Rand Paul

Bad News for Rand Paul: Salon Is Saying Nice Things About Him

Sign of a campaign apocalypse?


Ever since the Rand-Paul-is-dead stories started popping up this summer, I've been telling people the real sign Paul is on the way out will be if Salon stops running pieces warning liberals that he's a right-wing troglodyte and starts scolding Republicans for rejecting such a progressive alternative. Today we entered that stage of the campaign:

Paul is dead.

[Voters' preference for Trump over Paul] reveals that most GOP voters are not libertarian like Rand Paul, and that his honesty on certain issues, especially when he speaks out against war, advocates diplomacy, and criticizes the government spying on its own citizens, hurts his standing in the Grand Old Party….

[L]iberals and libertarians tend to see eye to eye on somewhere around half of the issues (typically relating to civil rights), while they disagree on other things like the free market and income inequality. These issues—war, civil rights, criminal justice reform—are what make Paul an outsider in the Republican Party.

Whether you agreed with him or not during the last two debates, Paul did bring substance to otherwise fruitless events. But it seems that most GOP voters do not care about substance, and prefer entertaining and pompous loudmouths who embrace their irrational fears, insecurities and prejudices.

You can read the rest here. The article does include some passing criticisms of Paul, so perhaps he still has a sliver of a chance. But if he wants to get his candidacy back on track, he'd better hope Salon and MSNBC are back to denouncing him by the time the polls open in New Hampshire.

NEXT: Proposed California Marijuana Initiative Allows Cannabis Cafés

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. They ain’t liberal, they’re leftists.

  2. Maybe Salon writers are simply morons.

    1. “Maybe???” LOL

  3. I will be worried when Jennifer Rubin has nice things to write about Rand Paul.

    1. “Rand Paul has pornstar hair”

    2. she’s the worst.

        1. Indeed. When she wrote (yet another) hack piece misrepresenting Ron Paul during his run for the presidency I posted comments refuting some of her more egregious claims and included quotes and links supportive of my statements.

          She or a moderator deleted them. After the second time I began copying my comments into a word document so I could repost them more easily. They were deleted as well.

          1. Anti-Paul hack pieces are Rubin’s forte.

  4. It’s either a sign that Paul’s campaign is dead, or the end times. Either way, I say we all get drunk and tear this place apart, Irish wake style.

    1. Irish-Irish (as in our boy with the fetish for ESB) or just plain irish?

      1. First one then the other.

  5. Jesse, my friend Cassandra would like to meet you…

  6. Paul missed a big opportunity that Cruz took advantage of with the Planned Parenthood debate.

    He could have made a big speech and a big stink about the bad idea of the federal government transferring a half $ billion to a favored private institution. He could have argued it on moral and libertarian principles – it’s simply wrong both ways.

    Instead he was a good McConnell soldier – said nothing and did nothing. And we wonder why people forget he’s even running.

    1. But had he not made the obligatory statement about dead babies the SoCons would have hated on him for that; had he made that statement everyone else would have ignored everything except that part.

    2. It would have been dead easy for him to say “Regardless of where you stand on the abortion debate . . . .” and made it purely a funding issue, with a side of concern over whether PP was violating the law (hint: they certainly were) and the incentives created for PP (the older the fetus, the more its worth parted out).

      But, as you say, he sat it out, aligning himself with the worst of the establishment go-along-to-get-along, continuing-resolution Repubs. Sad.

    3. Didn’t Paul lead the charge on Planned Parenthood? I thought Paul’s bill that was the voted on was the vote to defund. I though he went overboard complaining about Planned Parenthood.

  7. And maybe the Team Red primary voters could care less about limiting the size and scope of government and are really concerned about satisfying their war boners and xenophobia.

    1. Nah. An important goal for libertarians should be to elect a right-wing conservative so they can launch a war against a small middle eastern country, murder a couple hundred thousand, call people who don’t want an imperial army riding around in Humvees “terrorists” so we can stick it to nanny-state, pro-choice liberals. You know… For liberty’s sake.

      1. YEAH AGREED!!!! #FEELTEHBERN!!!!!

      2. Why would they need to elect a right-wing conservative to do something that has broad bi-partisan support from both the Republican and Democratic parties?

    2. Nah. For all people say the primary process works against selection of electable candidates, primary voters’ chief concern is still nominating someone who can win the gen’l election. If it were about war boners & xenophobia, I’m sure that among the 200 or so candidates filed as seeking the GOP nomination for prez, they could find ones more satisfying of those urges. Instead, they go for someone like Trump because he’s a well-known figure.

  8. He’s probably done for this election. But he’s young and learning, so maybe he’ll have another chance in 2020.

    1. Eye.

      1. Surgeon? Pft. Not even a real doctor.

        1. LOL. But that was actually true in the past where doctors were above getting their hands dirty and surgeons were trained only in surgery and very much regarded as lesser beings than doctors.

  9. “[L]iberals and libertarians tend to see eye to eye on somewhere around half of the issues (typically relating to civil rights)”

    Bullshit. Even when I agree with a liberal on something it is not because we agree on the reasoning.

    1. When desired outcomes coincide, typically, they do so because the utilitarian objective conveniently coincides with principled one.

      Convergent evolution in action.

      1. That’s actually the *only* time (L) or (l)ibertarians ever see eye to eye with (L)iberals. So far less than half the time on civil rights.

    2. this is an important point. socons and liberals might end up at the same policy positions as a libertarian from time to time….. by accident. But their reason for arriving there won’t be individual liberty.

      The left of the 1960’s might have been interested in freedom, but if so they have long since left that quaint notion behind.

      1. When’s the last time you read Chomsky?

        1. Right you are! It was the last time. There won’t be a next time.


        3. Chomsky? Is that the guy that renounces US militarism while having his whole research career being funded by the Pentagon?

        4. Chomsky. A very adept linguist, but a tired clich? of political thought.

          Did you know Disney cartoons from the 1930s were hegemonist!?!?!!??!!!11111??!! Thanks, Noam.

      2. Do you know why that is? All the hippies ended up getting jobs in government or academia. Now they have to psychologically defend their jobs and retirement packages. Those hippies that went into business and actually started to provide value for others probably became libertarians.

    3. Who said anything about reasoning? You check off the same choice in an issue poll, so you agree on the issue, as far as measurement is concerned.

  10. “OK, guys, which losing Republican primary candidate will he hold forth as the reasonable one whom the GOP should have selected, and that it’s too bad that they endorsed the extremist [fill in the blank]?”

    “How about that Rand Paul guy? The one who was going to bring about an Ayn Randian apocalyptic hellhole? He doesn’t look like he’ll win.”

    “OK, then, he’s our reasonable moderate!”

  11. I read the article this morning and was going to post it here. I think rand Paul is probably the smartest guy running for the Republicans. It’s too bad he didn’t run as a libertarian until the 2nd debate– by which time he got chewed to mincemeat by the Trump-in-Nator.

    I’m still confused as to why libertarians think there’s a place for them in the RP and why libertarians think the Tea Party is all about them. It’s probably not.



    2. the tea party started out with libertarian ideals. but then the extreme right saw big rallies against Obama, and decided to join in. it got taken over pretty early by angry extreme right wingers, but it did not start that way.

      right now, libertarians are stuck trying to work into the GOP, because the left tends to skew further from us on the big picture, especially on issues where they could enact changes if they held the majority. the areas where we find agreement with the left, are areas where they don’t need to be in charge for the changes to come (or not come).

    3. 1. The RP has a large contingent that are fiscally conservative – even if they are socially conservative.

      The DP *only* has statists.

      So we have *marginally* more in common with the RP than the DP.

      2. Tea Party all about us? None of us think that. But the TP are a broad coalition of the aforementioned fiscal conservatives – and mostly doesn’t touch on *social* issues beyond shrinking the size and cost of government. What left movement even comes close?

  12. The thing that killed Paul’s campaign was the size of the field this year. In a normal election cycle for the Republicans where there are 4 or 5 candidates 2 from the parties SoCon wing and 2 from the establishment with maybe 1 outsider Paul would have had far better odds of getting a coherent message out and seizing a significant portion of the funding available.

    This year with 17 candidates and at least 12 of them drawing significant support and 3 – 4 other “outsiders” Paul’s message was diluted and his fundraising splintered not to mention it being far too easy for the media to marginalize him in terms of publicity (and with speaking time at debates)

    1. “The thing that killed Paul’s campaign was the size of the field this year. “


    2. well, AND he ran a weak campaign so far.

      though i don’t think he’s dead so much as dying at the moment

      1. He’s getting better!

        1. I was thinking that he’s run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible ….

          1. He’s resting.

            1. Passed out from life.

    3. There will be a big wave of drop-outs fairly soon, as reality and funding start to become an issue for some of the middle-of-the-pack candidates. I think if Paul can hold steady for another month or so he’ll be in good shape.

    4. Statistically, the size of the field killed everyone‘s campaign. The avg. chance of any serious contender’s winning is lower this cycle than in a race when there are fewer serious contenders.

      But the real story is that the revolt against present or past elected office holders has been so thorough! Whoever wins the nomination is unlikely to ever have won a previous election for public office?just the opposite of the usual. And none of them even famous military figures, either. One of Trump, Carson, & Fiorina combined looks more likely to win the nomination than anyone else.

      1. If that’s who you think is going to be the competitive troika – then Fiorina will win it by a mile.

        Trump talks a good game – but he’s blatantly coming up short on both policy *and* decent handwaving to cover his lack of policy.

        Carson is more conventionally insane.

        Fiorina is the only one of those three that projects a ‘serious’ demeanor.

  13. “…his honesty on certain issues, especially when he speaks out against war, advocates diplomacy, and criticizes the government spying on its own citizens, hurts his standing in the Grand Old Party.”

    Ah, yes, because those views are totally accepted by the Dems. I mean, think about it, Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton are basically the same person on those issues.

    1. I don’t understand your argument. The establishment wing of the GOP doesn’t like Rand. But he’s not a statist like Hillary.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.