I saw something interesting in this National Review piece by Eliana Johnson. It has to do with freshman Senator Ted Cruz of Texas:
One of the larger questions looming over Rand Paul’s seemingly inevitable presidential campaign is how he will raise big money. The Kentucky senator has a large grassroots following, but not necessarily the sort of email list that Ted Cruz was able to amass during the government shutdown and certainly not the sort of entree into the traditional Republican donor base that has fueled past presidential campaigns.
I’m assuming that Rand Paul has access to his father’s email list which was cultivated over 22 years in Congress and through multiple presidential campaigns. Is it even remotely possible that Ted Cruz dwarfed that list and whatever Rand Paul has been able to accumulate during his time in Congress simply by reading Green Eggs and Ham from the Senate floor?
It seems implausible to me, especially because Rand also had a high profile pseudo-filibuster against the hypothetical prospect of the federal government drone-attacking U.S. citizens while they sit quietly in coffee shops reading newspapers. Could Dr. Seuss really be that more effective that Starbucks tomahawk strikes?
Consider me dubious.
The point of the piece though is even more questionable. One of Rand Paul’s potential big money donors has apparently gotten himself into a bit of trouble. But whatever you think of the case of Jon Lonsdale, there is no guilt by association here and the loss of one big donor (maybe) would hardly make or break Rand Paul.
But what to you expect from the National Review?
I think the bloom is off the Rand Rose with respect to the all-important Media Primary – the guy looks unhinged of late.
Even some of the erstwhile lefty dudebros who kicked the tires on Lee Harvey last year after the NSA revelations have to be backing away from this goofball now.
So much for Summer of ’14 prognostications that the Randy Man could cause the Democrats trouble with “the youth vote.”
Does it really matter?
If the Koch Bros., Adelson and Mercer get behind the R in the General election, the amount of $$$ raised by traditional (lists and so forth) means pretty much meaningless (note that I didn’t say chickenfeed). What really is the difference between 700 million and 735 million in what is really a race for votes in about 25 markets? (does anyone think Rand or Cruz will win CA? or that God could win Tx running as a D [in 2016, anyway]).
In the ALL IMPORTANT primaries … meh. There’s still plenty of $$$ to go around. Remember, they have a much smaller gene pool to play with in the primaries.
thanks for the link to the Lonsdale story. As a Stanford grad, that one interests me. I’m very interested to see what if anything the Bay Area media has to say about the issue, after being scooped by the NYT.
Sounds as if Lonsdale is merely practicing what his Palantir co-investor Peter Thiel preaches
Not just stunted intellectual development but emotional development as well. It’s what the Paul pseudo-libertarians so repulsive to social democrats. (Not that I have much empathy for Lonsdale’s one-time girlfriend. She was an adult and nobody forced her into a bad relationship with this very wealthy young jerk.)
I am kind of confused about why you oppose Paul’s opposition to drones. Drones are a terrible weapon of indiscriminate destruction. We should not be using them in Pakistan, Iraq, or really anywhere. Save for reflexive anti-Paul stuff, what is your problem with trying to rein in the drone program?
Paul does not oppose the drone program. Where did you get that belief from?
As Martin correctly points out, Paul is opposed to ridiculous hypothetical scenarios about droning random American citizens sitting in Starbucks. However, he has expressed approval of using drones to take out criminals fleeing the scene of, say, “robbing liquor stores” (why that scenario? I don’t know, but I’m sure race had nothing to do with it…)