Thursday, 2 October 2014

Fueled By Outside Money, Alaska Candidates Struggle To Connect At Home



Sen. Mark Begich, right, D-Alaska, speaks to supporters in Anchorage in August 2014. He's hoping to hold on to his seat in the Republican-leaning state.i i



Sen. Mark Begich, right, D-Alaska, speaks to supporters in Anchorage in August 2014. He's hoping to hold on to his seat in the Republican-leaning state. Michael Dinneen/AP hide caption



itoggle caption Michael Dinneen/AP

Sen. Mark Begich, right, D-Alaska, speaks to supporters in Anchorage in August 2014. He's hoping to hold on to his seat in the Republican-leaning state.



Sen. Mark Begich, right, D-Alaska, speaks to supporters in Anchorage in August 2014. He's hoping to hold on to his seat in the Republican-leaning state.


Michael Dinneen/AP


Politics in Alaska is an intimate business. People expect to reach their senators on the phone, and they refer to their candidates by their first names.


But the Republicans stand a good chance of taking back the Senate this November, and Alaska now features prominently in that battle for control. The incumbent in the state is a vulnerable first-term Democrat in a Republican-leaning state, and millions of dollars worth of ads have been dumped into the state's small media market.


Pollster Marc Hellenthal grew up in Anchorage, and he remembers helping his dad run for the legislature in the 1960s.


"I had a group of friends in Anchorage that had paper routes, and we put his little legislative card in all the papers we delivered — that was his mass media effort," he says.


The mass media part of Alaska politics is no longer so quaint. Outside money has turned this race into an advertising slug-fest. The current senator is Democrat Mark Begich. Feeling his own vulnerability, he's gone after his challenger for not spending enough time in Alaska.


One of Begich's ads accuses, "now we learn Dan Sullivan had a non-resident Alaska fishing license — like every other outsider."


But two can play that game. When one of Begich's ads showed him riding a snow machine, the Sullivan campaign responded with mockery. It was delivered by X Games medalist Cory Davis, in a backwards baseball hat.


In the ad, Davis says, "I know something about snow machines. That's why I had a good laugh when I saw Mark Begich pretending to ride one."


If you tell Art Hackney, a prominent Republican strategist in Alaska, that ad seems silly, he shrugs. "Yeah, well, you're an outsider," he says. "All they used it for is a metaphor for Mark in general."


Hackney has ties to Karl Rove's political money organization. He didn't produce the ad, but says he likes it, because "it makes sense to Alaskans."


He says that's because "Alaskans don't understand a lot of the issues that one can argue, left, right and center, on who's better on this issue or that issue, and both sides sound convincing when they say them."


The left, right and center thing is hazy here because the Democrat, Begich, has picked the conservative side on a lot of the usual litmus tests such as drilling for oil in the Arctic, and gun rights. In the absence of simplistic distinctions, the ad-makers have resorted to personality attacks.



Dan Sullivan, Republican candidate for election to the U.S. Senate, fired back when his opponent attacked him for having a non-resident Alaska fishing license.i i



Dan Sullivan, Republican candidate for election to the U.S. Senate, fired back when his opponent attacked him for having a non-resident Alaska fishing license. Becky Bohrer/AP hide caption



itoggle caption Becky Bohrer/AP

Dan Sullivan, Republican candidate for election to the U.S. Senate, fired back when his opponent attacked him for having a non-resident Alaska fishing license.



Dan Sullivan, Republican candidate for election to the U.S. Senate, fired back when his opponent attacked him for having a non-resident Alaska fishing license.


Becky Bohrer/AP


But out in the state, you find out those ads are getting on people's nerves. Kodiak Island, sometimes called "The Rock," is an hour's flight southeast of Anchorage. It's the kind of place with limited roads and a big fishing industry. Locals say if you don't see bears, you're not looking.


Prepping a boat for a codfish run, Stephen Knowles says that kind attack ad has been popping up when he's been trying to watch YouTube.


"It makes me think I don't want to trust either of them, really, because the ad wasn't about anything substantial," he says.


Nearby, on cannery row, Beth Dunlop just bought some giant crab legs for dinner. She says the ads make her resent all the outside money that's come into the race.


"When you have such aggressive advertising, it makes people forget about the issues, and I think they just get impressions, and I think that's detrimental to politics," she says.


But the many voters who want to hear about the issues still do have a place to get their fix. Debates in Alaska can be incredibly policy wonky. For instance, Wednesday's fisheries debate here on Kodiak featured one solid hour of the candidates sparring over fishing regulations.


This stuff matters in Alaska — fishing is the state's biggest employer, and in a place with a lot of federal oversight, arcane regulations are a pocketbook issue. And even in a fisheries debate, broader themes did come out, such as Sullivan's reluctance to admit that climate-change is man-made. And Begich's failure to get the Obama administration to loosen more environmental rules.


Afterward, charter fisherman Brian McRobert said the debate somewhat made up for all the attack ads.


"I think both of them have Alaska in their heart and their mind," he says.


But like many Alaskans, McRobert sees himself as a conservative, and he has a hard time forgiving Begich for the votes he's cast for Democratic policies.


"Obamacare, a lot of that stuff, really gave me a sour taste for where Begich was out on that," he says.


Attitudes like this have given Sullivan an edge over Begich in the polls, though the race is far from decided. Polling is notoriously unreliable in this state, and there still may be some ads in the pipeline that question the candidates' credentials as real Alaskans.



Democrats, Republicans Pitch Old Ideas In New Packaging


With a month before the midterm elections, President Obama is trying to frame the elections by touting the administration's success on the economy. Republicans have other ideas.



As He Considers A Run For President, Rand Paul Tries to Rebrand Himself


Copyright © 2014 NPR. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.


TERRY GROSS, HOST:


This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. Republican Rand Paul, the junior senator from Kentucky, appears to be testing the waters for a presidential run. If he does run, Paul could be hobbled by past associations and statements, especially on race and foreign policy, writes my guest Ryan Lizza, the Washington correspondent for The New Yorker. Lizza profiles Rand Paul in the current edition of The New Yorker in an article titled "The Revenge Of Rand Paul."


If Rand Paul runs for president, it's also likely that the views of his father, former Congressman Ron Paul, will work against him with many voters. Ron Paul ran for president as the nominee of the Libertarian Party in 1988 and as an isolationist Republican in 2008 and 2012. Lizza writes about how Ron Paul influenced Rand Paul's politics and how Rand is now trying to re-brand himself to appeal to more mainstream voters. Rand also has to win over party leaders, who considered his father an extremist.


Ryan Lizza, welcome to FRESH AIR. Is this profile of Rand Paul a sign that you think he's a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination?


RYAN LIZZA: I do. Although I have to say, over the course of reporting this over the summer, he may have gone from being a more-serious contender to a less-serious contender, or at least that's what, you know, some of the voices in the piece said. Just to give you one example, the piece opens with a quote from one of the most important Republicans in the country - the chairman of the Texas Republican Party. You know, that's the biggest Republican state party around. He's known the Paul family for decades, and he starts the piece by saying, this summer, that Rand Paul is 1 of the 3 most-likely Republicans to win the nomination. And we can get to the reasons why, but by the end of the piece, this same person - his name is Steve Munisteri - when I called him last week to make sure that he was still on board with that quote, he said, well, I no longer believe that anymore because of the debate over foreign policy and sort of how it had boxed Rand Paul in.


So, you know, we're so far out from 2016, and there are a lot of issues coming at these candidates. And the one issue where Rand Paul, I think, thought he had a great advantage - foreign policy - I think he thought the Republican Party was moving and still thinks that the Republican Party is moving more towards him on that issue. And, you know, there are some question marks about that now that we can get into.


GROSS: So - well, let's - since you brought up foreign policy and foreign intervention, let's go there for a second. You know, with the war against ISIS now....


LIZZA: Yeah.


GROSS: ...He's shifted his views on that. So what did Rand Paul initially say about dealing with ISIS, and what is he saying now?


LIZZA: Yeah, and it's complicated, and I can't - I think it's confused - his position on what to do about ISIS, I think, has been confusing. And maybe he hasn't shifted as much as we all thought, but it sounds like he's shifted. So let me try and take you through it.


When I was interviewing him over the summer, he was going on, at length, about why the United States should never be involved in the Syrian Civil War and stating all of the contradictions of the war - we're against Assad. We're also against ISIS, which is Assad's enemy, talking about the failures of the Iraqi army, and how could you send American GIs back to Iraq to defend territory that the Iraqis can't defend? You know, making a fairly good case against intervening in, you know, a pretty chaotic place - not all that different, frankly, than what Barack Obama has been saying for the last few years.


Now, that was sort of - that was in July. What happened in the subsequent weeks of course was that ISIS became - the brutality of ISIS became an international story. The beheadings dominated the news. And there was a real movement among conservatives to do something about it. And this platform that Rand Paul has sort of succeeded on for quite a while now, which is we shouldn't be meddling in the Middle East, it's creating blowback. It's bad policy. That was really taking root in the Republican Party. I mean, when I was interviewing him, he was citing polls about Republicans who were anti-intervention in Syria. ISIS really changed all that, among conservatives especially. And Rand Paul responded to that change by coming out with a statement saying that he now believed that the United States should destroy ISIS militarily. Now, if you think what follows from a statement like that, that's a pretty serious statement. That means all-out war against ISIS. And that's the point where me and others thought, wow, this is a huge shift in policy. If you're really for destroying ISIS militarily, you are for a serious intervention in Iraq and Syria.


Now, when it came down to it, that's - there was not as much follow-through. There was no plan from Rand Paul to go over there and destroy ISIS militarily. And in fact he voted against the legislation to arm the moderates - the so-called moderate opposition to Assad, who are also fighting ISIS. So that statement and that sort of series of being against intervention in Iraq and Syria, but then suddenly saying we need to destroy ISIS, but then suddenly leading the opposition against the legislation to arm the moderates, that confused a lot of people. But in some ways, he really did end up back where he started, which was against intervention.


GROSS: It's been interesting to follow John McCain's reaction to Rand Paul. And McCain told you while you were reporting for this piece that if Rand Paul is the Republican nominee for president in 2016, McCain would support him. And he said to you, quote, "I've seen him grow, and I've seen him mature. And I've seen him become more centrist. I know that if he were president or a nominee, I could influence him, particularly some of his views and positions on national security. He trusts me, particularly on the military side of things, so I could easily work with him. It wouldn't be a problem."


LIZZA: Yeah.


GROSS: Then...


LIZZA: This blew me away, Terry.


GROSS: Yeah. Yeah, because - well, it's so odd because Rand Paul is so isolationist in his views, at least historically he's been...


LIZZA: Yeah.


GROSS: ...And McCain is usually one of the first people to say, go in there militarily.


LIZZA: Yeah, and they have been....


GROSS: In several countries, in several scenarios, he's been leading the charge on that.


LIZZA: And as Rand Paul - alluding to McCain but not using his name - early in the piece told me, you know, he said, these people have been wrong. If we had listened to people like McCain, we'd be in 15 wars right now. So they have been absolutely at odds over foreign policy since Rand Paul's 2010 election. They have - one of John McCain's closest advisers, not that long ago, he wrote that if it were Rand Paul against Hillary Clinton 2016, then responsible Republicans would have to vote for Hillary Clinton. And this is coming from Mark Salter, who is John McCain's best friend. So a lot of people thought maybe he was channeling the senator.


Earlier this year, McCain was asked by another reporter if Rand Paul were the nominee, would he support him, and John McCain would not answer the question. So when I asked him the same question and McCain said what you just quoted, I was sort of shocked 'cause he came out - he fully said, if he's the nominee, he's my guy. Now, just to, you know, complicate - just to get at how complicated this relationship is, after I asked McCain that and after he gave me this half-hour long interview saying very favorable things about Rand Paul and talking about how Rand Paul had started wooing the conservative foreign policy establishment in the Republican Party, and he had started seeing things John McCain's way on a couple of issues, including aid to Israel, well, low and behold, they're in the middle of the ISIS debate, and Rand Paul tells a reporter that - he alludes to a widely discredited conspiracy on the Internet that said that John McCain had actually gone over to the Middle East and met with ISIS and had his picture taken. This did not sit very well with Senator McCain, and he went on TV and did a bunch of interviews blasting Senator Paul. So of course, as this piece is closing, I'm watching all this, and I've got all these favorable quotes from John McCain in the piece. I call Senator McCain up again. I said, Senator, you know, we had this long talk. You and Rand Paul seemed to be on the same page on a lot of these issues, suddenly, and ISIS really seems to have changed that. And by the way, you know, his comments about you meeting with ISIS, and as I say the piece, Senator McCain was in a much less generous mood during that interview and, you know, had some much more critical things to say and pointed out that, though Rand Paul had said he wanted to destroy ISIS militarily, it was just empty rhetoric.


And so that - this - it's like for Rand Paul, it's like two steps forward, one step back. You know, his whole project now is to try and convince the Republican establishment that he is not - that his policy views are not the same as his father's. And you know - but he's trying to do that at the same time he doesn't want to lose his father's very hard-core base of support. And that's, you know - it's very tricky. He's got a lot of balls in the air that he's trying to juggle.


(MUSIC)


GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is Ryan Lizza, who's the Washington correspondent for The New Yorker magazine, and he has a new profile of Rand Paul called "The Revenge of Rand Paul."


So, you know, one of the themes of your article is that Rand Paul is trying to mainstream his father's Libertarian views and moderate some of his own views. Last weekend Rand Paul spoke at the Values Voters Summit. The president of the Values Voters Summit is Tony Perkins, who is the head of the Family Research Council and the Family Research Council's mission is to advance public policy and culture from a Christian worldview. And Rand Paul made his entrance on stage as a fetal ultrasound played for the audience. He said that liberty, virtue and God were intertwined. He said, I will take a stand for life. He quoted from Corinthians, where there is the spirit of the Lord, there is liberty. And he endorses a personhood amendment that would grant a fertilized egg full rights of an individual that would make abortions, IUDs and in the morning-after pill illegal.


And I'm wondering if those views are traditionally considered compatible with Libertarian views.


LIZZA: It does turn out though, that among Libertarians there's the same debate over abortion that, you know, is in the rest of the political conversation. There are what might be described as left Libertarians, who believe, you know, in abortion rights - and obviously from an antigovernment position - but they are also right Libertarians who will make the argument that you know, the protection of the state should start with (unintelligible) against abortion.


Ron Paul was always pro-life. He's an obstetrician and gynecologist and when he was practicing in Texas he refused to do abortions. And so Rand Paul grew up with his - you know, really studying at his father's knee and adopted the same position. But there are a lot of social conservatives that have been very skeptical of both Ron and Rand Paul because they do - they have a much more state's rights mentality and they believe that these issues should be - including abortion - should be directed at the state level, or regulated at the state level. And you know, the other thing is the Libertarians are viewed skeptically among a lot of social conservatives because a lot of social conservatives equate liberty with license and on some of these social issues, Rand Paul doesn't see eye to eye with the social conservatives. I think the point that you mentioned, Terry, that he endorsed this personhood amendment, was one way that Rand Paul was trying to tell social conservatives, hey, you may think I'm this hardcore Libertarian who believes, you know, people should be free to do whatever they want and I have very lax views about drug laws. But, on this issue of abortion, I'm with you.


I think it's created a whole other problem for him because this personhood amendment is just not something that is - in a general election, it's going to be a very difficult issue. I mean, we're talking about birth control, we're talking about IUDs and the morning-after pill; very common birth control methods that would be banned if the personhood amendment was the law of the land, right? This would make a fertilized egg the equivalent of a human being and I don't think Rand Paul has really thought through how big a deal that would be.


In fact, his former medical partner, a guy named John Downing who's in Kentucky and has known Rand Paul decades, he went on the record with me, telling me that he has for a long time now tried to talk Rand Paul out of taking this personhood amendment. And he went on at length, saying that this is just going to kill him if he's the nominee, especially among female voters. It's another area where Rand is - he's trying to do so many things. He's trying to persuade social conservatives that he's with them and so he moves into this personhood amendment and then it creates all kinds of problems with other voters. And so on each of these issues - social conservatives, the foreign policy community - you know, by the end of reporting on this I just started to think, maybe his project is a little bit too difficult. He's got too many constituencies that he's trying to appease.


(MUSIC)


GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. And if you're just joining us, we're talking about Rand Paul with my guest Ryan Lizza, who is the Washington correspondent for the New Yorker and has profiled Rand Paul in a new New Yorker article titled "The Revenge Of Rand Paul." It seems like one of the groups he's trying to appeal to is the Christian-right, which has a lot of overlap with the Values voters?


LIZZA: Yeah.


GROSS: So I'm wondering what his own religious upbringing is and how that comes into play in his political worldview. If a lot of his political worldview is based on, you know, Christian values that have been, you know, fundamental to him, or is this some - is this a kind of political maneuver to...


LIZZA: You know, yeah...


GROSS: ...To appeal to a certain group?


LIZZA: That's a really good question because I do think people think, you know, people have a view of Libertarians as, you know - as maybe not - or Libertarian as maybe not being compatible with the views of social conservatives. He actually grew up in a pretty traditional family. Every Wednesday were - there were church activities. They grew up in a town called Lake Jackson in South Texas, not far from Houston and not far from the Gulf Coast. And Lake Jackson, you know, was really a town of churches. So he grew up in the church, he was in the Boy Scouts and the Boy Scouts met at the church. He went off to Baylor University in Waco, Texas. And it was at Baylor where he became a bit of a campus rebel. And we can talk about it, he joined some organizations - or joined one organization that whose sort of, you know, role at the school was to kind of poke fun at the school's religiosity. And he would get into debates with fundamentalist Christians there. He was a biology student at Baylor. Although it's a Baptist school, it was not sort of - at that point, the National Baptist Convention had not - was not as fundamentalist as it is now. And Baylor taught evolution, they taught a very, you know, solid scientific curriculum. But when Rand Paul was there, there was a sort of growing fundamentalist movement. And there was criticism of Baylor for teaching evolution, believe it or not. But he was on the non-fundamentalist side of those debates. His best friend in college told me that one of the things they used to do was every Sunday, he and his best friend would go to a different church and they did this both just to sort of open their mind about what other people's spirituality was like, but they also did it because they felt like a lot of the students at the school were too narrow-minded. And he- and Rand Paul's best friend told me that they would engage fundamentalist Christians in debates. And one of the debates he remembers Rand having was over students who thought that doctors who performed abortions should receive the death penalty.


GROSS: You've said that when it comes to economics, that Rand Paul is as far to the right as you can get. What are some of his positions on that? I know one of them is not giving financial foreign aid to other countries, with the exception...


LIZZA: Yeah.


GROSS: ...Perhaps, of Israel.


LIZZA: Well, this is one where he's shifted, right? This is - and, you know, this is economic and a foreign policy position. In his 2011 budget, if you look at that when he first got to the Senate, he tried - he put together this budget that would balance in five years. And it would cut, you know, cut the Department of Commerce. It would get rid of several departments, including Commerce and Education and HUD. And on foreign policy, it would've ended all foreign aid, including the $3 billion a year we give to Israel. More recently, he said OK, well, I was wrong about that. I would actually keep about $5 billion in foreign aid, including most of what we give to Israel, so that's a pretty significant shift.


GROSS: And do you think his support for Israel is politically motivated?


LIZZA: Yes (laughter). I mean, maybe it's not. Maybe, you know, John McCain, the way he put it to me was he took a trip to Israel a year ago or so...


GROSS: That Rand Paul took a trip to Israel.


LIZZA: Yeah, that Rand Paul - John McCain said - who pointed out this same shift in view - said, you know, Rand went to Israel and he came back a little bit different. And maybe - so maybe it's genuine. Maybe he's rethought it and decided he was wrong. I will say he was asked about this recently when he took a trip to Iowa, and he basically just said that he never supported cutting aid to Israel and he wouldn't explain - not only would he not explain his change of position but he denied that he did change a position, which I think is a whole different problem for him is when he's moved on an issue, he has a real hard time admitting it.


GROSS: Supporting financial - support for Israel is a politically productive position for him to have because the Christian-right supports that, and of course...


LIZZA: Absolutely.


GROSS: ...Jewish voters, you know, many - probably most Jewish voters support that, so...


LIZZA: Yeah, so it's - exactly. So, you know, politically, in a Republican primary, there's a lot of - there's a lot of pressure to be pro-Israel and, you know, not to cut the $3 billion a year we give to them. I pushed him on this because I was interviewing him during the most dramatic phase of the Israeli offensive in Gaza when some of the most pro-Israel voices in the American press were saying - were criticizing Israel saying and saying they were going too far. And I asked Rand, I said, you know, do you agree with some of those voices? Do you agree that Israel - their operation in Gaza has gone too far, that the tactics are wrong? And he - he would not criticize Israel. And he would not - he told me it's not his job to. And I asked him, I said don't we have any responsible - don't we have any responsibility to point out when we disagree with Israeli policy - when we disagree with Israeli policy - considering how much foreign aid we're giving them? You know, because that is his view with Egypt. If we're giving money to Egypt, we should be able to massage or shape Egyptian policy. And he wouldn't answer. He just said I think I've answered the question.


GROSS: Ryan Lizza will be back in the second half of the show. His profile of Rand Paul is in the current issue of the New Yorker. I'm Terry Gross, and this is FRESH AIR.


(MUSIC)


GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross back with Ryan Lizza, the Washington correspondent for The New Yorker. In the current issue, he profiles Rand Paul, Republican Senator from Kentucky, who appears to be positioning himself to run for president. Lizza writes about how Paul is trying to rebrand himself as more mainstream, distancing himself from his own and his father's own associations and statements. His father, Ron Paul, is a former congressman who ran for president as the nominee of the Libertarian Party in 1988 and as a Republican in the presidential primaries of 2008 and 2012. Lizza's article is titled, "The Revenge Of Rand Paul."


Let's look at another issue in which he's trying to maybe distance himself from his own past and from his father's past and that's the issue of civil rights...


LIZZA: Yeah.


GROSS: ...And other issues of particular interest to African-Americans. So tell us some of the things you think he might be trying to distance himself from in his own past.


LIZZA: Well, look, he grew up in this world of pretty hardcore libertarianism, and as you probably remember, there was a time in this country where the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was controversial. And conservatives didn't believe the government had a role in addressing discrimination and especially in addressing discrimination in the private sector. Barry Goldwater was against the '64 Civil Rights Act. Ronald Reagan was against the '64 Civil Rights Act. I think it's safe to say that there are really not any mainstream, modern Republicans who voice opposition to that anymore.


But Ron Paul, Rand Paul's father, was always against it, wrote about it. He was quite consistently against it, and Rand Paul adopted the same view. And the view was that whatever you think about the evils of discrimination, that the government, the federal government, does not - should not have a role in policing discrimination and especially in the private sector, right? That's the Libertarian - that's the sort of longtime-Libertarian view that both Ron Paul and Rand Paul consistently endorsed. And, you know, if you go back - I went back through Rand's writings, and you see him endorse this view both in college at Baylor in the '80s and then more recently in 2002 in an op-ed he wrote for his local newspaper in Bowling Green, Kentucky and then probably most famously in 2010, when he was interviewed by Kentucky Newspaper's editorial board. He expressed the view that the core of the Civil Rights Act of '64, you know, he opposed it. This became a major issue for him after he won his primary. It's continued to dog him. So this year he really has tried to get...


GROSS: So just to back up a second. He's basically - what he was basically saying is that businesses have a right to not serve certain people, and if they want to discriminate, no matter how terrible discrimination is, they have the right to do that. The government shouldn't tell them who they have to serve in a restaurant or who they have to sell to.


LIZZA: Exactly right, and, you know, his argument would be that those businesses will eventually fail in the marketplace because nobody would want to go to a business that endorses segregation. Now, as a lot of people will point out, the sort of core of the issue of segregation, that African-Americans couldn't go sit at the lunch counter and so the idea that the market was sort of working in that area, I think has been discredited by history. But, you know, Rand - long past a lot of other people on the right held on to this position and articulated it in 2010, and it caused a firestorm because it's not - it's not possible in modern American politics to be against the cornerstone legislation that ended segregation.


So to his credit, I think one of the things he's done over the last year is he has really tried to have a dialogue with African-Americans. And I think he's tried to think through, you know what, I'm a Libertarian; there's a lot of criminal justice issues that are important to the African-American community; maybe I can repair my relationship with the African-American community by finding some of the issues that we both believe in, you know. We, I mean, Rand Paul (laughter). And he did - he's done something very interesting. He's actually - more than any Republican candidate out there, he has put together a series of reforms that really speak to a lot of the key issues that African-American leaders are talking about when it comes the problems in the criminal justice system.


GROSS: Yeah, tell us about the criminal package that he sponsored in the Senate.


LIZZA: Yeah, so he would restore voting rights for nonviolent felons. This is a huge issue because, you know, people with - in most states people with felonies can't vote, and it creates, you know, that's a big problem. No Republican is yet endorsed that position, although many Democrats have. He would get rid the sentencing disparity for crack and powdered cocaine, you know, which has a huge racial component of course. And he would - he would get rid of the mandatory-minimum sentencing laws. And he's actually talked about letting people out of prison who've been sentenced under some of these laws.


And what I think is interesting about it is, you know, every election cycle, we read about Republican outreach to the African-American community. And the Republicans' share of the black vote has been, you know, going down and down every cycle. Nothing has worked for the Republican Party, and Rand's actually done his homework. He went and talked to African-American leaders and sort of tried to understand, you know, what the proper way of approaching that community was and was very honest about the fact that he didn't have a lot of familiarity in that community. And what he learned - one of the people who influenced him was a very important African-American leader in Louisville named Reverend Kevin Cosby. And what Cosby told him was, look, the problem with both Democrats and Republicans nowadays is they want to view America as this post-racial society, and so they don't want to actually talk about issues that are important specifically to black voters. They just want to talk about issues that are important to Americans in general and, you know, that both Republicans and Democrats will say, well, if you follow our agenda, it will, you know - it will help white Americans, non-white Americans, everyone. And Cosby said that's now how - that's not the way it should be. And he said you need to go to the African-American community and address issues that they specifically care about and acknowledge that racism exists in America and that it needs to be dealt with. And so he's really taken that approach to heart.


And, for instance, after the images on television in the wake of the Ferguson protests with the over-militarized police, Rand Paul wrote an op-ed saying this is a racial issue - right? - that black and brown people are more - are more affected by this than white people and that - I don't know if this is going to work. I don't know if African-Americans are going to suddenly be in for Rand Paul. There's a lot of issues there. But it's interesting to watch him sort of try and figure out what the right way to address that community is and do it in a way that no other Republican is doing.


GROSS: After Ferguson, didn't he talk about the demilitarizing the police?


LIZZA: He did, and this is where, you know - this is not - the other thing I should point out of course what he did more recently - as he's very forthrightly said, he supports the 1964 Civil Rights Act. So he's finished with his sort of, you know, dorm-room, Libertarian view (laughter).


GROSS: But did he explain why he changed his mind on that?


LIZZA: No, he didn't, and I think that's a real weakness that he has, is he just - not only did he not explain it, he basically refuses to admit it. One of - he's a little bit thinned-skinned, I will say, from spending time with him. And he really does not - he has a hard time acknowledging that he was wrong. And he has a hard time acknowledging that he's changed his position.


GROSS: Could you tell us what else was in his criminal justice package?


LIZZA: So one of the big issues that he's trying to address is that besides, you know, the fact that nonviolent felons are losing voting rights, if you have a felony on your record forever, it makes employment really, really difficult. And this is a big problem in the African-American community. And he does have a plan to expunge nonviolent felonies after a certain period of time, and he's, you know - his argument about that is all about employment and the difficult - you know, voting is one thing, but landing a job, if you have a felony on your record and can't ever have it expunged, there's always that question on the employment application, have you ever had a felony - do you have a felony on your record? And he would do something to address it.


Now, on all these issues there are Democratic proposals that frankly go further, right? So it's not like Rand Paul has invented this whole agenda, but I think it's interesting and notable that he hasn't been able to get a single Republican co-sponsor for any of these ideas. Republicans just won't touch it yet because restoring - you know, restoring rights or doing anything for former felons is just not - is not popular in the Republican Party. And in that sense, there's no doubt, Terry, that this agenda is driven for - by political reasons and by the criticism he took over his views on the Civil Rights Act. I think we'd be naive if we didn't mention that.


At the same time this is what makes him interesting politically is that his Libertarian views, you know - this is not something that is outside of his comfort zone in terms of his ideology, right? He believes in less power for the state. He believes that the criminal justice system and the war on drugs has gone too far. So in that sense, this marriage of some of the ideas on the agenda of the African-American community and Rand Paul's Libertarianism, they sort of match up here.


GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is Ryan Lizza, the Washington correspondent for The New Yorker. He profiles Rand Paul in the current edition. Let's take a short break, and then we'll talk some more. This is FRESH AIR.


(MUSIC)


GROSS: Rand Paul worked for several of his father's campaigns, starting, I think, in 1984 when Rand took a semester...


LIZZA: Before that.


GROSS: ...Before that? OK.


LIZZA: He started - the first campaign he ever worked for was 1974 when he was 11 years old and he knocked on doors for his father.


GROSS: Oh, OK. I guess I wasn't counting that (laughter).


LIZZA: Yeah.


GROSS: No and then in '84 he takes a semester off from college to work for his father's campaign.


LIZZA: Yeah.


GROSS: You say at one point, like, Rand Paul started to repackage his father's feud, to try make them sound more mainstream conservative. What did Rand Paul do to try to repackage his father's Libertarian views - views that many people would describe as extreme - and try to make them sound more mainstream?


LIZZA: Yeah, they had this relationship where the dad you know, he was the id. He was the ideological id, but the son was a little bit more of the political strategist. Not that he disagreed with his father, but he tried to figure out ways to help him win elections. And so you know, when they returned - in '84 they just got completely wiped out it. There wasn't even a close race and that's when Ron Paul temporarily retired from politics. But in '96, when Rand was older and helped his father return to the House of Representatives, you know, if you look through some of the ads that they ran - I went back into the archives and looked at some of the newspaper ads and how they presented Ron Paul - they would argue that Ron Paul had changed, that he had mellowed, that he would be more cooperative when got to Congress because in his first stint in Congress in the '70s and '80s he was known for you know, not really playing ball with his colleagues in the Republican party. And they ran ads that just generally painted him as a more generic Republican, you know? A Republican who's going to lower your taxes and get the economy going again. It was much - you know, they sanded off some of the rough edges in that campaign and that was the one where Rand really took a leadership role in.


GROSS: But it was in that campaign that Ron's opponent, Charles Morris, got a hold of some of the newsletters, some of Ron Paul's newsletters, that had quotes in them like, we're constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men but it is hardly irrational; black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their number and you quote that in your article. And you also quote one of the Ron Paul newsletters as saying that most black males in Washington, D.C. were quote, "semi-criminal to entirely criminal," unquote and quote, "only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions," unquote.


And you say, at the time Ron Paul didn't dispute that he wrote these articles...


LIZZA: He did not.


GROSS: ...But years later, he said that they were ghostwritten.


LIZZA: That was news to me because I remember when this controversy erupted months later, in the 2012 campaign, but when you go back and look at the Texas newspapers that covered the '96 campaign, when - I think people don't remember this, but the racist newsletters that Ron Paul wrote was a huge issue in his '96 campaign. And during that campaign, he did not deny that he wrote them and the newspapers at the time reported just straight-up that he did write them and it went undisputed by Ron Paul. Now, many years later, he said, well, they weren't - you know, yes I sold them, but I didn't write them.


Frankly, to me it's not really much of a distinction.


GROSS: So what does that say about Rand, Ron Paul's son, who is working on his father's campaigns? One would assume he's read those newsletters and didn't do anything to back away from those racist statements, didn't do anything at the time to try to moderate those racist statements?


LIZZA: I think this is where you get into the question of how much does the son have to pay for the sins of the father?


GROSS: But, let me just interrupt here - the son worked for the father on that campaign.


LIZZA: Exactly - and helped him win it.


GROSS: Yeah and was theoretically supporting his father's views.


LIZZA: Absolutely and I think will - if he runs, that will be an issue for him, you know? And a legitimate issue - what did you know about your father's newsletters? You worked on that campaign. You said you helped win it. He's boasted about him helping his dad win that campaign. It's a small family. The family's very close. Were you reading your dad's newsletters, right?


Those are all questions, you know, I didn't explore every avenue of that, but there's no doubt that this issue of race that has sort of haunted the Paul family now for many, many years is one that's going to play a huge role if he runs for president.


GROSS: You've talked a little bit about how Rand Paul is courting different constituencies in the Republican Party and maybe trying to court some Democratic African-Americans, as well.


What about his father's followers? What is he doing to get their vote?


LIZZA: Well, this is the sort of jam he's in. I think he believes that he doesn't need to do anything to get their vote because a lot of his father's followers are not Republicans. They are people who wouldn't be involved in the Republican Party, if not for Ron Paul and they might not vote for some Republican candidates in a general election.


And so you know, Rand's - he's a little bit of a box because he can't lose the enthusiasm and frankly, the fundraising base that his father built. This is a very small but intensely committed subgroup in American politics that was able to raise $35 million for Ron Paul. And they were able to fund Rand Paul's Senate campaign in Kentucky and as he told me, he never would've won that Kentucky seat if it weren't for his dad's fundraising network. And so you know, he's in a tricky place because every time he makes a move to satisfy the John McCain wing of the party, it will anger someone in the - it will anger one of his more Libertarian-leaning constituents.


GROSS: Is there anything that you found particularly surprising or particularly enlightening when you were reporting this piece on Rand Paul?


LIZZA: One thing that stood out to me is - this is really a piece about a father and son who share so much in common and the reason that the son got to where he is in life is because of his father. He wouldn't be a United States Senator without his father and he told me as much.


And now for him to take the next step to get where he wants to go next, his father is basically what's standing in the way and his father's history and associations. And you know, that's an awfully tough predicament be in for a politician. I mean, one of the things I was really surprised to learn - you know who the best man at Rand Paul's wedding was?


GROSS: Who?


LIZZA: It was his dad, it was Ron Paul. And so you know, he obviously has a deep affection and relationship with his dad and yet, it's his dad. It's his dad and his dad's sort of peculiar mix of associations and outrageous statements that are going to haunt him when he runs for president.


GROSS: Thank you so much. I always enjoy talking with you. I really appreciate you doing this.


LIZZA: Likewise, it was a pleasure.


GROSS: Ryan Lizza's profile of Rand Paul is in the current issue of The New Yorker. Lizza is the magazine's Washington correspondent.


Coming up, rock critic Ken Tucker reviews Blake Mills' new album "Heigh Ho."


This is FRESH AIR.


Copyright © 2014 NPR. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to NPR. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only, pursuant to our Terms of Use. Any other use requires NPR's prior permission. Visit our permissions page for further information.


NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio.



Top Spending PAC Aims To Keep The Senate In Democratic Hands


Senate Majority PAC, run by allies of Senate Majority Leader Reid, is the top-spending superPAC in the midterm election season. Its donors are essentially a compilation of the party's big-donor base.




Copyright © 2014 NPR. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.


AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:


We're going to shift now to politics. For months, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has made a sport of bashing billionaires David and Charles Koch for donating millions to tax-exempt groups pushing to win back Republican control of the Senate. But it turns out the biggest spending outside group in this election cycle isn't the Koch brothers; it's a super PAC with ties to Senator Reid. NPR's Peter Overby reports.


PETER OVERBY, BYLINE: The consultants who run Senate Majority PAC say they have just one goal, keeping the Senate in Democratic hands. To do that, they've spent $33 million so far. That puts Senate Majority PAC at the top of the list according to Federal Election Commission data as analyzed by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Ty Matsdorf is Senate Majority PAC's campaigns manager.


TY MATSDORF: If he talked to pundits 12-months ago, they would have said, you know, Democrats would be marching towards historic losses.


OVERBY: And they'd list the reasons - President Obama's sinking poll numbers, the traditional anti-administration tilt to second-term elections, all the races happening in red states.


MATSDORF: But if you look at every sort of battleground Senate race, it's either tied or Democrats have a slight lead.


OVERBY: Not exactly the analysis Republicans would give, but most of the races are close. Senate Majority PAC began the cycle by doing what Democratic candidates wouldn't do. Democratic consultant Michael Meehan points out that candidate campaigns want to hoard their money until - well, until right about now, late in the race.


MICHAEL MEEHAN: Senate Majority PAC went in early and heavy and where many vulnerable incumbents are, particularly in the South, North Carolina, places where the race matured much sooner than I've seen in any other cycle.


OVERBY: In North Carolina, Senate Majority PAC has been on the air since last December. It spent roughly $9 million. In Alaska, another tight race, the group didn't get directly involved. Instead it gave $5 million to a state PAC which spent it to help Democratic Senator Mark Begich. Rob Jesmer is a Republican consultant in Senate campaigns.


ROB JESMER: I thought that was pretty smart. They knew that their brand would not be well-received in Alaska.


OVERBY: Senate Majority PAC can do all this because it's got a golden touch with donors. Its top consultants have ties to Senate Majority Leader Henry Reid. Maybe this isn't a surprise, but its disclosure list is a who's-who of wealthy liberals - the top three, billionaire Tom Steyer, longtime Democratic donor Fred Eychaner and former New York City mayor, Michael Bloomberg.


SHEILA KRUMHOLZ: This is really the only show in town for the major money.


OVERBY: That's Sheila Krumholz, director of the Center for Responsive Politics. She says it underscores the flawed legal logic by which super PACs are not supposed to be just big-money extensions of the party organization. Again GOP consultant Rob Jesmer.


JESMER: That group benefits from being known as the de facto Harry Reid PAC, and we don't really have that on the Republican side.


OVERBY: After watching Senate Majority PAC this cycle, it's probably something they're thinking about. Peter Overby, NPR News, Washington.


Copyright © 2014 NPR. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to NPR. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only, pursuant to our Terms of Use. Any other use requires NPR's prior permission. Visit our permissions page for further information.


NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio.



Obama Sidesteps Midterm Campaigning As Approval Ratings Slump



President Obama boards Air Force One after attending a Democratic fundraiser in Newport, R.I. in August. Ahead of this fall's midterm elections, he's not doing big public rallies for Democratic candidates, instead opting for private events.i i



President Obama boards Air Force One after attending a Democratic fundraiser in Newport, R.I. in August. Ahead of this fall's midterm elections, he's not doing big public rallies for Democratic candidates, instead opting for private events. Charles Krupa/AP hide caption



itoggle caption Charles Krupa/AP

President Obama boards Air Force One after attending a Democratic fundraiser in Newport, R.I. in August. Ahead of this fall's midterm elections, he's not doing big public rallies for Democratic candidates, instead opting for private events.



President Obama boards Air Force One after attending a Democratic fundraiser in Newport, R.I. in August. Ahead of this fall's midterm elections, he's not doing big public rallies for Democratic candidates, instead opting for private events.


Charles Krupa/AP


There was once a day, not that long ago, that Democratic candidates for Congress and governor would love to have President Obama come help them campaign. The big rallies, the big airplane, the big entourage — it was a big deal.


Those days are gone now.


President Obama will hold a private fundraiser Thursday in Chicago for Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn. What he's not doing is a big public rally.


Obama's approval ratings are underwater — his job approval rating is somewhere in the low 40s. That means there are a lot of places where his presence would hurt more than it helps.


Ask folks what they think of the president and you'll get a lot of this:


"You know, I don't want to bash anyone on this," says Barb Kerr, a Republican from Milton, N.Y. "I don't see a lot of accomplishments out of his administration. These last issues really bother me with what's going on. I think we have to be a little stronger in some areas."


Kerr is talking about the president's response to ISIS and the beheading of two American journalists. But even people who voted for Obama say they're disappointed.


"It was our pipe dream," says Mike Kelly, a registered independent. "Like this is going to be great and it just, just didn't happen."


"I feel bad for the guy," he says. "He just got stopped."


Florida Democrat Kathy Froehlich supports the Affordable Care Act but worries U.S. troops could get drawn into the conflict in Syria. "If it were me, I would be counting days until I could just turn it over to somebody else, because, I mean, everything is his fault. Everything," she says.


What she means is that it seems like he just can't win. Case in point, the uproar over last week's so-called latte salute. This is the point in a presidency, the middle of the second term, when public sentiment tends to sour. Unfortunately for Obama and the Democrats, there's a midterm election right around the corner, and many of the senators up for re-election are Democrats in red states.


"Every one of these people who are up in '14 who have to contend with the degree to which the president is a problem for them, were the people who were riding the president's coattails into office in 2008," says Dave Heller, a Democratic political consultant.


And they are not likely to show their appreciation by inviting the president to campaign for them.


"It's very hard for any human being, president or otherwise, to say, 'I'm not popular here,' " Heller says. "[To say] 'People don't like me here. It's better if I just stay away.' "


The White House has not announced a fall campaign schedule for the president. And, perhaps tempering expectations, an administration official said it is not about where to land Air Force One; it's about how the president can help. In Obama's case that has meant nearly 40 closed-door fundraisers so far this year.


In 2006, George W. Bush had even lower numbers than Obama does now, and he launched a 10-state victory tour right before the midterms. The stops were in mostly deep red, largely rural states. The last stop of the tour was in Florida, where Bush campaigned for the then-Republican candidate for governor, Charlie Crist. Bush went to the most heavily Republican part of the state, but the candidate he was there to support opted to campaign at a bagel shop far, far away.


"The official line is that he was in Palm Beach County to make sure that he was going to get South Florida moderate voters to vote for him," says George LeMieux, Crist's campaign manager, who went on to serve briefly as a U.S. senator.


LeMieux is sticking with that story. He says there are a number of Democrats on the ballot now who would rather not share a stage with the president.


"I guarantee you that Mary Landrieu in Louisiana and Kay Hagan in North Carolina and Mark Pryor in Arkansas, and other states that voted for Mitt Romney where the senators are up for re-election do not want the president in their state," he says.


Obama begins his closing argument for the fall campaigns Thursday, with an economic speech in Chicago. A city in a state that is about as blue as it can get.



The White House Could Be Made A Fortress, But Should It Be?



U.S. Secret Service countersniper team members stand on the roof of the White House on Monday.i i



U.S. Secret Service countersniper team members stand on the roof of the White House on Monday. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images hide caption



itoggle caption Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

U.S. Secret Service countersniper team members stand on the roof of the White House on Monday.



U.S. Secret Service countersniper team members stand on the roof of the White House on Monday.


Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images


It turns out the Secret Service isn't too good at protecting the White House, and maybe one reason is that we don't want it to be.


Secret Service agents are famously willing to sacrifice their own lives to protect the president and his family. They are also trained to take the lives of others in defense of their protectees.


But are they equally prepared to do either of those things for the White House itself? Should it be policy for the armed agents around 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to use deadly force whether the president or his family is present or not?


Most Americans see the White House as a symbol of the nation, like the Capitol or the flag. Most do not realize how exposed the physical reality of that symbol is, situated in the center of a major urban metropolis with an antiquated security fence just yards from the front door.


It is surely possible for the Secret Service to shoot anyone who jumps or squeezes through that fence, but in recent months that would have included at least one errant toddler — whose story was told in the media as a cute back-page "bright."


It is also surely possible to electrify the fence or its immediate vicinity, but that would very likely lead to incidents of an unpleasant nature — and all the predictable reaction in the media and beyond.


In either event, the Secret Service would be pilloried as either inept or trigger-happy. The president would be portrayed as besieged, unfeeling, remote. Even the signs on the fence warning of lethal consequences would be a ghastly image.


In 1995, a truck bomber in Oklahoma City killed 168 people and leveled a major federal building. In response, the Secret Service succeeded in closing Pennsylvania Avenue to vehicles, lest a copycat park a truck within yards of the North Portico of the White House.


But even now, it is possible for pedestrians to get close enough that a sprinter can cross the grass and enter the building. That is what 42-year-old Omar Gonzalez was able to do on a Friday night. The Washington Post revealed this week that Gonzalez got to the Green Room on the ground floor before being subdued. That contradicted earlier reports of his being stopped in the entryway.


All this led to the resignation of Secret Service Director Julia Pierson, following an animated House hearing Tuesday on the incident. Member after member denounced the officials of the agency, proclaiming their shock and dismay. Surely they spoke for millions of their constituents, who usually rank the Secret Service among the federal agencies they are most inclined to trust.


Yes, the agents could have shot him. They also could have released trained dogs that might have taken him down. But that would have meant an ugly story about the treatment of a man carrying nothing more threatening than a knife, as was noted at the hearing by former Secret Service Director W. Ralph Basham.


"We could be here having a very different conversation," said Basham, making the point that decisions about security at the White House were not and had never been the province of his agency alone.


The Secret Service has never been able to guarantee the safety of the president. That point has been stated and restated countless times. Anyone willing to exchange his own life for that of the president has always had, and still has, at least a theoretical chance of succeeding.


The recent revelations about the jumper and of an unknown gunman hitting the White House in November 2011 are disturbing and should prompt a review of agency policy and practice — and some soul-searching on the part of all concerned.


But there are also sound reasons behind the reluctance to build an impregnable White House. Draconian measures such as closing Pennsylvania Avenue to pedestrians or barricading Lafayette Square park across the street would be undesirable and unattractive — offensive to the national attitude toward the White House as "the people's house."


The president obviously must be protected. But what politician wants to be seen as living within a fortress in a state of siege?


In ancient Roman times, top generals hand-picked a few legionnaires to guard their own personal headquarters. The HQ was called a praetor, and the protectors became known as praetorian guards. These elite units grew in size and importance until Caesar Augustus made them his official protectors.


Over the next three centuries the praetorians became a key element in Rome's recurring power struggles, sometimes protecting emperors and sometimes assassinating them. Since then the term praetorian has been used to connote a protective inner circle that either grows too powerful or otherwise becomes a problem.


The Secret Service is surely a far cry from such a force. But allowing armed guards all the leeway they might require to do their job perfectly can have unintended consequences as well.