The Truthiness of Rand Paul

The junior senator from Kentucky could transform the GOP — if the facts don’t get in his way.

National Journal
Jill Lawrence
See more stories about...
Jill Lawrence
Oct. 17, 2013, 5 p.m.


This son of former Rep. Ron Paul has in­her­ited, or at least ap­pro­pri­ated, his fath­er’s abil­ity to se­duce un­con­ven­tion­al and ali­en­ated voters. Part of that is due to his policy po­s­i­tions, which are at­tract­ive be­cause they sound easy to ac­com­plish. (“De­troit has 50,000 fer­al dogs, thou­sands of aban­doned houses, and I can guar­an-damn-tee you, people in De­troit don’t want to send any more money to Egypt.”) Part of it is his style, which is cas­u­al and in the mo­ment. (“So when I was in col­lege “¦ I nev­er drank any beer or smoked any pot. Oh, ac­tu­ally, no, no, that’s Mike Lee’s story! I’m steal­ing Mike Lee’s story!”)

The over­all per­form­ance is en­ter­tain­ing and highly re­lat­able, and there are some policy un­der­pin­nings to go with it. Paul wins with col­lege kids by sup­port­ing states’ right to leg­al­ize marijuana and gay mar­riage. He wins with black voters by op­pos­ing man­dat­ory drug sen­tences and pro­mot­ing charter schools. And he wins with wo­men by ig­nor­ing Pentagon brass to sup­port bet­ter pro­tec­tions for rape vic­tims in the mil­it­ary.

LOUIS­VILLE, Ky. — Rand Paul was talk­ing with Uni­versity of Louis­ville med­ic­al stu­dents when one of them tossed him a soft­ball. “The ma­jor­ity of med stu­dents here today have a com­pre­hens­ive ex­am to­mor­row. I’m just won­der­ing if you have any last-minute ad­vice.” (Steve Brod­ner)

“Ac­tu­ally, I do,” said the oph­thal­mo­lo­gist-turned-sen­at­or, who stays sharp (and keeps his li­cense) by do­ing pro bono eye sur­ger­ies dur­ing con­gres­sion­al breaks. “I nev­er, ever cheated. I don’t con­done cheat­ing. But I would some­times spread mis­in­form­a­tion. This is a great tac­tic. Mis­in­form­a­tion can be very im­port­ant.”

He went on to de­scribe study­ing for a patho­logy test with friends in the lib­rary. “We spread the ru­mor that we knew what was on the test and it was def­in­itely go­ing to be all about the liv­er,” he said. “We tried to trick all of our com­pet­ing stu­dents in­to over-study­ing for the liv­er” and not study­ing much else.

“So, that’s my ad­vice,” he con­cluded. “Mis­in­form­a­tion works.”

Paul’s little riff had the stu­dents laugh­ing hard. And it was amus­ing — but also amaz­ing. Why would he set him­self up with an an­ec­dote like that? He knew re­port­ers were in the lec­ture hall. He’s also well aware that watch- dogs are com­pil­ing a grow­ing file of evid­ence that he plays loose with the facts. He had offered a few ex­amples to the stu­dents that very af­ter­noon.

“Un­der Obama­care and the cur­rent evol­u­tion of things, we have 18,000 dia­gnost­ic codes. We’re go­ing to 144,000 dia­gnost­ic codes,” Paul told them. It wasn’t the first time he had im­plied that the num­ber of codes — com­plete with seem­ingly ab­surd cat­egor­ies for in­jur­ies from macaws, lamp­posts, and burn­ing wa­ter skis — was ex­plod­ing as a res­ult of the Af­ford­able Care Act. But fact-check­ers across the spec­trum, from the con­ser­vat­ive web­site The Blaze to USA Today to the lib­er­al site Think Pro­gress, had thor­oughly de­bunked that no­tion months earli­er. As Paul must know, the new dia­gnost­ic codes were ap­proved by the Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion and have noth­ing to do with Obama­care.

The stu­dents laughed about the macaws and again when Paul said someone mak­ing $30,000 a year would not be able to af­ford in­sur­ance un­der the new law “if it’s go­ing to cov­er preg­nancy to sex change to lap dan­cer.” The ad­min­is­tra­tion has said plainly that policies do not have to cov­er sex-change sur­gery. As for lap dan­cing, well, that ap­par­ently was Paul’s ima­gin­a­tion go­ing some­where un­usu­al.

Those few minutes on stage en­cap­su­lated the prom­ise and the per­il of a brash and polit­ic­ally tal­en­ted party crash­er already deep in­to pre­par­a­tions for a 2016 pres­id­en­tial race. Paul’s po­s­i­tions — a com­bin­a­tion of con­ser­vat­ive, liber­tari­an, and idio­syn­crat­ic — have the po­ten­tial to ex­cite and en­large the Re­pub­lic­an Party. His in­form­al, en­ga­ging per­son­al­ity could at­tract the young voters Re­pub­lic­ans need to sur­vive. In­deed, he could grow in­to a Re­aganesque game changer for his party — if he does not end up a vic­tim of his own af­fin­ity for mis­in­form­a­tion.


But it’s on for­eign policy and na­tion­al se­cur­ity that Paul could trans­form the GOP. His battles to curb mil­it­ary for­ays and for­eign aid, and his drive to re­strict U.S. sur­veil­lance, reach a broad, di­verse cross-sec­tion of angry, wary, and wor­ried Amer­ic­ans. The Ken­tucky sen­at­or’s old-fash­ioned, 13-hour fili­buster — for­cing the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion to say it wouldn’t use drones to kill U.S. cit­izens on U.S. soil — ce­men­ted his po­s­i­tion in the na­tion­al polit­ic­al-celebrity spot­light. Start­ing that night with his #Stand­With­Rand hasht­ag on Twit­ter, he rode a wave of pub­lic an­ger all the way to his high-pro­file op­pos­i­tion to in­volve­ment in Syr­ia, de­clar­ing there was “no clear na­tion­al se­cur­ity con­nec­tion” to the United States.

Per­haps most im­port­ant for Re­pub­lic­ans judging Paul’s 2016 vi­ab­il­ity and his po­ten­tial to turn en­thu­si­ast­ic fans at ral­lies in­to GOP votes at the polls is this: At a time when Amer­ic­ans des­pise the no­tion of more for­eign en­tan­gle­ments, he has some­how made Pres­id­ent Obama and his Demo­crats look like in­ter­ven­tion­ist hawks. “The thing that could trans­form our coun­try and trans­form the youth vote and trans­form a lot of votes would be if, all of a sud­den, the Demo­crats be­come the party of war. I think they really es­sen­tially are now,” Paul said in an in­ter­view. Young people “fight all the wars,” he said, and might look to the GOP “if there were a Re­pub­lic­an Party that were more re­luct­ant to go to war.”

This is not to say Paul is a per­fect can­did­ate in the eyes of young, minor­ity, and fe­male Amer­ic­ans — far from it. He is firmly op­posed to abor­tion and has in­tro­duced a bill giv­ing fer­til­ized eggs the same rights as people. He backs drilling for oil in the Arc­tic Na­tion­al Wild­life Refuge. And he has an ex­ceed­ingly cramped view of what the gov­ern­ment should be do­ing. A pro­pos­al he re­leased this year to bal­ance the budget in five years would elim­in­ate the Com­merce, Edu­ca­tion, En­ergy, and Hous­ing and Urb­an De­vel­op­ment de­part­ments; turn Medi­caid and food stamps in­to block grants; add private op­tions to Medi­care and So­cial Se­cur­ity; and re­peal the Af­ford­able Care Act.

That min­im­al­ist the­ory of gov­ern­ment would be a hard sell even to voters who tell poll­sters they think gov­ern­ment is do­ing too much. Asked if there’s any­thing the gov­ern­ment should man­date, for ex­ample, Paul said, “The gov­ern­ment should pre­vent vi­ol­ence.”¦ They should en­force con­tracts. They should pre­vent fraud. But I don’t think the gov­ern­ment ought to man­date be­ha­vi­or out­side of vi­ol­ence.”

What does that mean in prac­tice? Noth­ing that would ap­peal to lib­er­als or even mod­er­ates, as Paul is aware. He told the med­ic­al stu­dents, “There’s a philo­soph­ic de­bate which of­ten gets me in trouble,” then waded in­to it any­way, say­ing he doesn’t be­lieve health care is a right. “I think we as phys­i­cians have an ob­lig­a­tion, as Chris­ti­ans we have an ob­lig­a­tion, to our fel­low man. I really be­lieve that, and it’s a deeply held be­lief,” he said. “But I don’t think you have a right to my labor. You don’t have a right to any­body else’s labor. I mean, food’s pretty im­port­ant. Do you have a right to food, wa­ter? As hu­mans, yes, we have an ob­lig­a­tion to give people wa­ter, to give people food, to give people health care. But it’s not a right.”

It’s a clas­sic liber­tari­an view, de­livered by a short, un­as­sum­ing guy in kha­kis and scuffed boots. And, by all ap­pear­ances, it’s an hon­est re­flec­tion of what he be­lieves in and would pur­sue if he were in the White House. If he were com­mand­er in chief, sworn to pro­tect the na­tion, he said, he’d be will­ing to live by the re­stric­tions he wants to im­pose on oth­er pres­id­ents. “It’s everything that I stand for,” Paul said with a dis­arm­ing straight­for­ward­ness that is as much a part of his present­a­tion as his jokes.

It’s also as much a part of his al­lure (es­pe­cially to young people) as his po­s­i­tions. While Paul has made a point not to ali­en­ate the polit­ic­al es­tab­lish­ment — un­like col­leagues such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas — his read­i­ness to push the lim­its, and to en­gage in sharp ex­changes with oth­er sen­at­ors and Re­pub­lic­ans, makes him ap­peal­ing to the seem­ingly grow­ing num­ber of people who would clas­si­fy them­selves as anti­es­tab­lish­ment. “He’s not the pin­stripe and pat­ri­ot­ic-pin type of can­did­ate,” says Steph­en Voss, a polit­ic­al sci­ent­ist at the Uni­versity of Ken­tucky. “He brings a fresh­ness to na­tion­al polit­ics in a host of ways. And he’s hit­ting at the right time. The Re­pub­lic­an Party is troubled. They’ve had a lot of fail­ures. He’s of­fer­ing a new vis­ion.”




But then, there are the half-truths, cherry-picked fact­oids, and out­right er­rors that Paul seems stead­fastly un­will­ing to re­lin­quish.

Take health care. Al­though he’s a doc­tor, Paul re­peatedly mis­rep­res­ents as­pects of the Af­ford­able Care Act. For ex­ample, all of those crazy-sound­ing new billing codes he im­plies are the spawn of Obama­care were in fact re­leased by the World Health Or­gan­iz­a­tion 20 years ago and, as The Blaze re­por­ted, ap­proved by the Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion in 2008, sched­uled for 2011, delayed un­til 2013, and then delayed again un­til late 2014, so they’ll fi­nally take ef­fect the same year as most of the ACA.

In dis­cuss­ing the ex­penses the law will im­pose on con­sumers, Paul rarely men­tions the sub­sidies many people will re­ceive, and he some­times says a single per­son mak­ing $30,000 a year will have to pay $15,000 a year in premi­ums. The gov­ern­ment is go­ing to re­quire some­body to pay 50 per­cent of their in­come for health in­sur­ance? “It de­pends on cir­cum­stances,” Paul replies. “I can’t tell you where the cutoff is for single without kids. But I think there will be people who are single without kids who don’t get sub­sidies who will struggle to pay $15,000 for in­sur­ance.” Poli­ti­Fact labeled that as­ser­tion “es­pe­cially off the mark.” Cit­ing avail­able facts, Poli­ti­Fact said such a per­son would pay at most about $3,000 and could pay far less due to the law’s caps, sub­sidies, and bare-bones cov­er­age op­tions.

The Louis­ville med stu­dents were wor­ried and curi­ous about Obama­care, which could greatly af­fect their fu­ture. “I will con­tin­ue to fight to make it less bad, at the very least,” Paul told them. It soun­ded like he wanted to fix or im­prove the law. Later, away from those stu­dents, asked how he would im­prove the law, he told Na­tion­al Journ­al he would try to delay and de­fund as much of it as pos­sible in hopes of even­tu­ally get­ting rid of it en­tirely, be­cause “the whole thing is rot­ten.”

Paul’s lo­gic in jus­ti­fy­ing the GOP drive to kill Obama­care is dicey, too. He says that while the pres­id­ent won reelec­tion by “a small ma­jor­ity” in 2012, “a ma­jor­ity of the people be­lieve Re­pub­lic­ans should be in charge of the House” and there­fore don’t want something like the law that was passed solely by Demo­crats. Obama won last year by nearly 5 mil­lion votes. Some people might con­sider that a small ma­jor­ity. But while Re­pub­lic­ans won a ma­jor­ity of House dis­tricts, it’s not ac­cur­ate to say a “ma­jor­ity of the people” wanted a GOP House. Demo­crats won the House pop­u­lar vote by more than 1.7 mil­lion votes na­tion­wide, the Fed­er­al Elec­tion Com­mis­sion re­por­ted in Ju­ly.

On an­oth­er front, Paul routinely ex­ag­ger­ates the size of the an­nu­al fed­er­al de­fi­cit, peg­ging it at $1 tril­lion. In fact, the de­fi­cit for fisc­al 2013 fell to an es­tim­ated $642 bil­lion, head­ing to­ward $378 bil­lion in two years, ac­cord­ing to a Con­gres­sion­al Budget Of­fice re­port in May. 

Paul’s mis­state­ments led to a testy ex­change with the loc­al press here be­fore the Ken­tucky Farm Bur­eau’s ham break­fast in Au­gust. “Is the de­fi­cit go­ing up or down?” a re­port­er de­man­ded to know, ap­par­ently test­ing wheth­er Paul would fudge or cor­rectly dif­fer­en­ti­ate between the an­nu­al de­fi­cit (fall­ing) and the cu­mu­lat­ive na­tion­al debt (rising). And the re­port­er al­most got him. “The def — the debt,” Paul cor­rec­ted him­self, “is still con­tinu­ing to ex­pand.” As for the de­fi­cit, “we used to be alarmed when it was where it is now,” he said. “So it’s hard to ar­gue that we’re in a good place.” Still, Paul has per­sisted with his mis­lead­ing talk­ing point. He men­tioned bor­row­ing “a tril­lion dol­lars a year” on NBC’s Meet the Press on Oct. 6 — six days after the fisc­al year ended and nearly six months after the CBO re­port.

When asked about the fod­der he has provided for fact-check­ers, Paul erup­ted with scorn. “The fact-check­ing is not fact-check­ing. These are people with a bi­as. It’s purely an opin­ion. The stuff is so ludicrous I don’t even read it,” he said, slap­ping the table as he spoke. He is par­tic­u­larly put out by Glenn Kessler of The Wash­ing­ton Post, who has giv­en him nu­mer­ous “Pinoc­chios” this year for, among oth­er things, tweet­ing that “neo­cons” want to keep send­ing aid to Egypt (sev­er­al prom­in­ent neo­cons want to cut it off); for mis­lead­ing state­ments about for­eign aid as a pro­por­tion of the fed­er­al budget; for ask­ing ques­tions about the Bo­ston bomber case that were based on mis­in­form­a­tion; and for cit­ing Dwight Eis­en­hower as an in­spir­a­tion for his own skep­ti­cism about in­ter­ven­tion and for­eign aid (“Rand has it totally back­wards,” Kessler wrote). Kessler cited his­tor­i­ans on Eis­en­hower’s views, but Paul doesn’t buy it. “I can’t quote Eis­en­hower be­cause they say I don’t em­brace everything about Eis­en­hower,” he said in­cred­u­lously. “I can’t say I like Eis­en­hower. Next thing will be: I can’t like Lin­coln. Can I like part of Lin­coln?”

Paul’s out­sized re­ac­tion to the scru­tiny raises an­oth­er is­sue that would be trouble­some for a pres­id­en­tial con­tender: When he is an­noyed, he acts an­noyed. He con­siders some epis­odes closed, for in­stance, and of­ten cuts off re­port­ers who raise them. Asked about an aide he was forced to let go be­cause of the aide’s his­tory of in­flam­mat­ory state­ments about race, Paul be­came ex­as­per­ated. “I’m sort of done with that,” he replied. “If you’ve got one more ques­tion “¦ “

Na­tion­al can­did­ates al­ways face re­peated ques­tions about sub­jects they’d rather avoid. Some of them get con­front­a­tion­al in re­sponse (think Newt Gin­grich when asked about his mar­riages). But the suc­cess­ful ones de­vel­op canned an­swers to roll out on cue without get­ting ex­er­cised. George W. Bush, for ex­ample, de­fused ques­tions about his past drug and al­co­hol use with this clas­sic line: “When I was young and ir­re­spons­ible, I was young and ir­re­spons­ible.”


Paul might con­sider pay­ing some heed to the fact-check­ers rather than dis­miss­ing them as ideo­lo­gic­al foes. For a pres­id­en­tial can­did­ate, it can be dan­ger­ous and some­times fatal to re­peatedly mangle the facts or even to de­vel­op an im­age, jus­ti­fied or not, as un­truth­ful. Just ask Al (In­ven­ted the In­ter­net) Gore or Michele (Vac­cine Causes Re­tard­a­tion) Bach­mann.

At the same time, however, Paul is far from the only politi­cian with com­plaints about fact-check­ers, and the fair­ness of fact-check­ing a tweet or an opin­ion about pres­id­en­tial his­tory is cer­tainly de­bat­able. Nor is Paul alone in his flights from real­ity. Nobody would win elec­tions if the stand­ard was 100 per­cent ac­cur­acy. Just to cite a few ex­amples, since 2007 Poli­ti­Fact has rated 41 per­cent of Re­pub­lic­an nom­in­ee Mitt Rom­ney’s state­ments false, mostly false, or “pants on fire.” The group says 28 per­cent of Obama’s state­ments fall in­to those cat­egor­ies, as do 32 per­cent of Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden’s. Obama just last month set off fact-check­er alarms when he claimed that non-budget items had nev­er been at­tached to a debt-ceil­ing hike.

Many of Paul’s state­ments deemed dis­tor­ted or false are not uniquely his. You hear some of them from oth­er Re­pub­lic­an politi­cians, and they are art­icles of faith among many in the grass­roots. In one re­cent ex­ample, Paul was quick to jump on a head­line mak­ing news in con­ser­vat­ive me­dia out­lets, and spread it on Fox News. “Ap­par­ently the Am­ber Alert — you know search­ing for a kid­napped child — has been shut down, but the Let’s Move weight-loss pro­gram for the first lady’s open today. So I guess they do have pri­or­it­ies,” he told Sean Han­nity on Oct. 7. But the truth is, state and loc­al au­thor­it­ies are in charge of Am­ber Alert pro­grams, and they were con­tinu­ing to is­sue the alerts, in­clud­ing two in the three days be­fore Paul’s ap­pear­ance. Only an in­form­a­tion­al fed­er­al web­site was shut down.

An­oth­er ex­ample is Paul’s lead role in try­ing to end what he calls “spe­cial treat­ment” for fed­er­al em­ploy­ees who must switch to Obama­care and to re­quire more of them to make the switch. In fact, the spe­cial treat­ment is in for­cing them to give up the in­sur­ance they cur­rently re­ceive through their em­ploy­er, the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment (no one else in the coun­try has to do that) and — part of Paul’s pro­pos­al — in dis­al­low­ing the feds to con­tin­ue mak­ing an em­ploy­er con­tri­bu­tion to premi­ums (the equi­val­ent of a huge pay cut, and not im­posed on any­one else with em­ploy­er-sponsored plans). This is a cause célèbre among con­ser­vat­ives and, along with oth­er po­s­i­tions and state­ments judged want­ing by fact-check­ers, could ac­tu­ally help Paul in the 2016 primar­ies.

But that’s not a sure thing, and a Demo­crat could cap­it­al­ize plenty on this ma­ter­i­al in a gen­er­al elec­tion. Which sug­gests Paul might well get fur­ther by telling the full truth to make many, per­haps all, of his lim­ited-gov­ern­ment, anti-en­tan­gle­ment, in­di­vidu­al-re­spons­ib­il­ity points. He has already demon­strated that his ideas and style can win against a well-heeled op­pon­ent with more tra­di­tion­ally Re­pub­lic­an views. Re­mem­ber, Paul was al­most a stealth can­did­ate in 2010, a tea-party up­start tak­ing on Ken­tucky Sec­ret­ary of State Trey Grayson in the GOP Sen­ate primary. Grayson was the choice of Sen­ate Minor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell and the Ken­tucky party es­tab­lish­ment. But the primary was a rout, sym­bol­ized by what happened in Grayson’s home of Boone County, where Paul piled up 67 per­cent of the vote.

“Rand Paul did a very good job of get­ting out unique Re­pub­lic­an primary voters that had nev­er voted in a Re­pub­lic­an primary be­fore,” says former Grayson strategist Marc Wilson, also of Boone County. “They were re­gistered Re­pub­lic­ans who were just kind of anti­es­tab­lish­ment. They were part of what would be con­sidered that hard-core tea-party, con­ser­vat­ive, liber­tari­an wing of the party, who really didn’t get in­volved in Re­pub­lic­an Party polit­ics un­til they got ex­cited about a can­did­ate they all be­lieved in.”

Grayson, now head of Har­vard’s In­sti­tute of Polit­ics and an ex­pert on the pit­falls of un­der­es­tim­at­ing Rand Paul, says he and his ad­visers knew Paul was no novice be­cause they had videos of him stump­ing for his fath­er in 2008. “We thought the videos were great be­cause he said stuff voters wouldn’t like,” Grayson says of Rand Paul. Plus, “we just felt like he wouldn’t be able to raise the money to be com­pet­it­ive.” Wrong and wrong.

If he does pause and re­cal­ib­rate his rhet­or­ic, the young­er Paul might be able to do what his dad could not: Trans­late en­ergy and en­thu­si­asm in­to votes that could win him the Re­pub­lic­an nom­in­a­tion. Already he leads the the­or­et­ic­al 2016 field in some polls and sits in the top tier, along with Wis­con­sin Gov. Scott Walk­er and New Jer­sey Gov. Chris Christie, in the latest pres­id­en­tial rat­ings from the Uni­versity of Vir­gin­ia’s Cen­ter for Polit­ics. The cen­ter has said a Paul pres­id­en­tial cam­paign chal­len­ging his party’s hawk­ish ap­proach to for­eign policy “could change the course of the GOP, just like Gold­wa­ter.”

“Let’s hope it’s dif­fer­ent than Gold­wa­ter’s re­set,” Paul said wryly, “in the sense that we want to re­set in a win­ning fash­ion.”

COR­REC­TION: Be­cause of an edit­ing er­ror, an earli­er ver­sion of this story misid­en­ti­fied Wis­con­sin Gov. Scott Walk­er.

What We're Following See More »
Brazile Replacing DWS on an Interim Basis
37 minutes ago

Donna Brazile, the longtime Democratic strategist and political commentator, is replacing Debbie Wasserman Schultz as head of the Democratic National Convention, at least until the November elections.

New Polls Show Big Bounce for Trump
49 minutes ago

According to a new CNN/ORC poll, Donald Trump emerged from the GOP convention "ahead of Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House, topping her 44% to 39% in a four-way matchup including Gary Johnson (9%) and Jill Stein (3%) and by three points in a two-way head-to-head, 48% to 45%. That latter finding represents a 6-point convention bounce for Trump, which are traditionally measured in two-way matchups." Meanwhile, a Morning Consult poll shows Trump leading by four points nationally. He had been down two points in the same poll a week ago.

Some Dems in Tight Races Elect to Skip Convention
49 minutes ago

As the Democratic National Convention gets underway today in Philadelphia, some prominent Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate are nowhere to be found. "At least four candidates in major races are opting out, including Russ Feingold, who is challengingSen. Ron Johnson in Wisconsin; Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, who is taking on Sen. John McCain in Arizona; Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander, who is running against Sen. Roy Blunt; and Catherine Cortez Masto, who is battling Rep. Joe Heck in Nevada for the seat vacated by retiring Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid." The candidates have stated their decisions aren't motivated by a desire to avoid being tied to the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Bloomberg to Endorse Clinton This Week
3 hours ago

Michael Bloomberg will endorse Hillary Clinton this week in a prime-time speech. "The news is an unexpected move from Mr. Bloomberg, who has not been a member of the Democratic Party since 2000; was elected the mayor of New York City as a Republican; and later became an independent. But it reflects Mr. Bloomberg’s increasing dismay about the rise of Donald J. Trump and a determination to see that the Republican nominee is defeated."

Democrats Vote Major Changes to Superdelegate System
3 hours ago

"The Democratic Rules Committee voted overwhelmingly in favor of a major shift in the superdelegate system Saturday night after a deal was reached between" the Clinton and Sanders camps. "The committee approved nearly unanimously an amendment that preserves the existing superdelegate role for elected U.S. lawmakers and governors, but will bind the remaining superdelegates — roughly two-thirds — to primary and caucus results."