Wow! That was fast.
So what happened? The piece mentions "deep fundraising and organizational problems," "an underfunded and understaffed campaign beaten down by low morale," and "an undisciplined politician who wasn’t willing to do what it took to win." *
While I'm sure that's all accurate, it's also "inside baseball" that you could only learn from websites like Politico. But the piece also mentions two of Paul's signature policy stances, "a restrained foreign policy, and ... outreach to minorities," that I've been meaning to write about for some time now. And what I've wanted to write is that those are both losing issues with the Republican Party base.
Take Paul's "restrained foreign policy," or "dovishness," or "isolationism," or whatever you want to call it. While the freshman senator from Kentucky made quite a splash a couple of years ago with his 13-hour filibuster against hypothetical drone strikes directed at U.S. citizens on American soil, I think he misread the response from other Republicans. And that is that Republicans would have no problem with drone strikes so long as they came from a Republican president. The problem is that President
The Republican Party, you have to remember, is largely based on fear. And therefore the default position will always be a muscular defense and a Dick Cheney-type national security. (Direct drone strikes at traitors in the U. S.? Have at it!)