tell you a whole lot about what Paul
believes. But when he gives specific examples of where he agrees and
disagrees with Obama's policy, the core idea becomes clearer: Paul wants to
scale down American commitments to foreign wars.

Paul endorses the original decision to invade Afghanistan, but criticizes
Obama's decision to escalate it. He savaged the Libya intervention, calling
Libya today "a jihadist wonderland." He supports bombing ISIS, but blasted
Obama's decision to arm the Syrian rebels: "the weapons are either
indiscriminately given to 'less than moderate rebels' or simply taken from
moderates by ISIS."

But Paul also, much more quietly, agrees with major parts of the Obama
agenda. In a move that's bound to infuriate Republican hardliners, he's
calling for negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. He tacitly
endorsed Obama's sanction-and-negotiate approach to the Ukraine crisis. And
he called for a peaceful, cooperative relationship with China.

In Paul's ideal world, America only very rarely engages in war. Most of its
relations with foreign powers are conducted via diplomacy and trade with
other states. This is hardly a detailed theory of how to conduct American
foreign policy, but it is absolutely a conservative vision for ramping down
America's role in the world.

The Obama-bashing reveals Paul's real target: the GOP

Paul's agenda has a lot more in common with Barack Obama's view of the
world than it does with, say, John McCain's. But his speech very cleverly
played up the criticisms of Obama, and minimized the points of agreement.
That's because the basic goal of the speech was to teach conservatives that
they can oppose foreign wars and Democrats at the same time.

The real target of Paul's speech were the neoconservatives: the wing of the
GOP that believes that American foreign policy should be about the
aggressive use of American force and influence, be it against terrorist
groups or Russia. Paul's unsubtle argument is that this view, dominant in
the GOP, is a departure from what a conservative foreign policy ought to be.

His tactic for selling this argument is innovative. He's reframed arguments
with neoconservatives as arguments with Obama, banking on the idea that he
can get everyday Republicans to abandon hawkishness altogether if they see
Obama as a hawk. "After the tragedies of Iraq and Libya, Americans are
right to expect more from their country when we go to war," Paul said,
clearly linking his critique of Obama to an attack on the Bush legacy.

Until this speech, Paul's 2016 foreign policy positions hadn't been clear.
Now it is. Rand "clearly wants a more restrained US foreign policy," says
Dan McCarthy, the editor of The American Conservative magazine. According
to McCarthy, who's talked about these issues with Paul's staff, Paul has
been engaged in a "trial and error" experiment. The idea is to figure out
how to make a less aggressive foreign policy politically viable in the
Republican Party.

After this speech, the testing phase appears to be over. According to his
advisors, this speech represents the final, overarching framework for
Paul's worldview. Rand has developed a strategy for wrenching conservatives
away from the Bush legacy, and it's now a question of implementing it.

The stakes in the Paul-GOP fight are tectonic

Paul is setting the terms of the 2016 election. So far, every plausible
Republican nominee who's spoken about foreign policy has taken a more
hawkish tack. Paul has picked a fight on foreign policy, and now he's going
to get one.

The Republican primary, then, will be at least partly a referendum on the
future of Republican foreign policy. If Paul wins the primary — let alone
the presidency — then the GOP and its elected officials will have to line
up behind him. That will mean defending his foreign policy against
Democrats, who will likely blast Paul from an interventionist point of view.

"Paul's been clear about his goal," DNC Press Secretary Michael Czin told
reporters before the speech. "He wants to see America retreat from our
responsibilities around the world." A Paul primary win would force
Republicans around the country to line up behind Paul's non-interventionism
against these attacks. It might also lead the Democratic Party to become
more hawkish as it unites against Paul's philosophies — and that's
particularly true if Hillary Clinton, who is already on the more hawkish
side of the Democratic spectrum, is the nominee.

"Rand is the first guy," McCarthy says, "to have a chance to come in and do
something different than what our foreign policy has been doing in 70 or
more years." He's not wrong.

*The Atlantic: Rand Paul Sketches an Alternative to Hawks Like Bush and
Clinton
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/rand-paul-offers-an-alternative-to-hawks-like-bush-and-clinton/381851/>*

By Conor Friedersdorf

October 23, 2014 8:00 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] In a speech touting "conservative realism," the Kentucky
Republican probed the failures of post-9/11 foreign policy, including too
much war.

"Americans yearn for leadership and for strength," Senator Rand Paul
planned to declare in a foreign policy speech Thursday evening, "but they
don't yearn for war."

His remarks (quoted as prepared for delivery at New York City gathering of
the Center for the National Interest), were seemingly pitched to Republican
voters: the Kentucky Republican dubbed his approach "conservative realism,"
criticized President Obama and Hillary Clinton, and invoked Presidents
Reagan and Eisenhower. But the substance of his speech seems likely to
appeal to anyone who believes that U.S. foreign policy has gone astray
since 9/11, due largely to imprudent interventions urged by George W. Bush,
Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. Big parts of his message should appeal
to constituencies as diverse as Code Pink and my Orange County-conservative
grandparents. "After the tragedies of Iraq and Libya, Americans are right
to expect more from their country when we go to war," Paul stated. "America
shouldn't fight wars where the best outcome is stalemate.  America
shouldn't fight wars when there is no plan for victory."

He condemned wars waged without the consent of Congress or the people.
adding: "Until we develop the ability to distinguish, as George Kennan put
it, between vital interests and more peripheral interests, we will continue
to drift from crisis to crisis." But he also took care to preempt the
charge that he's an "isolationist."

In passages that may alienate some of his father's supporters, Paul
expressed his support for the invasion of Afghanistan (if not the
decade-plus occupation that followed), declared that "the war on terror is
not over, and America cannot disengage from the world," and reiterated his
support for airstrikes to weaken ISIS. He opposes funneling arms to rebels
in Syria, arguing that they often end up in enemy hands. But even his
support for airstrikes is arguably at odds with the principles he laid out
elsewhere. "Although I support the call for defeating and destroying ISIS,"
the speech said, "I doubt that a decisive victory is possible in the short
term, even with the participation of the Kurds, the Iraqi government, and
other moderate Arab states." What happened to, "America shouldn't fight
wars where the best outcome is stalemate. America shouldn't fight wars when
there is no plan for victory"?

The uncharitable interpretation of this tension is that, slowly but surely,
Paul is going the way of Obama and succumbing to Beltway interventionism,
whether as a response to D.C. culture or a gambit to win a GOP primary. The
more charitable interpretation: He isn't ideologically committed to either
interventionism or noninterventionism, but is simply less hawkish than
Bush, Obama, or Clinton.

Either way, his rhetoric laid out an approach to foreign policy that is
less bad than anything on offer from any other plausible party leader in
Washington, D.C. It retains some of the idealism that candidate Barack
Obama won with in 2012. "To contain and ultimately defeat radical Islam,"
Paul argued, "America must have confidence in our constitutional republic,
our leadership, and our values."

In another passage, Paul tried to make a point sensitive and complicated
enough that few American politicians even attempt it: that Americans should
be wary of a foreign policy that produces blowback; that it cannot always
be avoided; that anger at actions like needlessly killing innocents in
drone strikes creates anti-American terrorists; and that there are other,
more complicated causes of terrorism too:

We must understand that a hatred of our values exists, and acknowledge that
interventions in foreign countries may well exacerbate this hatred," he
says, "but that ultimately, we must be willing and able to defend our
country and our interests. As Reagan said: “When action is required to
preserve our national security, we will act.” Will they hate us less if we
are less present?  Perhaps …. but hatred for those outside the circle of
"accepted" Islam, be it the Shia or Sunni or other religions, such as
Christianity, exists above and beyond our history of intervention overseas.

The world does not have an Islam problem.

The world has a dignity problem, with millions of men and women across the
Middle East being treated as chattel by their own governments. Many of
these same governments have been chronic recipients of our aid. When the
anger boils over as it did in Cairo, the anger is directed not only against
Mubarak but also against the United States because of our support for
Mubarak.

Some anger is blowback, but some anger originates in an aberrant and
intolerant distortion of religion that wages war against all infidels. We
can’t be sentimental about neutralizing that threat, but we also can’t be
blind to the fact that drone strikes that inadvertently kill civilians may
create more jihadists than we eliminate.

On the off-chance that Paul and Hillary Clinton face one another in a
presidential election, Thursday's speech offers a portent of Paul
attack-ads to come:

The war in Libya was not in our national interest. It had no clear goal and
it led to less stability. Today, Libya is a jihadist wonderland, a
sanctuary and safe haven for terror groups across North Africa.  Our
Ambassador was assassinated and our Embassy forced to flee over land to
Tunisia.  Jihadists today swim in our Embassy swimming pool. The Obama
administration, urged on by Hillary Clinton, wanted to go to war but didn't
anticipate the consequences of war.

Libya is now more chaotic and America is less safe.

If Democrats were earnest in their critiques of George W. Bush's foreign
policy, they ought to prefer Paul's vision on foreign policy to Hillary
Clinton's platform and record. If Republicans were earnest in their embrace
of a humble foreign policy in 2000, they ought to prefer Paul's positions
to what's on offer from his GOP rivals.

But the partisan mind has led many Republicans to retroactively embrace
Bush's radical foreign policy and many Democrats to forgive Iraq War
support and embrace Obama's drone strikes and wars of choice. Paul is
questioning the hawkish, post-9/11 consensus that exists in both parties,
but not as radically as Code Pink or supporters of his father would hope.
Are moderates open to the change he is urging? If so, he will be a
contender in 2016, if only by virtue of offering a position that appeals to
many in America but is embraced by few in Washington.

*Associated Press, via Wall Street Journal: Poll Shows Martha Coakley
Slipping as Hillary Clinton Visits
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/10/24/poll-shows-martha-coakley-slipping-as-hillary-clinton-visits/>*

Hillary Clinton is campaigning with Martha Coakley in Boston, amid a new
poll showing the Democratic gubernatorial candidate trailing in the race.

The former secretary of state, senator, first lady and likely 2016
presidential candidate will join Ms. Coakley on Friday at the Park Plaza
hotel. Mrs. Clinton’s visit comes after her husband, former President Bill
Clinton, campaigned for Ms. Coakley in Worcester last week.

Mrs. Clinton then heads to Providence, Rhode Island, to campaign for
Democratic gubernatorial candidate and state treasurer Gina Raimondo.

Ms. Coakley, the state’s attorney general, is looking to regain momentum in
her race with Republican candidate Charlie Baker that has drawn national
attention — and star power.

First Lady Michelle Obama also campaigned for Ms. Coakley in Boston’s
Dorchester neighborhood earlier this month, and Vice President Joe Biden
will headline a fundraiser on Oct. 29.

Mr. Baker, a former CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, meanwhile, has had
former Massachusetts governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney and
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, head of the Republican Governors
Association and a possible 2016 presidential candidate, stump for him this
year.

Recent polls suggest Mr. Baker’s campaign has gained momentum as the Nov. 4
election approaches.

A poll released by the Boston Globe on Thursday showed Mr. Baker with the
support of 45% of those polled compared to 36% for Ms. Coakley, a 9
percentage point advantage in a survey that carried a margin of error of 4
percentage points. The live telephone survey of 500 likely Massachusetts
voters was conducted between Oct. 19 and Oct. 22, according to the Globe.

Ms. Coakley’s campaign released a statement calling the Globe poll an
“outlier” and said other public surveys, as well as the campaign’s own
internal polling suggested, suggested a much closer race.

Democrats are looking to gain ground in state houses across the country
this year. The party currently holds 21 governor’s offices to Republicans’
29. There are 36 gubernatorial elections this November.

Ms. Coakley also is looking to erase the memory of her surprise 2010 defeat
to then-state Sen. Scott Brown in the special election to succeed the late
U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy in Congress.

Three independent candidates are also on the Massachusetts ballot.

*New York Times: Toxic Partisanship? Bill Clinton Says He Had It Worse Than
Obama
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/us/politics/toxic-partisanship-bill-clinton-says-he-had-it-worse-than-obama.html>*

By Amy Chozick

October 24, 2014

President Obama heads into midterm elections in which he may face crushing
losses. He has been spurned by his own party, whose candidates do not even
want to be seen with him. The president’s supporters say the toxic
atmosphere in Washington has made it impossible for Mr. Obama to succeed.

But there is a counter view being offered by a former Democratic president
that as far as personal attacks go, he, Bill Clinton, had it worse.
“Nobody’s accused him of murder yet, as far as I know. I mean, it was
pretty rough back then,” Mr. Clinton said last month in an interview aired
by PBS, when asked about the partisan climate facing Mr. Obama.

Whatever Mr. Clinton’s motivations, his comments, which he has repeated
regularly when the topic comes up, do not permit Mr. Obama to excuse his
legislative setbacks by simply citing hyper-partisanship. As one former
White House aide to Mr. Clinton put it: “They impeached our guy.”

The tumult of the Clinton years — including conspiracy theories about the
death of Vincent W. Foster Jr., a deputy White House counsel and friend of
the Clintons’ from Arkansas who committed suicide in 1993, the
investigation into Whitewater, the Monica Lewinsky scandal and impeachment
— has come back as Hillary Rodham Clinton inches toward a run for president
in 2016.

When asked last month what the single biggest misconception about his
presidency was, Mr. Clinton told Charlie Rose on PBS, “I think that most
people underappreciate the level of extreme partisanship that took hold in
’94.”

Twenty years later, Mr. Clinton has devoted much of his energy to
campaigning for Democrats who do not want to be associated with Mr. Obama.
He spent the weekend in Arkansas campaigning for Senator Mark Pryor, the
incumbent Democrat who is locked in a tight race against Representative Tom
Cotton, a Republican.

“Everyone looks at Clinton in this hazy glow of, ‘He’s so wonderful,’ ”
said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic strategist. “But when he was president,
boy, were there a lot of people who went after him in a very personal, some
would say dirty, way.”

Even Mr. Clinton’s old rival, Newt Gingrich, a former Republican speaker of
the House, said people had a gauzy view of the Clinton years. “Everyone is
doing the, ‘Gee, Newt and Bill got things done, why can’t Obama get
anything done?’ routine,” Mr. Gingrich said. “Maybe it’s driving Bill nuts.”

The underlying implication is that Mr. Obama does not have it so rough.
Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Clinton criticize the current
president for being less able or willing than his Democratic predecessor to
woo congressional Republicans.

Trent Lott, the Mississippi Republican who served as Senate majority leader
from 1996 to 2001, said Mr. Clinton was “affable” and “approachable,” even
toward his political opponents.

 “You could talk to him,” Mr. Lott said. “He was also willing to make a
deal for the good of the country.” In contrast, he argued, Mr. Obama “has
just walked away” — so if Mr. Clinton even tried to give the current
president a pass, it “just won’t sell.”

Congressional Republicans, of course, have also refused to reach across the
aisle and work with Mr. Obama the way they did in Mr. Lott’s era. The
current Congress is on track to become one of the least legislatively
productive in recent history. That is partly because Mr. Obama faces a far
more polarized electorate than Mr. Clinton did.

Over the past 20 years, the number of Americans who hold extreme
conservative or liberal views has doubled from 10 percent in 1994 to 21
percent in 2014, according to the Pew Research Center. And the middle
ground has shrunk, with 39 percent of Americans taking a roughly equal
number of liberal and conservative positions, compared with 49 percent in
1994.

Mr. Clinton often talks about this polarization and says that while the
partisan gridlock is worse today, and the American electorate is less
willing to hear arguments they disagree with, the attacks he faced were
more personal than those Mr. Obama has experienced.

In a 2012 interview with The New York Times, Mr. Clinton mentioned the
“murder” conspiracy theory in the 1990s, and said of Mr. Obama’s tenure:
“Nobody has tried to bankrupt him with bogus investigations, so it’s not
quite as bad. But the political impasse has gone on longer.”

“I will certainly not contradict the president I worked for when he argues
that it was even more personal then,” said William A. Galston, a former
policy adviser to Mr. Clinton. “But the polarization of our official
political institutions and our political parties has become even more acute
than in the Clinton days,” he added.

That argument absolves Mr. Clinton of his own part in the scandals of the
1990s, several historians said. “They’re different situations because there
were criminal allegations” against Mr. Clinton, said Ken Gormley, the
author of “The Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr,” about the
investigation led by Kenneth W. Starr.

“President Obama has attracted a lot of attacks when it’s hard to point to
something exactly he has done that warranted them,” Mr. Gormley added.

Some of the venom directed at Mr. Obama has a racial component that Mr.
Clinton, a relatable white Southerner, never had to deal with, said Douglas
G. Brinkley, a presidential historian and professor at Rice University.
“The Clintons created huge problems of their own making,” Mr. Brinkley
added, while “Obama’s problem is that he bullheadedly pushed Obamacare, and
he happens to be African-American.”

“You can’t get more personal than questioning a person’s veracity for where
he was born,” said Mr. Galston, the former Clinton aide, referring to the
“birther” conspiracy theories about Mr. Obama’s birth certificate.

Mr. Clinton’s reminders about how bitter things were in Washington when he
was in the White House might not be the best message as Mrs. Clinton eyes
an attempt at getting back there, as president herself this time.

Senator Rand Paul, a potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate, has
already seized on the Lewinsky scandal as a way to remind voters that the
Clinton years were not just “peace and prosperity,” as Mrs. Clinton often
characterized her husband’s presidency during her 2008 presidential
campaign.

Mr. Clinton is not the only president who weathered harsh attacks. Harry
Reid, the Senator majority leader, called former President George W. Bush a
“liar” and a “loser,” and protesters depicted him as Hitler.

“Every president probably thinks he had it worse than all his
predecessors,” said Kenneth L. Khachigian, a Republican strategist who
served as a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. “But,” he
added, “those of us in the Nixon years would have gladly traded places with
Bill Clinton’s White House.”