Rand Paul Ron Paul. Is that good thing or a bad thing?

Dave Fahrenthold wrote a big piece in today's Post on Rand Paul'sevolution (to be nice) or flip-floppery (to be not so nice) on a variety of issues -- from how to deal with the Islamic State to what to do with Medicare -- in advance of his near certain 2016 presidential bid. It's a great piece and contains two absolutely critical sentences when it comes to understanding what makes Rand different from his father, Ron, who ran for president in 2008 and 2012. Here they are:

As the prospect of a 2016 presidential bid looms larger, Paul is making it clear that he did not come to Washington to be a purist like his father, former congressman Ron Paul.He came to be a politician, like everybody else.

Then, later in the piece, Dave quotes a "longtime [Paul] friend and adviser" saying:Rands a pragmatist. He realizes weve got a really large federal government....I think that Rand has a picture of what a utopia would look like. And hes very realistic about how long it would take to get there.

For those paying close attention to Rand Paul since he arrived in the Senate in 2011 -- and I count myself among that group -- it's been clear for a very long time that he is not a facsimile of his father. Not only is Rand more naturally able as a campaigner than his father -- that's not saying all that much -- but he is also far more willing to tweak and adjust his policy positions to appeal to an electorate that is broader than simply the libertarian wing of the GOP base.

That flexibility has always been cast -- including by me -- as something that works in Paul's favor in a likely presidential bid. After all, we learned in 2008 and 2012 that running as a pure libertarian doesn't win you much other than a loyal, loud and too-small following. (Ron Paul didn't win a single caucus or primary in either 2008 or 2012.)But, Fahrenthold's piece raises the specter that Rand's willingness to massage where he stands could have far more politically painful consequences.

The first, and perhaps most important, is that much of Paul's early support in places like Iowa and New Hampshire comes from the hardcore libertarian base who not only voted for his father but also volunteered and donated money. These are the cause people, not the campaign people. And they are not likely to be all that keen on someone who sees them as one point of a triangulation strategy.

Fahrenthold also quotes social conservative leaders raising questions about just how committed Rand is to working to make abortion illegal and/or roll back gay marriage. While Paul was never going to be the "social conservative guy" in the 2016 field -- that's likely to be Texas Sen. Ted Cruz -- he also can't afford to have that segment of the party actively opposed to him. Social conservatives have become a dominant voice in the Iowa caucuses and remain a major factor in the South Carolina primary as well.

Remember that the most important anything a politician can be -- or at least be perceived to be -- is authentic. Voters like to vote for people that they think a) have convictions and b) are willing to stick by those convictions even in the face of public disagreement. Of course, the best politicians are the ones who give off the impression of being utterly steadfast in their principles while also adjusting those principles to fit the times and the mood of the electorate. Think Bill Clinton.

That's who Matt Lewis, a columnist at the conservative Daily Caller website, sees when analyzing Rand's dexterity on position taking. Writes Lewis:

No, Rand Paul is not in danger of entering John Kerry territory. Kerry wouldn't dare attempt to pull something like this off. He knew he didn't have what it takes to get us to suspend reality and embrace his delusions of grandeur.

Link:
Rand Paul Ron Paul. Is that good thing or a bad thing?