CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa – The immigration reform proposal pending before Congress could be a dicey proposition for Republican presidential contenders come 2016, when they visit this first-in-the-nation caucus state.

Republicans in Washington are in virtual agreement that they must do more to broaden the party’s appeal to the increasingly influential bloc of Hispanic voters. And many of those GOP leaders argue that supporting an immigration reform law that includes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is a good starting point.

But the party’s eventual standard-bearer in 2016 will likely have to run a gauntlet of primaries that begins with Iowa’s caucuses. And catering to the Hawkeye State’s voters could force White House hopefuls to the right – not just in 2016, but in deciding how to posture themselves toward the immigration reform law making its way through Congress this year.

Matthew Holst / Matthew Holst / AP

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., speaks at the Iowa GOP Lincoln Dinner event, Friday, May 10, 2013, at the Hotel at Kirkwood Center, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Two senior members of the state’s Republican congressional delegation – longtime Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep. Steve King – have been some of the most outspoken critics of the “Gang of Eight” bipartisan immigration overhaul currently making its way through the Senate committee process. Both dished out plenty of red meat to the party faithful during speeches at Friday night’s Lincoln Dinner.

“It gives amnesty to and legalizes everybody who's in America illegally today,” King said of the Senate proposal, invoking a word – amnesty – that reflects deep conservative trepidation toward immigration reform. “This bill destroys the rule of law, and it forever produces contempt for the rule of law.”

“We can't afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. And, I want you to know, I learned a lesson, and I want you to know that I — and we — screwed up in 1986,” Grassley said. “The lesson learned: you reward illegality, and you get more of it.”

Their words amount to a caution sign for Republican presidential hopefuls with designs of competing in the Iowa caucuses in 2016.

Some Republicans, like Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican co-author of the Gang of Eight proposal, probably have no choice but to embrace the legislation and its path to citizenship because of their close involvement in its creation. And indeed, Rubio and his conservative cachet might help bring some conservatives on-board with the eventual bill.

“I think that he is one of the people that's been trying to work to find a reasonable approach toward that, that would secure our borders and would find a reasonable way to deal with people who have been here a long time,” Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, R, told NBC News. “I'm going to see what Marco Rubio says about it. I trust him.”

Other would-be Republican presidential candidates can afford to be more circumspect.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, one such potential hopeful who’s previously called for immigration reform, told reporters in Iowa that the Senate bill needs tougher border-security provisions, especially for it to have any chance of passing the Republican-controlled House. To that end, Paul termed himself the “bridge” between the two chambers.

“I'm the bridge between people who won't consider it at all to people who want it,” he said. “I'm in the middle such that I'll vote for it if I think it'll do the right job and it creates border security, doesn't create a new pathway to citizenship, and allows people to get in an existing line, the same way someone in Mexico City would get in line.”

“So I think there's a lot of room for me to help the bill, but we'll see,” Paul added.

But it’s also easy to imagine at least one Republican contender running to the right on the issue of immigration in hopes of outflanking his competitors in Iowa. That temptation – and its repercussions – was on full display during the 2012 primaries, when Mitt Romney used immigration to run to the right of his primary challengers. But his comments during that drawn-out primary came back to haunt him during the general election, when Romney notched a record-low performance among Hispanic voters for a recent Republican presidential nominee.

Regardless of their stance, A.J. Spiker, the Iowa Republican Party’s chairman, cautioned White House hopefuls to be ready to answer questions about their approach to immigration come 2016.

“The one thing I think Republicans agree on, absolutely, on immigration is a secured border,” he said. “After that, you really do head off in some different directions.”

He added: “So what I believe is that whatever a candidate's position is, when they come to Iowa, they're going to have to explain their position to Iowa Republicans. They're going to have to explain why they supported X; why they supported X over Y.”

This story was originally published on Mon May 13, 2013 1:42 PM EDT

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa — Presidential elections start in Iowa. 

On Friday, Sen. Rand Paul put his stake in the ground for a possible run in 2016 by mocking the Obama administration and delivering a blistering critique of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's handling of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. The administration has been criticized for failing to provide security during the attack and for its characterization of the incident afterward.

Speaking at the Iowa GOP’s annual Lincoln Dinner, Paul questioned the initial response to the attacks and asked, "First question to Hillary Clinton: Where in the hell were the Marines?"

Matthew Holst / AP

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has his photo taken with Linda Stikle of Anamosa, Iowa, after he spoke at the Iowa GOP Lincoln Dinner on Friday in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

"It was inexcusable, it was a dereliction of duty, and it should preclude her from holding higher office," the Kentucky Republican added to loud applause.

Republicans' search for a candidate to deliver their first victory in a presidential election since 2004 began as Paul used the plum speaking slot to plant the seeds for his own possible bid. And he won his biggest applause by taking on Clinton, who's seen as the early front-runner for the Democratic nomination to succeed President Barack Obama.

Paul was just elected to the Senate in 2010 and is perhaps best known as the son of the former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, whose two campaigns for president attracted a fervent, grassroots following that might translate to his son.

But the Kentucky senator has been far from shy about stoking speculation about his own play for the Republican nomination in 2016. He told reporters earlier Friday that he had not made up his mind and would not decide until 2014.

The fundraiser on Friday had unmistakable overtones of a presidential campaign, though the last one ended just six months ago. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, captured that sentiment best in his speech preceding Paul's: "The process of selecting the next leader of the free world begins in Iowa, and it's already begun."

Paul's speech doubled at times as a comedy scene, as he seemed at ease before the crowd, stepping away from the podium, microphone in hand, to project a casual demeanor. He rattled off jokes about absurd pork-barrel projects, recalling the campaign style of Arizona Sen. John McCain as he ran for president in 2008.

But Paul also used his closely watched speech to offer his own prescriptions about the path forward for the Republican Party, which has been suffering from somewhat of an identity crisis since Mitt Romney lost to Obama in last fall's election.

On no issue is that crisis more clear than immigration. A bipartisan bill has advanced in the Senate to allow undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship, but King and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, both railed against the proposal in their speeches before Paul's.

Paul has spoken in favor of some kind of immigration reform, a dicey topic before this Republican crowd, and he acknowledged those disagreements. But he also tried to align himself with King and Grassley — two of the most stalwart opponents of immigration reform.

"I'm also with Sen. Grassley and Congressman King on the fact that I think we were hoodwinked in 1968," he said, referencing the last time Congress passed a major immigration overhaul. "We were promised security, and it never came."

But Paul also said there's a "chance [he] could vote for the bill" if he can add amendments strengthening its border security measures.

Paul also spoke about broadening the party's appeal, namely to Latinos, African Americans and young voters.

"We're an increasingly diverse nation, and I think we do need to reach out to other people that aren't like us, don't look like us, don't wear the same clothes, that aren't exactly who we are," he said. "We're going to have to do something."

Related stories

• Clinton remains GOP focus as administration defends Benghazi talking points
• Iowa governor to 2016 hopefuls: 'Come early and often'

Despite his stated support for comprehensive-immigration reform, Rand Paul, R-Ky., is not fully on board with Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and the Gang of Eight’s immigration attempt.

“Generally, I am for immigration reform. It’s not that I’m going to be for anything with no rules, though,” the Kentucky senator told reporters at a breakfast Wednesday hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

Related: As Senate's immigration 'Gang' releases text, House group speaks up

Paul said that he has not studied the details of the proposal yet, but despite the legislation’s various new border-security requirements, he’s not completely convinced. Paul said he is supportive of a path to citizenship, but not a new, separate, or special one for the millions of people in the United States illegally. He was skeptical that there was not what he called a “new pathway” for citizenship in the legislation.

“I don’t want a new pathway,” Paul said, noting that the “same pathway” would give a “better chance of passing immigration reform.” He added, "It’s important for conservatives that it’s no new pathway to citizenship,” Paul said, proposing that workers get a work visa and go to the back of the line like someone in Mexico City. “Get in the same line."

Paul said that he would insist on immigration legislation going through the House, would have at least one, and up to three or four, amendments to the bill. He wants what he calls “trust but verify,” that would include an annual report to Congress on border security with opinions of governors included that has stats on how many immigrants crossed the border and were returned to their home country. And he wants it voted on by Congress. He also wants to make sure that immigrants with work visas cannot vote and do not get social welfare benefits.

"So in order to get it," Paul said, referring to passage of the legislation, "they need to at least engage with people like me, who want immigration reform."

Early in his talk, Paul also -- unprompted -- brought up Paul Ryan, R-Wis., another possible 2016 rival, when discussing Medicare. But it wasn’t exactly to praise him. He was going through his fixes to Medicare, including raising the eligibility age gradually, means testing benefits and premiums, as well as other options.

“It’s similar to Paul Ryan,” Paul said, “but he doesn’t actually do it.”

Paul’s willingness to attempt to poke holes in the Gang of Eight proposal, something Rubio has been out front on, as well as his subtle criticism of Ryan on Medicare -- and in turn, how to tackle debt and deficits -- shows how Paul might try to carve out space for himself in a 2016 Republican presidential primary, if he decides to run. It’s something he appears to be leaning toward and openly said he is weighing.

“I want to be part of the national debate,” Paul said. “Whether I run or not, to be considering is something that gives me a larger microphone.”

He said he will continue travels to early states, hitting New Hampshire this spring and South Carolina this summer.

“We’re considering it,” Paul said. “We won’t make a decision before 2014.”

Paul accuses Obama of using Newtown families as ‘props’

Paul also weighed in the gun debate. He said he’s firmly against the compromise background-check legislation proposed by West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin and Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey, deriding it as “window dressing.” And he accused President Barack Obama of using the Newtown families as “props.”

“When I see the fathers and the mothers and them testifying --  and I know they’re coming voluntarily, and they want to come and be part of this debate,” Paul said, “but it still saddens me just to see them, and I think that in some cases the president has used them as props -- and that disappoints me.”

Paul said he does not want to be seen, however, as not caring, but he believes the background check legislation will do nothing to prevent other Newtowns from happening again.

“The face I want to present is that I do care about those kids,” Paul said, adding that he’s supporting Ted Cruz’s, R-Texas, legislation to shift money to support more prosecutions.

“Make sure that the background checks we have are working,” he said, adding that people like the shooter at Sandy Hook are not deterred even by the death penalty, why would they be deterred by stricter background checks? And he claimed 90 percent of crimes committed with a gun are with ones obtained illegally.

They both were elected in 2010 under the Tea Party banner after beating primary opponents favored by the Republican establishment. They’re both rising stars in the modern GOP, and, last weekend, they finished first and second place in a straw poll of conservatives’ pick of a presidential nominee for 2016.

And as they both maneuver to mount their own campaigns that year – or, at least, preserve the option of doing so – Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., must share the spotlight. Intentionally or not, they’re already jockeying to do so.

Both senators have carefully worked to build their national profiles following the 2012 election, using high-profile opportunities to plot slightly different paths toward the same goal.

On no issue is that more apparent than immigration.

Rubio had joined with three other Senate Republicans and four Senate Democrats in recent months to forge a bipartisan framework on a comprehensive overhaul to immigration laws that would provide undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship. The Florida senator embarked on a media tour in the weeks following the framework’s unveiling to sell the plan to skeptical conservatives, doing the legwork to build political cover for the plan (and gain valuable exposure to the Republican base in the meanwhile).

Paul made clear with a speech on Tuesday – in which he unveiled his own plan creating an eventual pathway to citizenship – that Rubio isn’t the only GOP player on the issue. 

“Immigration reform will not occur until conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution,” Paul told the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. “I am here today to begin that conversation.” 

Both Paul and Rubio might support the broader goal of immigration reform; they both took strides to carve out public roles for themselves in the process. 

For her part, Rubio ally Ana Navarro said the notion of a rivalry between the two men was “overblown by the media.” 

“Rand Paul is a leader in the Republican Party, and he should add his voice to the debate on immigration. His voice can and does make a difference,” she said. “The bottom line is, this is not an issue Marco or any one senator individually can or should carry alone on his shoulders. The more people helping to carry the ball, the more likely we will cross the finish line.” 

But while the two senators might not share a formal rivalry, they are undoubtedly two of the GOP’s biggest stars right now whose utterances alone command attention.

Look no further than last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference, where Paul and Rubio finished first and second, respectively, in the gathering’s closely-watched straw poll. A quarter of straw poll participants supported Paul and 23 percent threw their support behind Rubio. (The two gave back-to-back speeches on Thursday at CPAC.) The next closest finisher in the straw poll checked in at 7 percent.

The close finish between the two senators reflects all the work beyond immigration they’ve each done to burnish their profiles in 2013.

Republican leaders, of course, tapped Rubio to deliver their official response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address – a speech that was generally well received for its content, if ridiculed for the Florida senator’s awkward pause for a swig of bottled water.

Delivering the official Tea Party response to the State of the Union that very evening? None other than Paul.

Rubio has also built up his foreign policy credentials by taking a trip in February to Israel and Jordan, and delivering major policy addresses (including one about that trip abroad).

Paul, meanwhile, drew considerable attention for his filibuster of Obama’s nominee to head the CIA on March 6, a 13-hour affair that won him praise from fellow Republicans. (Rubio at one point appeared on the Senate floor to deliver his own remarks in favor of Paul’s efforts.)

"Rand has made progress with the filibuster," said Dave Carney, the chief strategist for Texas Gov. Rick Perry's presidential campaign and a political consultant based in the influential primary state of New Hampshire. "Neither one has huge advantage here as of now."

Both senators are undeniably positioning themselves with 2016 in mind. Paul is at least open about that, acknowledging his potential interest in seeking the Republican nomination (like his father, former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas) in several interviews. The Iowa GOP on Tuesday announced that Paul would headline their Lincoln Day dinner, further stoking speculation.

Rubio’s team is quicker to downplay the Florida senator’s ambitions, dismissing any talk of a presidential campaign as far too premature, just a few months removed from the last campaign.

But as each of them jockey for pole position heading into 2016, it may fall to the differences between Rubio and Paul to distinguish themselves from each other. For starters, Paul tends to emphasize a more libertarian and cautious foreign policy, while Rubio has generally been more willing to strike hawkish tones.

Both senators’ CPAC speeches are also instructive in parsing out how they make their pitch to conservatives.

Paul made a firm appeal, for instance, to revolutionize the Republican Party, and return the GOP to its small-government, libertarian roots.

“They want leaders that won't feed them a line of crap or sell them short. They aren't afraid of individual liberty,” he said of the new generation of young conservatives, calling the current GOP establishment “stale and moss-covered.”

Rubio, by contrast, emphasized his own biography as the son of immigrants, and stressed aspirational tone in his speech to CPAC.

“We don’t need a new idea, the idea is America, and it still works,” the Florida senator said.

This story was originally published on Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:21 PM EDT

Did Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, R, endorse a pathway to citizenship in his speech before the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce this morning?

That’s what an Associated Press article previewing the speech said, as well as a report shortly before Paul’s speech published by Buzzfeed.

But the Kentucky senator made no mention of citizenship itself in his speech; he focused his remarks on the need for creating a “legal” status for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States.

And an unnamed Paul adviser subsequently disputed to the Washington Post the idea that the popular conservative senator had, in fact, backed citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

“The AP story was wrong, which spurred a lot of erroneous reports,” the adviser told the Post. “He does not mention ‘path to citizenship’ in his speech at all.”

The difference between citizenship and legal status might seem semantic, but it is an important distinction in the legislative battle over comprehensive immigration reform. Democrats believe that citizenship is an essential element of any final deal, and the bipartisan “Group of Eight” in the Senate working toward a compromise includes such a path in its framework.

The speech was good enough to win praise from Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, N.Y., a major Senate proponent of citizenship.

"The consensus continues to grow in favor of immigration reform that contains a path to citizenship," Schumer said in a statement. "While there are certainly differences between our emerging product and Senator Paul's outline, there is also a lot of common ground."

Paul explained the finer details of his plan to reporters following his speech. In essence, his plan would distribute indefinite work visas to qualified undocumented immigrants in stages, allowing them legal status in the United States. Once those workers have visas, they would then have the option of applying for citizenship – though not necessarily with any preferential or expedited pathway.

“You get in the same lines, you get in the line wherever you sign up, you don’t go to the front of any line,” he explained. “And I know that sounds silly, but front or back of the line seems to be this thing that’s really important to people. So what I would say is, you have the option to get in the line without going home. That’s the main difference from what we have now, as well as you get a work visa if you want to work.”

He also said he wasn’t necessarily comfortable with forcing those seeking citizenship to pay fines.

“And I’m not a huge fan of the fines, necessarily,” he said. “I think a lot of these immigrants are workers who don’t have a lot of money.”

A major sticking point, though, for Paul is subjecting certification of border security to a vote in Congress. In his plan, lawmakers would have an annual option to vote on an administration’s report that the border has been secured before moving forward with the visa process. He said he would try to amend the Group of Eight’s eventual legislation to include something like this.

“I want to try to amend their package, and I would likely vote for it if I could get mine on,” he said, adding that he wasn’t sure whether failing to do so would lose his support.

The conflicting comments and careful language, though, reflect the political difficulty for conservatives in embracing comprehensive immigration reform, especially if it involves a pathway to citizenship. And he took strides to quell those concerns in his speech.

“My plan will not grant amnesty or move anyone to the front of the line,” he said.

OXON HILL, Md. -- Rand Paul had tough words for his own party, describing it as “stale and moss covered” before conservatives at the Conservative Political Action Conference. 

“The Republican Party has to change by going forward to the classical and timeless ideas enshrined in our Constitution,” the Kentucky senator said here. He added, “We need a Republican Party that shows up on the Southside of Chicago and shouts at the top of our lungs 'We are the party of jobs and opportunity. The GOP is the ticket to the middle class.' The GOP of old has grown stale and moss-covered. I don't think we need to name any names here, do we?” 

The critique of the GOP received resounding applause from this crowd, but the reception for Paul, whose tone could be described as solemn, wasn’t full-throated. His speech, in fact, highlighted the difficulty he would face if he were to make an expected 2016 run. 

Paul, the heir to his father Ron’s “torch of liberty,” tried here to straddle the line between his staunch libertarianism -- which includes dovish views on foreign policy, privacy rights and even drug use -- with his conservative line on spending that principally makes him a darling of these activists.

Many here praised Paul for his modern-era record 13-hour filibuster. But not all did so on the substance.

“I have a message for the President, a message that is loud and clear, a message that doesn't mince words,” Paul began. 

“Don't drone me, bro!” interrupted one young supporter.

The crowd laughed; Paul leaned back, took it in, and joked that that was not exactly the message.

But Paul only received tepid applause as he made his way through the opening section of his speech about civil liberties and drone use. Paul has raised questions about the administration’s contention that drones could be used against Americans acting as enemy combatants on American soil.

“Good intentions are not enough,” Paul said was his message for President Barack Obama. There were just a smattering of applause.

“If we allow one man to charge Americans as enemy combatants and indefinitely detain or drone them, then what exactly is it our brave young men and women are fighting for?” Paul said, and again just tepid applause.

“Our Bill of Rights is what defines us and makes us exceptional,” Paul said to polite applause.

On reaching out to youth, Paul said, “They want leaders that won't feed them a line of crap or sell them short. They aren't afraid of individual liberty.” Just a light round of claps.

Paul was much better received when criticizing the president for spending, taxes, the sequester, and cutting foreign aid and waste – instead of White House tours.

“The only stimulus ever proven to work is leaving more money in the hands of those who earned it!” Paul said.

“Only in Washington could an increase of $7 trillion in spending over a decade be called a cut,” Paul said of the sequester. And added to raucous applause: “Meanwhile the President found an extra $250 million to send to Egypt. … I say-not a penny more to countries that burn our flag.”

Paul contended that instead of eliminating White House tours, he should cut research for “monkeys on meth,” robotic squirrels, and menus for colonization on Mars that were developed by college students given all-expense paid trips to Hawaii. 

“Mr. President, maybe we could have cut robotic squirrels before White House tours,” Paul said.

The Senate voted Thursday by a vote of 63 to 34 to confirm John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Central Intelligence Agency after a filibuster sparked by the administration’s policy of targeted killings of terrorists.

On Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul, R- Ky., staged a 12-hour filibuster to draw attention to his demand that Obama explicitly say whether he thinks he has the constitutional authority to order the killing of noncombatant American citizens on U.S. soil.

Related: McCain, Graham assail Rand Paul on drone policy

On Thursday Paul received a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder in which he said the president doesn’t have the authority "to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil."

Paul said on the Senate floor Thursday that he was “very pleased to have gotten this response back from the attorney general of the United States and I think Americans should see this battle we’ve had in the last 24 hours as something that’s good for the country.”

During his filibuster Paul mocked Brennan for saying at his confirmation hearing last month before the Senate Intelligence Committee, “What we need to do is optimize transparency on these (targeted killing) issues and at the same optimize secrecy and the protection of our national security.”

Brennan also said during his confirmation hearing that those who protest against the targeted killings “really have a misunderstanding of what we do as a government, and the care that we take, and the agony that we go through” to ensure that innocent bystanders aren’t hit in the drone strikes in Yemen and other countries. “The American people would be quite pleased to know that we’ve been very disciplined and very judicious,” he argued.

One Democrat who voted against confirming Brennan, Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont said he'd reluctantly opposed the nomination because "the administration has stonewalled me and the Judiciary Committee for too long on a reasonable request to review the legal justification for the use of drones in the targeted killing of American citizens."

The administration, Leahy said, "made the relevant OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) memorandum available to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in order to advance this nomination.  I expect the Judiciary Committee, which has oversight of the Office of Legal Counsel, to be afforded the same access."

Thirteen Republican senators voted for Brennan, while two Democrats and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats, voted against him.

In making the case for Brennan, Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D- Calif. said that his 25 years as a CIA analyst, head of counterterrorism efforts and White House homeland security advisor make him the best person for the job. “No one is better prepared to be CIA director than Mr. Brennan,” she said.

In opposing Brennan, Intelligence Committee ranking Republican member Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia criticized Brennan’s answers about leaks from the Obama administration on terrorist operations.

Implying that Brennan himself was a leaker, Chambliss said he wondered about the credibility of Brennan’s explanation of his role in funneling information to four news media commentators about a foiled 2011 al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) bombing plot.

Chambliss also said Brennan was an architect of the administration’s policy of refusing to send any more new terrorist suspects to Guantanamo Bay.  The Obama administration, he said, “appears to be avoiding opportunities to capture terrorists in favor of just killing them, or relying on our foreign partners to do our intelligence collection for us.”

During his presidential bids in 2008 and 2012, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was an easy target for establishment Republicans to ridicule.

Many laughed at his demands to "end" the Federal Reserve and reinstitute the gold standard. At debates, they sometimes booed his non-interventionist views on foreign policy and national security. And he never won a single nominating contest during those two presidential runs, though he did rack up delegates in 2012.

But Paul -- and his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) -- could be the ones laughing now.

Indeed, Rand Paul's marathon filibuster on Wednesday against President Obama's pick to head the CIA -- joined by other GOP senators (including conservative stars like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, as well as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell) -- was the latest evidence that the Pauls might have had a larger imprint on today's Republican Party than its last two presidential nominees.

Consider the libertarianism in the Tea Party, the calls to cut spending, the growing suspicion of the Federal Reserve, and some growing skepticism about the use of force.

That sounds much more like Ron Paul than John McCain or Mitt Romney. And son Rand is already being viewed as a potential 2016 presidential candidate.

But it also doesn't mean that all Republicans have jumped on board. On Thursday, McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) took to the Senate floor to denounce Rand Paul's criticism of the Obama administration's drone program -- the issue at the heart of his filibuster.

"If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms," McCain said, quoting the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page.

"To somehow allege or infer that the president of the United States is going to kill somebody like Jane Fonda or someone who disagrees with the policies is a stretch of imagination, which is frankly ridiculous," McCain added.

But that even this drone debate is taking place inside the GOP -- and that Cruz and Rubio joined Paul's filibuster -- shows the growing influence that the Pauls have had on the GOP and conservatism.

With a ding at the White House’s “humiliated” response, Sen. Rand Paul says he finally has the answer to the question that launched his marathon filibuster Wednesday on the Senate floor. 

“Hoo-ray,” the Kentucky Republican said upon being read a brief letter of response from Attorney General Eric Holder during an appearance on FOX News.

Paul led the nearly 13-hour filibuster in protest of what he called the Obama administration's lack of clarity about whether or not a U.S. citizen could be targeted by a drone attack on American soil. 

Holder's letter reads: "It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil.' The answer to that question is no." 

Charles Dharapak / AP

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., leaves the floor of the Senate after his filibuster of the nomination of John Brennan to be CIA director on Capitol Hill in Washington, early Thursday, March 7, 2013.

“For 13 hours yesterday we asked that question, and so there is a result and a victory,” Paul said after being read the letter. “Under duress and under public humiliation the White House will respond and do the right thing.”

In a written statement issued later Thursday, Paul said that response guarantees "basic" rights of Americans.

"This is a major victory for American civil liberties and ensures the protection of our basic Constitutional rights. We have Separation of Powers to protect our rights," he said. "That's what government was organized to do and that's what the Constitution was put in place to do."

After holding forth on the Senate floor for almost 13 hours last night, Paul said that the curt letter from the Department of Justice sufficiently answered the question that fueled his Mr. Smith-style speechifying yesterday, which won him fans from Glenn Beck to Code Pink.

With the lengthy filibuster in the books, Paul had threatened to continue to hold up the nomination of CIA director John Brennan until Saturday morning if he didn’t receive an answer from the Obama administration.

“We’re using the leverage of holding up the vote,” he said on Beck’s show Thursday morning.. "And I can keep [the Senate] here through Saturday and they hate to work on weekends."

Brennan's nomination is now headed for a vote this afternoon. 

This story was originally published on Thu Mar 7, 2013 2:35 PM EST

A tale of two Senates on display last night… Obama’s dinner with 12 GOP senators vs. Rand Paul’s filibuster… Paul’s filibuster actually forces a debate… Principle vs. politics… Obama’s dinner gets positive reviews, but it raises three questions… And Obama follows that dinner with lunch with Paul Ryan and Chris Van Hollen… And Messina defends OFA.

*** A tale of two Senates: On a day when much of Washington was snowed in -- or rained/slushed in, as it turned out -- we saw a night of contrasts among Republican senators. On the one hand, President Obama dined with 12 GOP senators at a fancy boutique hotel, where they talked about ways to end the budget impasse between Democrats and Republicans. It was a hat tip to the “good old days” that many folks in DC claim existed but sometimes is exaggerated. On the other hand, there was Rand Paul, who was later joined by some of his colleagues, mounting a nearly 13-hour old-school filibuster against Obama’s pick to head the CIA due to the administration’s drone policy. In many ways, it was a tale of the Old Senate vs. the New Senate. One was warm and cordial, behind closed doors, and attended by those who have had a history of working across the aisle; the other was boisterous, great for TV, and largely fueled by the Tea Party (Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz). To be sure, there were some key exceptions to this dynamic: Tea Party Sen. Ron Johnson joined the Obama dinner, while a Democratic senator (Oregon’s Ron Wyden) took part in the Paul filibuster. Still, the contrast was striking, and it highlighted the two tensions inside the U.S. Senate -- the desire to work together and the desire to hold things up, whatever the reason.

Charles Dharapak / AP

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., walks off the floor of the Senate to applause after his filibuster of the nomination of John Brennan to be CIA director on Capitol Hill, early Thursday, March 7, 2013.

*** Marathon Man: Say what you will about Rand Paul’s marathon filibuster -- whether it was a noble cause, a vanity project with 2016 overtones, or a protest over a hypothetical -- but it makes the case for filibuster reform requiring senators to actually SPEAK if they want to hold things up. Why? Because it truly forced a debate, in this case over the administration’s drone policy targeting terrorists. Just look at the conversation it started. And compare that with yesterday’s other filibuster, against Obama judicial nominee Caitlin Halligan, whose nomination was blocked without a marathon speaking performance. Guess what: We know a lot more about the administration’s drone policy than why Halligan shouldn’t serve on the D.C. Circuit. (Apparently, the reason for the filibuster against Halligan had to do with the NRA and gun manufacturers.) As the New York Times Gail Collins writes, “Would any Republican have spent a night fending off hunger, thirst and the need for bathroom breaks to stop Halligan’s nomination? We’ll never know. All McConnell had to do was just say no. Harry Reid, the majority leader, needed 60 votes to proceed. End of story. End of Halligan.” 

*** Principle vs. politics: We’ll say one more thing about Paul’s filibuster last night: We’re pretty sure he would have mounted it against a Republican White House, too. (Remember how his father, Ron, railed against the Bush administration’s Iraq war. When it comes to issues that civil libertarians hold near and dear, the Pauls are true believers.) But can you say the same about the other Republicans who participated in the filibuster? Would they have blasted a Republican administration’s drone policy? After all, some of these senators agree with the policy. It was fascinating how some Republican senators seemed to wait to see which way the wind was Tweeting before climbing aboard. We’ll let others guess the motivations some had (2016 was in the air for some, 2014 for others, nabbing a piece of the spotlight for themselves for others). But this was Rand Paul’s moment, no matter how many others tried to climb aboard his bandwagon.

*** Obama’s dinner gets positive reviews, but it raises three questions: As for Obama’s dinner last night, it went very well, according to various NBC conversations with the GOP participants. It was serious. It was respectful. And it was informative. (In fact, one senator told us that he learned, for the first time, the actual cuts that the president has put on the table. Leadership hadn’t shared that list with them before) And the overall suggestion from the dinner was that Obama would have to give cover for any cuts to Medicare, while Republicans would have to pony up additional revenue to get it. But here are the questions no one was able to answer: How do you get to the next step? How do these talks become legislation? And after working around leadership, how do you bring them back into the fold to ultimately try to pass any deal? A final point: You can tell that last night’s dinner had new Chief of Staff Denis McDonough’s fingerprints on it. Yes, the expansive dinner was Sen. Lindsey Graham’s idea, and the guest list was also his. But don’t forget that McDonough had a great relationship with Graham (and McCain) when he served as Obama’s deputy national security adviser. Oh, want more evidence the damage the sequester debate had on Obama? He has just a 45%-46% approval rating in the latest Quinnipiac poll.

*** Last night’s dinner followed by Obama’s lunch with Paul Ryan: And after last night’s dinner, NBC News has confirmed that Obama is having lunch today at 12:25 pm ET with House Budget Committee Chairman (and failed VP nominee) Paul Ryan at the White House. NBC’s Frank Thorp has confirmed that Ryan’s Democratic counterpart, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, will also attend the lunch. Per Politico, “The idea for the chat-and-chew came during an extended phone conversation between Obama and Ryan earlier this week... By speaking directly with Ryan, Obama is hoping to enlist a powerful ally in convincing leadership to abandon its insistence on subjecting all future measures on the debt, deficit, taxes and entitlement reform to "regular order," the tortuous committee process dominated by party conservatives, according to a person close to the process.”

*** Messina defends OFA: After President Obama’s Organizing of Action has receiving plenty of criticism -- including from us -- for offering potential access to big donors, former Obama Campaign Manager Jim Messina writes a CNN op-ed trying to soften the criticism. He states that Organization for Action is an issue advocacy group, not an electoral one (he even uses the phrase “social welfare” group); he argues that it will disclose all of its donors on a quarterly basis; and he contends that the organization won’t accept donations from corporations, federal lobbyists, or foreign donors. As for the access, Messina adds, “But just as the president and administration officials deliver updates on the legislative process to Americans and organizations across the ideological spectrum, there may be occasions when members of Organizing for Action are included in those updates. These are not opportunities to lobby -- they are briefings on the positions the president has taken and the status of seeing them through.” In other words, these folks will be able to meet with the president. Here’s another thing to consider: While OFA won’t take corporate money, nothing is there to stop, say, a particular CEO from writing a $500,000 check. This op-ed was clearly intended to calm down the critics, but other than eliminating the possibility of corporate donors, it doesn’t get to the larger criticism that campaign-finance advocates are upset about.

*** The end justifying the means: The larger question this op-ed doesn’t answer is why does the president, when presented with a campaign finance fork in the road, always take the one that is the “ends justifies the means” course. By creating and supporting an organization like this, the president is setting a precedent for future presidents to go around their own political parties when searching for support and they are only contributing to what everyone from BOTH 2012 campaigns claim is a problem: the growing role of big money in politics. 

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

This story was originally published on Thu Mar 7, 2013 9:11 AM EST

After holding forth on the Senate floor for almost 13 hours, Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul has ended a lengthy filibuster of the president's nominee to lead the CIA. 

Paul, who cited objections over the administration's policy regarding potential drone attacks on U.S. citizens, relinquished the Senate floor at nearly 1 a.m. ET early Thursday morning. 

In the end, it was nature that called. 

"I've discovered that there are some limits to filibustering, and I am going to have to take care of one of those in a few minutes here," he said to laughter after thanking his supporters and staff. 

Forcing the question of civil liberties and U.S. drone policy into the spotlight, what began as a one-man stand increasingly gained steam - and supporters - both in the Senate chamber and in social media throughout the day. 

Paul's traditional or "talking" filibuster -- dependent on one senator's control of the floor rather than a tally of votes -- continued into the wee hours as the Kentucky lawmaker pressed his case against the administration's policy on drone strikes on American soil.

It was the first use of the tactic since 2010, when Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont held the Senate floor for eight hours and 37 minutes - a length Paul surpassed. 

The senator was joined on the floor throughout the day and night by other lawmakers, who stepped in to help continue the filibuster by asking lengthy questions on the Senate floor. His colleagues' contributions also included statements of support, the reading of tweets supporting Paul's efforts and the quoting of rap lyrics, Shakespearean prose and classic Hollywood films.

In a sign that Paul's cause had moved beyond just the most conservative wing of the party, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell - Paul's fellow Kentuckian who is facing re-election in 2014 - joined close to midnight to offer support for Paul's "tenacity and conviction" and to announce that he will oppose CIA nominee John Brennan's confirmation. 

Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Ted Cruz and John Cornyn of Texas, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Marco Rubio of Florida, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Tim Scott of South Carolina, John Thune of South Dakota and John Barrasso of Wyoming -- as well as Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon -- also participated. 

The filibuster continued late into the night despite earlier Democratic attempts to defuse it. 

First, Paul rebuffed Majority Leader Harry Reid's attempts to move to a vote on the nomination, pushing the final vote at least until Thursday. 

Hours later, Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois objected to Paul's request that the Senate take up a non-binding sense of the Senate resolution stating that the U.S. government cannot target "noncombatants" with drones on American soil. 

Arguing that such a resolution would be premature, Durbin instead invited Paul to testify at an upcoming hearing on the issue of drones. 

But that offer was not enough for Paul to halt his protest. 

Paul objects to what he calls the Obama administration's lack of clarity over whether a suspected terrorist who is an American citizen can be targeted with a drone strike within U.S. borders. 

In a response to a letter of inquiry, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote to Paul this week that such a targeted strike is "possible, I suppose" in a catastrophic circumstance, although the administration has "no intention" of doing so.

Paul began his filibuster as Holder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where the attorney general reiterated some of that defense of the administration's policy. 

Hours into his filibuster, Paul acknowledged that Brennan is still likely to be confirmed, saying the lengthy delay is merely a "blip" in his nomination. But he and other participants emphasized that the debate is intended to shine a spotlight on the government's balance of civil liberties with national security. 

Over six hours after beginning the filibuster, a visibly tired Paul could be seen eating what appeared to be several pieces of candy in between sentences. At one point, Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., set a thermos and an apple on his desk. 

"You must surely be making Jimmy Stewart smile," Cruz said of Paul upon taking the floor, alluding to the famous filibuster portrayed by the actor in the 1939 film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

NBC's Mike Viqueira and Frank Thorp contributed to this report. 

This story was originally published on Wed Mar 6, 2013 12:34 PM EST