Rand Paul hits back at Christie, King: “If they want to make me the target, they will get it back in spades”

posted at 8:51 am on July 29, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

The volleying continues. This definitely isn’t the first time that Sen. Paul has hit Gov. Christie for some of his more blueish tendencies in the slow-moving but snowballing 2016 intra-party shakeout, but after Christie’s (ill-advised?) tear last week — “this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought” — you knew Paul wasn’t going to let that one go without returning some words. Via the AP:

Paul told reporters after speaking at a fundraiser outside Nashville on Sunday that Christie’s position hurts GOP chances in national elections, and that spending priorities of critics like the governor and Rep. Peter King of New York do more to harm national security.

“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.” …

Paul on Sunday rejected arguments that the National Security Agency’s collection of hundreds of millions of U.S. phone and Internet records is necessary to prevent terrorism.

“I don’t mind spying on terrorists,” he said. “I just don’t like spying on all Americans.” …

“I didn’t start this one, and I don’t plan on starting things by criticizing other Republicans,” he said. “But if they want to make me the target, they will get it back in spades.”

Translation: I’m not trying get nasty on the libertarian versus neoconservative foreign-policy discussion, but if anyone wants to start this fight by invoking me personally the center of their attacks, then I’ll sure as heck finish it.

And indeed, it does feel like the GOP’s getting ready to duke it out over foreign policy in the run-up to 2016; asked about the House vote to restrict the NSA’s authority last week, Christie mentioned that he thinks “it’s not a debate not worth having” — but evidently, plenty of lawmakers think that it is a debate worth having, and as Paul said in regards to some of the GOP’s electoral issues, “If you talk about some privacy issues like that, I think you will find youth coming to you.” Yeah, this debate is definitely happening.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

With Christie, King and Paul, its like civil war in Syria: I hope all of them lose.

Valkyriepundit on July 29, 2013 at 8:56 AM

Upper cut, uppercut, uppercut…..HEY YOU KNOCKED MY BLOCK OFF! LOL

RAIDER on July 29, 2013 at 8:56 AM

When it comes to the likes of Chris Christie, Rand Paul is 100% on the mark!

I dropped Christie like the fat tub of rancid lard that he is a long time ago!

pilamaye on July 29, 2013 at 8:56 AM

I guess Pete ‘IRA’ King thinks that Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, ONE OF THE PRIMARY AUTHORS OF THE PATRIOT ACT, is ‘absolutely disgraceful’ and ‘mad,’ too, since HE voted to curtail the NSA’s surveillance powers.

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 8:59 AM

I’m on the fence with Rando, but the Fat Man wouldn’t get my vote for POTUS even if he held a loaded jelly donut to my head. There isn’t a word in any language which can adequately describe just how vehemently I will ignore the top of the ballot come 2016 if Kreme is on the GOP ticket.

Bishop on July 29, 2013 at 9:00 AM

asked about the House vote to restrict the NSA’s authority last week, Christie mentioned that he thinks “it’s not a debate not worth having”

Hey fatazz, you’re running for President is a debate not worth having. Nothing could show how little respect the dumbazz RINO has for the Constitution than this comment.

Flange on July 29, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Rubio, Christie, Ryan, Rand Paul…….the battle of the Amnesty squishes.

Regardless of who wins, the nations sovereign borders loses.

PappyD61 on July 29, 2013 at 9:02 AM

Does the Donut King Christie ever criticize liberals?

David in ATL on July 29, 2013 at 9:02 AM

Christie is nothing more than a fat white obama

roflmmfao

donabernathy on July 29, 2013 at 9:02 AM

Christie isn’t saying this to help the neocon wing. Go read his comments again. He did it to try and bolster Obama who’s in an approval tailspin with anyone non-prog.

So Christie speaks to that group, says Barry is in the right, as a way to squelch the NSA/Benghazi/Anti-Syrian intervention buildup.

Enrico is done with the base. He knows it. So now he’s planning on running as Obama’s successor.

budfox on July 29, 2013 at 9:05 AM

I swear I will sit out 2016 if Christie is the nominee…

OmahaConservative on July 29, 2013 at 9:05 AM

White Kremic dude tries to punch out Rand…

hillsoftx on July 29, 2013 at 9:08 AM

Rubio, Christie, Ryan, Rand Paul…….the battle of the Amnesty squishes.

Regardless of who wins, the nations sovereign borders loses.

PappyD61 on July 29, 2013 at 9:02 AM

While he isn’t a border hawk, Senator Paul did vote against Rubio’s amnesty bill.

Panther on July 29, 2013 at 9:08 AM

Go Paul

Christie and King are losers

Agree OC… will not vote for Christie

cmsinaz on July 29, 2013 at 9:08 AM

Ronald Reagan was successful by forging a coalition of pro-security “hawks,” social conservatives, and the libertarian types. It is still a formula that would work.

Nevertheless, Christie and Pete King are stupid partisan hacks who think they can dictate a winning formula for the GOP when the bastards can’t even deliver their despicable worthless states to the GOP in a national election. They are Northeastern liberals who indeed got greedy with a gimme attitude over Hurricane Sandy- as if restoring vacation homes in NJ should be the highest national priority.

Happy Nomad on July 29, 2013 at 9:11 AM

He had a great opening act, telling off the teacher’s union was HUGE and refreshing.

He soon revealed himself as a “big government guy”. Who needs him?

FOWG1 on July 29, 2013 at 9:12 AM

I swear I will sit out 2016 if Christie is the nominee…

OmahaConservative on July 29, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Even if, as I suspect, Christie is nominated as a Demonrat?

Otherwise, I’ll be working hard for the third-party candidate. Because the GOP will be dead if they nominate the fat disagreeable bastard who was on that beach dry humping the enemy days before the last Presidential election.

Happy Nomad on July 29, 2013 at 9:14 AM

I’ll vote for Rand in the primary to help stop Christie from winning if the Huck SoCons end up backing Christie <~my new fear.

I'm surprised Christie is fighting hard for a national R voting block(the police-state republicans). I still think there is a good chance that Christie will switch parties if his national R poll #s are low in late 2014 but right now he's going Repub.

Rand would be my #1 if I didn't think his 2cnd order of business would be Amnesty. But I'll vote for him to help stop Christie if it gets to that.

BoxHead1 on July 29, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Wow, I didn’t know Rand was such a Racist. SPADES??

Seriously Dude. Oh, he’s talking Spade Shovels??

Cool! Beat this Bowling ball with teeth
into the ground baby!!!!!!!

ToddPA on July 29, 2013 at 9:17 AM

I so wish Rand Paul were tougher on border security and not open to amnesty. Then I could feel so much better about him.

The fat Charlie Crist known as Chris Christie is a non-starter for me.

Cruz still looks, by far, to be the best choice.

bluegill on July 29, 2013 at 9:18 AM

I love Paul

mmcnamer1 on July 29, 2013 at 9:18 AM

Paul +1
Christie 0

petefrt on July 29, 2013 at 9:19 AM

I’ll vote for Rand in the primary to help stop Christie from winning if the Huck SoCons end up backing Christie <~my new fear.

BoxHead1 on July 29, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Huckabee supporters are as dumb as they come, sadly. We can thank them for Akin.

bluegill on July 29, 2013 at 9:20 AM

When it comes to the likes of Chris Christie, Rand Paul is 100% on the mark!

I dropped Christie like the fat tub of rancid lard that he is a long time ago!

pilamaye on July 29, 2013 at 8:56 AM

…ditto!…I like Paul…just not his ‘amnesty’ stance….if fatboy gets the RINO nom…I’ll find another party to vote for…BUT I WILL NOT SIT OUT…an election!

KOOLAID2 on July 29, 2013 at 9:21 AM

OT

I’m in mourning from reading over the weekend about the
passing of this man.

http://news.yahoo.com/musician-jj-cale-dies-wrote-clapton-skynyrd-hits-160728124.html

Any HotAirians who are music enthusiasts like me, and
spent many years listening to albums and actually took note
of the names underneath the song titles on albums would
know who this man was.

ToddPA on July 29, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Bring. It. On! Lay the fat guy out.

AH_C on July 29, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Ronald Reagan was successful by forging a coalition of pro-security “hawks,” social conservatives, and the libertarian types. It is still a formula that would work.

Happy Nomad on July 29, 2013 at 9:11 AM

A lot has changed culturally, economically, and demographically since 1980 and 1984.

Punchenko on July 29, 2013 at 9:26 AM

When you’re catching flak….you know you’re over the target.

Buck_Nekkid on July 29, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Wow, I didn’t know Rand was such a Racist. SPADES??

ToddPA on July 29, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Christie and King have called a press conference for this afternoon. They intend to announce that they are ‘Black(Irish)-Americans.’

Don’t be blinded by the white!

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 9:28 AM

This is great.Let the RINOs and the Libertines duke it out.Helps the real liberty loving conservative,Ted Cruz!

redware on July 29, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Rand’s response makes me like him more. A politican with some guts who doesn’t roll over at the first sign of push back.

YEAH!

gophergirl on July 29, 2013 at 9:34 AM

A lot has changed culturally, economically, and demographically since 1980 and 1984.

Punchenko on July 29, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Yes. And no. The fact of the matter is that you don’t build a successful coalition by allowing fat-arsed liberal blowhards like Chris Christie represent themselves as moderates with the ability to attract a winning coalition of interests. Because that vile morbidly obese bastard who endorsed Obama days before the November election pretty much said that social conservatives and Tea Party types have no place in the GOP envisioned by his faction of the party.

Happy Nomad on July 29, 2013 at 9:35 AM

I think they realize that they need to score some KOs before Iowa. Or the squish wins.

faraway on July 29, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Not enthusiastic about Rand Paul.

What is the argument for nominating him?

Besides his repulsive squishiness with regard to illegal alien amnesty, I find his general “let’s not be so judgey” approach to certain issues to be retreat and cowardice and reluctance to always fight for what’s right.

Rand Paul seems like he’s trying to get moderates and Dems to like him. It won’t work. From being open to amnesty, to saying we need more “community organizers” (like what Obama was) to saying that Republicans could put Calif in play if only they nominated someone who supported things like legalizing pot, I just don’t feel enthusiastic at all about the man.

I also don’t trust him. I think his views may be a lot closer to his dad’s than he is willing to admit.

For those who support tough anti-terrorism measures and a strong national defense, Rand Paul is NOT the best we can do.

bluegill on July 29, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Christie’s remarks regarding Libertarianism aren’t “Blueish.” They represent a long standing distrust between Conservatives and Libertarians that has existed for 60 years. The reason the early NRO and WFB worked to excommunicate the Birchers is one of the earliest representations of this.

Critic2029 on July 29, 2013 at 9:45 AM

With Christie, King and Paul, its like civil war in Syria: I hope all of them lose.

Valkyriepundit on July 29, 2013 at 8:56 AM

I was going to post a sarcastic “Girls, girls. You’re both pretty.” but I think I like your sentiment better.

Dukeboy01 on July 29, 2013 at 9:46 AM

“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.” …

This is a smart and resonant counter-attack. Christie’s attack was stale, of the past. I’m glad this is “on.” Not just because Christie needs to get his face rubbed in it. It’s an important debate to have.

rrpjr on July 29, 2013 at 9:53 AM

I fear that Paul likes the praise he gets from Dems and the media. Paul was open to voting with Rubio on amnesty. That about says it all to me. Sure, he EVENTUALLY announced he would oppose the Rubio bill, but he made it clear that he supported the gist of what pro-amnesty Rubio was doing. If conservative voters hasn’t expressed such fierce opposition to amnesty, I think Paul’s vote in that case would have been “yes.” He’s willing to trade empty border security promises for amnesty.

Then we come to another potential candidate… I like that Cruz wears as a badge of honor the vile thrown at him by virtually everyone in the liberal media.

Cruz wins by a mile in my book.

bluegill on July 29, 2013 at 9:55 AM

A lot has changed culturally, economically, and demographically since 1980 and 1984.

Punchenko on July 29, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Yes. And no. The fact of the matter is that you don’t build a successful coalition by allowing fat-arsed liberal blowhards like Chris Christie represent themselves as moderates with the ability to attract a winning coalition of interests. Because that vile morbidly obese bastard who endorsed Obama days before the November election pretty much said that social conservatives and Tea Party types have no place in the GOP envisioned by his faction of the party.

Happy Nomad on July 29, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Again, the GOP “coalition” is no longer successful. See: ’92, ’96, ’00, ’06, ’08, and now ’12.

We barely squeaked by in ’00; we were up against a flawed candidate in John Kerry (who was very Romney-esque, I might add); and were beaten badly in ’08 and ’12.

The Stupid Party is going to have to drop the stupid if it wants to win going forward. The first step in that process is knowing your base and catering to that base’s interests.

Punchenko on July 29, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Rand Paul is in a better position to forge a new type of coalition than the traditional Republican. That is, one of libertarians, conservatives and “Paul democrats.” It’s tricky but it has more chance of uniting and motivating than moribund RINOism, which has become nothing more or less than attenuated and dishonest liberalism.

rrpjr on July 29, 2013 at 10:01 AM

AAAAhhhhmmmm, He said Spades… He’s a racist.

Kaptain Amerika on July 29, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Rand Paul is in a better position to forge a new type of coalition than the traditional Republican.
rrpjr on July 29, 2013 at 10:01 AM

When has a libertarian ever succeeded in a national campaign? If there is such a hunger out there for a libertarian, why hasn’t a libertarian pres candidate ever made much impact?

bluegill on July 29, 2013 at 10:07 AM

The Stupid Party is going to have to drop the stupid if it wants to win going forward. The first step in that process is knowing your base and catering to that base’s interests.

Punchenko on July 29, 2013 at 10:00 AM

So true.

David Blue on July 29, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Rand Paul is in a better position to forge a new type of coalition than the traditional Republican.
rrpjr on July 29, 2013 at 10:01

And why do you pose that false choice. It’s either liberal RINO Christie or amnesty squish libertarian Paul?

No thanks. I’ll pass on both.

I’ll take a fierce, capable conservative like Cruz, instead.

bluegill on July 29, 2013 at 10:09 AM

If Marco “Amnesty” Rubio or Chris “1984″ Christie get the GOP nod, I’m sitting out the next one, too. I last voted for Palin for VP while holding my nose. I refused to hold it for Liberal-Mitt, and instead sat that one out.

How about we try a conservative for once? It worked the last time we tried it in 1980. Why not give it a go, just for old times’ sake? It seems all of our recent “electable” candidates didn’t get elected, either, so what’s the harm in trying an “unelectable” candidate I happen to agree with?

Wino on July 29, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Cruz wins by a mile in my book.

bluegill on July 29, 2013 at 9:55 AM

Hillary would eat up Cruz. Cruz is Romney without the money (or accomplishment) and who can read boilerplate better than Sean Hannity.

I’m really not impressed with Ted Cruz or his background in government.

Rand Paul seems like he’s trying to get moderates and Dems to like him. It won’t work. From being open to amnesty, to saying we need more “community organizers” (like what Obama was) to saying that Republicans could put Calif in play if only they nominated someone who supported things like legalizing pot, I just don’t feel enthusiastic at all about the man.

bluegill on July 29, 2013 at 9:45 AM

We do need “community organizers” who will go into otherwise Republican-friendly communities and educate, organize, and turn out conservative-leaning voters who really do not care about the political process. It’s called winning elections. It works and is the reason the New Left has been eating our lunch since the 1960s (that, and controlling the schools and the media.)

And I have no problem with Republicans talking about the environment, conservation, etc. if it means winning more upper middle class voters who have for some time now been voting Democrat due to “feel good” issues.

For those who support tough anti-terrorism measures and a strong national defense, Rand Paul is NOT the best we can do.

bluegill on July 29, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Yeah, I don’t expect supporters of the police state of more wars to support Rand Paul.

Punchenko on July 29, 2013 at 10:12 AM

that should be “or”*

Punchenko on July 29, 2013 at 10:13 AM

When has a libertarian ever succeeded in a national campaign? If there is such a hunger out there for a libertarian, why hasn’t a libertarian pres candidate ever made much impact?

bluegill on July 29, 2013 at 10:07 AM

He’s not a libertarian, he’s a Republican. That’s why I said “coalition.” And that’s why they’re called politicians — the good ones know how to meld differences and transcend labels.

In 1960, people said a “Catholic” couldn’t win. But JFK didn’t run as a “Catholic.” In 1980 they said a conservative couldn’t win. But Reagan didn’t run as “a conservative” — his sensible and basically principled appeal crossed all political lines.

You’re also framing your argument in the past. The libertarianist mindset is growing, especially among the young. RINOism on the other hand is not a growth industry.

rrpjr on July 29, 2013 at 10:15 AM

rrpjr on July 29, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Bluegill likes to ‘egg’ us on to argue amongst ourselves, don’t fall for it.

Paul could be the one to unite the different factions and actually bring about some power changes to the repub party…

Tho I take a ‘wait and see’ stance…

It could prove to be a very interesting time for the next few years to see how this all ‘pans’ out!

Scrumpy on July 29, 2013 at 10:20 AM

AAAAhhhhmmmm, He said Spades… He’s a racist.

Kaptain Amerika on July 29, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Yeah, where’s CapHog to stamp her little feet and throw a hissy fit?

CurtZHP on July 29, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Rand Paul is in a better position to forge a new type of coalition than the traditional Republican.

rrpjr on July 29, 2013 at 10:01 AM

He’s the only one savvy and serious enough to win a national election. He’s also not afraid to fight which is a nice change. Even better, they cannot attach the “elite” label to him like they did Romney or H.W. Bush.

He’s not a libertarian, he’s a Republican. That’s why I said “coalition.” And that’s why they’re called politicians — the good ones know how to meld differences and transcend labels.

In 1960, people said a “Catholic” couldn’t win. But JFK didn’t run as a “Catholic.” In 1980 they said a conservative couldn’t win. But Reagan didn’t run as “a conservative” — his sensible and basically principled appeal crossed all political lines.

You’re also framing your argument in the past. The libertarianist mindset is growing, especially among the young. RINOism on the other hand is not a growth industry.

rrpjr on July 29, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Exactly. Times are changing and some — like Bill Kristol, for instance — are going to have to accept that this isn’t their party anymore.

Punchenko on July 29, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Does the Donut King Christie ever criticize liberals?

David in ATL on July 29, 2013 at 9:02 AM

He’s working on being McCain’s replacement as the chief “work across the aisle” RINO.

Bitter Clinger on July 29, 2013 at 10:23 AM

I’m all for killing dirty terrorists, but by 2016 we will be looking at 15 years of war.

nazarioj001 on July 29, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Bluegill likes to ‘egg’ us on to argue amongst ourselves, don’t fall for it.

Paul could be the one to unite the different factions and actually bring about some power changes to the repub party…

Tho I take a ‘wait and see’ stance…

It could prove to be a very interesting time for the next few years to see how this all ‘pans’ out!

Scrumpy on July 29, 2013 at 10:20 AM

This is spot on in so many ways.

gophergirl on July 29, 2013 at 10:36 AM

If it’s a choice between Paul and Christie I’d much rather side with the guy who hasn’t been a big fat cheerleader for our terrible President.

Ukiah on July 29, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Seriously, I don’t even know why anyone would give bluegill’s opinions 2 seconds of thought.

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 10:42 AM

The RINO camp is truly pathetic trying to label Rand Paul as an isolationist-minded libertarian when he is nothing of the sort. Paul is a Paleo-libertarian hybrid if anything, which means he’s firmly consumed with National Defense as opposed to National Offense, which typifies our wasteful and counterproductive foreign policy. Secondly, despite all his moderate “talk” on the immigration front, Paul strongly believes that 17th amendment birth-oriented citizenship, which makes the anchor baby phenomenon possible, should be altogether abolished on the account it was created for integrating former slaves.

Pitchforker on July 29, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Whats interesting is everyone is ignoring/not reporting the More devastating Attack Christie made against Paul in same segment.

Christie pointed out in some detail just how much Rand Paul is like Obama pre-2008 and how Utopian the whole view is and how it fleshes with reality once actually responsible for dealing with the facts and defending American Liberty.

jp on July 29, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Cruz still looks, by far, to be the best choice.

bluegill on July 29, 2013 at 9:18 AM

Too damn bad he won’t run. When are you going to get it through your head that looking for the next great white hope of the GOP is the LAST thing you should be doing?

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Seriously, I don’t even know why anyone would give bluegill’s opinions 2 seconds of thought.

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 10:42 AM

The same reasons people watch Dr. Phil and Jerry Springer.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Whats interesting is everyone is ignoring/not reporting the More devastating Attack Christie made against Paul in same segment.

Christie pointed out in some detail just how much Rand Paul is like Obama pre-2008 and how Utopian the whole view is and how it fleshes with reality once actually responsible for dealing with the facts and defending American Liberty.

jp on July 29, 2013 at 10:53 AM

What type of politicians hide behind children? That’s what Christie did in true democratic fashion. It was an illogical attack taken right from Barry Soetero’s emotional manipulation playbook.

Let’s just burn up the bill of rights because some Saudi hijackers maneuvered their way through multiple layers of the American security grid. That’s what Christie is calling for because he’s a powermad, former DA that has no concern for the people, who he himself considers himself far superior to. GOP elitism is on full display.

Pitchforker on July 29, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Re Paul …

he’s busy making the radiowave rounds, today, saying your voice WILL be heard, if you sign ….

http://www.dontfundobamacare.com/

pambi on July 29, 2013 at 11:01 AM

The Stupid Party is going to have to drop the stupid if it wants to win going forward. The first step in that process is knowing your base and catering to that base’s interests.

Punchenko on July 29, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Good luck with that, Punchy. A voter who seriously believes that s/he can reform the party from the outside-in is working purely on emotion and ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 11:03 AM

What type of politicians hide behind children? That’s what Christie did in true democratic fashion. It was an illogical attack taken right from Barry Soetero’s emotional manipulation playbook.

Let’s just burn up the bill of rights because some Saudi hijackers maneuvered their way through multiple layers of the American security grid. That’s what Christie is calling for because he’s a powermad, former DA that has no concern for the people, who he himself considers himself far superior to. GOP elitism is on full display.

Pitchforker on July 29, 2013 at 11:01 AM

9/11 wouldn’t have happened if we’d have just been enforcing our goddam immigration laws!

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Cant stand Christie but I think hes gonna be tough to beat in the primaries. Thats why the more moderates that get in the better. It will split their vote and hopefully give us a true conservative nominee.

Jack_Burton on July 29, 2013 at 11:06 AM

9/11 wouldn’t have happened if we’d have just been enforcing our goddam immigration laws!

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 11:04 AM

But that’s not what the plutocrats want. Cheap labor, illegal drugs and social engineering rule the day.

Pitchforker on July 29, 2013 at 11:07 AM

If it’s a choice between Paul and Christie I’d much rather side with the guy who hasn’t been a big fat cheerleader for our terrible President.

Ukiah on July 29, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Yeah endorsing the rat-eared coward days before the election was really low class. So low-class it makes Snookie passed out drunk look like a lady in comparison. And before some Christie loyalists whines that he didn’t endorse the rat-eared coward- yeah he did and we all know it.

Happy Nomad on July 29, 2013 at 11:07 AM

9/11 wouldn’t have happened if we’d have just been enforcing our goddam immigration laws!

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 11:04 AM

But that’s not what the plutocrats want. Cheap labor, illegal drugs and social engineering rule the day.

Pitchforker on July 29, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Then you can count on another terrorist attack happening. And before the moderators go ape-shit on me, it’s not that I want it to happen. I hope to God it doesn’t. But sooner or later, someone like the underwear bomber is going to get lucky enough that his fellow passengers won’t be able to stop whatever crazy plan he’s got cooked up.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Cant stand Christie but I think hes gonna be tough to beat in the primaries. Thats why the more moderates that get in the better. It will split their vote and hopefully give us a true conservative nominee.

Jack_Burton on July 29, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Cruz and Paul are going to unite like Voltron and drive the RINOs to the hills. I’m not worried. When you combine Cruz’s numbers with Paul he’s not going to be beat. Rand runs in 2016 and Cruz in 2020. They’re not going to hurt each other, since they know that Bill Kristol and others hate them.

Pitchforker on July 29, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Cruz and Paul are going to unite like Voltron and drive the RINOs to the hills. I’m not worried. When you combine Cruz’s numbers with Paul he’s not going to be beat. Rand runs in 2016 and Cruz in 2020. They’re not going to hurt each other, since they know that Bill Kristol and others hate them.

Pitchforker on July 29, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Cruz won’t run in 2016 or 2020. And even if Rand Paul is the shoo-in you think he is (which I do not), how many times have we been stabbed in the back already by the next big thing in the GOP? I’m telling you, you’re asking all the wrong questions. We’re wayyyyy past the “vote the bums out” stage.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Fat man with a big mouth behind a podium.

Other than that, he’s just another boorish, obnoxious tourontard clogging up the summer traffic in Ocean County NJ.

bloviator on July 29, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Cruz won’t run in 2016 or 2020. And even if Rand Paul is the shoo-in you think he is (which I do not), how many times have we been stabbed in the back already by the next big thing in the GOP? I’m telling you, you’re asking all the wrong questions. We’re wayyyyy past the “vote the bums out” stage.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 11:12 AM

They will try to destroy him like they destroy all upstarts. See Pat Buchanan in 1996, when he had Bob Dole on the run. The GOP simply exists to imprison conservatives from ever reversing the substantive gains made by the democrats. It’s a phony party.

Pitchforker on July 29, 2013 at 11:16 AM

They will try to destroy him like they destroy all upstarts. See Pat Buchanan in 1996, when he had Bob Dole on the run. The GOP simply exists to imprison conservatives from ever reversing the substantive gains made by the democrats. It’s a phony party.

Pitchforker on July 29, 2013 at 11:16 AM

So then what? If not the GOP, who? And if not now, when?

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Bluegill likes to ‘egg’ us on to argue amongst ourselves, don’t fall for it.
Scrumpy on July 29, 2013 at 10:20 AM

You’re just mad because I never cared for any of your chitchat in the Quote of the Day threads. I say what I think and will continue to do so.

The truth is that the amnesty squish libertarian Rand Paul wants us to retreat on gay marriage and embrace pot legalization as a way to put Calif in play. Now, I’m kind of ambivalent about the pot thing, but I find Paul’s call for the party to tilt libertarian to be foolish. It won’t work. There simply is no great libertarian ground swell out there.

Rand Paul opposes E-Verify and was one of the worst offenders when it came to sanctifying the vile, anti-American traitor Edward Snowden. Paul drools over the traitor Snowden and seems a little too interested in “protecting” the rights of terror suspects… you almost have to wonder if Rand Paul is some kind of honorary Code Pink member.

The party base supports the Patriot Act, and Paul will get nowhere with his paranoia about anti-terror surveillance. Christie will eat meek, dull Rand alive on this, and that’s why we need a real conservative like Cruz to take out Christie. Christie may be fat, but Cruz has bigger balls won’t back down in the face of bigmouth Christie.

What also disgusts me is how the usual Rand Paul fanboys on here are so quick to brush aside Paul’s weak border security positions and then bash an actual conservative star like Ted Cruz.

But I guess we’re supposed to be okay with Rand Paul’s squishiness on amnesty and his isolationism because, well, there is this supposed groundswell of libertarianism a brewin’ among the youth, and we supposedly need to adjust our thinking to conform to it, or something.

No thanks. I’ll go with the guy who speaks for me and excites me and fights for what’s right. Right now a guy I see doing that and doing it well is the new senator from Texas.

bluegill on July 29, 2013 at 11:20 AM

So then what? If not the GOP, who? And if not now, when?

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 11:18 AM

I don’t know. What I do know is that societies tend to unravel, when a large share of the population is no longer represented. That’s where we are headed.

Pitchforker on July 29, 2013 at 11:20 AM

No thanks. I’ll go with the guy who speaks for me and excites me and fights for what’s right. Right now a guy I see doing that and doing it well is the new senator from Texas.

bluegill on July 29, 2013 at 11:20 AM

One senator out of 100. One congressweasel out of 535. One man out of 305,000,000. Your naivete might actually be endearing if it didn’t make me want to pull my hair out.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 11:22 AM

I don’t know. What I do know is that societies tend to unravel, when a large share of the population is no longer represented. That’s where we are headed.

Pitchforker on July 29, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Personally, I think our problems are a lot more dire than simply no representation. But I have a few ideas of my own.;)

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 11:23 AM

About time somebody I like actually will fight and defend his own message and worldview.

To me, Chris Christie is just the guy whose name is engraved on Ann Coulter’s vibrator.

Shaughnessy on July 29, 2013 at 11:27 AM

About time somebody I like actually will fight and defend his own message and worldview.

Shaughnessy on July 29, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Until he stops. And once again we’ll be scratching our heads and wondering why Rand Paul didn’t turn out to be the savior we thought he would be.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 11:28 AM

You’re just mad because I never cared for any of your chitchat in the Quote of the Day threads. I say what I think and will continue to do so.

The truth is that the amnesty squish libertarian Rand Paul wants us to retreat on gay marriage and embrace pot legalization as a way to put Calif in play. Now, I’m kind of ambivalent about the pot thing, but I find Paul’s call for the party to tilt libertarian to be foolish. It won’t work. There simply is no great libertarian ground swell out there.

Rand Paul opposes E-Verify and was one of the worst offenders when it came to sanctifying the vile, anti-American traitor Edward Snowden. Paul drools over the traitor Snowden and seems a little too interested in “protecting” the rights of terror suspects… you almost have to wonder if Rand Paul is some kind of honorary Code Pink member.

The party base supports the Patriot Act, and Paul will get nowhere with his paranoia about anti-terror surveillance. Christie will eat meek, dull Rand alive on this, and that’s why we need a real conservative like Cruz to take out Christie. Christie may be fat, but Cruz has bigger balls won’t back down in the face of bigmouth Christie.

What also disgusts me is how the usual Rand Paul fanboys on here are so quick to brush aside Paul’s weak border security positions and then bash an actual conservative star like Ted Cruz.

But I guess we’re supposed to be okay with Rand Paul’s squishiness on amnesty and his isolationism because, well, there is this supposed groundswell of libertarianism a brewin’ among the youth, and we supposedly need to adjust our thinking to conform to it, or something.

No thanks. I’ll go with the guy who speaks for me and excites me and fights for what’s right. Right now a guy I see doing that and doing it well is the new senator from Texas.

bluegill on July 29, 2013 at 11:20 AM

What idiots are bashing Cruz? I like Cruz as well, since he’s erudite and well-spoken. He’s a champion for common sense immigration laws that are CURRENTLY in place as well as being great on the 2nd amendment. Not to mention he’s opposed to the security state as well, as opposed to his staunch attacks to the NDAA.

Secondly, your characterizations about Paul are far off base. Snowden risked a 200k a year job in sunny Hawaii to blow open gross violations of the 4th amendment, which aren’t even technically permissable under the FISA court(foreign). Secondly, Jim Sensenbrenner, the one of the Republican authors of the Patriot Act, has repeatedly stated that the entire Patriot Act has been perverted beyond recognition. This is no longer a partisan issue but rather one of common sense.

Pitchforker on July 29, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Oh thank you for starting to war with each other, Republican politicians. We can’t get enough of our leaders tearing each other apart.

#dumbasses

MarkT on July 29, 2013 at 11:30 AM

About time somebody I like actually will fight and defend his own message and worldview.

Shaughnessy on July 29, 2013 at 11:27 AM
Until he stops. And once again we’ll be scratching our heads and wondering why Rand Paul didn’t turn out to be the savior we thought he would be.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 11:28 AM

You must be fifteen or have not heard of Ronald Reagan, because this is how it looked in 1978 with just a single voice separated from all the others.

Shaughnessy on July 29, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Secondly, your characterizations about Paul are far off base. Snowden risked a 200k a year job in sunny Hawaii to blow open gross violations of the 4th amendment, which aren’t even technically permissable under the FISA court(foreign). Secondly, Jim Sensenbrenner, the one of the Republican authors of the Patriot Act, has repeatedly stated that the entire Patriot Act has been perverted beyond recognition. This is no longer a partisan issue but rather one of common sense.

Pitchforker on July 29, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Common sense is engendered in Gryph’s first rule of American politics:

Every law, no matter how innocuous or beneficial on its face, has unintended consequences.

And Gryph’s first rule has a corollary:

Every law’s unintended consequences will redound to the benefit of the government and to the detriment of the governed.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Oh thank you for starting to war with each other, Republican politicians.
MarkT on July 29, 2013 at 11:30 AM

There has to be this war. And it’s not a bad thing.

rrpjr on July 29, 2013 at 11:37 AM

You must be fifteen or have not heard of Ronald Reagan, because this is how it looked in 1978 with just a single voice separated from all the others.

Shaughnessy on July 29, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Did you forget how hard the establishment worked to destroy him? No way in hell could Reagan run now in our current environment! “Reagan would be considered a RINO now?” Nuh uh. He wouldn’t get out of the gate. He’d probably pull a Palin and decide not to run.

Anyhow, Reagan’s biggest mistake in an otherwise distinguished eight years of leading the nation was picking George H.W. Bush as his running mate. We’re still feeling the consequences of that move now.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Oh thank you for starting to war with each other, Republican politicians.
MarkT on July 29, 2013 at 11:30 AM

There has to be this war. And it’s not a bad thing.

rrpjr on July 29, 2013 at 11:37 AM

If the Republican Party doesn’t self-immolate, they’re not warring hard enough for my taste.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 11:39 AM

How will Christie answer the question that he wasn’t prepared to run in 2012, but magically is prepared to now?

HopeHeFails on July 29, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Did you forget how hard the establishment worked to destroy him? No way in hell could Reagan run now in our current environment! “Reagan would be considered a RINO now?” Nuh uh. He wouldn’t get out of the gate. He’d probably pull a Palin and decide not to run.

Anyhow, Reagan’s biggest mistake in an otherwise distinguished eight years of leading the nation was picking George H.W. Bush as his running mate. We’re still feeling the consequences of that move now.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 11:38 AM

David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger “forced” George H.W. Bush on Reagan. Reagan hated that RINO scum and vice versa.

Pitchforker on July 29, 2013 at 11:41 AM

How will Christie answer the question that he wasn’t prepared to run in 2012, but magically is prepared to now?

HopeHeFails on July 29, 2013 at 11:39 AM

He’s had anoehter few years in the governor’s chair. That’s all he’ll say, and that’s all he’ll have to say to make the knob polishers happy.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 11:42 AM

David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger “forced” George H.W. Bush on Reagan. Reagan hated that RINO scum and vice versa.

Pitchforker on July 29, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Dunno about that, but whatever the reason, it’s the one thing I despise about the Reagan presidency even more than the ’86 amnesty.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Dunno about that, but whatever the reason, it’s the one thing I despise about the Reagan presidency even more than the ’86 amnesty.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Italics fail.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 11:44 AM

I heard Ronald Reagan describe himself as a conservative/libertarian and I fall in the same category.

I’m not a peacenik or isolationist, but a believer in individual freedom and limited government.

Christie said the libertarian movement is dangerous and he’s right! It’s dangerous to big-govt politicians who lust to keep citizens laboring under the govt yoke.

Chris Christie is nothing new, he’s part of an old movement. I’ve never been a fan of Lowell Weicker types.

The fight today isn’t Republican vs Democrat. It’s big govt against limited govt. It’s individual freedom against statism. The big govt statists are present in both parties, which is why people tend to say there is little or no difference between them. There are differences, but we must keep our eye on the important difference and vote accordingly.

Give me messy imperfect freedom over perfected statism, or give me death or exile.

Meremortal on July 29, 2013 at 11:54 AM

“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.”

Chris Christie? Peter King?

Y’all b1tches should consider yourself b1tchslapped…

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2013 at 11:55 AM

“If they want to make me the target, they will get it back in spades”

This is EXACTLY the attitude I most fear in government leadership.

astonerii on July 29, 2013 at 11:55 AM

By another person of note…
If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.

Is that it Rand Paul?

astonerii on July 29, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Reagan was a Goldwater libertarian you ignorant self-absorbed non-tipping fish.

John the Libertarian on July 29, 2013 at 11:56 AM

He’s had anoehter few years in the governor’s chair. That’s all he’ll say, and that’s all he’ll have to say to make the knob polishers happy.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2013 at 11:42 AM

He’s had a few years to practice helping a liberal get re-elected to the WH. Now, he wan’ts to be that liberal.

Did you think we’d forget about that stroll on the beach, arm-in-arm with your political soulmate, Gov…?

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Comment pages: 1 2