Kentucky Democrats Kill Rand Paul’s Plan To Run For President And Senate Simultaneously


Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) speaks to reporters during the 14th day of the partial government shut down

As you may know, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has ambitions to run for President in 2016. While he hasn’t formally declared his intentions, it is virtually a lock that he will seek the GOP’s nomination. However, with a crowded Republican field and the likely formidable general election challenge of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Paul knows it is quite possible that he won’t be elected President in November 2016. With that thought in mind, and his Senate seat also coming up for reelection in 2016, Paul would very much like to be able to stay a Senator if his Presidential dreams don’t come true.

However, there is just one little problem–his home state of Kentucky does not allow a candidate to appear on two separate ballots in the same election. While this used to be a common law across the country, many states since 1960 have revised their state laws to allow politicians to run for reelection for a US Senate or House seat while also running for President or Vice-President. This is informally known as the ‘LBJ Law’, as Lyndon B. Johnson convinced the Texas legislature to amend the state law to allow him to run for his Senate seat at the same time he was the running mate to John F. Kennedy.

Rachel Maddow discussed this in detail on her show Thursday night. Below is video from the broadcast:



Since LBJ convinced Texas to allow him to run in both races at the same time, we’ve seen a handful of other candidates do the same thing. Lloyd Bentsen was a Senator up for reelection in 1988 and was the Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee alongside Michael Dukakis. Democrat (at the time) Joe Lieberman was Al Gore’s running mate in 2000 while also campaigning to hold on to his Senate seat in Connecticut. In the last Presidential election, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) was allowed to run for his House seat at the same time he was Mitt Romney’s Veep choice. And, of course, current VP Joe Biden was given permission by Delaware to run for his Senate seat in 2008.

All of these sitting Congressional members’ states allowed them to do dual-duty and run on two ballots. For Paul, it seemed like a mere formality. He quietly asked the state’s legislature to revise the law in order to allow him to run for President and Senate at the same time. His interpretation is that the spirit of the law is to prevent a candidate from running for two statewide offices at the same time. It says nothing of national office, like for President or VP. In March, Kentucky’s GOP-controlled Senate passed a bill acquiescing to Paul’s request by a comfortable margin, 25-13.

Well, a funny thing happened along the way. The House, which is held by Democrats, decided not to play along. Now, they haven’t voted against it, per se. Instead, they just let the time run out in this legislative session. They may pass it when they return. Or, they might just allow it to sit there, forcing Paul to be more vocal about it, making his intentions more clear. At the very least, Kentucky Democrats, and especially Speaker Greg Stumbo, are delighting in their ability to make Paul squirm.

Stumbo had this to say when the bill was brought up in the Senate last month:

“We kind of take the position over here that a man (who) can’t decide which office he wants to run for isn’t fit to hold either office.”

This week, after allowing the bill to sit there without any action in the House, Stumbo jokingly said they still needed to read the bill. The bill, in its entirety, is only a paragraph long.

There is some delicious irony here. Paul, as his father before him, has always been a strong advocate for states’ rights. Essentially, as the protege of Tea Party godfather Ron Paul, Rand Paul has argued that the federal government is a tyrannical entity that has become far too intrusive and large. The bulk of all laws should be in the hands of local or state governments. Well, the fact is, the state of Kentucky’s law is that a candidate cannot run for two offices at the same time. And, as of now, it isn’t changing.


56 Replies to “Kentucky Democrats Kill Rand Paul’s Plan To Run For President And Senate Simultaneously”

  1. Haha. Nice to know that Kentucky can get something right. If they can dump both Mitch McTurtle and Rand Paul, it will be a great day for Kentucky and for America.

  2. Paul wants to ensure he stays on the government dole of which he hates so much. You can’t keep biting the hand that feeds you and then ask for a favor.

  3. Again? Has he ever worked for a living? Much like government slacker Paul Ryan, I think old Rand has always lived off the taxpayers (or his Daddy’s taxpayers.) This is delicious. Just wonderful. Hold tight, Dems. We can win this!

  4. I think the expression we ARE LOOKING FOR IS “HUNG BY HIS OWN PETARD”. yOU CAN’T CHANGE STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. This should be passed in all States. Why is it that rules or the games changes to make it easier for the rich and powerful when it suits them but it’s quite difficult when you don’t? Those decision making skills would be a test for decisions they make in the future.

  6. He will not be running for President. There is no way randy will be giving up that Senate paycheck when he wont even get the nomination in the first place

  7. Again they never think first, they just react and then then think. The republicans and teaparty are losing their minds and having no clue why all because ofthe man in white house. Their hate is destroying them one by one.

  8. Sloppy headline. Dems haven’t killed Paul’s request to have the law changed. They haven’t voted on it.

  9. So since they didn’t vote on it the law stays the same now bear with me because I know reading is not fundamental to people like you. Since the law hasn’t change it KILLED this closet racist plans to run for two offices at the same time. See its not that hard to understand

  10. Let’s hope that what they say about chasing two rabbits at the same time ends up true, i-e that he ends up empty handed!

  11. Part of me thinks they should let him run both. Only to prove we aren’t afraid of him and we don’t have to resort to slightly dirty tactics to keep him out.

  12. What dirty tactics? First the moocher in Nevada the right wing gives him a pass because of the law and now because of the law its dirty tactic/ OH VEY, we have truly sunk too stupidity

  13. Ha ha. The Dems in Kentucky are doing nothing about this–just like the GOP in DC does nothing. How apropos.

  14. It’s really not so bad for Rand as it appears. He’s probably playing long ball.

    Here’s the thing. I don’t buy that Rand figured it would just be a procedural vote. I figured that if it was a procedural vote then it would be a bonus.

    I think that the important thing to understand is that Rand Paul will take the issue to court more than likely.

    Here’s what happens if he wins. He gets on the ballot for both President and Senator.

    Here’s what happens if he loses. All those LBJ laws passed in other states become obsolete, limiting other contenders options. Either way it goes he gains an advantage. It seems the bigger advantage would be in him losing the court battle.

  15. Not really, this is not a federal law, this is a state law and the others would not be affected unless someone brought suit against those laws

  16. All the article says is that they let the time run out for this term. They can resubmit next term and potentially have it passed before the election. What was that about “reading not being fundamental to people like you?” And no, with critical reading skills, it isn’t that hard to understand.

  17. And then what? Democrats still control the house and they said they have to read the bill. One paragraph. Now if you cant see the writing on the wall then you should sue your parents for homeschooling your ass

  18. I liked Greg Stumbo’s attitude. What’s Rand Paul done for Dems in KY lately?
    Like his Father, it’s not about winning the presidency, but using the campaign platform to push a white nationalist agenda & fear monger to bilk the angry & stupid.
    Run for 2 offices to have your do nothing, cushy job to fall back on when you lose for president. I’m glad Dems didn’t cave. Narrow Rand’s options & force him to stop playing around.

  19. Reading comprehension and problems with critical thinking, djchefron.

    That’s the only thing it could be.

    It’s very scary for me knowing that America has a lot of people like this guy walking around sharing their opinions and voting.

  20. Randy is in a pickle now. The only reason he became a Senator is to use the Senate as a presidential launch pad. I think he’ll gamble the Senate seat because he really doesn’t want to be a Senator. He wants to be Top Banana.

  21. Kentucky’s on the right path these days… First we, unlike the most of the southern states, implemented Medicaid expansion, give citizens access to coverage under ACA, now we may be losing our two horrible Republican senators! Oh, the sun shines bright on my old Kentucky home… :)

  22. Knowing Greg Stumbo and Steve Beshear somewhat on a personal level, I can tell you they are NOT Liberal. That being said, they probably wouldn’t do this for Mitch either. Only because both are extremists, if it were a moderate Republican asking, I would guess it would go through. I only know a couple Liberals in our state Government, and they are from some areas that usually one would think were conservative territory.

  23. I am disappointed in the level of discussion in this thread. Red Team vs Blue Team. Lions vs Bears. It’s all so juvenile. Rand is hardly the devil incarnate…he has policy positions that progressives and liberals should be listening to very carefully concerning war, spying, Bill of Rights, Constitutional limitations on power, ending corporate bailouts, etc.

    Charges of racism are just cheap shots with no substance. There are real racists out there who need to be called out, but if you’re going to use the term against Rand Paul then the term will lose all meaning.

    Rand’s request to the State of Kentucky was not out of the ordinary. The response by the Democrats was. This should be no cause for joy among progressives because it is just stupid politics. If Rand’s ideas are odious, they should be heard and dismissed. If his ideas are good, they should be heard and adopted. Kentucky Dems just put a political gag on Rand. How undemocratic.

  24. Ron,

    Randal Howard Paul is NOT qualified to be president. He has NO way forward and he is NOT a libertarian.

    Randal is another Kocksukking Repig Fascist who has expressed his racist and misogynist thoughts in his policy suggestions.

    What has he done on his own? Not one damn thing. He rode in on his racist Daddy’s name and has made an ass of himself continuously and plagiarizes the works of others.

    Oh well, guess that is what deluded EvangeliBaggers look for in a figurehead of stupidity.

  25. As the article stated, it is common practice to change the law to allow a representative of the state to run for President. LBJ,Bentsen, Liebermann…I guess it’s ok to change the law for Democrats.

    Rand is NOT the enemy. Many of the things progessives want, he wants. He’s worth listening to.

  26. The problem is, the democratic legislature isnt going to change the law for rand. As for rand, like his pappy he is anti women, and your rights take a back seat to corporations. Say no to religious fundamentalists.

  27. No he is not from where I stand. Now being part of the club you may feel comfortable with his backward thinking but I am not. Too many people died for my rights which he dismisses. I guess that’s why stormfront likes him.

  28. Ok, I’ve heard some invectives against Rand. If I had read nothing of Rand Paul’s actual positions, I would know this from the responses above:
    1. He’s racist
    2. He’s misogynist
    3. He’s a plagiarizer
    4. He’s religious fundamentalist
    5. He’s backward
    6. He’s a fascist
    7. He’s a gov’t funded opportunist

    Yet I am having a hard time squaring the comments with what I have read and listened to. He’s spoken out forcefully against domestic spying, voted against war, proposed legalizing pot, proposed dropping mandatory sentencing, defended the 4th Amendment, proposed letting states decide on abortion (that will assuredly keep it legal), opposed corporate bailouts, opposes NDAA and Presidential power of assassination. He has pointed out that our Drug War is a disaster for minorities, and he has engaged students at black colleges in discussion of his views.

    Can you quote a policy or a vote that shows he’s any of the things of which you accuse him? I’d like to unders…

  29. You are correct, he did not vote against war. He stated he would have voted against the Iraq war, and he has been vilified by his fellow Republicans for taking a non-interventionist stance concerning Syria, Ukraine, and Iran. Many libertarians are uncomfortable with his closely parsed words on foreign policy, prefering his father’s adamant position against military interventions, but Rand’s actions have been mostly consistent with non-intervention. He has argued, and voted, to cut off military assistance to despotic regimes such as Egypt, though his father argued to cut off all military assistance to everyone, a much more progressive position. Compared to Obama and the ruling Repub/Demo majorities, Rand is a peacenik.

    I made an overly broad statement and I stand corrected.

    What else?

  30. Does Rand Paul have racist views
    Rand And Ron Paul Hide Racism & Birch Society Fascist Front Ties in Libertarianism

    BTW when he appeared at Howard he was ridiculed for his lets just say talking down to the students
    Howard Students Question Rand Paul’s Vision Of GOP
    Do you think we are stupid?

  31. The two links you left went to the same article from 2010, so I don’t know what you believe happened at Howard University. Try another link?

    As to the 2010 article, it is all guilt-by-association. Worse than that, it is guilt-by-association-sins-of-the-father, as not a single word of it applied to anything Rand Paul actually said or did.

    This is my point. Rand Paul has made public statements and has taken actions that progressives and liberals should find encouraging.

    There is ZERO evidence that Rand has any racist views. Stormfront may agree with Rand on an historical event and with Obama on going to war with Russia, but that doesn’t mean Rand and Obama are racists.

    Read the old Ron Paul Newsletters. Out of hundreds of articles over many years, one or two were racially edgy, and the one that got Ron Paul in trouble was actually a powerful statement AGAINST racisim. For a great recap, read Justin Raimondo’s review.

    So, no evidence Rand Paul is a racist.

  32. Good for you. Go vote for rand paul and find out what he is if he wins.I mean after all its ok for businesses to discriminate according to paul. Just think, maybe your left handed and your doctor wont work on left handers

    I cant think of a single thing rand paul has said that should encourage anyone. Everything he says he has to rewrite days later

  33. Again with guilt-by-association. Geesh, people, how about some evidence of Rand Paul’s racism?

    A politician cannot choose his supporters. Supporters choose him. What a supporter believes tells you little about what the candidate believes.

    One of the people who worked for Rand’s campaign, Chris Hightower, had an old MySpace page on which was written, two years prior and by some other unknown person, an apparently racist comment (the page was deleted in 2010, so I’ll take their word for it). How does that indict Rand Paul?

    Tim Proffit was a volunteer and he was involved in a fight at a Paul/Conway debate in 2010. A woman, in a wig disguise, ran at Rand Paul and some of the people around him took her down when she got about 5 feet away. Tim Proffit put his foot on her neck or head. Rand Paul was not even aware it had happened until the police informed him after the debate, and he disavowed the use of violence of any kind.

    How does that prove he supports racists? It d…

  34. Shiva, don’t you see that the things you hate Rand for are things that OTHER PEOPLE DID AND SAID?

    The point I’ve been trying to make (and apparently failing miserably) is that Rand Paul holds many very liberal/progessive views, far more than most self-styled liberal/progressive politicians.

    Much of the political reporting on him ignores or minimizes what he actually says and does. Instead, it is big on the past actions of some of his supporters. The is pure political smear.

    What about what Rand Paul actually says? I think liberals/progressives are missing the opportunity to hear a non-racist, civil-liberties promoting, anti-interventionist politician because they have been listening too much to entrenched elite pundits spinning, and spinning, and spinning.

  35. Rand paul is for one thing. Corporate regulations removed. He does not promote YOUR civil libertys. Like his dad he talks about civil libertys but like Ron explained one day, no regulations on corporations mean you can sue them if you get polluted. Every try that?

    Trust one thing, the last thing Rand Paul is for is civil libertys. The koch wouldnt even let him run if that were true. You can say he is non racists, no one else buys it. He is not for womens rights just like his daddy wasnt

  36. Nothing more I can say. Read his words and watch his actions for yourself. Make your own judgement about his character.

    Remember that interpretations by others can include smears and spin that are nowhere near the truth. A lie, a big lie, repeated often enough becomes the truth (Adolf Hitler). The false stories about Rand and Ron are rampant.

    Goodnight. Sorry we couldn’t have a meeting of them minds.

  37. I have kept track of this guy and there is nothing I like about him. His comments about women are a turn off anhjd I know what he stands for. And its not you. Have a good easter

  38. He’s saved people from going blind. That counts as work, where I come from.

    Got any more snotty remarks to toss off, or are you done embarrassing yourself?


  39. It’s always hate with you people. Hate, hate, hate, if it doesn’t agree to your way of thinking. They use the word Teabagger if it was a loving word. When did disagreement become Defined as Hate. I believe there is no one that isn’t a Hypocrite. All parties live and stand by being Hypocrites. Liars, and tabloid way of thinking.The religion of the right party & the left party and if you don’t stand with their party you are a Hater. But it is easy to hate & be negative. Love takes work and compromise.

  40. Yes. His Board Certification was granted by a group that he founded, strictly for the purpose of certifying himself. It is since gone out of business and Paul continues to advertise himself as “Board Certified” — but it is all a hoax!

    The joke is on any poor sucker who allows that charlatan to touch his eyes!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.