Rand Paul's Plan B

Rand Paul is so confident he'll win the Presidential Election he wants to make sure he can keep his old job.

Kentucky law prohibits him from running for more than one office in the same election. So technically Paul can not run for President and Senator at the same time.

But...

His aides have said they do not think that the state’s ban on officials’ seeking multiple positions would apply to Mr. Paul

A Politician who believes the Law does not apply to them? I'm shocked!

Changing the Law to have two bites of the cherry is nothing new.

These measures are often called L.B.J. Laws because of a law passed in Texas in 1959 allowing Senator Lyndon B. Johnson to appear on the ballot a year later for re-election and as John F. Kennedy’s running mate.

So what does this say about Paul's confidence about winning the Presidency?

Who's concession speech will he plagiarize from Wikipedia?



Spurred by Paul, Kentucky Weighs Change to Ballot Rule

I was a big supporter of Ron Paul. Rand, however, is a bit too "mainstream" for my liking, and I just don't trust him. Sad, but I'm not surprised by this at all.

reply to post by BritofTexas

Who's concession speech will he plagiarize from Wikipedia?

He should check in with Joe Biden on that.... Plagiarism is what ended his Presidential bid years ago.... but apparently that made him a good choice for VP?

reply to post by BritofTexas


Awww...don't get ' em started yet. It's not even spring 2014...
I do like how even some Paulheads think Lesser Paul is a sellout riding the nepotism wave to the Big Money wheel of Washington. Step up and take a spin.
A lot can change in a year and a half. ##SNIPPED##

reply to post by butcherguy


It was his charisma that made him vp stuff


_____
After a campaign lost a politician should just take some time off to ponder on why they were not appealing to voters, surely looking desperate to get into any office wont gain him any more voters.

reply to post by BritofTexas


Once again the two party system is showing itself to be two sides of the same coin.

I really wish people would wake up. Voting for a person based upon a "D" or a "R" because Dad, and his Dad did is insane.

A person who is voting for a person based upon a "D" or a "R" without even vetting them and knowing what they stand for should have all rights revoked for stupidity.

TDawgRex
reply to post by BritofTexas

 

Once again the two party system is showing itself to be two sides of the same coin.

I really wish people would wake up. Voting for a person based upon a "D" or a "R" because Dad, and his Dad did is insane.

A person who is voting for a person based upon a "D" or a "R" without even vetting them and knowing what they stand for should have all rights revoked for stupidity.

What two party system?
The Hollywood of the East Coast and their smash hit "Us versus Them"?
Divide and conquer has worked well for those who wanted money and power consolidated in the hands of the Few.
Now, it doesn't matter who is elected. Might as well just vote for actors...oh, wait.
Even the stupid have a Right to vote and now you dont even have to be a white male landowner over eighteen...you may need photo ID which is required by most states to be out in public. State's rules not mine.

So, yeah, I agree. A ballot that displays only names and no political affiliation would be a good start. One ballot for all. None of this three ballots for a primary nonsense. I think that would go a long way. That and stop electing lawyers to write and enact laws for other lawyers (and bankers).

Having to risk something and choose one job or the other to run for is how I think it NEEDS to be, anyway. We wouldn't have McCain, as one example, to deal with. We wouldn't have kept Kerry around as the bitter little pill he became after losing. Becoming a national loser isn't a pleasant experience, I'm sure. There are real good reasons why I think we should insure they give up the current job to seek the higher one. No running for both at the same time, to be real sure. Absolutely not by changing the rules to suit himself.

He's everything his father avoided becoming. What a disappointment.

reply to post by the owlbear


I have no problem showing my ID to vote. I have to pretty much show it for everything else. But the way things are going (and yes, this is the frustration showing) I'm starting to think that you should have to take a class/test every five years to show that you understand the system of the original intent of governance. You don't pass the test. You can't vote.

Of course, the test itself would have to be vetted as well to insure that it isn't partisan in any way.

Just the facts Ma'am.

That and stop electing lawyers to write and enact laws for other lawyers (and bankers).

OH Gawd! Please! Hear that request!

reply to post by BritofTexas

This really the best you can do?

That he wants to keep his old job in-case his bid for POTUS isnt successful and that he supposedly copied parts of an article?

He filibustered to stop drone strikes, is suing the NSA, tried to stop the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA (taking on McCain in the process), is against SOPA/PIPA etc. (I'm sure I missed some).

If youre serious (and I'm assuming that this is a joke), youre setting a very high standard.

I'm sorry, but Hillary isnt worthy of licking Rand Paul's boots.

Wrabbit2000
What a disappointment.

It's not an exaggeration to say nearly EVERY politician in Washington is a disappointment Rand included. I still like the idea of making them wear patches from all of their sponsors ala NASCAR. Big badges with bank, corporate, and special interest PAC logos.

gladtobehere
reply to post by BritofTexas

 

This really the best you can do?

That he wants to keep his old job in-case his bid for POTUS isnt successful and that he supposedly copied parts of an article?

He filibustered to stop drone strikes, is suing the NSA, tried to stop the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA (taking on McCain in the process), is against SOPA/PIPA etc. (I'm sure I missed some).

If youre serious (and I'm assuming that this is a joke), youre setting a very high standard.

I'm sorry, but Hillary isnt worthy of licking Rand Paul's boots.

So just because he has done some good things in office laws should be changed to benefit him?

What's Hillary got to do with this the article says nothing about her. Seeing how Rand stabbed his own father in the back when he was running for the nomination if that doesn't prove he is not to be trusted then nothing will.

reply to post by buster2010

buster2010

gladtobehere
reply to post by BritofTexas

 

This really the best you can do?

That he wants to keep his old job in-case his bid for POTUS isnt successful and that he supposedly copied parts of an article?

He filibustered to stop drone strikes, is suing the NSA, tried to stop the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA (taking on McCain in the process), is against SOPA/PIPA etc. (I'm sure I missed some).

If youre serious (and I'm assuming that this is a joke), youre setting a very high standard.

I'm sorry, but Hillary isnt worthy of licking Rand Paul's boots.

So just because he has done some good things in office laws should be changed to benefit him?

What's Hillary got to do with this the article says nothing about her. Seeing how Rand stabbed his own father in the back when he was running for the nomination if that doesn't prove he is not to be trusted then nothing will.

“Federal law governs federal elections, and the Supreme Court has made it clear that states cannot impose additional qualifications beyond those in the Constitution,” Doug Stafford, a senior adviser to Mr. Paul, wrote by email. “We are not seeking to change the law, but rather to clarify that the Kentucky statute does not apply to federal elections.”

I fail to see the issue.

Me mentioning Hillary has to do with the OP's political leanings unless he cares to clarify who he thinks is a better choice than Rand.

When Rand was running for Senate, he said he would back the nominee, regardless of who that was, and thats what he did.

So he did what he said he was going to do. Rare for a politician, I know.

You'll be hard pressed to find a bigger Ron Paul supporter than me.

But even I realize that if you want to progress in DC, you cant be anti-establishment, all of the time.

Rand understands this very well.

Surprised ATSers dont see whats going on here.

Meh... Whatever. As long as a candidate has an R or a D behind their name, they don't get a vote from me. I don't care how appealing they may sound.

buster2010

So just because he has done some good things in office laws should be changed to benefit him?

Sorry buster,

Politicians change laws all of the time, so its only "bad" if Rand does it?
Democrats change laws often to favor themselves, I see no one complaining about that eh?

reply to post by Krazysh0t

I would tend to agree with you.

Rubio, Christie, Jeb (another Bush???), neocon Cruz, I mean whats the point?

Though I will make an exception for Rand. If he doesnt get the nomination, I wont vote for a Republicrat or a Demlican.

reply to post by burntheships

It doesnt even look like they are "changing the law".

Hillary supporters are going to start spinning early, which is what we see here.

I'm not going to discount Rand PAUL because of a molehill thats laughably trying to be turned into a mountain.

Hillary supporters, SMH.

Heres the comment from the Democrat on the committee who voted in favor of the Bill:

McGarvey shared that thinking, for now, saying that if there are no changes to the substitute bill that passed Wednesday, he would vote for it on the Senate floor.

"At the end of the day, I read the bill, I studied the legislation, just as a policy perspective I support it," McGarvey said. "One thing about this bill that I think is important to point out is it only allows federal officeholders in Kentucky to run for president or vice president. I support that, but if this bill goes back to its original format where it clogs up ballot access by potentially allowing state officeholders to run for federal offices while maintaining both, I'm not in favor of that."

Rand Paul is doing fine as a Senator. Snakes are doing fine in the grass.

BritofTexas
So what does this say about Paul's confidence about winning the Presidency?

He apparently doesn't have the Corporate/Lobbyi$t backing that Obama did in his re election, which gave him enough confidence to not even bother to prepare for a presidential debate.

Frankly I'm more skeptical of the guy with full confidence when it comes to politics.

gladtobehere
reply to post by burntheships

 

It doesnt even look like they are "changing the law".

Thanks for that link, seems folks just are so threatened by
any politician that dares to challenge the status quo, especially Rand.

Hyperbole, its only ok when Democrats use it.