Friday, January 1, 2016

DISGUSTING Rand Paul Operatives Planned to "Sister Souljah" Ron Paul

It is really a good thing that Rand Paul's presidential campaign is crashing.

He has done absolutely zero for the libertarian cause and things would have gotten even worse if is campaign showed any signs of strength at all.

McKay Coppins writes in his new book, The Wilderness: Deep Inside the Republican Party's Combative, Contentious, Chaotic Quest to Take Back the White House, that ideas were being discussed by Rand's operatives that Rand would have to "ruthlessly repudiate his dad."

Coppins writes:
Already, some in Rand's orbit were discussing how they might manufacture a "Sister Souljah moment" for the senator---politico-speak that referred to the well-known incident in 1992 when Bill Clinton sharply denounced a controversial rapper to signal his break with the Far Left. Though no one brought it up with Rand becasue they knew how personally he took the politics of the paternal, some of his team believed there would come a moment in 2016--maybe in the primary, maybe in the general election--where he would have to publicly and ruthelessly repudiate his dad in order to win.
Yes, that's the kind of advisors Rand has. And they were willing to reveal this stuff to Coppins!

More Coppins:
Rand, meanwhile, surrounded himself with political pros whose explicit mission was to save the senator from following his father's footsteps...Inside Rand's circle, the senator's father was treated like a kook who needed to be carefully handled...
Of course, to achieve...mainstream influence, Rand had to create some political distance between himself and his dad's world--fire a family friend here, scrub his website of a libertarian reading list there.
Rand's "pros" only wish Rand was putting up the poll numbers that Rand's father was putting up in 2012.

Based on the horrific stuff in this book, Rand should fire them all, never mind the yamahlaya campaign they have run.



  1. Bob, I'm wondering how much of this is true or to what extent it is true. There are a lot of these types of D.C. gossip books that are published, is most of the information in these books true or are they filled with exaggerations and false tales filtered down from third and fourth hand sources? Essentially, I'm wondering how true is the stuff in Coppins' book, in your estimation?

    1. Good question. If you read the entire book it is clear he is talking directly to the players involved.

  2. "Yes, that's the kind of advisors Rand has."

    Or are they the voters Rand (and the rest of us) has? As purely on point as Ron Paul was, he didn't poll too well. He and his supporters were stopped at every turn as the rest of the GOP broke their own rules time and again. Rand was never about teaching libertarianism. He was about getting elected, which is why I couldn't support his campaign or the views he espoused as senator or out on the trail.

    We need to find some House members (or elect them) where a small group can get a savvy representative into office with libertarian credentials, who can use the election circuit as a teaching device - like Ron Paul.

    1. Ron polled a lot better than Rand is, and given the current antiestablishment mood of the country he could do fairly well in 2016 and could very easily have wound up in a kingmaker position in case of a brokered convention. Rand wasn't going to win either way for a number of reasons, but he traded that for being a spineless McConnell toady.

  3. This attitude towards Ron Paul has been obvious to anyone in the base remotely paying attention since 2012. It has filtered down to lowliest players, former Ron Paul supporters who then turned ambivalent--if not outright hostile--towards Ron and his ideas.