Posted on 07/18/2014 8:28:18 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
Rand Paul has a little-discussed problem. Yes, he’s riding a wave. Yet another new poll brings happy tidings, putting him at the top of the GOP heap in both Iowa and New Hampshire (although still well behind “undecided”). He keeps doing these clever things that titillate the Beltway sages, like coupling with Democratic Sen. Cory Booker (ooh, he’s black!) on sentencing reform. All this, you know. He’s a shrewdie, we have to give him that.
But here’s what you maybe don’t know. Paul is up for reelection in 2016. One assumes that he would want to hold on to his Senate seat. If he ran for president, he would hardly be the first person hoping to appear on a national ticket while simultaneously seeking reelection, although the other examples from the last 30 years have all been vice-presidential candidates: Paul Ryan in 2012, Joe Biden in 2008, Joe Lieberman in 2000, and… trivia question, who’s the fourth?
For those, it hadn’t been a problem. But it is for Paul, because under Kentucky law, he cannot run for two offices at the same time. The law has been on the books in the Bluegrass State for a long time. Paul quietly asked that it be changed, and the GOP-controlled state senate acquiesced this past session. But the Democrats have the majority in the lower house, and they let the bill expire without voting on it. I would reckon, unless the Kentucky state house’s Democratic majority is possessed of a shockingly benevolent character unlike every other legislative majority I’ve ever encountered, it won’t be rushing to pass it.
Paul has said that he’d just ignore the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
Paul continuing to open his mouth is what may screw him for 2016. If he keeps alienating the conservative base, he may should run as a democrat.
If Paul is delusional enough to think he has a shot at the top ring, he will not run for the Senate again.
Haven’t you kept up with the news ? Ignoring the Law is positively PRESIDENTIAL these days. . . . (evil grin)
It only applies, I think, if he gets the nomination or is chosen for the VP slot.
I don’t think either will happen. He’ll make a run for the nomination, but his views are looking more and more like his Dad’s and he’s had a number of high profile tripups. He won’t be able to obtain it.
This is the State law. Has zero to do with the Constitution. Otherwise ... yeah. He’s got a problem here.
Wouldn't it also count for primaries? I assume Kentucky has one and Paul would have to be on there twice if he was running for both president and reelection to the Senate.
But primary aside, say through some miracle he does win the nomination or is chosen for the second spot on the ticket. It appears like he still intends to run for his senate seat on the chance that he doesn't win the other election. That's where the Kentucky law appears to trip him up.
Yeah, I know. The title is misleading but that’s the fault of the guy who wrote it and not me.
From the article: “Paul has said that he’d just ignore the law.”
Then he is no better than the illegal in the white hut. He ignores the law too. We certainly do NOT need another CIC that wants to just ignore laws that don’t suit him.
I have some major problems with Paul, but since I'm not running I'll have problems with any candidate.
All in all, I'd support him in the general. My only "hell no" candidate who I will not support is Chris Christie.
If elected, my hope would be that Paul would rattle the comfortable cages in Washington and start slashing real spending. He's more likely to dent the budget than any other candidate.
Paul started strong then went wildly off the rails to the point of outright lying to pander to the low info voters.
Since the presidential race is a state by state race for electors, could he just not run in his home state and forgo the 8 electors there? Or does the law apply to running for president in other states too?
What “Constitution”? I thought we threw the Constitution out the window when we decided to go police state banana republic. We’re a lawless nation now. The DemocRATS don’t worry about the Constitution, Paul shouldn’t have to worry about the Constitution either.
I imagine he'd have a problem with that. States decide how electoral votes are allocated. Nothing says that electoral votes need to be allocated through popular vote; South Carolina didn't have a presidential election until well after the Civil War. Prior to that the legislature decided who the electoral votes went to. But such a change would probably need to be passed by the state legislature, and voting to deny the entire state the chance to vote on president is probably not something the legislators would be willing to do.
Paul has dropped 5 rungs in my ladder recently. . It’s Ted Cruz or Bust if we want a Reaganesque presidency!
I’ve got to admit that I was one of those Rand suckers early. But then he just started spewing a lot of silly things out of his mouth and it ran me away.
bttt
If he would disobey the law just to run for President, imagine what he would do if he were elected.
Sorry, one dictator who ignores the law when it suits him is more than enough.
From the article: “Paul has said that he’d just ignore the law.”
We cannot afford to replace one of their Tyrants with one of OUR tyrants because we will end up with another Tyrant...
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.