Posted on 08/11/2015 7:18:48 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
Rand Paul is running for president, and wants to run for reelection to the Senate in 2016 as well. Kentucky law doesn’t allow a candidate’s name to appear on the ballot twice. Because caucuses involve party members expressing their support at local meetings, instead of casting ballots, Paul would not technically appear on the ballot twice if the state switched from a presidential primary to a presidential caucus. Paul asked the Kentucky GOP to make the switch, and the state GOP seemed largely amenable… But now, less than two weeks away from the decision deadline, state party leaders are publicly expressing worry about the funding of the caucus: If Sen. Rand Paul wants a presidential caucus in Kentucky, state Republican Party leaders want to see the money to pay for it upfront. Scott Lasley, chair of a special committee created by the Republican Party of Kentucky, said one of the latest conditions for approval of a state party rule change is that money for a caucus be secured before the GOP central committee decides the matter on Aug. 22. If approved, the caucus would be on Saturday, March 5. Candidates would need 5 percent of the vote to qualify for delegates. Either Rand Paul or the Kentucky state GOP need an infusion of cash really quick… or Rand Paul will have to choose between his presidential and senatorial bids.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
This is not a worthy use of funds that could instead be used for the 2015 general election for governor and the other statewide races.
You are the Freeper that kept defending Mitch McConnell during
his re-election bid in 2014. We know who you are.
What is the deal with you stalking my posts all of a sudden posting this same thing all this time later? Yes, I did point out the dangers last year of putting a Lundergan into a U.S. Senate seat repeatedly. So did many, many others. I’ve talked about many other things since then. What does that have to do with this article, or the other articles you are posting this under?
It’s a moot point actually.Rand will be out of the race by the time the primary comes around. As it stands now, he won’t even be in another prime time debate. If he stays in the race it will only be symbolic tilting at windmills
Noooo. You did much more than that.
You defended Mitch attacks on Chris McDaniel in MS.
And said many negative things about Bevens during the KY Senate
primary.
Are you happy with your buddy Mitch?
Possibly, but who knows. The numbers are so low that even a tiny uptick in support can rocket someone into “frontrunner” status. I didn’t realize this funding was going to be such an issue until seeing this article. At first I thought it would be fun to participate in a caucus, but if it is going to cause this kind of an issue with funding that could best be used on campaigning I’m not thinking it is such a good idea anymore
You are quite misinformed. I never defended the attacks on Chris McDaniel - quite the opposite (Rand Paul, did, however, telling us to “get over it”). I even had a conspiracy theory as to why it was done the way that it was (they wanted him in so they could control who his eventual successor would be and will resign before the end of his term).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3172432/posts#19
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3219300/posts#10
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3219300/posts#11
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3254537/posts#3
And yes, I was very critical, including disappointed (as I wanted him to be viable for a potential future run), in Bevin’s (his name is Bevin, not “Bevens”) campaign tactics in the 2014 primary, as were most Freepers at the time. I make no apology for it - they were very poor decisions and he made himself look ridiculous - I was just stating the obvious. But I did not even vote for McConnell in that primary (picked some other random person as a protest vote). If you were truly paying attention, you would have also seen my numerous glowing posts of Bevin’s gubernatorial run and my decision to support him in the primary and my continued support and efforts to get interest in his race for 2015 here on the forum. The main trouble he is going to have in winning is not from his current campaign but from the ghosts of the prior one. Fortunately he has an opponent who has even more weaknesses to be exploited.
But in any event, again, what does that have to do with this article, and what is with the sudden decision to start stalking me all this time later with this nonsense, “we know who you are” as though I haven’t been around posting on an almost daily basis since then?
Are you happy with your Buddy Mitch?
You defended him aggressively here on FR during that election cycle.
It is the enablers like you who keep the status quo in place.
I guess this is an automated account. Just repeat the same thing over and over again that’s been responded to.
The sad part is, while the Republican primary will be all but decided by the time Kentucky votes, the deadline for this is so early that—as you stated— money better spent on the gubernatorial race will be funneled towards a caucus. And barring the death of another candidate, Sen. Paul’s campaign is dead in the water.
So all of this, the hand wringing, the money, will all be in vain.
Then there’s the little matter of who controls Republican $ in Kentucky. What will Sen. Paul have to promise Sen. McConnell in order to secure his position on both “ballots”? We already saw a harbinger of this when Paul refused to stand up with Cruz and Lee against McConnell.
Dear Senator Paul: ask Jim Bunning just how far Mitch McConnell can be trusted to have your back.
He was running against a union labor/partial birth abortion whore. Backing McConnell is what everyone with more brain than bile was doing.
It sickens me that we can’t have a thread about KY politics without someone coming in to bash McConnell, whether it’s relevant to the topic or not. Gosh.
Anyway, the way things are going for Rand, he’d be wise to quit the POTUS race now. He isn’t wise of course so....
Whatever happens I hope it doesn’t F up our chances to hold the Senate seat.
Are you happy with McConnell?
I am thrilled that Grimes isn’t there. I’m not gonna get into a ridiculous conversation. That bitch would vote wrong 90% of the time, McConnell is a lot better than that.
Maybe you can revisit this thread after the Iran deal goes through and extol the value of Mitch.
I think Rand and Rick need to pool resources and share the same bus to obscurity - at least they’ll have some commiserative company on the short trip...
Yawn. Mitch could murder a puppy on the Senate floor and Grimes would still be a stalinist bitch whom I’m glad is not there. The people of Kentucky saw it my way.
Well then you got what you wanted but all fifty states have to suffer under that tyrant.
Why do we complain that the president is a tyrant when clearly Boehner and Mitch are just as tyrannical?
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.