Rand Paul has been wrestling with a Kentucky law which states that a candidate’s name cannot appear on a primary ballot for more than one office. Obviously this interferes with Paul’s presidential ambitions since he’d like to run for President and simultaneously run for his current Kentucky Senate seat in 2016. There is one legal way to get around this law and Paul will be pushing the Kentucky GOP to go along with his plan.

Report from CBS News:

Paul will lobby the party’s 54-member executive committee to vote to approve a caucus during their March 7 meeting in Bowling Green.

In his letter, the senator suggested Kentucky’s current primary, which comes relatively late in the process, effectively deprives Kentuckians of a meaningful voice in the nominating process.

“It has been suggested by others for several cycles that Kentucky has no influence on the presidential process because of our late primary,” Paul wrote. “By May 2016, the GOP will likely have decided its nominee, rendering our votes useless in deciding anything.”

Creating a separate caucus for the presidential nomination would also allow Paul to simultaneously run for president and reelection to his seat – something he would not be able to do under current Kentucky law, which prohibits a name from appearing on a primary ballot for more than one office.

Paul acknowledged that added benefit in his letter. “As most of you know, moving up Kentucky’s presidential primary election would also allow me to make a run for the nomination and seek re-election,” he wrote. “I believe I can keep helping the people of Kentucky as senator, but I think there is no doubt I could help them even more as president.” [Emphasis added]

Note the last emphasized line. In other words, he’s all in for the presidency in 2016 so we might as well move him into the exploratory category. The self-serving request to hold a caucus is quite glaring but, under current Kentucky law, he can’t run for President and keep the Senate campaign as his backup. This remedy would avoid changing the law, something far messier than dealing with the Kentucky GOP, and basically give Paul the green light to run two campaigns in 2016.

This will not sit well with some voters who feel that sitting Senators shouldn’t essentially relinquish their duties while running for president. How much could this hurt him? Time will tell but I’m betting the people of Kentucky won’t hold it against him too much.


  1. Remember when Giuliani wanted to change the rules so he could run another time as mayor?

    “Special city- or statewide law just for me” is not a very attractive position.

    • Michael Bloomberg did just that when he succeeded Mayor Giuliani and he changed parties numerous times to facilitate his actions in addition.

      • It’s not so much tyranny as hypocrisy.

        I like Rand, but he should have been smart enough to have someone ELSE do the dirty work.

  2. Kudos Rand Paul for exposing this inequality in his State!

    Why should one lose his Senatorial seat if one want’s to run for President — that is absurd!

    Rand says it best:

    “I believe I can keep helping the people of Kentucky as senator, but I think there is no doubt I could help them even more as president.” [Emphasis added] !!!

    “Rand, or Revolution” — must be the battle-cry of all Real Americans (put a scare into the Dirty Pool that is Washington, DC)!

    • “Why should anyone lose his senatorial seat?”
      –Because that’s the rule everyone else has played by.

      My guess is that it elects people you vote for. Seems reasonable.

      Besides, it’s no “losing” anything, it’s just not gaining two seats in one election.

      Let’s say you vote for Rand for senate and after the election, he says he won’t serve. You’ve lost your vote and either you’re stuck with someone you didn’t vote for, or you pay for an additional election.

      I think you could argue that a senator shouldn’t have to resign to run for another office, but I agree that it’s not right to run for two offices at once–as Lieberman did.

      • Lieberman set the precedence — in a court of Law this will be the new legal norm (since precedence was set).

        If by chance Rand does not become President, do you really want to see a Senate that is Neocon run — without Rand Paul’s voice to slow down these rinos?

        • Setting standards for state wide elections such as Senator are the determination of each state and any precedence set by one state would not carry over to another state.

          • Surf: It makes me gag, but Bob took the words out of my mouth. You are such a hero-worshipper that you will rationalize anything Rand does, such as “separating himself from the truth,” and now, trying to change state law for his own, personal, unique, and exclusive benefit. (Rules were made for other people.)

            But as Bob says, your stretch to call Lieberman a “precedent” shows a real willingness to happily surrender state’s rights to the federal system, if you think it could get your buddy elected.

            I still think Rand is probably the best GOP candidate prospect, but he is not above criticism. No one should be.

            • Goethe;
              Almost makes you question if he would ignore the Constitution and flaunt Executive Orders once elected doesn’t it?

            • Bob: By “flaunt” do you mean to use them or to ignore them? (To “flaunt” can be used both ways.)

              I assume you mean that Surf would be perfectly happy for Rand to suspend the Constitution, and rule by executive order, since he thinks most of us are not “Real Americans.”

            • How asinine you and Booby are — to post such idiotic postulate, and agree with each other on such an unfounded surmise…(“Surf would be perfectly happy for Rand to suspend the Constitution, and rule by executive order”)…?!

              Our libertarian goal is to have a President that obeys the US Constitution and never abuses Executive Orders (like Obama does…and thus Obama must be Impeached ASAP)!

              Lowlife posts by both of you — have you no shame!?

            • Surf: Your “ideals” are malleable. On another thread, Huckabee is leading in Iowa, and I asked if you would still say Iowa is “the REAL America” if Rand comes in behind a bunch of other candidates. My guess is that you will suddenly say the corn farmers out there are out of touch. . . .

Comments are closed.