Rand Paul On Political Violence

“I fear that there's going to be an assassination,” Rand Paul told a Kentucky radio show this week. “I really worry that somebody is going to be killed and that those who are ratcheting up the conversation ... they have to realize they bear some responsibility if this elevates to violence.”

I don’t always agree with Senator Paul, but I think that he’s absolutely correct here. It really isn’t a stretch to think that the current powder keg-like political climate could spark an act of violence that could result in bloodshed. It isn’t farfetched at all because it has already happened.

It was only last year that a crazed Bernie Sanders supporter attacked the congressional Republican baseball team as they practiced at a Virginia ballpark. The attack left Louisiana Republican Steve Scalise badly wounded but alive.

Even before the baseball attack, the leftist Antifa movement held violent protests in several cities around the country. During the 2016 campaign, Trump campaign rallies were the scene of leftist mob violence.

Not all the violence is on the left, however. In August 2017, an alt-right militant drove his car into a group of counter-protesters during a neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, murdering 32-year-old Heather Heyer. In August, a Trump supporter from California was charged with threatening to shoot Boston Globe employees because the newspaper was an “enemy of the people.” In 2016, supporters of Ammon Bundy took up arms against the federal government when they seized a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon. The incident could easily have become a bloodbath, but Republicans cheered when the conspirators were acquitted.

Rand Paul has even had personal experience with violence. When a neighbor attacked Paul in January 2018, fracturing five of the senator’s ribs, there was speculation that the assault might have been politically motivated. In a plea deal, the neighbor admitted to the attack but said that he was motivated by Paul dumping brush on his property rather than by politics.

If we haven’t experienced a political assassination in recent times, it isn’t for lack of desire. Even before a leftist called for the assassination of Brett Kavanaugh, a British man in the US illegally tried to pull a police officer’s gun at a June 2016 rally to kill Donald Trump. Barack Obama was the target of no less than four assassination attempts at the hands of everyone from white supremacists to ISIS to someone who thought he was the antichrist. Sooner or later, a would-be assassin is going to get it right and the odds are about 50-50 as to which side of the political spectrum will be at fault.

Paul went on to blame inflammatory rhetoric for planting the seeds of violence. “When people like Cory Booker say get up in their face … What he doesn’t realize is that for every 1,000 persons who want to get up in your face, one of them is going to be unstable enough to commit violence,” Paul said.

Recalling previous attacks, Paul said, “When I was at the ball field and Steve Scalise was nearly killed, the guy shooting up the ballfield, and shooting I think five or six people, he was yelling, ‘This is for health care. When I was attacked in my yard and had six of my ribs broken, and pneumonia, lung contusion, all that — these are people that are unstable, we don’t want to encourage them.”

Paul is correct that mentally unstable people don’t need to be encouraged to commit violence but stopped short of criticizing his own side’s words. There is a direct link between President Trump’s rhetorical attacks on the press and the threats against the Boston Globe. When people on the right say that liberals and Democrats are traitors who are trying to destroy America, no one should be surprised when someone commits a violent act against them. Perhaps the biggest surprise is how little violence there has been so far given the heat of rhetoric from both sides.

It’s easy for those of us on the right to criticize people like Corey Booker and Maxine Waters when they call for confrontation. It is much more difficult to call out those on our own side who incite or commit violence. The problem is with radicals on both sides, however, and both sides should police their own.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Sasse, Paul, and Trump Call For Obamacare Repeal Instead of Reform

In statements echoed by President Trump on Twitter, two prominent Republican senators have called for the GOP to skip the health care overhaul and focus on simple repeal of Obamacare if Republican Senate leadership cannot find 50 votes to move the current health care reform bill forward. Earlier this week, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced that a vote on the health care bill would be delayed until after the July 4 recess.

In a letter to the White House quoted in the Wall Street Journal, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said, “On the current path it looks like Republicans will either fail to pass any meaningful bill at all, or will instead pass a bill that looks to prop up many of the crumbling Obama care structures.”

“We must keep our word,” Sasse continued. “Therefore, if on July 10 we don’t have agreement on a combined repeal and replace plan, we should immediately vote again on... the December 2015 Obamacare repeal legislation that the Congress passed but President Obama vetoed.”

Within a few minutes of Sen. Sasse’s discussion of re-introducing the 2015 bill, HR 3762, President Trump tweeted support for the idea. “If Republican Senators are unable to pass what they are working on now, they should immediately REPEAL, and then REPLACE at a later date!” Trump said on Twitter.

If Republican Senators are unable to pass what they are working on now, they should immediately REPEAL, and then REPLACE at a later date!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 30, 2017

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) also endorsed the idea. “I have spoken to @realDonaldTrump & Senate leadership about this and agree. Let's keep our word to repeal then work on replacing right away,” Paul tweeted.

I have spoken to @realDonaldTrump & Senate leadership about this and agree. Let's keep our word to repeal then work on replacing right away.

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) June 30, 2017

The 2015 bill in question, HR 3762, was not technically a full repeal of Obamacare either since it also amended the Affordable Care Act rather than repealing it outright. A full repeal would require 60 votes for cloture in the Senate, which is far out of reach. The bill passed the Senate in a largely party line vote on December 3, 2015 by a 52-47 margin.

Sasse has not suggested a strategy for passing a 2017 version of the bill. The problem for Republicans on passage of the current health care reform bill is that nine Republican senators are reportedly in opposition to the bill. Assuming no Democrats cross the aisle, Republicans could lose no more than two senators and still be able to pass the bill.

The current Republican opposition to the health care reform is from both the center and the right wings of the GOP. Moderate Republicans such as Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) argue that the bill hurts too many people on Medicaid in their states while conservatives such as Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) say that the bill does not go far enough in reforming Obamacare. With eroding support from both ends of Republican political spectrum, the current bill has little chance of passage.

Sasse’s plan to revive the 2015 bill is a partial answer in that it should bring the conservatives back on board. The problem is that Republicans would still need moderate votes to move the bill forward.

When the bill originally passed in 2015, Republicans held two more seats in the Senate than they do today. Back then, two Republicans crossed party lines to vote against the bill: Susan Collins and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). Kirk lost his seat to Democrat Tammy Duckworth in 2016, but Collins is still in the Senate and could be counted on to vote against the bill once again. That leaves Republicans with a one vote margin.

Earlier this year, The Resurgent reported that four Republican senators who had voted for the 2015 bill would refuse to vote for a bill that did not allow a slow phase out of the Obamacare Medicaid expansion. If Shelly Moore-Capito (R-W.V.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Corey Gardner (R-Col.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) stick to their pledge, it would doom Sasse’s plan.

Still, a deficit of five votes is a more surmountable obstacle than the deficit of nine votes that the GOP currently faces. It is possible that pressure could be brought to bear on the four senators who previously voted for the bill that would keep them in the “yes” column.

An additional risk would be with the reform that still must come after the passage of the near-repeal. Democrats might be persuaded to join the reform effort if most of Obamacare was gutted, but they might also adopt a you-break-it-you-bought-it policy that would allow them to campaign against the Republican-created chaos in the health care markets in 2018 and beyond. Given recent Democrat obstructionism, there is little doubt which course they would take.

Still, as the Republican health care reform seems increasingly dead in the water, Sasse’s plan, long shot that it is, may be the only viable option to keep the GOP promise to repeal and replace Obamacare. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Lindsey Graham Says He Was Surveilled By Obama Administration

Government surveillance of American citizens has been a controversial issue for years. It became more so this year when President Trump tweeted that “Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory.” Trump never provided evidence of his claim, but now another Republican is coming forward to claim that he too may have been the subject of surveillance by the Obama Administration.

In an interview with Fox News, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said that he had “reason to believe” that he may have been surveilled and unmasked by Obama Administration officials. Graham believes that the surveillance was incidental and possibly resulted from his meetings with foreign leaders in his role as a senator.

“I have reason to believe that a conversation that I had was picked up with some foreign leader or some foreign person and somebody requested that my conversation be unmasked,” Graham said. “I’ve been told that by people in the intelligence community. All I can say is that there are 1,950 collections on American citizens talking to people that were foreign agents being surveilled either by the CIA, the FBI or the NSA.”

“Here’s the concern,” Graham continued. “Did the people in the Obama Administration listen in to these conversations? Was there a politicizing of the intelligence gathering process? So, what I want to know: Of the 1,950 incidental collections on American citizens, how many of them involved presidential candidates, members of Congress from either party and if these conversations were unmasked, who made the request? Because I want to know everything there is about unmasking, how it works and who requested unmasking of conversations between foreign people and American members of Congress.”

If the Obama Administration was conducting purposeful surveillance on members of Congress, there is a possible violation of the separation of powers under the Constitution. Surveillance of political opponents could be used gather inside information on political strategies or even for blackmail.

“Now if you’ve got a reason to believe that a member of Congress is committing a crime, then you go get a warrant to follow us around like you would any other citizen,” Graham said. “But I meet with foreign leaders all the time. And I would be upset if any executive branch agency listened in on my conversations, because I’m in another branch of government.”

Graham said that he was not sure if his conversations were unmasked by Obama Administration officials. The senator sent letters to the FBI, CIA and NSA requesting the details of any surveillance that involved him.  

Graham is not the only Republican other than Trump who believes that he may have been under surveillance. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) wrote in a letter to President Trump in April, “An anonymous source recently alleged to me that my name, as well as the names of other members of Congress, were unmasked, queried or both in intelligence reports or intercepts during the previous administration.”

The common thread among Trump, Paul and Graham is that all three were Republican presidential candidates in 2016. In May, Paul told the Washington Times, “There are rumors about other people who ran for president as well. I’m concerned not only for myself but for Americans in general.”

So far, there is no firm evidence that the Obama Administration acted improperly in conducting surveillance, but the claims by Trump, Paul and Graham do raise serious questions about surveillance technology and the oversight needed to prevent its abuse. The subject of surveillance of presidential candidates and members of Congress may come when former FBI Director James Comey testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee this week. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Hillary Clinton promoted Donald Trump as way to damage GOP

Among the documents in the leaked John Podesta emails recently posted by Wikileaks was a strategy memo that suggested that the Clinton campaign may have colluded with the Democratic National Committee and the media to promote certain Republican primary candidates that the Democrats considered extreme. If genuine, the memo indicates that the Clinton campaign interfered with the Republican primary with the help of the media.

The memo was an attachment to an email with the Wikileaks ID number 1120. It was sent to numerous staff members on April 23, 2015 with the subject line “[AGENDA & MEMO] Friday Strategy at 8:00 AM ET.” The email was sent by “MASTOR,” probably a reference to Marissa Astor, who is listed as a surrogate on the Hillary for America organizational chart. The attachment file name is “150407 Strategy on GOP.”

The memo is addressed to “The Democratic National Committee” and is dated April 7, 2015. The introduction says that its purpose is to “outline the strategy and goals that a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field.” The introduction notes that, even though Hillary Clinton was not yet the Democratic nominee, “most of what is contained in this memo is work the DNC is already doing.”

The memo lays out three strategies to “make whomever the Republicans nominate unpalatable to the majority of the electorate.” First, the Clinton campaign planned to “force all [emphasis theirs] Republican candidates to lock themselves into extreme conservative positions that will hurt them in a general election.” Second, they wanted to “undermine any credibility/trust Republican presidential candidates have” among independent voters. Finally, they planned to “muddy the waters on any potential attack launched against HRC.”

In “operationalizing the strategy,” the memo described a plan to “use the [Republican] field to inflict damage on itself.” The Clinton campaign wanted to use “more extreme candidates” as “’Pied Piper’ candidates” who would seem to “represent the mainstream of the Republican Party.”

The memo identified three “Pied Piper” candidates by name. They were Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and Ben Carson. At the time the memo was written, Donald Trump was still two months away from declaring his candidacy. It is not clear if the Clintons directly influenced Trump to enter the race.

“We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them [sic] seriously,” the memo says. This indicates coordination between the Clinton campaign, the DNC and members of the media.

The memo goes on to identify several “more established” candidates who needed special attention to
“undermine their credibility among our coalition (communities of color, millennials, women) and independent voters.” The candidates identified as bigger threats to the Clinton campaign were Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal and Chris Christie.

To “muddy the waters,” the memo suggested building a dossier on each Republican candidate in the areas of “transparency & disclosure, donors & associations, and management & business dealings.” In a statement that presaged this week’s attacks on Donald Trump, the memo says, “any information on scandals or ethical lapses on the GOP candidates would serve well. We won’t be picky.”

 While the email does not contain a “smoking gun” that indicates that Clinton enticed Donald Trump to enter the Republican primary, it is apparent that Trump was considered a weak and extreme candidate who could hurt the rest of the Republican field. The reference to the press may help explain the large amounts of friendly press coverage that Trump received during the primary. There is also no indication that the Clinton campaign thought that Donald Trump could actually win the Republican primary and become the party’s nominee.

In the end, Hillary Clinton’s plan to sabotage the Republican primary must have exceeded her wildest expectations.  One of her “Pied Pipers” actually won the nomination and became the Republican candidate for the presidency. Hillary was ready when he did.

Read the full story on The Resurgent

Scott Walker debuts in poll near Hillary Clinton

A new poll by Rasmussen found that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is near a statistical tie with presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. The poll, released on March 3, found that Walker trails Mrs. Clinton by only five points in a head-to-head matchup. This was the first time that Rasmussen had asked about a Walker-Clinton matchup.

Rasmussen found that 46 percent of likely voters would vote for Mrs. Clinton while 41 percent preferred Gov. Walker. Six percent were undecided and eight percent preferred some other candidate. The margin of error in the poll was three percent.

At this point, Walker does better in a potential race against Mrs. Clinton than any other likely Republican. Other Republicans trail the former First Lady and Secretary of State by double-digit margins. Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, trails Mrs. Clinton 45-36 percent, little changed from a year ago. Retired neurosurgeon and first-time candidate for public office Ben Carson trails Clinton 47-36 percent.

The Real Clear Politics average of polls reports that other Republicans also trail Mrs. Clinton. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie fairs best with an average deficit of nine percent. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) trails by an average of 10 percent. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) trails by 11 points. Former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee trails Clinton by an average 13 points, and Texas Senator Ted Cruz is an average 14 points behind.

Walker’s debut at a near tie is nothing short of remarkable given his lack of name recognition and Hillary Clinton’s established presence as the candidate to beat. On Feb. 21, the Washington Post noted that Walker had the “lowest name recognition of any candidate tested.” In July 2014, Gallup found that 91 percent of adults were favorable with Clinton. Fifty-five percent viewed her favorably.

Walker has generated controversy in several areas in recent weeks. He drew fire from liberals for not distancing himself from Rudy Giuliani’s comment that President Obama did not love America. The comment was made at a private dinner for Walker. He was also criticized for his statement that “the most significant foreign policy decision in my lifetime” was “in August of 1981, when Ronald Reagan fired the air traffic controllers” (as quoted by Politico).

Gov. Walker, who left college to take a job, has also started a discussion about whether a president should have a college degree. According to a Public Policy poll, 62 percent think that a degree is important, but only 38 percent say that they are less likely to vote for a candidate without a degree.

Scott Walker’s strong debut against Hillary is encouraging for Republicans, but his challenge will be to adapt from state to national politics. His strong start will undoubtedly make Walker, already a prime target of Democrats for his controversial policies in Wisconsin, the subject of even harsher attacks. It may be difficult for Walker to sustain his lead for the next year until the primaries.

 

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Can Scott Walker unite the GOP?

The factions of the GOP are split and the Wisconsin governor is one of few candidates that can bring them together.

Scott Walker, the Republican governor of Wisconsin, has generated much buzz as a potential presidential candidate since he addressed the Freedom Summit in Des Moines, Iowa on January 24. Walker has jumped to the front of a crowded Republican field and may be uniquely qualified to unite the various factions of the Republican Party.

There are a number of factions within the GOP, the two most obvious being the establishment and the Tea Party. In addition to these groups, there are also religious conservatives, foreign policy conservatives, and libertarians. Most of the potential Republican nominees are championed by only one or two of these groups. For example, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush fall into the establishment category. Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and Sarah Palin are prominent candidates from the Tea Party. Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum have the support of the religious wing of the GOP. Rand Paul is the obvious libertarian choice and no strong foreign policy candidates have yet emerged. Scott Walker is one of few candidates with the potential to bridge the divides between these groups.

Establishment excitement

Establishment Republicans like Scott Walker for his effectiveness and his experience as the governor of Wisconsin. Many conservatives favor a governor with proven leadership abilities after two terms of the meanderings of a former community organizer who was never tasked with a management position until he won the White House. The proven ability to get things done and forge majorities is a big plus for the next Republican nominee.

Additionally, establishment Republicans appreciate the fact that Walker is the best vetted candidate in the country. Likewise, after successfully managing three hotly contested campaigns (two gubernatorial campaigns and recall attempt), the potential for unforced errors is less likely than with untested candidates. Both areas have plagued many Tea Party candidates in the past and caused Republicans to lose races that should have been easily winnable.

Terrific Tea Partier

From the Tea Party point of view, Scott Walker is a fighter. He faced down Wisconsin’s public employee unions and won. He also cut taxes and moved the state budget from a deficit to a surplus. According to National Review, 95 percent of the state’s employers think that Wisconsin is on the right track, reflecting Walker’s pro-business and limited government policies. Walker’s new budget proposal also bans the use of Common Core assessment tests in Wisconsin’s public schools.

Walker’s views largely match those of Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz, but, unlike Cruz, Walker has a record of accomplishment. Where Cruz has made a name for himself in making principled, but ultimately unsuccessful stands against Obamacare and the debt ceiling, Scott Walker can point to a record of accomplishments in Wisconsin.

Religious, but not radical

Walker can also appeal to both religious and secular Republicans. He grew up as the son of Baptist pastor, notes the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. As a boy in Iowa he even started a “Jesus USA” club to do good deeds. In March 2014, he attracted the ire of the Freedom from Religion Foundation when he posted Philippians 4:13 on his official state Facebook and Twitter feeds.

Walker is pro-life and a defender of traditional marriage as well. In an October 2014 letter described in the Journal-Sentinel, Walker described how he signed a bill requiring ultrasounds for women seeking abortions and hospital-admitting privileges for doctors at abortion clinics. Walker also cut off state funding for abortion providers. With respect to marriage, Walker supports traditional marriage, but a court decision establishing gay marriage in Wisconsin meant that the issue was not prominent in his reelection campaign. As the governor of a blue state, Walker is seen as more mainstream in his faith than Huckabee and Santorum by secular Republicans.

As governor, Walker also had support from libertarians. Walker’s limited government policies and challenges to public unions drew the endorsement of the national Libertarian Party in 2012. When foreign policy becomes an issue in a national campaign, support from libertarians might become more problematic, especially if the pacifist Rand Paul runs.

Aggressive on foreign policy

On foreign policy, Walker has begun to stake out a claim that is decidedly not pacifist. He recently told ABC News, “I think aggressively, we need to take the fight to ISIS and any other radical Islamic terrorist in and around the world, because it’s not a matter of when they attempt an attack on American soil, or not if I should say, it’s when, and we need leadership that says clearly, not only amongst the United States but amongst our allies, that we’re willing to take appropriate action.”

Walker went on to say, “We have to look at other surgical methods. And ultimately, we have to be prepared to put boots on the ground if that’s what it takes.” He continued, “I don’t think that’s an immediate plan. [But] I wouldn’t rule anything out.”

Walker’s sharp comments come after months of executions by ISIS and the Charlie Hebdo murders in Paris. Polling shows that voters are sharply critical of President Obama’s tepid response to Islamic terror, but are not necessarily ready to commit U.S. ground forces to the fight in Syria.

Immigration impasse

On immigration reform, Walker opposes an amnesty, but does see the need for immigration reform and securing the border. He told ABC News, “We need to enforce the laws in the United States, and we need to find a way for people to have a legitimate legal immigration system in this country, and that does not mean amnesty.”

So far, Walker has been vague about his position on immigration, but at various times has voiced opposition to the idea of deporting all illegal aliens and support for a pathway to legalization. With some conservatives decrying any suggestion of reform as “amnesty,” the issue of immigration is likely to be the most difficult for Walker to negotiate in the Republican primaries.

Other possible uniters

Scott Walker is not the only candidate with the potential to unite the GOP. Several other candidates might possibly bring the establishment and Tea Party, the two largest factions, together, but each has their own weakness. Marco Rubio has broad support, but as a one-term senator has little leadership experience. Rick Perry is a successful governor of Texas, but is under indictment for abuse of official capacity and must overcome his poor performance from 2012. Bobby Jindal is the two-term governor of Louisiana, but faces questions of effectiveness and experience at the national level.

The down side

There are several potential problems that might affect a Walker campaign. A simmering investigation in Wisconsin has searched for illegal coordination between conservative groups and Walker’s gubernatorial campaign. A recent Washington Post column hinted at how Democrats might respond to a Walker candidacy. Points of attack include Walker’s cuts to the University of Wisconsin and the state’s Seniorcare prescription drug program. Walker’s response to a projected budget shortfall was a round of spending cuts. Additionally, Walker is one of the few politicians at the national level without a college degree.

Walker’s largest obstacle at this point is coming to terms with immigration reform. While a small, vocal minority in the GOP opposes any change to immigration laws, a large majority of Americans want the system fixed. According to a Beyond the Beltway poll from December, 48 percent, a plurality, favor “a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers if they undergo a background check, pay taxes, and learn English.” This is one area where Republicans are out of step with the rest of the country.

Veering right on immigration in the GOP primary may prove fatal in the general election. Some observers believe that Mitt Romney’s fate was sealed in 2012 by his comments in the primary about “self-deportation.” Romney ended up losing the Hispanic vote by 44 percent according to CNN, a worse performance than any Republican candidate since Bob Dole.

So early into the 2016 race, anything can happen. At this point, Walker is not even a declared candidate yet. Nevertheless, he is well positioned to bring Republicans together, an important first step taking back the White House.

 

Read the full article on Elections Examiner.com

This obscure law may prevent a Rand Paul presidency

 

An accident of the calendar may prevent Rand from running in 2016

Election Day 2014 brought a lot of good news for Republicans, but for one Republican, it wasn’t quite good enough. Rand Paul, the junior senator from Kentucky, had to be disappointed that the Republican sweep didn’t extend to Kentucky’s House of Representatives. For Paul, this means more than partisan disappointment; it may well destroy any chance he has of becoming president.

Rand Paul, the son of libertarian and sometimes Republican, Ron Paul, was elected to the U.S. Senate in the Tea Party victories of 2010. Like his father, a perennial presidential candidate in his own right, the younger Paul seems to have had his eyes set on the White House from his first days in the Senate. He was a founder of the Senate Tea Party caucus and, perhaps following his father’s lead, has emerged as a vocal critic of U.S. foreign policy. He emerged as a political star in March 2013 with a 12 hour filibuster of President Obama’s nomination of John Brennan as CIA director. The filibuster, inspired by Paul’s opposition to President Obama’s use of drones, lasted 12 hours and 52 minutes on a slow news day and catapulted Sen. Paul into the limelight.

The Kentucky problem

The problem for Rand Paul’s presidential aspirations is that he was elected to the Senate in 2010. That means that he will face reelection in 2016 as the country is choosing a successor to Barack Obama. In most states this would not present a problem. For example, 2012 saw sitting Congressman Michele Bachmann run for reelection at the same time that she ran for president while Paul Ryan was on the ballot as both a candidate for Congress and vice president. In 2008, Joe Biden won as a Senate and vice presidential candidate simultaneously. Kentucky is not most states however.

In 1990, Kentucky passed a statute that prohibits any candidate from appearing on the ballot twice. This means that, under current law, Rand Paul could not run for reelection as a senator while at the same time running for president. The only exception to the law is for a candidate in a special election to fill a vacancy:

118.405 Name of candidate to appear on ballot but once -- Exceptions for

filling of vacancy.

No candidate's name shall appear on any voting machine or absentee ballot more

than once, except that a candidate's name may appear twice if he is a candidate for

a primary or a regular election and also a candidate to fill a vacancy in the same

office required to be filled at a special election, when the special election to fill a

vacancy is scheduled for the regular election day.

Republican wave crashed on the Kentucky House

If the Republican victories had extended to the Kentucky House, Paul’s problem could have been easily solved. In March 2014, the Lexington Herald-Leader reported that the state senate had passed a bill that would allow Paul to run for the Senate and the presidency at the same time. The bill was passed with only two Democratic votes and foundered on the rocks of the Democrat-controlled House.

Greg Stumbo, Kentucky’s speaker of the house and a Democrat, is not eager to help Paul. Stumbo told NPR that changing a law to benefit one person is a violation of Kentucky’s constitution and “There's only one guy who's talking about holding onto his Senate seat and also running for United States president.”

Stumbo was even more blunt in the Wall St. Journal. “I’m not a fan of Sen. Paul,” Stumbo said, “and I’m not eager to see my country turned over to him.”

Rand Paul’s best hope for a simple solution was for Republicans to capture the Kentucky House this year. This was not to be, however. The Louisville Courier-Journal reported that, when the smoke cleared, the Democrats had retained a 54-46 majority in the chamber. Paul’s hope for amending the law died along with Republican hopes for a majority.

More than one path to the top of the mountain

If Paul truly wants to be president, he must find a way to run since missing the 2016 window might kill his chances permanently. A failure to run in 2016 might mean missing his moment. If a Republican wins that year, it might be eight years before Paul has another chance to run for an open Oval Office. Even if he mounted a losing campaign in 2016, he might position himself for a successful run later since Republicans often nominate the runners up from previous campaigns.

There might be other options that would allow Paul to run for president without giving up his Senate seat. First, if he has the backing of Kentucky Republicans, the party might change its nominating process from a primary to a caucus. This would render the statute meaningless since it doesn’t address caucuses. Kentucky Democrats would not be involved in changes to the party nominating process.

Another option would be for the Paul presidential campaign to choose to stay off the ballot in Kentucky. This way Paul could run for reelection in Kentucky as a senator without running afoul of the ballot law. Paul supporters could mount a write-in campaign in the state primary, but even if Paul conceded his home state, he would only lose 44 delegates according to the Green Papers. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the 1,205 delegates needed to nominate a candidate out of 2,409 total delegates.

Finally, Paul could “lawyer up.” It appears that Paul may take the position that the Kentucky law is unconstitutional. Doug Stafford, a senior advisor to Paul, told the Lexington Herald-Leader, “Federal law governs federal elections, and the Supreme Court has made it clear that states cannot impose additional qualifications beyond those in the Constitution.”

In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton that states could not impose additional qualifications on candidates for federal office that are not enumerated in the Constitution. The Court would have to determine whether Kentucky’s law is an additional qualification for federal office or a state issue dealing with ballots.

Et tu, Florida?

Ironically, the issue may affect another potential Republican candidate for 2016 as well. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, also a member of congressional class of 2010, is subject to a similar law that prohibits running for separate offices on the same ballot. Unlike Paul, who has said that he will definitely stand for reelection in the Senate, Rubio has made clear that if he decides to run for president, he won’t seek reelection as a Senator. Last April, Rubio told talk show host, Hugh Hewitt, that he thinks the Florida ballot law “is the right law.”

“I think, by and large," Rubio added, "when you choose to do something as big as [seeking the presidency], you've really got to be focused on that and not have an exit strategy.”

At this point, Rand Paul’s strategy for dealing with Kentucky’s ballot law is uncertain. What is certain, however, is that the 2016 race for the White House is already beginning. For Paul, the clock is ticking.

 

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Debunked: Obama’s third term

An alert reader recently sent a link that purported to prove that President Obama “wished to seek an unprecedented 3^rd [sic] term as Commander in Chief.” The article, published as “breaking news” by the Rand Paul Review website claims that Obama made the announcement of his intention to seek a third term “earlier this week” in a “speech to supporters.” The reader cited this article as proof of President Obama’s intent to subvert or alter the Constitution and install himself as an authoritarian ruler.

Upon investigation, Examiner has determined that the article is a hoax. Red flags were raised immediately by the undated article which was not attributed to a legitimate news source. The date of the article was determined to be August 2013 by examining the link’s URL. There is also no author listed.

An obvious problem with the article’s claim was that the quote from President Obama did not announce his intention to run for a third term. Additionally, a third term would not be “unprecedented” since President Franklin Roosevelt was elected to a third term in 1940 and fourth in 1944.

According to the Rand Paul Review, Obama told supporters:

“I would put [my administration] up against any prior administration since FDR,” Obama said. “We didn’t ask for the challenges that we face, but we don’t shrink from them either.” He continued, “And the truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades. It will require common effort, shared responsibility, and the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one.”

The author of the article jumps to the conclusion that, because Obama says that “it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades,” he intends to run for a third term. The author never makes the claim that Obama had explicitly declared his candidacy for 2016.

An additional problem with the claims made in the article is that Obama did not make that speech in 2013. A search of the internet found a Politico article that referenced the same Obama quote. The date on the Politico piece? May 27, 2009. This was a mere four months into President Obama’s first term.

In fact, the Politico quote is slightly different from the Rand Paul Review quote. In the Politico piece, which is accompanied by a video clip of the quote, President Obama actually says, “I would put these first four months up against any prior administration since FDR”[emphasis mine]. He then continues, “We didn't ask for the challenges that we face, but we don't shrink from them either."

The authors of the Rand Paul Review apparently edited the Obama quote to conceal the fact that the President’s words were from 2009 and not 2013. In context, the president is clearly referring to the next three years of his first term and not announcing his intention to seek a not-unprecedented third term.

The Politico article also gave the location of the speech in question. It reportedly took place during a Democratic National Committee fundraiser at the Beverly Hills Hilton. The date was presumably May 27 or shortly before.

With this information the original speech can be located on the White House website. The speech titled, “Remarks by the President at a DNC fundraiser reception” and gives the location as the Beverly Hills Hilton. The published version of the speech is dated May 29, 2009. Interestingly, the text of the speech does not contain the FDR comparison. Another video on the Politico site shows the president with a microphone in hand giving the speech on the White House website while he was at a podium in the first video. This may mean that the FDR comparison was not part of the president’s speech, but was given at a question-and-answer session. In either case, Obama definitely made the remark only four months into his presidency.

When Examiner contacted the Rand Paul Review, Kevin G., a spokesman for the site, responded that the article is “labeled as political satire and links to a petition that calls for term limits for all Congressman [sic]. This issue is important to those of at Rand Paul Review, as well as Rand Paul's campaign and superpacs” [sic]. The Rand Paul Review does note on its Facebook page that it is a “grassroots effort” and states that it is “not Rand Paul’s official page,” but this is not apparent on the website.

While the article was not real, Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.) did introduce a bill in 2013 that would repeal the 22^nd Amendment and allow President Obama to run for a third term. The bill has apparently died in committee in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives since no action has been taken. Govtrack gives the bill a zero percent chance of becoming law.

Read the full article on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Christie leads GOP pack of 2016 hopefuls

A pair of new polls hints at a likely matchup between Chris Christie and Hillary Clinton for the 2016 presidential race. Christie and Clinton are the current favorites for their party’s presidential nomination. Christie is the only Republican who currently leads Clinton in head-to-head polling.

A Fox News poll released Dec. 27 found that Chris Christie and Hillary Clinton lead the nomination fight for 2016. Among Democrats, 68 percent prefer Hillary Clinton as the next presidential nominee. Clinton holds a 56 point lead over Vice President Joe Biden, the second place finisher. Elizabeth Warren, currently a U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, was third with seven percent. New York governor Andrew Cuomo ranked fourth with four percent. Maryland governor Martin O’Malley and Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick both garnered one percent.

Chris Christie, recently re-elected governor of New Jersey, topped the Fox News list of Republicans for 2016. Christie’s 16 percent was four points better than the second place finishers, but hints at a much tougher fight for the Republican nomination than Hillary Clinton is likely to face.

There is a strong fight for second place in the Republican poll. Senator Ted Cruz (Tex.), Rep. Paul Ryan (Wisc.), and Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, all scored 12 percent. Rand Paul, the junior senator from Kentucky, received 11 percent. Florida Senator Marco Rubio finished fourth with eight percent and Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin, received six percent. 2012 candidates Rick Perry and Rick Santorum both have the support of three percent in the current poll.

Republicans are also much more uncommitted than Democrats at this point. Seventeen percent of Republicans (one percent prefer other candidates, five percent prefer none of the above, and 11 percent don’t know) are uncommitted to any of the top candidates. On the Democratic side only eight percent are uncommitted (two percent prefer none of the above and six percent don’t know). This means that a serious Democratic challenger would have to attack Hillary’s record in an attempt to reduce her lead, while Republican hopefuls can focus their efforts on undecided voters with a more positive message.

A second poll from Dec. 26 by CNN/Opinion Research focuses on head-to-head races between top Republicans and Hillary Clinton. The only Republican who outpolled Clinton was Chris Christie. Christie edged out Clinton by 48-46 percent. The result was within the margin of error for the poll.

Christie “performs particularly well among independents, winning nearly six in 10 in that key group," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "He also wins a majority of suburbanites and older voters, something that no other GOP hopeful [that was] tested was able to do against Clinton. Christie doesn't win in the Northeast, although he does hold Clinton to a bare majority there, but he has a solid edge in the Midwest while playing Clinton to a draw in the South and West.” Even though Clinton won among women by 10 points, Christie outpolled her among men by a 14 point margin.

Two other national polls in recent weeks also show Christie and Clinton in a statistical dead heat. A Quinnipiac poll from Dec. 19 favored Clinton 44-43 while Public Policy, a Democratic polling firm, gave Christie a 45-42 edge on Dec. 18.

The Republican who fared second best against Clinton in the CNN poll was Paul Ryan. Ryan is House Budget Committee chairman and was Mitt Romney’s vice presidential candidate in 2012. Ryan has earned prominence for his role in negotiating an end to the government shutdown and the recent budget agreement. In current polling, Ryan trails Clinton by eight points.

All other potential Republican challengers currently trail Mrs. Clinton by double digit margins. In third place, Rand Paul trails by 13 points (41-54 percent). The other three potential candidates ranked in the poll trail by nearly 20 point each. Ted Cruz loses 39-57 percent while Marco Rubio is at 37-56 percent. Jeb Bush fared worst of all at 37-58 percent.

With two years to go before the beginning of the 2016 primary season, Hillary Clinton is the heavy favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination while Chris Christie holds a slight edge among Republicans. With the current travails of Obamacare still underway and ominous signs appearing for Democrats, the current political climate may be unusually fluid.

Originally published on National Elections Examiner