Strategist says donors don't 'agree with him on America withdrawing to its own shores.' Paul struggles with hawkish donors

Rand Paul is doing everything he can to marshal the support of a diverse range of political factions ahead of a potential presidential run, from courting Republican National Committee members to meeting with traditionally Democratic African-American pastors and Berkeley college kids.

But at least one segment of the GOP still harbors deep reservations about the libertarian-leaning Kentucky senator — a group that includes prominent donors with plenty of critical cash.


The foreign policy hawks within the establishment GOP — among them pro-Israel donors, national security types and neoconservatives — are impressed by Paul’s attempts to broaden the Republican base and find him willing to listen to their concerns. But ultimately, according to people plugged into the Republican donor class, they worry that a President Paul would dangerously scale back America’s activities abroad — a deepening concern in some corners as his star has risen within the broader party.

( PHOTOS: Rand Paul’s career)

Members of the establishment wing “think he’s a good leader, an attractive candidate and they agree with a lot of what he has to say on economic policy,” said Charlie Black, a veteran Republican strategist. “But they don’t agree with him on America withdrawing to its own shores.”

Paul’s father, Ron Paul, is a famously isolationist libertarian icon; the younger Paul, however, sharply rejects that label. Still, he appears to be betting that if he can build a sufficiently broad coalition – capturing grassroots enthusiasm; appealing to Democratic-leaning constituencies; keeping his libertarian base happy; and making himself palatable to the bulk of the GOP establishment — it will be less crucial to get all of the foreign policy hawks on board at a time when public opinion is shifting away from pro-interventionist sentiment.

The problem with that approach could surface most clearly when it comes to luring big-time cash, said one GOP donor, a former adviser to 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

( Also on POLITICO: Republican senators call for Benghazi select panel)

“For a lot of the establishment people that care about foreign policy, he has considerable concerns among that crowd,” the source said. “The interesting question is, how much does that crowd matter anymore? You still have … establishment people, a handful of people, who do care, whether it’s Israel, Middle East policy, policy regarding China. But at the end of the day, if you look at primary voters, it’s pretty low on their totem poll. However, for some bundlers, it’s a big deal. It really hits him, probably, on New York or D.C. bundlers.”

Paul has come a long way from when he first entered the Senate on a tea party wave in 2010. The views of his father, a longtime House member and erstwhile presidential candidate, initially colored perceptions about the senator, but he has distanced himself from his dad, saying he is a “realist – not a neoconservative, nor an isolationist.”

Paul has met with donors including the staunchly pro-Israel mega-donor Paul Singer; Wall Street types like Emil Henry, a former George W. Bush Treasury official, and last month a gathering of former Romney backers; he has spoken with people with Republican Jewish Coalition, an organization strongly opposed to a nuclear-armed Iran, in part out of concern for what that would mean for Israel. Paul has appeared at pro-defense bastions such as The Citadel in South Carolina; one professor there, Mallory Factor, has publicly gone to bat for Paul. And he has brought on Lorne Craner, a longtime aide to GOP Sen. John McCain, to serve as one of his foreign policy advisers. He has also gone to Israel since entering the Senate and impressed some observers at the time with his enthusiasm.

“A lot of people have previously gotten information about his positions from other people’s characterizations of them. I think it’s important to hear directly from him,” said a senior adviser to Paul. “They often find it’s not what they think, not what they have read.”

One Republican who works closely with GOP donors said many of them have been pleasantly surprised — but that that only goes so far.

“Sen. Paul benefits by the low expectations set by his father: When he meets with donors, they inevitably come away impressed because he is sane and thoughtful in his dialogues, and willing to listen to other opinions, all contrary to expectations set by his father,” the Republican said. “Having said that, some of his views on foreign policy scare the hell out of foreign policy hawks [and] pro-Israel donors.”

Paul is on record promoting a more inward-looking foreign policy, and his attempts to take stances on key foreign policy issues have at times backfired, leaving observers confused about what he really believes.

“There is a Republican tradition, one could even say a bipartisan tradition, of American leadership in world affairs,” said Brian Hook, a former State Department official and Romney foreign policy adviser, pointing to past Paul positions on Russia, Iran and Syria. “Sen. Paul has placed himself squarely outside that tradition.”

Just before hostilities escalated sharply between Russia and Ukraine, Paul said it was a bad idea for his GOP colleagues to “tweak” Moscow. Days later, he reversed course and blasted Russia as tensions rose, eventually penning an op-ed in Time magazine arguing that if he were president, he’d take a tougher line with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

And last month, Paul said that containment shouldn’t be officially ruled out when it comes to handling Iran and its nuclear program, a position that’s anathema to the more hawkish wings of both parties. Soon after, he penned an op-ed in The Washington Post to unpack his views on the issue, stressing: “I am unequivocally not for containing Iran. I am also not for announcing that the United States should never contain Iran.”

Many hawks, especially those deeply concerned about Israel’s security, also worry about Paul’s position on foreign aid.

Paul wants to ultimately phase out such aid across the board. Most immediately, he wants to end it to what he describes as “countries that burn our flag.” But in the long run, he has also argued that he wants to see the Jewish state reach a point where it doesn’t need American aid, a point he doesn’t emphasize as often of late.

He recently introduced a bill that would cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority, which was opposed by the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC allies saw the move as redundant in light of what’s already on the books) and caused Paul to take a swipe at the group.

But Ron Kaufman, a lobbyist and longtime ally of Mitt Romney who attended last month’s meeting with Paul and spoke positively about it, said the senator’s approach to foreign policy is perceived as “evolving.”

“The fact that he is, by self-definition, a libertarian, I think there’s concern among some of the donor class,” Kaufman said. “…he’s perceived as much more a libertarian on foreign policy and therefore more of an isolationist than, perhaps, a lot of donors feel.” But, he added, he hasn’t heard talk of such perceptions as a “disqualifier.”

One GOP source with close ties to the pro-Israel community said Paul deserves “credit” for “keeping the lines of communication open,” but he also said Paul has been inconsistent in policy and rhetoric.

“I think what you see is a sort of schizophrenic approach on his part, which is to try to make overtures to the establishment to try and allay concerns about his views, on one hand, and then frankly he can’t help himself and he says what he really thinks the next day or the day before,” the source said. “You sort of see, one day it’s the real Rand, the next day it’a more conciliatory Rand.”

The GOP source who works closely with donors said that Paul would initially “have a base of committed low-dollar donors who will give him a natural base and, I suspect, $30 million-$50 million of quick money. That’s a huge advantage.” But, that source continued, “That doesn’t get you to the hundred million-plus that it takes to run a winning primary campaign.”

Paul was never going to be the Republican establishment’s first-choice potential candidate — that mantle was first held by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and now by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush — but he’s made enough progress within the party that many now say he has a fighting chance at the 2016 presidential nomination.

But how far he can advance without the backing of the hawkish wing of his party remains an open question.

“The dominant ethic in the Republican Party has traditionally been America leading in the world —not getting involved everywhere, but being a major superpower and the leader of the free world,” said GOP pollster Whit Ayres of Paul. Ayres does polling for another possible 2016 candidate, the more hawkish Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). “He’s going to test the proposition that that is no longer the perspective of the Republican Party.”