"The GOP's Biggest Midterm Loser: Rand Paul"

[applegrove]

The GOP's Biggest Midterm Loser: Rand Paul

by Brian Beutler at the New Republic

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120174/rand-paul-2014-midterm-elections-biggest-republican-loser

"SNIP......................


If there’s one Republican in the country who wishes Republicans hadn’t had such a good election night, it’s Rand Paul. This is not to say that Paul wishes ill on his party, or is unhappy with the general outcome, but that he would be better off today if the party’s gains were smaller or concentrated in different places.

It’s no secret that Paul’s chief ambition in life is to be elected president, but he also wants to keep a foothold in the U.S. Senate in case that ambition is deterred. For this to happen, he needs to accomplish three things—to extend the constituency for his foreign policy views in GOP circles; to vanquish establishmentarian rivals in political combat; and to dominate Kentucky politics. All three goals took a hit on Tuesday.

Let’s begin in Kentucky. The 2014 midterms were a largely Southern affair, and Democrats, as you’d expect, were wiped out everywhere they ran. Everywhere, that is, except the Kentucky House, which is now the party’s sole legislative perch in the entire region. Paul wanted Republicans to win that chamber, not just out of a reflexive sense of partisan duty, but because it’s the key to his ability to advance in politics with one foot on the national stage and one foot in the state.

A Republican legislature in Kentucky would have gladly changed state law to allow him to run for president and re-election in the Senate simultaneously. The Democratic House, by contrast, has refused to grant him this favor, which leaves in place a genuine tension between Plan A and Plan B that he’d hoped to resolve on Tuesday.




.......................SNIP"

[underpants]

1. Good article

So the KY house stays blue, usually Repub turf in every state, but McConell is re-elected? Okay

This provision in the Commonwealth's Constitution makes Rand Paul appearances in the media exposed if this issue is NOT put in front of him.

[MADem]

2. All politics is local! But damn, there are times when politics has national consequences.

The KY House result was one of 'em.

[Major Hogwash]

23. Yeah, but we need that law changed for Rand Paul.

Because we want him to run for President.
We need the laughs he will present for us.
Besides, someone has to be in the driver's seat of the Krazy Klown Kar in 2016.

[MADem]

25. You've got idiots out there that will vote for that squirrel head. I don't want to take the chance.

I just read, here on DU, an argument for age discrimination when it comes to candidates for office.

So much for those "progressive" views that are supposed to hold sway here!

[Major Hogwash]

32. He's going to run in 2016.

It's his density.

[MADem]

39. Yeah, he's pretty doggone dense--gotta wonder if his party is stupid enough to let him roll. nt

[randys1]

26. HUUUUUUUGE mistake, i know from personal experience lots of young liberals think Rand Paul

is the answer to our problems

If he runs it is a big problem

[MADem]

40. Young WHITE liberals who don't have a problem with either his or his daddy's racist views.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/09/chris-hayes-rand-paul-racist_n_3570440.html

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

47. When Lyndon Johnson ran for Vice President in 1960

He was also up for re-election as a Senator. He got the Texas legislature to allow him to run for both offices.

[wyldwolf]

3. A good companion piece to: Why a Republican Controlled Congress Is Great For Hillary Clinton...

... and President Obama

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/why-a-republican-controll_b_6119564.html

[Man from Pickens]

11. Insanity squared

The spinning is at absurd levels already. Rand Paul the loser and Hillary the winner, when Democrats get wiped out nationwide?

Paul now sits with the majority in the Senate, giving him a lot more influence than he had before. The new Majority Leader has already openly pledged to support Paul for President in 2016, implying also that Paul will have even more standing in the Senate due to the bond between the two. The candidates Paul supported won. His bills will now be up for vote in the Senate, instead of needed to resort to the filibuster to make any headway. While he didn't get the state legislature he wanted, he can bypass them by convincing his party to nominate by caucus, allowing him to run for both Senate and President at once anyway.

The script from here is perfectly predictable: they will pass the legislation they want to pass, then blame Obama's vetoes as a scapegoat for accomplishing nothing. They will then spend 2016 claiming that they need a GOP President because the Democratic one they have is stopping them from saving the economy.

Meanwhile, Hillary's friends all lost their campaigns. Her home state went 100% GOP for the first time in 140 years. She's done nothing to reconcile with the enemies she created in the Democratic Party. She can't take advantage of the greatest election-relevant flaws of the GOP (warmongering and corporatism) because she shares their goals on those issues. How does any of this help her? The article you linked simply asserts it to be so, but provides no supporting logic to indicate that is a reasonable expectation.

[msanthrope]

12. Paul cannot remain in the Senate and run for President. nt

[Man from Pickens]

13. Sure he can

Biden did it - was re-elected to the Senate in 2008 in the same election he won VP. They just resign the Senate seat so that someone can be appointed in his place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2008#Delaware

Paul can circumvent the restriction in KY with a caucus nomination instead of a primary, the law as written allows for it.

[msanthrope]

15. No--the Kentucky law does not allow him to run for re-election to the Senate while running for

President, because he can only appear on the ballot once.

States differ.

[tritsofme]

16. I very much doubt that law would stand up in court.

States cannot set extra-constitutional eligibility requirements for federal officeholders.

[msanthrope]

17. Resign to run laws have been generally upheld. Thorton did strike term limits,

but I don't think it's on point with regards to this issue.

[tritsofme]

18. Have the courts examined a law like this involving federal candidates since Thornton?

It seems this law puts a major limitation on access and eligibility to federal office not present in the constitution.

[msanthrope]

19. No. I suspect that Paul could claim that the KY. state law would not apply to

federal offices, but only to state ones. The problem is, that if that is his legal stance, then he's going to gamble with a court challenge.

[freshwest]

24. It does not stop him running for POTUS if he lets go of a Senate run.

He's not being denied anything, he just can't do everything at the same time. And laws on those who hold elected office as Senator or Representative changed more than once. IMO, the Constitutional presidential rules don't apply to this.

[JustAnotherGen]

28. This exactly

He just has to let go of his Senate run. Easy peasy, piece of cake and I can't believe anyone on the left would question Rand Paul's rights when he cares only about the rights of wealthy white males.

[tritsofme]

36. Oh give me a fucking break.

This isn't about me defending Rand Paul, we are having a discussion on an interesting constitutional question. For me, that is outside the partisan dispute of the moment.

As I noted, while I believe I am correct, it would be very hypocritical for Paul from his libertarian state's right's perch to take up the argument.

[JustAnotherGen]

42. The people of Kentucky spoke

They wanted a Democratic House for a reason.

Let Rand fight his own fights and ask his own questions. It's about dodging, deflecting, and deferring. While he's doing that he loses momentum and speed.

Give me a fucking break if you don't find this painful and funny to watch. He's got dark money on to fight the battle for him.

[tritsofme]

43. I think it would be much funnier to see Rand Paul march into federal courts

and demand that a state law be overturned to make his presidential candidacy easier.

But none of that makes the underlying constitutional question any less interesting, which is whether or not state's have the power to make these sorts of regulations.

It not only shines a huge light on the hypocrisy of Mr. State's Rights, it would probably inflict serious damage to his bid among the true believers.

[JustAnotherGen]

44. That's why I'm loving it!

There's another scenario - State Republicans may try to implement a caucus scenario. In that one - Democrats in Kentucky can really screw him over. And do it publicly.

[freshwest]

38. Argh for the love... I think EarlG's epic post would be hidden now, don't you?

So... Baby Rand can't get all he wants:



Feel the love! From the Ron Paul Revolution!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025267006

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100280691

Good thread to read with 41 rec's here, but author was banned:

MIR Team (Skinner) banned TakeALeftTurn Reason: Conspiracy crap, obama hater, troll. (nt)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023084028#op

And the classic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101411204#post6

[tritsofme]

34. This is a barrier to federal office not present in the constitution

The constitution lays out eligibility requirements for all federal offices, Thornton said that states cannot add to this, this law likely cannot apply to federal candidates.

[jmowreader]

33. The Constitution doesn't address this

You can see why they do it: they don't want to deal with the aftermath of someone winning several offices and leaving the ones he decided not to take in a lurch.

[tritsofme]

35. Thornton said that states cannot have stricter qualification rules for federal candidates

Than is present in the Constitution. Like term limits, not addressing the specific situation does not open the door for states to do as they please.

[MADem]

41. The rule is very narrow. A candidate's name cannot appear on a ballot in KY more than once. nt

[tritsofme]

45. I don't agree that it is narrow

The law seems to impose a major limitation on access and eligibility to federal office not present in the Constitution, which would appear to be in conflict with Thornton.

[myrna minx]

4. K&R nt

[Cha]

5. Couldn't happen to a more deserving a$$hole. I hope it stays that way.

Mahalo apple~

[justhanginon]

6. He was a loser long before the midterms and

will be a loser long after. Cannot stand the man!

[JI7]

7. chris christie also

[leftynyc]

20. It may not be against the law

in NJ - it is in KY.

[JustAnotherGen]

29. With Christie it is WHO he can accept money from

Which means he could just accept PAC money which hides donors and contribution amounts.

Although - I think he has some Republicans in NJ who will be disgusted with him "abandoning" him. Add in - there are a lot of Democrats who will vote for a TEA type Republican candidate as our votes never count in the Presidential primary for Democrats. The ones who appeal to us tend to be driven out by the time the primary gets to us.

I could see Republicans hanging on to the end and letting us disrupt their process - whic would be a vote of no confidence for Christie.

The county grass roots meetings start this week in NJ. We are going to be ready in NJ.

[Erose999]

8. Praise Aquabuddah, lol.

[bullwinkle428]

9. Rachel reported last night that the Kentucky Republican party was trying

to work some shenanigans in order to pull this off for Randy. There was talk of canceling the primary entirely, or just having a caucus, since the law involves names on a ballot, and there is no written ballot in a caucus.

[LiberalFighter]

10. If Democrats won't change it so he can't be on the ballot for both Senator and President

Then they sure as hell won't cancel their Presidential Preferential Primary.

Even if he decides not to be on the ballot in the Primary. Does he expect that he will run for President in 49 states instead of 50? He still can't be on the ballot in the General election for both Senator and President. What will he do? Do a write-in in Kentucky?

[tritsofme]

14. That law is almost certaintly unconstitutional.

States cannot set eligibility or other limits on federal officeholders outside of what is prescribed by the Constitution. That's why state laws that seek to put term limits on congressmen or senators are universally thrown out.

It will however, be the richest of rich ironies to watch Mr. State's Rights have to run to the federal courts to get the issue resolved.

[JustAnotherGen]

30. The Constitution doesn't state specifically

That Kentucky cannot demand their Federal Representatives NOT multi task.


This could be interesting if Rand takes it to the SCOTUS.

He would essentially be signaling the SCOTUS and Federally Appointed judges always over rule the state, for a man who has made a living schilling States Rights - its going to make the next two years fun.

[tritsofme]

37. That's exactly what he would be doing.

And why the irony would be so rich.

Thornton suggested states do not have this sort of power.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

21. Good test of just how willing he is to put his money where his big mouth is.

[Major Hogwash]

22. Guess what? Rand Paul is the biggest fucking loser in Congress every single day of the damned week!

Because . . he is Rand Paul.

Fuck Rand Paul!!

[yeoman6987]

27. While I understand your sentiment,

He has a ton of competition for the worst in Congress. I actually think Cruz is the worst. But your pick is certainly up there.

[Beacool]

31. Well, at least this is one bit of good news from Tuesday's debacle.

I just don't get why people who barely got into the Senate a short time ago think that they are ready to run the country. To be fair, I said the same thing about Obama in 2008. IMO, it's all about their ego and not what's best for the country. All these bunch of newbies, who in some cases weren't even in politics when they won their Senate seat, should sit there for a while and try to do their job.

If anything that happened this election helps to deter Paul, then there's something to celebrate.

[IronLionZion]

46. Yeah, well those are red state dems, so lets PURGE!!!

[JohnnyLib2]

48. On a miserable election night in Kentucky,

this brought great cheers from some of us!