Rand Paul came face to fist this week with the bare knuckled politics of a statewide race in Kentucky. It all started out innocently enough with a conference call and a few more comments repeating how he is the only outsider in a field of political insiders.
And then it happened, almost as if he had blindly stepped into a pit of quicksand as he strolled along what had seemed like an obstacle free path, euphoric after having beaten his competition in third quarter fund raising.
One article after another began to appear calling into question his stance on abortion, illegal drugs, gay marriage and other hot button issues. And the source of the controversies, the most devastating one possible, his own words.
He was more than happy to answer all of the questions and quite directly, but his answers seemed to spin off into a discussion of constitutional principles, with overtones of the supremacy clause coming face to face with states rights and other such esoteric conversations. In a matter of days a new website appeared asking if Rand Paul was too kooky for Kentucky. Whoops, one slip and he was in the quick sand.
Nothing is harder in politics than to define yourself in such a way as to keep your opponents from defining you. Now, in one short week, Paul has gone from the heights of becoming a real contender, to being mired in the mucky image of a quirky ideologue. He has to pull himself out of this one fast.
For example all it takes for the most militant "right to lifers" to abandon a candidate is for there to be even a whiff of compromise on their issue. If Paul is strongly "Pro Life" he needs to make the case NOW, and firmly, or he can kiss Northern Kentucky goodbye. States rights have nothing to do with protecting the sanctity of life, the most important and therefore the first mentioned of our God given rights penned into the Declaration of Independence.
He can reconcile his views on social issues with his "limited federal government" stance by reminding folks that any US Senate candidate who would seek to nationalize these issues would potentially force the people in Kentucky to accept the socially liberal policies which might be adopted in, say, California. But he has to let people know where he stands, and it's okay if people don't agree with him because guess what? A lot of people will NEVER agree with him no matter which stance he takes. All November candidates must concede some votes, but primary candidates are in a different game.
Paul continues to run a populist campaign perfectly suited to the climate of the nation, and of the Commonwealth for November 2010. His stance as an outsider may even be a plus if he plays his money right. But when it comes to the May race he is in a much more difficult spot.
The primary is really the party nominating process. The registered partisans will pick the candidate they believe will go to Washington and become a team player. They have become indoctrinated into the notion that only through the party apparatus can their political agendas succeed. Outsiders may contribute to the debate, but insiders hold the line.
Paul has tapped into the soul of the republican message with many of his comments thus far, but once he showed enough money to be taken seriously, the gloves came off quickly. Now he is in for a real fight, and one he cannot win if he cannot pull himself to his feet from this quicksand which has quickly surrounded him.