Mediaboss Marketing

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, says he's definitely running for re-election in 2016.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Washington (CNN) -- Sen. Rand Paul announced his bid for a second term in the Senate on Tuesday, launching what will likely be a complicated election season as he attempts to keep his seat and run for an expected presidential campaign.

In a low-key campaign rollout, the Kentucky Republican declined to hold a traditional kick-off event, making the announcement instead in a lengthy press release that listed his local and national policy efforts.

CNN Poll: Romney, Clinton top 2016 field

In fact, Paul wasn't even in Kentucky on Tuesday. He stayed in Washington for votes and to speak at a Wall Street Journal event.

"What he just decided was he didn't need a big rally and a lot of fan fare," Doug Stafford, Paul's senior adviser, said on a call with reporters. "He wanted what he has done to speak for itself."

The problem for Paul is that Kentucky only allows candidates to appear on the ballot once during an election. If he runs for president--a decision he said Monday is "four to six months" away--that would pose a challenge come May 17, 2016, Kentucky's primary day.

And if he wins the GOP nomination for both offices, the dilemma could come up again six months later on Election Day.

"I don't think we've abandoned any option, nor have we settled on any option." Doug Stafford, Rand Paul's senior adviser

Continued here:
Can Rand Paul run for Senate and president at the same time?

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced Tuesday that he is running for reelection in 2016. This might come as a surprise to peoplewho assumed he would run for president in that same election year.

These two things, though, are not mutually exclusive.

Sometimes they can be. Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), for instance, also faces reelection in 2016 -- but in a swing state. He bowed out of running for president just hours beforePaul made his announcement. Ditto Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who will have a very important decision to make in his own right. Both of these guys would have been hard-pressed to seek both offices.

But Paul's case -- and Kentucky as a state -- is different.

Firstly, it's important to note thatDemocrats held on to the state House this year, which means Paul can't count on his first, best option: the state legislature changing the law to allow him to run for both reelection and for president (not every state prohibits this, but Kentucky does).

As a fallback, the state GOP could look at changing their presidential primary into a caucus. Paul could also sue to overturn the law preventing him from being on the ballot twice. Another option broached by Shane Goldmacher is defeating Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) in 2015 and installing a new Republican secretary of state who might be kinder to Paul's cause.

But Pauldoesn't technicallyneedany of that.

That's because the 2016 Kentucky Senate primary is May 17 -- at least three months after the first presidential primary contests. And given Kentucky is a pretty red state that Democrats might or might not target at the Senate level, Paul has more room to maneuver than Portman or Rubio.

In addition, Kentucky is one of those states that holds governor's races in odd years, and 2015 just happens to be one of those odd years. That means relatively few peoplewill be focusing on the 2016 Senate race until late 2015. The 2010 Senate race that Paul won, for instance, didn't really begin until August 2009, and that was becausethere was an open GOP primary. It seems unlikely Paul would face real opposition in the primary, so he can wait even longer this time.

Paulcould simply run for president for the next year-plus, and if he's not a/the front-runner come January 2016 (or earlier), simplyrevert to his Senate campaign.

Read more:
Rand Paul is running for reelection. He will also run for president. Heres how thats possible.

By Ashley Killough, CNN

updated 4:26 PM EST, Tue December 2, 2014

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Washington (CNN) -- Trying to strike a balance between shedding his isolationist label and defending his nontraditional GOP views on foreign policy, Sen. Rand Paul took another jab Tuesday at his more hawkish colleague, Sen. John McCain.

In a discussion hosted by Paul Gigot, editorial page editor at The Wall Street Journal, Paul argued he's not in favor of a total abandonment of U.S. intervention overseas but was unapologetic in saying he's "one of the least reluctant to go to war."

"If I'm ever commander-in-chief, I will not want to take the country to war," the Kentucky Republican said. "It will be the last resort and only when the country is united."

Paul said he's not staking out an "all or none" approach on U.S. intervention.

"But I do believe less. I believe we've been everywhere all the time. We're about to bankrupt our country and there is great danger to what we've been doing," he said. "I want less. McCain wants more. He wants 15 countries more or 15 wars more."

His comments came at The Wall Street Journal's annual meeting of the CEO Council, an audience that overwhelmingly favors former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush as the 2016 Republican presidential nominee.

The jab against McCain marks the latest hit in an ongoing back-and-forth between the two senators over foreign policy. This summer they sparred publicly after Paul repeatedly pushed a widely-debunked claim that the Arizona senator took a photo with ISIS leaders when he went to Syria last year.

Excerpt from:
Rand Paul says John McCain wants 15 more wars

By Andrew Rafferty

Republican Sen. Rand Paul escalated his ongoing foreign policy feud with John McCain on Monday while arguing this his non-interventionist military views are supported by a sizable amount of GOP presidential primary voters.

"I want less, McCain wants more [military intervention]," Paul said at an event sponsored by the Wall Street Journal. "He wants 15 countries more, 15 wars more. But the thing is, is that there is a more and a less argument. When you poll that in Iowa, 45 percent agreed with McCain and 41 percent agreed with me."

Paul was referencing a Bloomberg/Des Moines Register poll from early October that asked:

The Republican Party has two main views on foreign policy. Which is closer to your viewshould the U.S. be quicker to intervene in conflicts overseas, as John McCain suggests, or should the U.S. pull back current military engagements to be less interventionist in foreign policy, as Rand Paul suggests?

Paul was asked how he would deal with the possibility that his opponents and Super PACs would attack him for being weak on defense. But the Kentucky Republican said his viewpoint is gaining steam and would not necessarily be a hindrance if he runs for president in 2016.

"This is not a small movement, nor is it easy to say people like myself, who believe in less intervention, can be characterized as people who don't believe in a strong national defense," Paul said. "That is a caricature and I will have to fight that, but we'll see what happens."

McCain and Paul have sparred over the role the United States should play in the world. But the two seemed to be turning a corner recently when McCain said Paul was "evolving with experience" and told The New Yorker he would support Paul if he became the Republican presidential nominee.

First published December 2 2014, 12:38 PM

Andrew Rafferty has been a political reporter for NBCNews.com since 2013. Rafferty writes and reports on politics for the web, and shoots and produces video for all NBC platforms.

See the original post:
McCain Wants '15 Wars More,' Rand Paul Says

Senator Rand Paul is running for reelection in 2016. Can you believe it? Hes also probably running for president in 2016. That means that Paul will be running for two (2) offices in Kentucky in 2016 a double-win for America, but also something that he cant do according to Kentucky state law.

Pauls favored recourse getting the Kentucky legislature to eliminate a law stating that no candidates name shall appear on any voting machine or absentee ballot more than once is all but dead, after the Kentucky GOPs efforts to take control of the state House fell short on Election Day. Kentuckys Democratic Speaker has been clear that he has no intention of bringing up a bill to eliminate the law, because he doesnt like Rand Paul.

This doesnt leave Paul without options. A couple of them are fairly straightforward: he could just not run in the Kentucky presidential primary and cede those delegates. Or the party could move the presidential primary to a caucus in March and keep the Senate primary in May something that the party could choose to do without the legislatures approval, the downside being that the party would have to cover the costs of the caucuses. The bigger problem with either of these options, though, is that they would only solve the primary ballot quandary, not the general election one: if Paul won the GOP presidential nomination, he would have to drop out of the Senate race.

(This) Salon (writer) is on the record hoping that Paul opts for a legal challenge against the state law, for the spectacle of the whole thing. Just imagine Rand Paul and his lawyers arguing that it is unconstitutional to bar Rand Paul from doing whatever he wants. Anyone who knows anything about the Constitution understands that the Founding Fathers wanted Rand Paul to run for as many offices as possible. Its written in invisible ink on the back of the Constitution, like in the important Nicholas Cage film National Treasure. In his recent interview with Salon, Paul suggested that hes looking into the constitutional challenge.

And yet could there be an even more dramatic option available to this senator who seems to court drama? National Journal reports today on another, more confrontational option, this one involving our old pal Alison Lundergan Grimes:

Perhaps the most intriguing options involve Grimes, the Democratic secretary of state whom McConnell crushed last month en route to his sixth term. One possibility is for Paul to simply file for both offices and dare her to deny one of the most popular political figures in the state a chance to run for both.

I anticipate that if a candidate seeks to appear on the ballot for more than one office, this office would seek guidance from the attorney general and/or the courts, said Lynn Zellen, a spokeswoman in the secretary of states office. The Kentucky attorney general, Jack Conway, is the Democrat Paul defeated to win his Senate seat in 2010.

Oh ho ho! DaringGrimesy not to let Rand Paul do whatever he wants? Why that sounds like a dare that she should act on because its not much of a dare. The statute may be dumb, but its on the books, and there doesnt seem to be a whole lot of ambiguity to it. It wouldnt be a very difficult decision for Grimes, backed by Conways guidance, to say no sorry you cant do this, because the law explicitly states that you cant do this.

Grimes is up for reelection in 2015. Paul and the Kentucky GOP will try to oust her. If a Republican were to win, as National Journal writes, there would be a three-week window in which the new secretary of state could certify Paul to run for everything. Its not clear, though, how the new secretary of state would get away with blatantly breaking state law to help a political ally. Im sure they can figure it out.

But again, all of these convoluted schemes could be done away with if Kentucky Democrats would just agree to eliminate the law. How dare they not go out of their way to help Rand Paul do whatever he wants. The poor man is the only person in the world who can save this country and this Constitution and they are blocking him, and therefore blocking America. It is unconstitutional to block America. (Just offering up some lines for the court case here, Senator free free to use them, theyre winners.)

Read the original post:
Rand Pauls latest ballot option: Dare Alison Lundergan Grimes to defy him!