Plan Rand

Fresh off a 13-hour filibuster, which he more or less used as the foundation of his successful CPAC speech, Rand Paul is now the Republican Savior-of-the-Month, a man with the ideas, youthful appeal -- and the “inside game” his father, Dr. No, lacked -- that could help the Grand Old Party take back the White House. 

My former mates at Politico breathlessly declare that Rand has the muscle to defeat all comers in the 2016 GOP presidential primary death match, including former Saviors-of-the-Month Marco Rubio, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush. And he’s got the combination, they gush, that appeals to young and old Republicans as well as moderates, qualities that could send Hillary Clinton shuffling back to Chappaqua four years from now.  

Take it to the bank. Bet the farm, your bottom dollar, the last dime, or your last money, as Don Cornelius would say. It’s all gonna be a stone gas, honey.  

Oh, wait.  Forgot about this thing right here.  Not to mention this other thing, that could be slightly problematic for a few voters. Also, this.

Paul’s rather extreme positions on abortion probably could also be a bit of a turn-off, shall we say, for even some Republican women, not to mention most mainstream American voters -- the kind that preferred President Obama to Mitt Romney, whose governing record was slightly to the left of Paul’s but who nevertheless jacked the wheel hard to the right to win the nomination, digging a tiger trap for himself in the process. 

And we haven’t even started talking about this.  I’ve said it before: nothing makes white voters more uncomfortable than a candidate without the good sense to keep those views behind closed doors or use code words in public. 

All this pseudo-excitement about Paul pretty much walks right by the red flags Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus waved at the party Monday. 

When it comes to national elections, Priebus warned, Republicans need to modify their “messaging” on the policies they hate but the country likes: abortion rights, gay marriage, global warming, entitlement spending, immigration, voting rights and taxing the rich. GOP candidates, Priebus said, should beware the conservative media echo chamber, and kick the habit of kneeling at the altar of Ronald Reagan, who left office in an Alzheimer’s fog 25 years ago and has been dead for nearly a decade. 

(While we’re on the subject, this needs to be said: Saint Gipper was a center-right Republican who raised taxes, favored gun control, cut budget deals with Democrats, withdrew troops after a terrorist attack in Lebanon and walked past the Constitution with a technically illegal war in Grenada and a ham-fisted arms-for-hostages deal with Iran, a sworn U.S. enemy. Not to mention his administration begat Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and a host of other arrogant neocons who bamboozled us into invading Iraq.  But why spoil a good conservative myth with actual facts?) 

Priebus' "autopsy" completely ignores the GOP content, however. He may advocate "reaching out" to minorities, gays and the young, but if the past election is any indication that outreach feels more like a dope-slap. 

That was pretty evident at CPAC, where the crowd sat on its hands and nodded thoughtfully when keynote speakers talked about recruiting black and Latino voters, but exploded in applause when those same speakers said Republicans will win again by sticking to "core conservative values."  That means -- say it with me -- traditional marriage, shrinking government, nuts to immigration amnesty, no abortion under any circumstances, "drill, baby, drill." Only this time, they said, we conservatives need to turn the volume up to 11.  

NRA President Wayne LaPierre brought that into sharp relief with a speech that was the conservative equivalent of a crowd-pleasing, 15-minute drum solo at a classic rock concert. His unhinged, defensive, somewhat paranoid remarks boiled down to, "they're coming to take your guns, so we need more guns!" 

Big picture: none of this -- Paul infatuation or Priebus' Cassandra imitation -- really matters.  For the GOP, however the White House is the now-elusive Holy Grail, the One Ring of Mordor, the Belmont Stakes to their Preakness (state governments) and Kentucky Derby (House gerrymandering) wins.  Winning the presidency will help cement legislative and Supreme Court power, and the fact that they lost to the black guy (twice!) is driving them completely crazy. 

So a Republican rebranding is all anyone can talk about, and the brand of the moment is Paul.  

At the CPAC red-meat feeding frenzy last weekend, Senator Paul himself seemed to acknowledge that the party is stuck in the past, declaring it “stale and moss-covered,” deathly in need of new ideas -- like marijuana decriminalization, letting shaky banks go under and shouting at voters in Chicago’s notorious South Side, presumably in person. 

But then he did a whiplash pivot and played the GOP hits.

He threw a bouquet of roses at Reagan (peace and blessings be upon his name), condemned wasteful government spending and bashed Obama and the sequester, to enthusiastic applause. The only thing missing: waving lighters held aloft and shouts of “Free Bird!” from the audience. 

The warm reception, coupled with ubiquitous “Stand with Rand” stickers and T-shirts that spread through CPAC like a virus, and the audience standing in solidarity throughout Paul’s speech, was enough to convince the likes of Politico and others that Paul is the latest guy to be seen as party’s future -- even though Paul has shown he’s keeping at least one foot inextricably planted in the GOP’s past.  

Take a scroll through Paul’s Twitter timeline, and it looks more like two feet.  With at least one of them stuck in his mouth.

Jesus Christie, Superstar

Largely on the strength of his short-term bro-mance with President Obama a few months ago, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is now the man who can save the Republican Party from itself.  His "straight talk," coupled with his willingness to seek "bipartisan solutions" and "work across the aisle" is just the elixer to fix our dysfunctional political system.

His empathy towards storm victims and his fierce determination to get them the relief they need shows Christie has the "common touch" all great leaders -- nay, presidents -- need to demonstrate if they dare to dream of occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  His willingness to criticize anyone, even House Speaker John Boehner, for standing between him and aid to Superstorm Sandy victims caused the flutter of a million moderate hearts.

Cue Time cover story!  Chris Matthews, the thrill up your leg is back!

There's just one tiny, tiny problem with the nascent hero worship of Mr. Moderate: this tiny thing right here.

Oh, and maybe this.

Right - this, also, is probably something that people should think about, too.

From where I sit inside the beltway, Christie looks an awful lot like the shiny object we pundits and reporters tend to chase without much thought.  He made a splash with what I interpreted as genuine caring and concern of Superstorm Sandy victims, and his praise of President Obama was justified.  After all, the president put Christie first in line to alleviate the suffering, keeping in touch with him day and night, offering him a direct line to the Oval Office -- just as a president should.

I'd be surprised if some pretty influential New Yorkers, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. Andrew Cuomo, didn't get access and a few late-night phone calls, too.  After all, Jersey wasn't the only state affected by the tragedy.

But Christie's larger-than-life personality, and the breathless, will-he-or-won't-he parlor game surrounding his potential 2012 presidential run, amped up his role in the post-storm tragedy to a higher level.  Suddenly, the man who bashed Obama like a pinata in Tampa is now openly embracing the guy who's going to help his state get back on his feet again.

That embrace was rewarded with a few perks that showed Obama playing up the relationship, as well, in what I consider one of the purest displays of bipartisanship, ever, for mutual political gain.

The underlying facts, however, haven't changed: Christie is a Republican who agrees with, say, 90 percent of his party's platform, including spending and the role of the federal government.  He made a big show of rejecting federal money for a badly-needed tunnel into New York to show how tough he is on federal spending.  And he gutted some state social welfare programs for the same reason, with at least one tragic result as a consequence.

Christie took his barbed wit and outspokenness to his own party -- and to Speaker John Boehner's hide -- only after Boehner blocked aid to his state, for obvious poltical reasons.  Like the rest of the "moderates" in his party with higher ambitions, The Big Man was mum when Republicans in DC decided to wreck the economy and play Russian roulette with the debt ceiling in the name of getting Obama out of the White House by 2012.

Still, let's say for the sake of argument that Christie's new bipartisan religion is the real thing -- that he believes the GOP has gone too far to the right, and recalibration of its relationship with Democrats is in order.  Then what?

Does anyone seriously believe that Christie could actually make it to a general election in this Republican Party?  The one that gave a serious look-see to Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Herman Cain? The same party that forced Mitt Romney so far to the right that he all but disavowed his governorship of true-blue Massachusetts?  The party that pretty much created a permanent Tea Party majority in the House?

If you believe that, I've got a tunnel to New York I'd like to sell you.

Perception versus reality

This is appropriately named. 

....Aaaaand WE'RE BACK!!!

It's been a rough six months or so, with an abrupt departure, a rough landing and a few other personal issues that have kept me on the sidelines. But a new year is a good time for a new start, and there's a lot to talk about going forward.

Even so, I'm still a little shaky about blogging again - understandable because of a few Internet miscues that have made things more difficult than necessary.  But a few short posts should take care of whatever jitters there are about getting back on the field, so bear with me through a few subpar ones while things get worked out.

Which brings me to today's subject: the Fiscal Cliff, or Curb, or Slope or whatever trope is in fashion these days.

Despite all the drama, it seems like President Obama got a decent deal.  The taxes will go up on the wealthiest 1 percent, a lot of important social programs get preserved, and the GOP had a big chunk taken out of its ass.  Well played, Mr. President.

But a lot of people on the left are upset with the deal - particularly the fact that the upper-income tax floor was raised from $250,000 to $450,000.  To me, that's not such a big deal: Obama got a lot in return, and lawmakers in some districts with high costs of living - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer among them -- had pushed for a floor closer to $1 million.

And, much like the president's decision to extend the Bush tax cuts in 2010, the big picture -- extension of tax breaks for small businesses, continuation of unemployment insurance, no cuts to programs to help the poor and vulnerable -- looks like a win from where I sit.

Here's the best take I've seen so far.  There are probably more out there, but, hey, I just woke up. 

Just saw former GOP governor and professional chin artist Haley Barbour on MSNBC, arguing that Obama and the Chicago boys can't run on their record, so they vilified Mitt Romney and ran a negative campaign.

My head ordinarily would have exploded - metaphorically, of course - at such inanity, especially on a Very Important Election Day. Fortunately, I'd taken the antidote last night, in the form of The Rachel Maddow Show's A-block.  Despite conventional wisdom, Obama had an amazing record, one that many of his predecessors (George Bush, anyone) would envy, and that history will smile upon.

I yield my time to the

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

" target="_blank">gentlewoman from the Berkshires:

Listening to NPR while chugging along on the treadmill this morning, I heard Kokie Roberts and Mara Liasson opine that, since blowing McCain out of the water in '08, Obama's lost significant ground with white male working class voters - an exploitable flaw in his already weakened armor.

Flipping the argument around, host Steve Inskeep asked about the minority vote. Both Liasson and Roberts sang it almost in stereo: Obama has locked up the minority vote, and hopes to run up huge margins that could offset the lion's share of the white vote Romney is expected to win.

Then, there's this, from my old mates at Politico, declaring that the era of Post Racial Politics is officially over. Also, Southern Strategy.

That got me thinking about this, from the summer, and comparing it to what I was hearing on NPR.

It seems to me that pointing out how Obama doesn't have blue collar whites on his side -- and that those votes "still matter" is a whistling-past-the-graveyard scenario on the part of pundits and party strategist, and misses a big point on how this elections, and future ones, will be vastly different.

First of all, no one's talking at all about how Romney has barely lifted a finger to court the black and brown electorate, and seems to have gone out of his way to offend African American voters.  Since that disastrous speech (or ingenious, depending on perspective), Romney hasn't done a single event with a high-profile African American leader.  And he's had little to say on immigration since his technicolor appearance in a Univision interview a few months back.

To get zero percent of the African American community -- just a few years after Bush racked up 11 percent -- and show up orange in a national TV interview, you almost have to be trying.

Secondly, no one disputes the fact that, within a few decades, whites will be the nation's largest minority, surpassed by Latinos but still ahead of African Americans. On its face, irritating a voting bloc you'll soon have to court seems like a losing strategy.

Unless you consider Citizens United and the Republican lockstep strategy of suppressing the minority vote.  The conservative tilt to the Supreme Court all but ensured that the wealthy will have a powerful voice in elections of the future, and the voting suppression -- ranging from strict voter ID laws to menacing billboards and mailings -- are aimed largely at communities of color.

Coincidence?

If you don't have the numbers, you change the rules, and it seems to be working so far - how else could a candidate as flawed, feckless and without gravitas as Mitt Romney come even close to a historic record many of his predecessors would envy?

But Rachel Maddow poses the real question for the GOP -- and the nation: is this really a long-term strategy?

Benghazi dispatch

This is probably the best analysis I've seen so far of the Benghazi bloodshed.

What's missing from a lot of the on-air commentary -- and Mitt Romney's bellicose attack on President Obama for sending "mixed messages" that he believes spurred the attack -- is the fact that the world, and the Middle East, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, is a "complicated and, at times, confounding."

In-depth reporting by, among others, Rachel Maddow makes it plain that there may be a lot of factors behind the devastating attack besides an obscure, really bad, blasphemous film: Islamic extremists, frustrated, angry youth idled by the slack post-revolutionary economy, and general instability in a nation that's trying to figure out its own future.

For my money, this paragraph gets to the heart of it:

No specific group claimed responsibility for the attack, which was well orchestrated and involved heavy weapons. It is thought to be the work of the same Salafi, ultra-religious groups who have perpetrated similar assaults in Benghazi. They are religious, authoritarian groups who justify their actions through very selective, corrupt, and ultimately self-serving interpretations of Islam. Under Qaddafi, they kept quiet. In the early days of the revolution some of them claimed that fighting Qaddafi was un-Islamic and conveniently issued a fatwa demanding full obedience to the ruler. This is Libya’s extreme right. And, while much is still uncertain, Tuesday’s attack appears to have been their attempt to escalate a strategy they have employed ever since the Libyan revolution overthrew Colonel Qaddafi’s dictatorship. They see in these days, in which the new Libya and its young institutions are still fragile, an opportunity to grab power. They want to exploit the impatient resentments of young people in particular in order to disrupt progress and the development of democratic institutions
.