645X363 - No Companion - Full Sharing - Additional videos are suggested - Policy/Regulation/Blogs

Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulThe Hill's 12:30 Report - Presented by ExxonMobil - World mourns the death of Prince Philip The Hill's Morning Report - Biden assails 'epidemic' of gun violence amid SC, Texas shootings Trump faces test of power with early endorsements MORE (R-Ky.), a likely 2016 presidential contender, took a shot Wednesday at a possible rival, saying it was "the definition of insanity" for Mitt RomneyWillard (Mitt) Mitt RomneyTwo sheriff's deputies shot by gunman in Utah Romney blasts end of filibuster, expansion of SCOTUS On management of Utah public lands, Biden should pursue an accountable legislative process MORE to launch a third White House bid.

"It’s sort of what Einstein said, that the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result,” Paul told the New Hampshire Journal.


“A couple of months ago he said that he’d had his chance and it was time for somebody new. He was probably right when he said that," Paul added. "I think we do need somebody and something new."

Paul made the comments while on a trip to the early voting state of New Hampshire to talk with local leaders. 

Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and the 2012 GOP nominee, is telling Republicans he is serious about another White House bid. According to reports, he is working the phones with potential donors, past aides and lawmakers.

GOP lawmakers, though, have shown little enthusiasm for a third Romney run.

Earlier this week, Paul said that while he liked Romney personally, "that's yesterday's news, he's tried twice."

Paul, who announced his pick of a campaign manager on Tuesday, has said he will officially decide on a presidential bid by March or April.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) has also said he is weighing a run.

Paul told the Journal on Wednesday that Romney and Bush “occupy the same space and are competing somewhat for the same voters — people who want something that is safe, something that is sort of historical."

"But even people who are looking for ‘safe’ realize that ‘safe’ hasn’t won in the past," Paul said.