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?
