Rand Paul is transcending flip-flopping; he's becoming Schrödinger's candidate. Bob Cesca at the Daily Banter has put all of Paul's statements on ISIS together, and it's really something to see. In June, Paul was against bombing ISIS, asking "What would airstrikes accomplish?" Then earlier this week, Paul said that if he was president, he would "seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily." Yesterday, Paul said that if he was president, he would seek congressional authorization to "give technological as well as air support" to military forces from Iraq and Turkey in pursuit of ISIS.
This is typical of Rand Paul, who's trying to seduce three or four disparate political demographics simultaneously: He takes a stand on an issue and then blurs that stand in and out of focus, depending on who he's talking to. In one room, he's criticizing Hillary Clinton for being a hawk. In another room, he's banging the drums of war. This is a tactic that used to work, but with an entire internet full of people eager to pounce on the slightest inconsistency of any politician, it feels like a recipe for failure. Can Paul keep his positions vague and insubstantial enough to last through the 2016 Republican primary? I guess we'll find out.