Jacob Heilbrunn gives Rand Paul some advice that is likely to be ignored:

But Paul would be wise to put as much distance between himself and these notions. Which is precisely why Paul should join the Council on Foreign Relations and, for good measure, sign on its president Richard N. Haass as an informal adviser.

I would be very surprised if Sen. Paul did this, since I suspect most of his supporters and would-be supporters would not respond well to such a move. Linking himself with Haass might improve Paul’s reputation with other self-described realists, but associating with the CFR would be viewed negatively by many of the conservative activists and voters that he has been cultivating over the last few years. The political problem for Paul is that his most likely supporters have little or no interest in or patience with such organizations and their members, and the people most likely to be impressed by these moves would never support Paul anyway.

Of course, this proposal takes for granted that Haass would want to be associated with Paul, which also seems doubtful at the moment. Haass has gone to great lengths to distinguish his “restoration” doctrine ideas from anything that might be labeled as “isolationism,” which is almost certainly what he thinks Paul’s foreign policy is. So it is very likely that he doesn’t care much for Paul’s views. A New York Times article reported on Republican foreign policy divisions in March, and included this quote from Haass:

“Some of what Rand Paul says resonates,” he said. “Either party that ignores it does so at its peril. On the other hand, one does not simply want to embrace it because it goes too far.”

I assume Haass wouldn’t want to be linked with Sen. Paul because he genuinely thinks Paul “goes too far,” even if he happens to be going in the same general direction as Haass in Foreign Policy Begins at Home.