Is Sheldon Adelson Turning Even Rand Paul Anti-Isolationist?

The staunchly pro-Israel megadonor’s 2016 involvement puts Paul in a precarious position.

National Journal
Lucia Graves
See more stories about...
Lucia Graves
April 17, 2014, 1 a.m.

When Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­en­tial hope­fuls met with Shel­don Ad­el­son in Las Ve­gas last month, the bil­lion­aire casino mogul who al­most single-handedly kept the Newt Gin­grich primary cam­paign alive in 2012, had just an­nounced his in­ten­tion to back the Re­pub­lic­an can­did­ate with the clearest shot at win­ning the White House in 2016.

But Rand Paul, the Ken­tucky sen­at­or who’s been singled out as a Re­pub­lic­an front-run­ner, was nowhere to be found. It’s not en­tirely sur­pris­ing giv­en that Paul was sim­il­arly miss­ing from the wish list of 2016 con­tenders Ad­el­son drew up last year.

While Ad­el­son has re­peatedly in­sisted his de­cision about whom to back in 2016 will be gov­erned solely by elect­ab­il­ity, two pet is­sues stand above all the rest. One is his push to kill on­line gambling (there’s evid­ence he’s already made in­roads with the GOP there). The oth­er — and this is where Paul comes in — is pro­tec­tion of Is­rael.

Rand Paul’s for­eign policy views have al­ways been more nu­anced than those of his isol­a­tion­ist fath­er, Ron Paul, but they’ve still earned him ample cri­ti­cism from con­ser­vat­ives. In par­tic­u­lar, his ar­gu­ment for cur­tail­ing for­eign as­sist­ance abroad has con­cerned al­lies of Is­rael, which re­ceives more than $3 bil­lion in aid from the U.S. an­nu­ally.

The Wash­ing­ton Post‘s Jen­nifer Ru­bin, in a Tues­day ed­it­or­i­al titled “Rand Paul’s For­eign Policy Ex­trem­ism,” sug­ges­ted such po­s­i­tions won’t sit well with people “who play a sig­ni­fic­ant role in pres­id­en­tial primar­ies.” In­deed.

Though he was nev­er men­tioned by name at the Las Ve­gas meet­ing, an event put on by the Re­pub­lic­an Jew­ish Co­ali­tion, speak­er after speak­er im­pli­citly cri­ti­cized Paul’s re­l­at­ively isol­a­tion­ist ap­proach to for­eign policy, ac­cord­ing to a re­port by Time‘s Zeke Miller. From Miller’s re­port:

Sev­er­al prom­in­ent GOP donors at the con­fer­ence sug­ges­ted that [Shel­don] Ad­el­son, who spent more than $100 mil­lion back­ing Newt Gin­grich and Rom­ney in 2012, is likely to spend vast sums against Paul if he ap­pears to be well po­si­tioned in the Re­pub­lic­an primar­ies. Ad­el­son’s spend­ing is largely mo­tiv­ated by his strong con­cern for Is­rael, and Paul’s po­s­i­tions may well put a tar­get on his back.

Re­cently, Paul’s been go­ing out of his way to em­phas­ize that his for­eign policy po­s­i­tion is evolving, par­tic­u­larly with re­gard to Is­rael. He’s in­creased out­reach to pro-Is­rael and neo­con­ser­vat­ive groups, ac­cord­ing to Miller’s re­port. And while he once favored deep cuts in for­eign aid, in­clud­ing elim­in­at­ing U.S. money for Is­rael, he has since softened his stance. Paul now says the U.S. should start by cut­ting aid to coun­tries who “don’t ap­pear to be our al­lies,” and in 2013 traveled to Is­rael to per­son­ally re­lay the mes­sage.

In a Tues­day op-ed pub­lished in The Wash­ing­ton Post, Paul sought to cla­ri­fy his po­s­i­tion on Ir­an, where de­vel­op­ment of nuc­le­ar weapons is a ma­jor con­cern for Is­rael.

“I am not for con­tain­ment in Ir­an,” he wrote (con­tain­ment here means liv­ing with an Ir­an with nuc­le­ar weapons). “Let me re­peat that, since no one seems to be listen­ing closely: I am un­equi­voc­ally not for con­tain­ing Ir­an.”

Paul’s ar­gu­ment was that his vote against a bill that would have pre­ven­ted a policy of con­tain­ment in Ir­an had been mis­in­ter­preted by the me­dia. But his ap­peal didn’t end there. “For­eign policy is com­plic­ated and doesn’t fit neatly with­in a bump­er stick­er, head­line, or tweet,” Paul said. “Those who re­duce it to such do a dis­ser­vice to their re­port­ing and, po­ten­tially, to the se­cur­ity of our na­tion.”

Much of the ed­it­or­i­al was ded­ic­ated to at­tack­ing the per­cep­tion that his views are anti-Amer­ic­an-in­ter­ven­tion in any cir­cum­stance. “False choices between be­ing every­where all of the time and nowhere any of the time are fod­der for de­bate on Sunday morn­ing shows or news­pa­per columns,” he wrote. “Real for­eign policy is made in the middle; with nu­ance; in the gray area of dip­lomacy, en­gage­ment and re­luct­antly, if ne­ces­sary, mil­it­ary ac­tion.”

Paul will likely nev­er win over pro-Is­rael groups, and some move­ment to­ward the middle, or nor­mal­iz­ing, is in­ev­it­able for any ser­i­ous 2016 con­tender. Still, wheth­er he’s ac­tu­ally evolving on for­eign policy or simply, as he claims, cor­rect­ing for me­dia spin, the op­tics of his Is­rael-friendly pro­nounce­ments aren’t good — the tim­ing is such that it’s hard to ig­nore the in­cent­ives put in place by Ad­el­son and the hawk­ish, pro-Is­rael wing of the GOP.

After all, even a Paul can’t run a win­ning pres­id­en­tial cam­paign on $25 checks from the grass­roots alone. 

What We're Following See More »
LOTS OF STRINGERS
Inside the AP’s Election Operation
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
THE QUESTION
What’s the Average Household Income of a Trump Voter?
2 hours ago
THE ANSWER

Seventy-two thousand dollars, according to FiveThirtyEight. That's higher than the national average, as well as the average Clinton or Sanders voter, but lower than the average Kasich voter.

Source:
VERY FEW DEMS NOW REPRESENT MINING COMMUNITIES
How Coal Country Went from Blue to Red
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
STAFF PICKS
History Already Being Less Kind to Hastert’s Leadership
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

In light of his recent confessions, the speakership of Dennis Hastert is being judged far more harshly. The New York Times' Carl Hulse notes that in hindsight, Hastert now "fares poorly" on a number of fronts, from his handling of the Mark Foley page scandal to "an explosion" of earmarks to the weakening of committee chairmen. "Even his namesake Hastert rule—the informal standard that no legislation should be brought to a vote without the support of a majority of the majority — has come to be seen as a structural barrier to compromise."

Source:
‘STARTING FROM ZERO’
Trump Ill Prepared for General Election
7 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Even if "[t]he Republican presidential nomination may be in his sights ... Trump has so far ignored vital preparations needed for a quick and effective transition to the general election. The New York businessman has collected little information about tens of millions of voters he needs to turn out in the fall. He's sent few people to battleground states compared with likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, accumulated little if any research on her, and taken no steps to build a network capable of raising the roughly $1 billion needed to run a modern-day general election campaign."

Source:
×