Under current Kentucky law, Senator Rand Paul would not be able to seek higher office while simultaneously running a campaign to keep his current office. With an eye toward the White House in 2016, Paul intends to change that.

Report from the Washington Times:

Opening a door to hedge his political bets, Sen. Rand Paul has asked the leader of the Kentucky Senate for legislation to ensure that Mr. Paul can run both for the White House and for re-election to the U.S. Senate in 2016, The Washington Times has learned.

“Yes, I am working on clarifying an ambiguous state law that Rand Paul believes is unconstitutional if it is interpreted to bar running for re-election to the Senate and for president at the same time,” Kentucky Senate Majority Leader Damon Thayer told The Times on Monday.

“The purpose of the bill will be to make clear that Rand Paul or anyone in a similar situation in Kentucky can run for both offices in the same year,” Mr. Thayer explained.

If things go Mr. Paul’s 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.

If he loses the presidential election but wins the Senate re-election race, he would become a second-term U.S. senator from Kentucky.

Pretty clear sign the junior Senator from Kentucky would like to occupy the Oval Office but would also like to hedge his bet to keep his name on his senate office door should the former not pan out.

Not an uncommon move, to say the least. One only has to look at Senator John Kerry in 2004 who retained his US Senate seat after losing the presidency to George W. Bush. Of course, Massachusetts law already allowed that scenario.


  1. Let me repeat that I think Rand is the best candidate for president. But that being said, I really hate changing the rules for one guy–like when the mayor of NYC changed the rules so he could run a third time. Or the people who now want an amendment to allow foreigners to run for president.

    It is not unconstitutional to make rules about running for office. When these jokers run for higher office and win, the state is stuck with an empty seat. That’s not right.

    Also, it doesn’t do the national party any good either. You only have to go back to 2000, when Lieberman was running for two offices. He didn’t give a rip if he became veep, and didn’t even try. Dead weight on the ticket (which had deadwood at the top of the ticket).

    These guys should know if they don’t win, they’re unemployed.

    • Goethe Behr — oxymoronic post.

      Neville exposed it as such. And you exposed yourself as a moron with your lame reply to Neville.

  2. Goethe, your logic has a problem. A sitting Senator who is NOT up for re-election should be required to resign his office in order to run for a different office. Or maybe that would also be your design. Is it?

    • I thought of that, but decided not to include it. While I think it steals from the citizens of a state for a senator to be running around the country for his own ambition, I guess I wouldn’t go as far as forcing them to resign in order to run.

      My complaint is just that if they’re going to run for an office, they should run for THAT office. As I noted, 2000 was a good example of what can happen. Lieberman knew he had his senate seat, so he didn’t make an effort to win the national office. He saw it as a way to be a “Kardashian.”

      I don’t remember another such example right off hand.

    • Sam: I think that’s unlikely, since state residents are usually very proud to have a favorite son on a ticket.

      However, it brings up a question: why doesn’t the opposing party pull out all the stops to attack the candidate inside the state–that he doesn’t really care about the state?

      If they could force the national candidate to go home and work for his state seat, that would be effective for both campaigns.

      BTW, good new pic. Maybe I should update mine. I think it was taken about 1800…

      • Goethe Behr — another clueless take on your part: “why doesn’t the opposing party pull out all the stops to attack the candidate inside the state–that he doesn’t really care about the state?”

        Just because a candidate runs for the Presidency, does not make him uncaring for his State (as a president he could do at least as much for that state as a Senator).

        Now you become transparent — you hate the Tea Party and are for Dems destroying our nation. Why else would you post this: “If they could force the national candidate to go home and work for his state seat, that would be effective for both campaigns.”

        In other wards FORCE Rand Paul NOT to campaign as presidential candidate, but SENT him back home to KY — while Hiltlerry Clinton can campaign all she wants (since she has no home to go to)…?!!

        Gotcha — you showed your true colors, Goethe Behr.

      • Goethe – I like your icon, it makes a statement itself. I had my hair short previously, easier to manage(?), but looked like a crazy instead of a Conservative, nice old man – little bit of mendacity there

  3. A number of states let politicians run for a congressional seat while also running for the White House, My concern is how can a man take care of his state’s business when he is missing in action. John McCain ran for the presidency twice, each time retaining his senate office. Joe Lieberman barely lost the vice presidency but still had his senate job to fall back on. Paul Ryan ran for re-election to his House seat in 2012 while being the GOP vice presidential nominee on Mitt Romney’s ticket. Joe Biden ran for re-election to his Senate seat in Delaware while running for vice president. Kentucky law prohibits running for two offices at the same time. I see no reason to pay a senator or representative to intentionally neglect the State’s business and the needs of the taxpayers while out of state campaigning for a Federal office.

    Senator Thayer and other Republicans believe the Kentucky law was meant to apply only to state-level offices – not federal offices. (No comment, I have not read this law). I do believe if Kentucky’s Republican Senate passes changes in the current state law, it is unlikely these changes would pass Kentucky’s Democratic House of Representatives or win the approval of Democratic Governor Steve Beshear.

    • Tess — another fallacious take on your liberal skulduggery: “I do believe if Kentucky’s Republican Senate passes changes in the current state law, it is unlikely these changes would pass Kentucky’s Democratic House of Representatives or win the approval of Democratic Governor Steve Beshear.”

      Just because you hope this, won’t necessarily make it true.

      I’ve found that American haters like you, do depend on illogical statements to make their pernicious propaganda palatable….

      You’ve been exposed for what you are — no need to state it, the readers here can see it.

    • Godfrey: I think that’s too far removed. Not only is it his dad’s problem, but Ron already said someone else wrote it and he disagreed with it. That can lead to a question of Ron’s management skill, but is too far removed from Rand.

      As I noted elsewhere, they’re not attacking Bill to get at Hillary. They’re trying to put Bill on the defensive, so he won’t continue to be the Dem’s most powerful fundraiser.

    • The newsletter issue was long ago put to bed, although it was done in such a way as to keep from making it any more of a big deal. I’ve explained the timeline and events in detail, here in this forum if I recall correctly, based on Eric Dondero’s own recounting of events. It all boils down to the fact that once Ron “undelegated” that part of the publishing management, and instituted a policy that nothing could be sent to the publisher without his own personal review and signature, no such material ever went out.

      • No issue is ever put to bed in politics. Tp say Ron Paul didn’t know what was in a newsletter published under his name and authority is tantamount to saying Nixon didn’t know about Watergate or that Carter didn’t know brother, Billy, was a clown. If you are in command of any project, you are responsible for it’s content and what your people say and do. Rand Paul has a very dangerous habit of dredging up scandals and family disappointments trying to make himself a viable candidate to the left, to the right, and to the Tea Party. He may succeed but the public is very fickle and, so often, the old adage “what goes around, comes around” flies home to roast. Rand Paul has already had a mini scandal of his own. He stole written material and used it as his own ideas in speeches. Of course, he blamed it all on his speech writers (none of whom were fired) but ,ultimately, the blame is for him to carry and it won’t be forgotten in a campaign. There is no one alive that doesn’t have something in their hidden closet so he should stop being “the scandal sheet” reporter and concentrate on accentuating his own policies (and he does have some good ones) that will materially help the people of this nation.

        • I’ll take Dondero’s first-hand account over your “tantamount”, thank you, Tess.What Ron did was to be more of a stand-up guy than we almost ever see in politics. He accepted responsibility rather than blame, telling the truth that it was written by someone else and put out without his knowledge (but once he found out and instituted his personal review requirement, it never happened again, according to his employee-cum-enemy Eric Dondero) without naming the person and throwing him/her under the bus. I haven’t observed many who can manage that, especially having one of your major public detractors come to your defense.

          As for Rand, he said he was sloppy, said the responsibility rests on his shoulders, and said he had instituted a new review system to hopefully catch these things in the future. That seems to be a sufficient response for most people, and it is for me as well.

          Go ahead and have at me, and Rand, and Ron. But I’m getting sucked into a longer conversation here than I intended and so may not be back for a while.

        • Tess — on your: “No issue is ever put to bed in politics.”

          Why don’t you post then on Clinton’s Whitewater scandal?

          Or do you just parrot Dems dead dogma here?

        • How long do you think it will be before all of Obama’s “I know nothing” ‘s will come out and that actually he knew everything about everything – or will the MSM led it slide forever and give him a permanent pass???

          • samreusser — MSM will cover it up for ever!

            Obama needs to go to Jail for Life ( on his Refusal to provide his Actual Birth Certificate ALONE, the rest are just more reasons to try him in a COURT of LAW) — or we no longer have a Justice System that applies the Laws Equally to All!

  4. Our current president (campaigner-in-chief) has demonstrated that you cannot constantly campaign and do your real job. I like Ron Paul and campaigning for two offices would not be fair to his constituents. I don’t think this will help the Republican party because it looks too much like back-room politics.

    • Beverley, Ron Paul actually did just that. He ran for POTUS and for his Congressional seat. Lost the POTUS bid during the primary season, continued with his House campaign, and stomped his opponent.

      • You are all actively participating in this. What can we do to get more people to pay attention? “What’s in it for me?” is a common theme. Can we create a Republican message that is easy to understand and will convince people that the future of America is more important than “what I can get today”….?

  5. Great news — means Rand Paul WILL run for President 2016 !!!

    Just in the nick of time to save our Free Republic from Obama & Co. — the anti-American creatures like BO and Hiltery Clinton bent on destroying our nation!

    Rand Paul already destroyed the Killer-Bitch on her Benghazi American deaths responsibility, and will do the same in any debate vs Hiltlery Clinton in the future — so the RNC better bow and accept him, or else!

    see below:



    What better combination to win our nation back — than Rand Paul (the polished Tea Party politician) and his father Ron Paul (a true American Hero) stomping for him!

  6. Neville…You stated your opinion and I stated mine with no venom intended toward you so don’t fold your tents so quickly. Eric Rittberg (alias Eric Dondero), now publisher of LibertarianRepublican.net, was Ron Paul’s Senior Aide from 1997 to 2003. Prior to that, he was Ron Paul’s Campaign Manager. A long time relationship.

    Eric Rittberg/Dondero did write “Is Ron Paul a “racist.” In short, No”.Then he added “One caveat: He is what I would describe as “out of touch,” with both Hispanic and Black culture. Ron is far from being the hippest guy around. He is completely clueless when it comes to Hispanic and Black culture, particularly Mexican-American culture. And he is most certainly intolerant of Spanish and those who speak strictly Spanish in his presence,

    Eric Rittberg/Dondero did write: ” Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No’. Then he added “He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.

    The newsletters have plagued him since he ran to reclaim his seat in Congress in 1996 ( the Ron Paul Political Report, Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter…(.all tax exempt). old videos from CNN have surfaced showing him touting the newsletters that were being put out under his name. Paul’s defenders have noted that even in those video clips, he does not claim authorship, which is true. Back when the issue first arose, however, he was willing to acknowledge that the words were his — the only complaints he made were about context.

    “The Dallas Morning News — May 22, 1996.
    Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said “they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation”. Dr. Paul also took exception to the comments of Mr. Bledsoe, saying that “the voters in the 14th District and the people who know him best would be the final judges of his character. If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man’s character, what kind of a world do you live in?” Dr. Paul asked.

    In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men. “If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.

    • tess — WOW! How brainwashed are you…?!!

      Everyone respects Ron Paul as an unwavering American patriot, and even his critics admit he is a true gentleman!

      You must be the lowest form of life, the ultimate American-hater, to post this crap about this American Hero!

      Oh, and by the way, it is Rand Paul (not Ron Paul) that will win the Presidency, and will do what’s needed to save us from creeps like you!

      Count your hours, wannabe despots!

      • Obvious…Awake and think about what you have read. What I posted was said by someone other than myself and was published for public consumption. The Dallas News is very supportive of the Republican Party. I have never indicated that Ron Paul is not a gentleman ( good family, breeding, social position). If you know of any personal Paul heroics please post them. That I do not adhere to his political formula is because we all have choices. By the way, I never suggested Ron Paul would win the presidency…I never suggested Rand Paul would win the presidency. Go back under your rock and count the hours,

            • Tess Liehard — so you admit you are an American hater!

              By the way — all reading your posts here have figured that out already.

              Please, keep on posting — for your illogical, liberal tripe SHOWS WHAT THE DEMOCRAT CRIMINALS IN OFFICE STAND FOR … the destruction of our Free Republic!

  7. Personally I don’t see one GOP candidate who has a chance of winning the presidential election. To get the nomination they would have to suck up to the neo-fascist right wing, then try to tack back to the middle for the general election. Romney had more money and a better resume than any two GOP hopefuls, and he couldn’t do it. The GOP has already alienated Hispanics with their opposition to immigration reform, gays and liberals with their bigotry, and they have low appeal for the young or anyone who considers themselves to be any kind of progressive. They can’t attract minorities or retirees dependent on Social Security and Medicare, and since Hillary will almost certainly be the Democratic candidate, a lot of women will want to see the first woman elected president, and half the electorate are women. The public also supports Democrats on the issues, https://www.facebook.com/DFAaction/photos/a.10150142288812502.327922.20566782501/10152319772562502/?type=1&theater the economy is still improving after the Bush depression and Obamacare is helping more people every day. Best I can figure is that the Republicans are counting on the Koch brothers to come to the rescue with a bunch of smear campaigns. This is one election I’m going to enjoy!

  8. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/356713/doctor-rand-katrina-trinko#! Is a link to show you some “Heroics” Tess that Rand Paul has done. Namely, he performs FREE Eye Surgeries for poor people who don’t have insurance. He also founded the Southern Kentucky Lion’s Eye Clinic, that offeres free eye care to low income families. Let us not forgot that he took a STAND during his 13 hour filabuster last year on March 6, 2013. He said that “the Constitution is precious and that no American should be killed by a drone without first being charged with a crime. As Americans, we have fought long and hard for the Bill of Rights. The idea that no person shall be held without due process, and that no person shall be held for a capital offense without being indicted, is a founding American principle and a basic right!” Rand Paul has my vote and I hope he gets the 2016 Republican nomination. We need someone who understands the plight of the poor, someone who can FIX the health care debabacle and someone who can solve problems instead of WHINING about them!

  9. Daisy…the post you are referring to was about the father, Ron Paul. If you,read all my posts you will find that I said Rand Paul has some good policies. He should run on those qualities and give up spreading dirty character gossip. What is heroic ( bold, fearless, daring, audacious) about doing eye surgery? The fact that he did over 100 free eye surgeries in a number of years is highly commendable. Fortunately, each free surgery was tax deductible and he is required to do surgeries to retain his license.. He referred to President Clinton, (who isn’t running for any office) as a “throwback to a sort of troglodyte time,” where men took advantage of women in the workplace. And called President Clinton a“sexual predator.” He’s also called for Democrats to return donations raised or contributed by President Clinton. Whatever the reason for Paul’s pornographic focus on Clinton’s private life, it’s an unhealthy reminder that the Kentucky Senator operates under a different and shadier code of conduct than his colleagues.

    Now, I’ll tell you what I do like about Rand Paul. I like his proposal that would cut wasteful spending in the Defense Department. Since 2001, our annual defense budget has increased nearly 120%. Even subtracting the costs of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, spending is up 67%. These levels of spending are unjustifiable and unsustainable.

    I like his thoughts on the Commerce Department who is delivering corporate welfare to American firms that can compete without it. His proposal would scale back the Commerce Department’s spending by 54% and eliminate corporate welfare.

    Rand Paul claims his proposals would keep 85% of our government funding in place and not touch Social Security or Medicare and shave 500 billion dollars from the budget. All, he says, by reducing wasteful spending and shuttering departments that are beyond the constitutional role of the federal government, such as the Department of Education (I have a problem with eliminating the education department because Texas is 51st in the percentage of adults with high school diplomas, and ranks 22nd in the percentage attending at least some college? (A total disgrace for a state with an 8 billion dollar rainy day fund).

    As yet, I don’t like him enough to give him my vote.

    • Tess, I have one possible correction and one question.

      Free eye surgeries are not tax deductible, except for supplies etc. Free labor can not be deducted from taxes of the provider. This from the IRS and my tax accountant (I am in a business where this question has come up in the past).

      Why would you support a proposal to eliminate [cabinet] departments that are “beyond the constitutional role of the federal government, such as the Department of Education”, but also “have a problem with eliminating the education department”? Do you mean you would like to see DoEd go away, but would nevertheless lament the loss of fed dollars for Texas? I’m thinking that might be what you mean, because I can’t understanding supporting sending money to DC, to be handed over to a cabinet department that shouldn’t exist, so that department can send (some of) it back to the state.

  10. Neville ..you can deduct the operational costs of using needed medical instruments, needed operating room equipment, needed anesthesia or any medicine given the patient, any expense Dr. Paul incurs while performing cataract removal. I must admit it did not occur to me that he would want to deduct his time. Dr. Paul performs pro bono eye cataract removal each year for about 15 low-income people who otherwise could not afford the treatment. To put it another way, what Dr. Paul giveth to 15 people he would taketh away from millions more by repealing the Affordable Care Act.

    Go back and read the fourth paragraph. It starts out:”Rand Paul claims…”. No where did I indicate support. To be perfectly clear about the Department of Education. It has failed our children. I do not believe it should be abolished but I firmly believe it should be reconstructed. Not only has the National government flopped in the educational process so has the state of Texas.

    • You can’t tell, but I’m smiling right now. You do have a way with words – using dozens or hundreds where one will do. All of your first paragraph, except the last sentence, could be functionally replaced with “Right.” Or, perhaps, “Correct.” Right is such a nasty word, after all.

      Repealing the We-Can’t-Afford-It Care Act, AND discontinuing Medicare in such a way that preserves the benefits of those who have (either through force, or by foolish choice, relied on it, AND doing the same with Socialist [In]Security, AND dissolving Executive branch functions not authorized in the US Constitution, AND formally removing from the federal court system any option of hearing cases involving marriage etc. which are obviously out of the constitutional scope of federal control, would be a good start to repairing our federal government.

    • Tess Liehard — you have admitted you are an American hater!

      By the way — all reading your posts here have figured that out already.

      Please, keep on posting — for your illogical, liberal tripe SHOWS WHAT THE DEMOCRAT CRIMINALS IN OFFICE STAND FOR … the destruction of Our Free Republic!

      You are the poster child of what’s wrong with our Nation — a brainwashed parrot that is CLUELESS what Individual Freedoms GUARANTEED UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION mean!

      Keep on shilling for Obama & Co. — it only helps US, the Real Americans, to make sure come 2016, you and your Illegal Mexicans Compadres that have criminally Invaded the USA get Deported!

      Rand Paul will make sure we get back to the US Constitution — that’s why your ilk is so afraid!

Comments are closed.