Discussion for article #230139
So in other words, they want to cheat.
Why do Republicans have such a problem with playing by the rules, in ANY part of life?
I’m failing to see a “dastardly plan” here. All there is is a doomed-to-fail lawsuit against a standard-issue state law.
Rules are for chumps and Democrats
He could just not run in Kentucky, but run in primaries in other states, couldn’t he?
If so, I hope he loses the general by the exact number of EV’s that Kenfucky is worth.
Does anyone besides Chris Matthews think that Rand Paul will be the GOP nominee?
In other words, states rights for me but not for thee.
not a person here that didn’t know he was going to try to weasel his way out of following the law
Clearly a case of ® Candidate Fraud™
jw1
Rando (that dastard!) might claim that the Constitution trumps Kentucky law? Federal supremacy? What a concept!
(File under, Gored Ox.)
The con man wants to run a con. What a surprise. Not.
Because they can’t win any other way. Q.E.D.
Laws mean nothing to rabid ideologues, and narcissists like Rand Paul. In the end, he will simply do as he pleases and be allowed to get away with it. No one expects anything different.
Doesn’t the Kentucky constitution require a primary to be the way of selecting a presidential nominee?
This would seem to rule out the caucus work around
I guess changing the rules of the game is a repug core value.
It’s mighty establishment for Rand to think he is entitled to run for both positions.
If he was confident he could win he wouldn’t need to hedge his bets.
Nick Gillespie a.k.a. the Libertarian Elvis.
Once again state rules make a difference in Federal elections–runoffs in Louisiana come to mind (and Georgia which didn’t get to runoffs but has different dates for federal and state office run offs). Joe Lieberman was in the same position in 2000 in Connecticut and was able to be on the ballot twice, as was Paul Ryan in Wisconsin in 2012. But then consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.