Skip to comments.Rand Paul seeks Kentucky law to run for president, Senate at same time
Posted on 03/04/2014 8:18:41 AM PST by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
RE: I will not vote for him
What if it came down to Hillary vs Rand Paul?
“Repeal the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution; then therell be no need to run for the Senate.”
Without a 17th Amendment, Dewhurst would have been elected to the Senate from Texas in 2012 without breaking a sweat and Ted Cruz would be trying to get elected Attorney General of Texas right now.
And remember how the GOP won a net 6 Senate seats in 2010, including electing several Tea Party favorites? That would have never happened without a 17th Amendment:
Senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin? No way that the then-Democrat legislature would have elected him or any Republican over their precious ultraliberal Russ Feingold.
Senator Mike Lee from Utah? Sorry, Bob Bennett would have been reelected in a landslide without a 17th Amendment.
Senator Marco Rubio from Florida? Nope, liberal Governor Charlie Crist (who has since officially become a Democrat) would have been elected in a walk.
Senator Toomey from Pennsylvania? Inconceivable, since the PA Legislature would have elected either a Democrat or a RINO.
Republican Senators Burr, Portman, Ayotte, Boozman and Grassley being elected in NC, OH, NH, AR and IA, respectively? Sorry, the Democrat legislatures would have elected Democrats in all five states.
And remember how Senate President Harry Reid was strongly challenged in the general election (we would have beaten him, too, had Sharron Angle not been such an idiot)? Well, not only would Reid have coasted to reelection (Democrat majorities in both houses of the NV legislature would have guaranteed it), but on election night he would have celebrated how the Democrats expanded their majority in the U.S. Senate.
So my reaction to proposals to repeal the 17th Amendment and permit state legislatures to elect U.S. Senators is the following: over my dead body.
Perhaps I’ll just write in Mitt Romney or John McCain or Ross Perot...
Then why not get rid of the Senate entirely?
It’s just a more expensive version of the House.
Totally agree with what you said. That’s why I hope Cruz indeeds runs he has my vote. Can’t wait for the “white hispanic” comments from the left!
I am to the point I don’t care anymore really. I just goads me there are always in election/re-election mode. Maybe we should have laws they can only campaign 6 weeks prior to a primary and 3 months before a general.
RE: If that happens
I’ll pick someone else.
I remember many conservatives doing the same thing in 2012. The result — a second term for Obama.
Because allowing legislation to be approved by a single house is far more dangerous to liberty than requiring that it pass two separate houses (Washington’s admonition to Jefferson still holds true today).
And because in the U.S. Senate (i) members are elected statewide (so politicians can’t gerrymander to gain advantage) and (ii) each state has equal suffrage, so California can’t overpower the rest of the states as its population increases.
Having state legislatures elect Senators is not what made the Senate necessary or special at the Founding. Perhaps if state legislators were true representatives of thinking voters it would be acceptable for them to elect U.S. Senators, but that clearly is not the case nowadays. After you fix state legislators so that they act as representatives and not as politicians, come back to me with the proposal to have them elect U.S. Senators, and I promise that I would consider it.
Here we go again. Dozens of republicans running for the same office and we wind up with the same crappy one getting picked to run by the GOP Elite.
That is exactly what I have in mind. 12 years should be more than enough time to influence the direction of the country. But hopefully not enough time to build a money sucking network.
I am really sick of seeing every “Repeal the 17th”er say “Well why even have a Senate then????”. (I imagine hearing this in whiny kid’s voice).
Ignoring the obvious fact that each State having the same number of Senators was in fact the whole point of creating the body and was always by far a more important distinction with the House than the manner of election.
Oh and Rand can GTH. What a *ick move this is.
> If things go Mr. Pauls way, he could win the GOP presidential nomination, then run in the fall 2016 general election for the presidency and to retain his U.S. Senate seat. If he wins the presidency and the Senate re-election bid, he would relinquish his Senate seat.
And if he takes out some aromatherapy crystals, chops them up, and snorts them, he’ll wake up in a bathtub on Mars.
They also like to pretend that since both houses are popularly elected, they represent the “same interests”, as if the constituents of a house seat were the same demographically as the whole state.
Of course, back in the real world, I doubt we’ll be seeing “Senator Shelia Jackson-Lee of Texas”, or “Congressman Jeff Sessions” elected in Alabama’s 7th District.
That would be crazy because what happens if the candidate wins both. That makes a mockery of the election.
And the most annoying talking point from them:
“If your state legislature is corrupt and liberal, MOVE!! It’s not my fault you choose to live in a socialist Democrat state. Over in MY state, conservatives run both houses of the legislature.... blah blah blah”
The argument can be throw right back at them. If they’re so convinced that “our Republic was destroyed” by a popularly elected U.S. Senate, and can’t stand the Senate we have, they are free to move up north to Canada. Our neighbors are stuck with a 100% government appointed Senate, which the Canadians hate and wish they could get rid of. The anti-17thers ought to move there and experience the utopia of government-appointed hacks that the people have no say over. Since they believe in the cause so strongly, they can set an example and show the Canadians how much better they have it than our rotten elected Senators that the politicians would have never appointed, like Ted Cruz.
Agreed on that. I'm tired of these politicians hedging their bets and trying to have it both ways. If your term is up when you want to seek another office, too bad. You should have the b@lls to decide whether you want to seek re-election to the current job OR try for a new one. You shouldn't be allowed to have your cake and eat it too, so your old job is "safe" in the event you don't win a new one.
I'll say one thing for Bob Dole: he did the right thing in 1996 when he opted to resign his Senate seat after winning the GOP nomination for President, and cited the fact he couldn't represent his constituents in Kansas when he was running for President full time. It's a shame nobody else has followed his lead. LIEberman and Paul Ryan shouldn't have been allowed to run for veep and re-election to Congress at the same time, and McCain should have had the dignity to step down from the Senate after he was the GOP nominee for President.
Thankfully Rand Paul's state doesn't seen to have a loophole to let him run for two offices at once. Not only shouldn't they change the rules for him, they should follow KY's lead in the other 49 states and end this nonsense of being on the ballot for two offices during the same election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.