data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/07dc3/07dc33337a9d98f26fc1a58f825f658d493ee043" alt="articles/2010/06/18/rand-paul-and-sharron-angle-problems-for-their-party/sarlin-angle_107923_l74ksh"
It seems like a gift from the political gods: Newly minted Republican Senate nominees Sharron Angle and Rand Paul offer opposition researchers endless opportunities to dig up controversial, out-of-the-mainstream views. The Democrats can then force every Republican running for office this fall to repudiate or embrace those views—putting the GOP on the defensive just as the midterms are heating up.
No sooner had Paul been nominated than he stepped on a landmine—saying he did not support provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act based on his libertarian principles. The furor over those comments—and others about a plot to replace America’s currency—sent Paul into hiding from the national press.
“With some of these candidates, the risk is that their positions are so crazy voters won’t even believe the ads,” Democratic strategist Paul Begala said.
Now Angle is making Paul’s post-primary woes look like a honeymoon. She suggested that America “ phase Medicare and Social Security out.” She embraced multiple fringe groups accused of militia ties. She repeatedly hinted that an armed uprising is around the corner. She’s advocated for a Scientology-backed massage-therapy program for prisoners. She once suggested that alcohol should be banned (in Nevada, of all places)—just one of a number of old quotes that seem to merit additional scrutiny.
But exploiting the feeding frenzy surrounding Angle and Paul may be a little more complicated than it might seem.
The sheer number of controversial issues surrounding Angle’s campaign could make it difficult for Democrats to focus voters on any one subject. If everything’s billed as an outrage, there’s a danger that nothing actually sticks.
“If you hit everyone with everything all at once, the one thing that concerns me is that we’re so far away from the general election that people might get immune to some of it,” Nevada Democratic strategist Dan Hart told The Daily Beast.
It’s also possible that the controversies arise too early in the process—giving the candidates time to counter their critics, focus on more mainstream matters—and defuse the issues long before Election Day.
But for now, Democratic leaders are determined to make the most of Paul and Angle—using their unorthodox views to try to drive a wedge between their Tea Party base and more mainstream Republicans.
DSCC Chairman Senator Robert Menendez made the plan explicit back in January. In a memo to Democratic candidates, he urged them to demand that Republicans answer questions like whether they believe President Obama is a U.S. citizen, and whether Social Security and Medicare should ever have been enacted. Thus far, it’s working: Thanks to Angle and Paul, numerous Republicans have been asked to reaffirm their support for integration and Social Security benefits.
But history suggests the wedge strategy has its limitations.
In 1996, Ron Paul (R-TX), father of Rand, defeated incumbent GOP Rep. Greg Laughlin in a primary, then went on to beat his Democratic opponent, Lefty Morris, in the fall. Both tried to tie Paul to the fringe. They had plenty of ammo, highlighting Paul’s objections to federal drug laws and his racially incendiary writings in a political newsletter, but none of it seemed to stick.
Both Angle and Rand Paul have overcome efforts to make them out to be crazy extremists thus far this year. In Kentucky, primary rival Trey Grayson had a site dedicated to Paul’s “ strange ideas” and in Nevada, Sue Lowden ran hard-hitting ads on Angle’s support for Scientology-backed prison programs.
“With some of these candidates, the risk is that their positions are so crazy voters won’t even believe the ads,” Democratic strategist Paul Begala said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who will face Angle this fall, seems to be mindful of getting too far into the weeds on the zanier topics, focusing attacks so far on Angle’s comments on Social Security, a more conventional and relevant issue in retiree-heavy Nevada. The DSCC is walking a similar line.
How do Republicans counter the Democratic onslaught? NRSC officials did not respond to interview requests from The Daily Beast. But the party seems bent on helping mainstream their nominees—and lower their profiles.
Both Paul and Angle have avoided interviews with mainstream outlets since winning their primaries, and Angle was in Washington this week to meet with national Republicans. Angle’s website, along with its synopses of her position on various issues, was taken down almost entirely in the wake of her primary victory, only to be partially restored after reporters asked the campaign what had happened.
Other candidates seem to be following suit. Clint Didier, a candidate for the Republican nomination to the Senate in Washington state, has called for the U.S. to leave the United Nations and met this week with “inspirational leader” Ron Paul. But Didier isn’t talking about it to the national press, having limited his interviews lately. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who chairs the NRSC, told reporters that Angle would eventually be available to the press again, adding that it may take “ a few weeks.”
"You're going to have complete, 100 percent access to her... it just makes sense at some point,” he said. “But I think she needs to get staffed up and prepared. The kind of scrutiny candidates undergo in a general-election race like this is far different than virtually anybody's been through before, and I just think it's a matter of due diligence and being prepared."
Cameron Lynch, a Republican strategist, told The Daily Beast that Angle and Paul would likely have to abandon some of their positions to receive strong support from national Republicans—and win their races.
“My guess is the NRSC is going to try to moderate those people, but we’ll see what happens,” he said. “It basically comes down to if [Paul and Angle] want to win the seat or make a statement.”
As the campaign shifts from the primary to the general, even the edgiest candidates begin to show signs of pragmatism. Paul backed down from his early criticism of the Civil Rights Act after facing intense criticism from all sides. And Angle has at least tried to change her rhetoric on Social Security, saying she wants to “ personalize” the program instead of phase it out, although her exact policy prescription is still unclear.
Benjamin Sarlin is Washington correspondent for The Daily Beast. He previously covered New York City politics for The New York Sun and has worked for talkingpointsmemo.com.