Rand Paul

Matt Welch Discusses Chris Christie vs. Rand Paul on MSNBC


Last night I appeared on MSNBC's All In With Chris Hayes to discuss everyone's favorite putative-Republican-2016-candidate-on-putative-Republican-2016-candidate catfight: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie vs. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky):

NEXT: Man Who Austin Cop Chased, Shot, Killed Not Suspected of Any Particular Crime But May Have Been Up to No Good

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Right off the bat, Hayes stakes his position on attacks on disaster relief.

  2. The argument is out in the open because Christie tries to bully his way around debate and Paul won’t have any of it.

  3. Sneaky. Welch contrasts Republican interventionists with libertarian non-interventionists. No mention on an MSNBC show about Democrats and where they fall in foreign policy.

    1. Factually incorrect. I said Obama was carrying out Dick Cheney’s policies, and pointed out that Democrats have abandoned non-interventionist, pro-civil liberties politics, and certainly will in 2016, creating an opening for the likes of Rand Paul.

      1. Specifically at the 5:25 mark, but fine. I’ll accept the fact check. And I’ll find a way to tweak my Official Hit & Run Commenting Live Blog format.

      2. In a close race, those 1-3 percent of center-left voters who might possibly vote for someone other than the Democratic nominee to make a point of civil liberties could be vital.

        They won’t be voting for Paul of course.

        Maybe there will be a compelling Green nominee.

      3. Hayes looked like he was eating a lemon rind at that point.

  4. Hayes ends the clip by urging the debate, I’m guessing because it’s between Republicans. I doubt he’d be as thrilled if it was going on between, oh, say Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in a presidential primary. But I could be wrong.

    1. Hayes and rest of MSDNC still pretend that Obama and Hillary have their 2007 national security positions.

  5. Republicans are pissed at Christie.

    Does he really think starting a fight with Rand Paul is going to help him one bit in a race?

    Romney was smart in the Republican campaign and kept his mouth shut about the other candidates…he let his surrogates do that stuff for him.

  6. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    Rand Paul says that we’re not spending enough on the military.

    “They’re precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut the spending, and their ‘Gimme, gimme, gimme ? give me all my Sandy money now.'” Paul said, referring to federal funding after the hurricane last year. “Those are the people who are bankrupting the government and not letting enough money be left over for national defense.”

    Someone send his dad over to smack him in the head.

    1. Perhaps he’s talking about actual national defense, and not wasteful needless military spending? If not, doesn’t this contradict statements he’s made in the past?

      1. Probably rhetoric, though TBH I’d be fine with increasing military spending by a small % if we fix entitlements, end the bailout mentality, and take a more rational look at military intervention.

    2. I think he’s just pointing out that many Republicans have been crying about defense cuts

    3. “We don’t have enough money to adequately fund national defense” and “We’re currently spending too much money on national defense” are not necessarily inconsistent sentiments.

  7. Tha makes all kinds of sense dude.


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.