South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham may still be weighing whether to run for president, but he already has a strategy — distancing himself from fellow senator Rand Paul.

In TV appearances, on the campaign trail, and even in private fundraisers, Graham, an Air Force reservist and one of his party’s most prominent defense hawks, has gone after Paul repeatedly and by name, casting him as weak-kneed and unwilling to protect the country from aggressors.


In interviews, Graham aides said he was laying out a plan to position himself as Paul’s foil, and will repeatedly contrast his foreign policy positions to that of the Kentucky senator’s more isolationist views, especially in debates. They believe that going after Paul — or “putting wood on him,” in the words of one aide — drives attention to Graham and, at a time of rising concern about threats from abroad, helps establish himself as the hawk of the Republican field.

“It’s nothing personal, not at all,” Graham insisted in a telephone interview on Wednesday, one day before Paul stumped in his home state, pointing out that the two had once played golf together. “My problem with Rand Paul is foreign policy. He’s a libertarian and I come from a more traditional Republican perspective.”

The Kentucky senator, he said, “in many ways is to the left of Barack Obama.” To defeat Hillary Clinton, Graham argued, Republicans would need a nominee with robust national defense strategy. “Sen. Paul isn’t in a good position to do that,” he said.

Paul, 52, declined to comment on his relationship with Graham, and many of his advisers — who over the years have observed Graham launch similar broadsides against Paul’s father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul — are hesitant to respond to Graham’s attacks, believing that it will only help the South Carolina senator.

“Punching down third-tier candidates doesn’t often make a lot of sense,” said Jesse Benton, a former Paul campaign manager who is now helping to lead a super PAC that will be supporting his candidacy.

But some Paul advisers are watching nervously, and are growing convinced the attacks will intensify. One aide pointed out that a group running TV ads against Paul, the Foundation for a Secure & Prosperous America, is overseen by Rick Reed, a veteran Republican operative who’s worked for Graham. On Thursday, BuzzFeed reported that Paul’s campaign had sent a cease-and-desist letter to TV stations, asking them to take down the ad, which it called deceptive.

Graham said he had nothing to do with the group, whose ads accuse the Kentucky senator of minimizing the threat of Iran’s nuclear capabilities and which conclude with a mushroom cloud billowing into the air. “I don’t know anything about it,” he said.

It’s the latest chapter in an increasingly acrimonious relationship, one that has produced a fair share of public clashes. In 2012, Paul’s political action committee began airing TV ads attacking West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat who was up for reelection, for opposing a Paul-sponsored bill that would have blocked foreign aid to Egypt, Pakistan and Libya. In response, Graham, who oversees a key Appropriations subcommittee charged with disbursing foreign aid, went so far as to appear on a conference call with Manchin to argue that cutting off the packages could have adverse effects in the region.

Paul steamed. “I don’t see myself campaigning against a Republican in a general election ever, that’s why I think it’s extraordinary that Graham is supporting a Democrat in a general election,” he said at the time.

A month later, Graham and Paul appeared on the Senate floor to debate whether to close the Guantánamo Bay terrorist detention facility. What ensued would soon become known as “ The Crazy Bastard Fight.”

“Simply stated,” Graham said, “the American people don’t want to close Guantánamo Bay, which is an isolated, military-controlled facility, and bring these crazy bastards who want to kill us all to the United States.”

“I want to make formal objection to the ‘crazy bastard’ standard,” Paul swung back. “If we’re going to lock up all the crazy bastards, for goodness sakes would you not want, if you’re a crazy bastard, to have a right of trial by jury?”

In 2013, Graham appeared on the floor to lash Paul for his nearly 12-hour protest over the Obama administration’s drone policy — which the South Carolina senator labeled a “disservice.”

The most recent flareup came on Sunday, when Graham, appearing on Fox News, said Paul’s “foreign policy is to the left of President Obama.” He added that any Republican candidate would have struck a better Iran deal than Obama. “Except maybe Rand Paul.”

Appearing on the same network just minutes after he formally declared himself a candidate for president, Paul was asked about Graham’s comments. He chuckled. “Well, almost anyone in the Congress would better defend the Bill of Rights than this particular senator,” he said. “So touché.”

Graham, 59, who is serving his third term, has said he will make a final decision on whether to run by late May. He has been traveling to early primary states and has established a new political action committee, Security Through Strength. In March, he held a private fundraiser at the Capitol Hill Club that was attended by much of the Republican Party’s foreign policy establishment.

In pursuing a possible run, many of Graham’s friends say he’s exploiting an opportunity to espouse his hawkish views before a national audience.

“I think he thinks he has a lot to offer, particularly in the area of of foreign affairs,” said David Wilkins, a longtime Graham friend and a former U.S. ambassador to Canada. “He clearly checking it out, he’s testing the waters.”

Even if he doesn’t run, they say, Graham has the potential to influence the race — especially in South Carolina. There, he could play the role of power broker and tilt the race away from Paul by endorsing a more establishment-friendly candidate or by launching a scorched-earth offensive against him.

“He’s always a power broker in South Carolina,” said former Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss a close Graham friend who recently attended a fundraiser he held. “He’s going to be a key factor whether he’s in the race or not.”

Graham’s anti-Paul offensive, Chambliss argued, was also having its desired effect — drawing attention to the South Carolina senator’s cause.

“He looked at who’s out there and who could get him a headline. It was an easy shot from a national security standpoint,” Chambliss said. “I think it’s designed to create a headline. It’s very smart on his part.”

Paul’s campaign believes it can’t hold back forever.

Appearing on CNN Wednesday afternoon, Paul declined to comment on the people behind the TV ads, other than to say they were neoconservatives and “people who want to be in the shadows.” But he then added: “I think there are people that you will see in the Senate who basically favored giving arms to [the late Libyan strongman Muammar] Qadafi and then the next year they were favoring giving arms to the so-called freedom fighters.”

Paul’s allies contend Graham is falsely portraying the Kentucky senator as a dove. In recent weeks, Paul has cast himself as a supporter of a muscular military approach, recently sponsoring an amendment that would boost Pentagon spending by about $190 billion over the next two years.

“The things Graham is saying just aren’t true,” said Tom Davis, a libertarian-minded South Carolina state senator and Paul supporter who campaigned with him on Thursday. “Trying to characterize Rand in the way they characterized Ron Paul just isn’t accurate.”