Rand Paul

Democrats Were Worried About Rand Paul, Leaked Email Reveals

At the same time Democrats were advised to "elevate" Donald Trump.

|

One of this week's wave of wikileaked emails from John Podesta show a Democratic Party thrilled at the thought of fighting with Donald Trump in the general election, and nervous about Rand Paul (and others).

The memo to the Democratic National Committee, dated April 7, 2015, said of Trump:

we don't want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more "Pied Piper" candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party. Pied Piper candidates include, but aren't limited to:

• Ted Cruz

• Donald Trump

• Ben Carson

We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously. [sic, though the word "take" seems clearly implied between "to" and "them"]

As for Rand Paul, he is one of a group of candidates the Dems need to take down, the memo writer asserts:

more will need to be done on certain candidates to undermine their credibility among our coalition (communities of color, millennials, women) and independent voters. In this regard, the goal here would be to show that they are just the same as every other GOP candidate: extremely conservative on these issues….

• Rand Paul—What to undermine: the idea he is a "different" kind of Republican; his stance on the military and his appeal to millennials and communities of color.

Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, and Chris Christie were the other Republicans worrying the memo author. Indeed, as of a couple of months after that memo was written, Paul did indeed seem to be the most ferocious competitor among independents among the GOP wanna-bes head to head with Clinton.

Wikileaks highlighted this memo in a tweet earlier this week.

Hat tip: The Libertarian Republic

NEXT: Clinton Campaign Leaks Show Her Stubbornness on History of DOMA

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. Yeah, I think this is the real reason the left hates Libertarians. They’re afraid they might actually lose voters to them.

    1. You can see this in the leftist hit pieces on Gary Johnson.

      1. My co-worker’s step-sister makes $97 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of work for six months but last month her paycheck was $14100 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Go this website and click to tech tab to start your work… http://tinyurl.com/hhwe4zl

    2. If Somalia was doing a little better, that would certainly help improve people’s perception of libertarians.

      1. well Venezuela doesn’t phase US socialists…

    3. To be fair the GOP hates libertarians too.

      You’ll just never see this in an email leak because crayons and the web do not mix.

  2. nervous about Rand Paul

    It still chaps my ass that he was given such short shrift here. or still is. i still think he can/should get the gig.

    1. Reason will make excuses for damn near every screw-up of Johnson’s, as if he’s some pure candidate. But trashed the closest thing they had to legitimately getting a libertarian-leaning Republican into the White House. Because he’s too conservative on the wrong issues, or because of the R next to his name? Or both? Regardless, Reason isn’t significant enough to blame them for Rand’s inability to gain any traction. But still ridiculous of how critical they were nonetheless screeching about how he was now an intervenionist war hawk because he proposed an unrealistic measure to raise military spending with cuts elsewhere…to prove a point.

      I still say his greatest mistake was even bothering with the second GOP debate instead of putting on a real show in Congress where the omnibus bill was being passed.

      1. That’s exactly how it happened. Your commitment to veracity is staggering.

        1. Yes, it pretty much is how it happened. Reason’s coverage of Rand during the early primary process was mostly negative, and the biggest critique offered up was his proposal to increase military spending. Something he himself said he was doing to make a point that his opponents weren’t serious about cutting spending at all.

          1. Brian Doherty’s articles on Rand always seemed very positive. Some authors did question his positions on military spending and military intervention, but no more than people have criticized Gary Johnson’s positions on anti-discrimination laws…

      2. Because he’s too conservative on the wrong issues, or because of the R next to his name? Or both?

        I think its a little of both. I don’t really know, but could speculate.

        It could be that somewhere up the food chain, the donors/the board of the reason foundation just have a bone to pick with Rand. According to an interview w/ Jeff Tucker, Rand has some bad-blood with establishment libertarians (e.g. Reason types, Cato, LP), as well as many of the ‘movement’ libertarians who were part of his Dad’s fundraising/organizing. It was described as mutual-dislike – he didn’t want to be too-associated with the libertarian-dork-set in terms of advancing his career… and they were all pissed at him for endorsing Mitt Romney instead of his own dad during the 2012 campaign… as well as some other things which i think are actual disagreements on principle. Some people just don’t like the fact he’s pro-life, and seems less-doctrinaire about foreign policy than was his dad.

        But i think its a horrible mistake, because he’s really the most likely “libertarianish” type of candidate who could possibly win. An *actual* doctrinaire libertarian could never win; but someone with strong sympathies certainly could.

        But many people seem prefer the idea of a having a “much improved 3rd party run” – to burnish the LP brand which they’ve been tied to for so long – over any more-serious attempt to influence national politics.

        1. *footnote –

          i don’t think any of the reason *writers* have any particular problems w/ him, fwiw. In fact they have all generally been glowingly positive… but most-so towards the end of his campaign. In the period when he was struggling to get attention (Aug-Oct 2015), he seemed to get 1/4 the mentions trump did. and perhaps a lot of that was his own fault – he himself ran a pretty shit campaign, and he seemed not to relish the process.

        2. Plus, there are more and more neo-cons and LINOs hiding in plain sight as Libertarians. I call them infiltrators because some/many want to undermine Libertarianism. Some work at Reason, Cato and other Libertarian centric groups. Infiltration happens to all threats to the slavers.

          1. Plus, there are more and more neo-cons and LINOs hiding in plain sight as Libertarians. I

            Accusing invisible enemies of heresy seems to be all the rage around here. What stops you from naming names?

        3. establishment libertarians (e.g. Reason types, Cato, LP)

          Fuck those guys

      3. What alternate universe do you guys inhabit? Read through the Rand Paul archives, going back to before the primaries. Can you find the occasional negative line or article about him? Sure, but any objective reader would plainly see that coverage of him was mostly positive overall, and certainly far more so than any other Republican or Democratic candidate. Not exactly “trashed.” Reason has criticized Johnson as well at times, so it’s not like they’ve given him a pass on everything. It’s funny how Reason is “in the tank for Hillary” to some here for merely being perceived as insufficiently critical of her or overly critical of Trump, but “trashes” Rand Paul, given the actual coverage of those two candidates.

        https://reason.com/search?p=8&q…..s=-pubdate

    2. I would have liked to see him in place of Trump. I don’t think President Trump would offer nor do I think Rand would take a government position right now.

      IMHO, he should keep the Libertarian flame alive, keep Democrat aides scared of him whenever possible and run for President in 4, 8, 12, 16 or 20 years.

  3. Goes to show how corrupt and much of a criminal syndicate the Democratic Party is. Free market, freedom, the Constitution and small government just scare the shit out of these people.

    Their entire mission is to subjugate us, steal from us and enslave us.

  4. The Democrats are a criminal operation masquerading as a political party.

    Yes they are terrified of Libertarians, because that is the opposite of what they are……

    1. A political party masquerading as a criminal operation?

  5. What makes me laugh is that the Press really believes that campaigns are about issues and NOT about just using whatever dirty tricks they can to sabotage the other guy and they are literally tools to the process. Chris Matthews should get on TV right now and say, “I’m a total tool.” [don’t know why I picked on him. Nice guy.]

    1. But that’s the thing. Journo schools now eschew the “rigid, outdated standard of objectivity” and “giving equal weight to both sides of an issue” in favor of a more holistic approach to reporting.

      You see, journalists know that in the big picture, Democrats are better candidates based on the issues, therefore lying about Republicans and covering up stories that might be embarrassing to Democrats are not dishonest at all — they serve the greater truth that Democrats are better.

      To approach reporting the news from a perspective that Democrats and Republicans should be given equal standing and equal treatment by the press — that would be a biased approach, because it ignores the fact that the Democrats are more reasonable and better for the country.

      1. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

      2. I laugh at anyone who tells me they were a journalism major (or PoliSci). That’s like someone who majors in Hotel Management to work in a hotel.
        Actually I just laugh at anyone who goes to college. But how else do you learn how to think correctly? Maybe that’s what happened to me. At least I’m not a stupid Republican. Just a selfish libertarian.

        1. I laugh at anyone who tells me they were a journalism major (or PoliSci). That’s like someone who majors in Hotel Management to work in a hotel.
          Actually I just laugh at anyone who goes to college.

          I had a really hard time relating with the people who spent their days on the liberal arts side of campus, especially the Political Science majors. They seemed so stressed out by what I found to be trivial classes, and yet they found time to go to the bars 5 nights a week. God forbid they had to learn some statistics in order to understand the poll they just took. The worst were education majors. They constantly complained about how hard college was, but spent more time sucking liquor off the floors of frat houses than actually in class. I was skeptical of them in the first place, but I ran out of patience for their BS when I saw them all lined up to get into the bar on Tuesday nights while I was grabbing a quick bite to eat before pulling an all-nighter in the lab.

          As a result, I have very little respect for most teachers and social “scientists.”

          1. ^^ B+ “STEM-winder”.

          2. I took statistics to cover my math requirement because I’d already done algebra in high school and figured I should do something new.

            Fuck statistics.

          3. Haha. You consider statistics math.

      3. Should I get my sarcasm meter recalibrated or do you actually believe Democrats are more reasonable?

    2. What makes me laugh is that the Press really believes that campaigns are about issues and NOT about just using whatever dirty tricks they can to sabotage the other guy and they are literally tools to the process.

      I don’t think they actually believe that, but that’s certainly the narrative they like to push. Anyone with a brain and eyes to see knows it’s not the case.

      A press that makes hay over an innocuous statement like “binders full of women” doesn’t have the intellectual standing to be claiming that elections are about issues. They’re about who can most effectively troll their opponent.

    1. It’s vague enough to where it can be spun away and they can pretend he was just talking about the general ignorance of Trump supporters. Even though a clear reading makes it clear that he appreciates general unawareness and compliance in the entire electorate. I’ve already seen Hillary-bots push it.

      1. I really think people just don’t want to believe that is actually the way the ‘elites’ think. Hell, Jonathan Grubber said on video that the ACA passed thanks to the stupidity of the American voter. And, it was barely a blip in the news cycle. It just show how truly unaware most of the citizenry is.

        1. Had Gruber been a Republican, making the same sorts of remarks in the context of the Iraq AUMF vote, then rest assured every person on the planet would be aware of the comments.

  6. and tell the press

    tell the press

    tell

    Synonyms: adjure, bid, boss (around), charge, direct, enjoin, instruct, order, command

    1. There was an entire email of the Clinton campaign directing a segment on MSNBC designed to make Hillary palpable to millennials. We had the NYT’s article where the Obama administration sends out marching orders to all the networks. Nothing surprising here.

      1. designed to make Hillary palpable to millennials.

        Ewwwwwwwww.

        1. Wear 3 rubber gloves and a welder’s helmet

          1. I don’t think you’d get that plan approved by OSHA.

      2. Is anyone going to blast the media for getting marching orders from the DNC/Hillary and acting objective?

        This should be used until millions of horses die over and over.

    2. Right away, sir! Ma’am.

  7. That snake in the grass John Kasich flew under the radar — as always.

    1. The exact opposite of his intentions ironically

  8. I’ll probably write him in.

    Jill Stein approves this message with a hint of resignation.

  9. But Rand destroyed himself .. while showing his dad’s freaky coalition of ant-government goobers, bigots and conspiracy freaks cannot be expanded.

    Imagine the “genius” of going to Berkeley and talking civil liberties and non-intervention …. then pissing it all away by calling for religious tent revivals nationwide, to protest marriage equality by pissing on the Constitution!!

    Brian, of course, being the Propaganda Minister for Ron Paul’s cult.

    1. Daddy is correct.

    2. Fuck off, loon.

      -jcr

      1. I am so sorry. I did not mean to offend you.

        1. More like bored than offended, but enjoy whatever attention you can get. I can see how important it is to you.

          -jcr

          1. Yes, I really enjoy the stimulation I get here.

            1. Ummm. Randolph is debating a fictional identity who uses my name.

              1. If only YOU were merely fictional.

                1. Do you have anything of substance? Or just aggression?

                  1. Aggression

                    John C. Randolph Demonstrates what a Paulista homo he is yet again, and is eservedly skewered by Michael Hihn.

                    Crucified!

                    1. (JERKS OFF INTO OWN MOUTH)

      2. (from the REAL Michael Hihn)

        John C. Randolph|10.11.16 @ 3:08AM|#
        Fuck off, loon.

        Rand Paul got a standing ovation from Berkeley liberals.

        The very next week he called for tent revivals, , a new Great Awakening. thousands of people warning America about the “moral crisis” of gay marriage.

        So I’m a loon if I believe Berkeley liberals might be a tad pissed off about an assault on equal rights … even without the wacky tent revivals. Or believing that his dad’s coalition of ant-gummint goobers, bigots and conspiracy freaks CANNOT be expanded.

        Not by 2% of the voters. 59% has been expanding for years, attracting the growing number of fiscally responsible and socially accepting Americas. Look at the wall, See the handwriting on it?

        1. A wild Hihn appears! Thankfully, it’s just loud and obnoxious and completely unable to convince anyone of anything.

          Hihn quotes:

          “Fiscally and socially conservative is … conservative
          Fiscal and socially liberal is … liberal
          Libertarianism, fiscally conservative and socially liberal, is neither.”

          “Socially liberal *IS* what liberal believe on social issues.
          Fiscally conservative *IS* what conservatives believe on fiscal issues.”

          Me: Is it socially liberal to want to enslave bakers or to want gun control?
          Is it fiscally conservative to want to increase spending on immigration control and “defense”?
          Hihn: “No, which has no effect on the definition of libertarian.”

          There are actually two fallacies in here, if you can see them both.
          #1, That “socially liberal” is part of the definition of libertarianism, but then what is socially liberal has no effect on the definition of libertarianism (same as with “fiscally conservative”).
          #2, That “socially liberal” is what liberals believe on social issues, but that apparently doesn’t include enslaving bakers or wanting gun control.

          https://reason.com/blog/2016/05/18/
          william-weld-taxation-is-theft#comment_6149425
          (copy/paste required)

          Funny thing is, Hihn will still defend this complete lack of logical consistency. I would bet he will respond to this post and try to prove, once and for all, that A = ~A.

          1. STALKER ALERT>

            Cato Institute

            Voters we identified as libertarian identified themselves this way: ?.”Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?

            poll respondents said they would describe themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.”

            Cato Institute or Ace?

            #1, That “socially liberal” is part of the definition of libertarianism, but then what is socially liberal has no effect on the definition of libertarianism (same as with “fiscally conservative”).

            “And”: means BOTH.

            Funny thing is, Hihn will still defend this complete lack of logical consistency

            “And” means BOTH.

            1. And he proves me right by again attempting to prove that A = ~A.

              A “stalker” is anyone who tells Hihn he’s wrong repeatedly. If Hihn does the same thing to others, it’s due to their “aggression”.

              Cato is wrong. Cato isn’t logically inconsistent (see the previous sentence).

              “And”: means BOTH.

              Hihn doesn’t understand that if A = the first half of B, then if what the first half of B is = A.

              A =/= ~A

              1. Too many ifs in that one sentence. Oh well.

              2. So CATO is wrong on what a libertarian is?
                Aggression is an unprovoked personal attack.
                The defense rests.

                1. The defense should never rest; we should be on the offensive, our dicks pointing to sky…

                2. So CATO is wrong on what a libertarian is?

                  Yes. They are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong.

                  To be fair, other “libertarian” organizations define it differently and you are claiming they are wrong.

                  Aggression is an unprovoked personal attack.

                  That would be one definition of the term, though not the one used in NAP. Also, if what I did (telling everyone how wrong you are) is “aggression”, then what is stalking every article about someone with the surname “Paul” called? Physician, heal thyself!

                  The defense rests.

                  I highly doubt that.

                  Oh, and A still doesn’t = ~A.

        2. Hey Michael!

          Did you know that 91% of libertarians reject the libertarian brand? I have some literature in my trunk I can share with you.

          1. Hey, let’s have a Michael Hihn threesome in the trunk. I’ll bring the lube.

    3. Did Ron Paul fuck your daughter and never call her back or something? Because this has clearly become an obsession for you. Let it go, pal, Ron is retired, no one around here is anywhere near as interested in him as you. Find a new hobby horse. Maybe take up playing bridge with other old folks.

      1. Anyone else as ignorant as Mark?

        Let it go, pal, Ron is retired,

        Rand isn’t, Sluiggo (snicker)

        no one around here is anywhere near as interested in him as you.

        YOU brought him up.

        Kennedy recently launched a savage assault on Bill Weld, because he did not bow down to “Ron Paul, the architect of modern libertarianism.”
        Roughly half the commentariat are in Ron Paul’s Cult.
        if you really think Ron is retired, you’re even dumber than I thought

        Now, sonny, go back and read what I said .. to avoid making a fool of yourself again.

        (He will now continue stalking and punishing me for HIS screwup, )

        My tone and bolface are justified as self-defense against bonzai aggresion by a bully who thinks I need his permision to post … when he can’t read three and four letter names! Heil Mark doesn’t have a ring to it,

        1. BULLY!!!

          Take down those cyberbullies Michael!

          Let’s destroy all these Paulist anti gummint goober

          STALKERS

          All you

          STALKERS

          remember:

          91% of libertarians reject the libertarian brand thanks to Paulist Scum

  10. “Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, and Chris Christie were the other Republicans worrying the memo author.”
    So, every Republican candidate. Ooh, October surprise!

  11. What a bunch of manipulative pricks

  12. What a bunch of manipulative pricks

  13. What a bunch of manipulative pricks

  14. “? Rand Paul — What to undermine: the idea he is a “different” kind of Republican; his stance on the military and his appeal to millennials and communities of color.”

    So did they smear him for going to Howard University and reaching out to the black community?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..68440.html

    The correct answer is “yes”.

    From BLM being betrayed by local Democrats who are beholden to police unions to the Democrat leadership purposely trying to alienate the black community from those Republicans who reach out to them, the black community should be seriously pissed.

  15. Who says the strategy of elevating trump hasn’t worked?

    1. Given that fivethirtyeight has Trump’s chances of winning at somewhere between 13% and 20%, I’d say the DNC’s plan worked very well. (And those estimates are higher than those on most political sites.)

  16. As if actual written evidence that the National Committee to Coronate Hilllary relished the prospect of running against an ignorant hack like Trump in the general was news to anyone. Come on Wikileaks, tell us something we didn’t know already!

  17. I imagine, if Dr. Paul were the nominee, we’d be hearing an endless loop of the media telling us about how he kidnapped a girl and made her worship a fake idol.

    Yeah, because a swimming team hazing ritual is just the same as flying down to the islands to fuck underage girls (Trump and Bill Clinton).

    These people are pigs. The whole rotten lot of them. We’ve arrived at a kakistocracy. Pretty much anyone with an iota of decency, whether I agree with them or not, doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding because these execrable sorts have a network with both the culture and the news media that will celebrate their own depravity as virtue and invent damnations of anyone not part of their game.

    This is going to end very, very badly.

  18. “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” – Mahatma Gandhi

    The Donkeys were fighting Rand. Maybe that long-advertised libertarian moment is not so far away after all.

    (OK. Admit it. You larfed)

  19. Among other things a Rand Paul nomination would lay bare that in practice if not in word Democratic Presidents have been as interventionist as Republicans for most of the pass 100 years, all the way through Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Obama, etc.

  20. I really will write in Rand Paul on November 8th. I am voting my conscience.

  21. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,

    go to tech tab for work detail,,,,, http://www.careerstoday100.com

  22. If you talking about pokemons alternative then pokemesh is the only option which standing alone which is also much better and make your gaming experience more adventures.
    Pokemesh apk

  23. Bryce . even though Samuel `s story is unbelievable… on tuesday I bought a great Peugeot 205 GTi after making $4790 this – four weeks past an would you believe $10k last month . it’s definitly the most-comfortable work Ive ever done . I actually started 4 months ago and right away startad earning more than $85 p/h . find more info

    ……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  24. Wow, this is really interesting reading. I am glad I found this and got to read it. Great job on this content. I like it.
    Kisah Inspiratif

  25. Does that fall under the category of be careful what you wish for?

  26. While coming to education, the technology has brought many advantages to students and as well as teachers. showbox For example, students can do their homework or assignment with ease and can complete it faster by using the Internet.

  27. Hey!
    This is a big news, Well post by you. Dell Support Numbers
    Thanks for sharing.

  28. congratulations Donald trumph.
    you nailed it.
    ipod Support Number

  29. AOL customer support under which our technical experts are there to look into your issues and try to resolve as soon as possible. AOL Customer Service is there for 24 hours a day and 7 days a week who will constantly look into your issues until your problem doesn’t get resolved.

  30. Microsoft Office Support are adept at handling this type of issues regularly. When any users contact us our first responsibility is to take care and provide better service and solutions. So to resolve every issue our technical experts are there for 24 hours a day and 7 days a week who constantly tries to deal with problem and resolve it immediately. We also offer support by letting you connect directly with technical experts by sending an email regarding your issues.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.