After Rand Paul said GOP defense hawks had “created” ISIS, he told Sean Hannity: “I think I could have stated it better.” When he claimed some of his adversaries were “secretly” hoping for a terrorist attack so they could blame him for shutting down the PATRIOT Act, the next day he admitted that “hyperbole” got the better of him “in the heat of battle.”

And when Paul quipped that he was “glad” his train didn’t stop in Baltimore in the wake of riots there, he later offered “regret” that his comments were “misinterpreted.”


As Paul has sought to stand out from the clustered GOP presidential field, he’s finding that his freewheeling, off-the-cuff speaking style can cut both ways. His supporters say it’s what’s refreshing about him: He’s not a typical programmed pol who spews the same talking points over and over; there’s an authenticity that’s rare in today’s poll-driven politics, they say. But his critics say it betrays a lack of discipline that should concern Republicans in a general election — when any rhetorical blunder can trigger a media circus lasting days — let alone in the White House.

In an interview, Paul spurned advice he often receives to “say the same thing over and over again,” even as he acknowledged his comments are “not always perfect.”

“People have to choose what they want,” he told POLITICO this week. “If they want robots, who say the same thing over and over again, there are plenty of them. If they want something more genuine, where everything is not always perfect — we’ll see what people want. I am who I am.”

The 52-year-old ophthalmologist may seem like a political neophyte, given that his 2010 Senate victory was his first foray into elective politics. But he has spent a good portion of his life around the spotlight, learning the political ropes from his father, former Rep. Ron Paul, whose brand of libertarianism set him apart from much of his party.

And, like his father, he has methodically worked to portray himself as a different type of candidate, including speaking to an array of different audiences and not shying away from the press. It’s in stark contrast to other candidates who fear unscripted moments and adopt a more disciplined approach to the media when running for higher office.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for one, has not participated in a formal sit-down interview and has sharply limited press availability since announcing her presidential run in April. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who was known for his willingness to engage with reporters in the Capitol, is now limiting — if not avoiding — interactions with Hill media. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) takes questions from reporters and often gives long-winded answers, but he rarely deviates from the precise point he’s trying to make.

Paul said Clinton’s press avoidance strategy may have spared her some bad headlines in the short term, but he asserted it’s backfired on her lately. “She’s had a bad month. I think I like my month better than her month,” he said.

Of course, Paul isn’t the front-runner for his party’s nomination, so he has a lot more to gain than Clinton does by mixing it up with the press.

In the past month, Paul became the scourge of his caucus for his defiant stand against the PATRIOT Act, forcing a two-day lapse in the law by refusing to allow a temporary extension to pass. As GOP hawks slammed the libertarian-minded Paul over his view that the anti-terrorism law invaded privacy rights, the Kentucky Republican took to the floor in a rare Sunday night session and made a rather incendiary claim.

“People here in town think I’m making a huge mistake,” Paul said. “Some of them, I think, secretly want there to be an attack on the United States so they can blame it on me.”

A day later, Paul was walking it back. “I think hyperbole can sometimes get the better of us,” he told reporters outside the Capitol.

Last week, Paul was on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” when he was asked about Sen. Lindsey Graham’s position that a more restrained foreign policy empowered Islamic State militants.

“ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately and most of those arms were snatched up by ISIS,” Paul said. “These hawks also wanted to bomb [Syrian leader Bashar] Assad, which would have made ISIS’ job even easier. They created these people.”

After an uproar, Paul was confronted about the comments on Hannity’s Fox News show. “Ultimately, I think I could have stated it better,” Paul said. “The ultimate people who are responsible for terrorism are obviously the terrorists.”

In the POLITICO interview, Paul said the backlash was an instance of him saying something “1,000 times” and then changing his wording once, prompting criticism. He said he should have also pinned blame on Clinton and President Barack Obama for backing policies that created ISIS. But he stood by the essence of his remarks that Republican hawks are culprits, as well.

Paul’s supporters believe voters will cut some slack to a candidate who’s unafraid to speak his mind. | John Shinkle/POLITICO

“The comments I said about ISIS, I’ve said 1,000 times,” Paul said. “I used one different word — which is probably not the correct word — the ‘created’ word. I probably should have said, ‘enabled’ or ‘make worse.’ And all things I’ve said, a million times, and I still believe that.”

Such comments have already given fodder to Paul’s foes.

“I think it really shows how little understanding he has on both the conflict and the challenges and the threat it presents to the security of the United States,” said Arizona Sen. John McCain, a leading GOP hawk who backs Graham (R-S.C.) for president.

Unlike some candidates who tend to hew closer to their scripts, Paul, at times, grows weary of giving the same defense of a policy position. So he is prone to veer off topic and offer a new argument publicly. Doing that, however, has its risks. His advisers have tried to impress upon Paul the need to hash out his line of thinking privately before speaking publicly about it for the first time.

For instance, when he said on Fox Business Network in 2013, “I don’t care” if a drone were to kill a man robbing a liquor store, it seemed incongruent with his 13-hour filibuster the month earlier against U.S. policies on unmanned drones. And after contending in February during a testy CNBC interview there were cases of vaccinations causing “mental disorders” in some children, he later stressed he believes all kids should be inoculated, even tweeting a picture of himself getting a booster shot.

Paul’s supporters believe voters will cut some slack to a candidate who’s unafraid to speak his mind.

“It’s a two-edged sword, yet his greatest strength,” said Brian Darling, a former senior aide to Paul. “It’s a risk at times when comments get him in trouble. But it’s a huge upside in the sense that people know he’s a genuine guy.”

Darling added: “Rand Paul may be the new ‘Straight-talk Express’ from the Senate,” a riff on McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign slogan.

While Paul comes across as a no-nonsense senator, he occasionally likes to flash his sense of humor. Yet, his timing can sometimes fall flat, as it did when he quipped on Laura Ingraham’s radio program about moving quickly through Baltimore amid riots there in April. “I’m glad the train didn’t stop,” he said.

The remark undercut his long-running effort to reach out to communities of color, and Paul and his team moved quickly to contain the fallout.

Missteps aside, Jesse Benton, a longtime political adviser to Paul who is married to the senator’s niece, said the senator has improved vastly as a communicator during his short time in public office.

“I think he’s a master at it, but even a master is not always perfect,” said Benton, who now runs Paul’s super PAC. “Sometimes, he makes news in a way that is not exactly in the way he wants it. However, the vast majority of the news he makes is extremely positive for him.”