Rand Paul: Chris Christie is the “king of bacon”

posted at 7:51 pm on July 30, 2013 by Allahpundit

The way this feud is progressing, I half-expect Christie to reply, “And you’re the queen.”

Ostensibly Paul means “bacon” in terms of “pork,” i.e. wasteful federal spending. Which I guess means he’ll be referring to Christie as “Porky” before the week’s out.

“This is the king of bacon talking about bacon,” Paul said about Christie. Both are considered potential 2016 contenders for the Republican presidential nomination…

“What does he want to do, shut down military bases in Kentucky?” he said.

Fort Campbell and Fort Knox, both Army bases, are located in Kentucky. New Jersey itself is home to a large joint military base that houses the McGuire Air Force base; Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst; and Fort Dix, an Army base…

“It’s not helping the party for him to pick a war with me. It’s a big mistake. It’s not very smart. And it’s not a good way to grow the party,” Paul said, adding that the Republican Party is “shrinking” in the Northeast. “Why would he want to pick a fight with the one guy who has a chance to grow the party by appealing to the youth and appealing to people who would like to see a more moderate and less aggressive foreign policy?”

Alternate headline: “Member of Paul family suddenly opposed to shutting down military bases.” I’m going to post the video for you once it’s available at CNN.com, but in the meantime focus on the last part of what he said. Is picking a fight with Paul a big mistake for Christie? In some respects, yeah. If Christie’s serious about running in 2016, he’s kissing off some libertarian-leaning Republicans by squabbling with their champion. (Whether he had any chance of winning them even if he was chummy with Paul is another question.) On the subject of the NSA alone, grassroots righties are far more inclined to the Paul position than the Obama/Bush one. Stuff like this is of a piece with Christie’s support for gun control, his willingness to expand Medicaid under ObamaCare, and various other right-wing heresies: At some point the cumulative effect of his antagonism with the right will present an electability problem. Even if he’s best positioned to go out and win indies and centrist Democrats, I think he’s the one guy in the field whose nomination might force a significant chunk of conservatives to stay home.

On the other hand, Paul’s the one guy in the field who might force a significant chunk of hawks to stay home (or cross the aisle). At a bare minimum, punching up with a tea-party star — especially over Sandy relief — helps Christie’s gubernatorial reelection in Jersey. Beyond that, as a Twitter buddy suggested earlier, having the 2016 primary run-up dominated by a “Christie versus Paul” storyline isn’t the worst outcome for the Bacon King. It’ll be easier to marginalize Paul than it will be to marginalize Rubio, Walker, Jindal, or Ryan. Hawks and centrists will be with Christie from the outset, then he’ll go to work on hitting Paul over his dad’s newsletters and the recent “Southern Avenger” business, the old dust-up over what he said about the Civil Rights Act, maybe some of his rhetoric on Lochner, etc etc etc. The message to righties will be that they may prefer Paul on the merits but he simply can’t win the general election. On electability grounds alone, you need to wake up and, er, smell the bacon. (That’s not just Christie’s blueprint against Paul, needless to say. Whoever emerges as moderate/establishment champion will run against him that way.) That’s an easier message to push against Paul than it is against anyone else in the field; conversely, it’s easier for Paul to attack Christie as a RINO than it is anyone else in the field. That’s a big reason why you’re seeing this now and why you’ll see more of it. Apart from the personal and philosophical antipathy, it’s win/win for both.

Update: And here’s the vid.


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

Christie seems like an arrogant condescending jerk and I’m so sick if those!

ldbgcoleman on July 30, 2013 at 10:17 PM

Ostensibly Paul means “bacon” in terms of “pork,” i.e. wasteful federal spending. Which I guess means he’ll be referring to Christie as “Porky” before the week’s out.

That was funny.
I’m enjoying this. It’s like watching a fistfight on the Titanic as a diversion to keep your mind off the fact that there are no more lifeboats. Carry on.

SailorMark on July 30, 2013 at 10:17 PM

On the other hand, Paul’s the one guy in the field who might force a significant chunk of hawks to stay home

I can’t buy this. It feels like an empty meme. First of all, is there really a contingent of single-issue “hawks” even out there? Isn’t hawkishness a sub-identity within a larger identity? And if Paul runs for president, do we really think he’s going to campaign as a dove? Paul has NEVER spoken in the same way his father has about the military, and has always taken pains to indicate his support for a strong national defense (e.g., his filibuster) while drawing the distinction between just conflicts and fool’s errands overseas, between reasonable national security needs and Constitutional limits. He engages in an adult conversation which, after a seemingly endless series of wars, America is hungry to have, far more so than the stale, one-note, alarmist statements coming from Christie and other RINOs, i.e., the sort of drum-beating statements that presage one more Mid-East intervention.

Paul is on the cutting edge with this issue.

rrpjr on July 30, 2013 at 10:18 PM

It’ll be easier to marginalize Paul than it will be to marginalize Rubio, Walker, Jindal, or Ryan.

Why bring up Rubio and Ryan? Their amnesty push makes them dead to conservatives, and they’ll never be elected. Go ahead and give us another McCain or Romney, GOP elite, and you’ll continue to get the results you’ve been getting.

Why are they pushing amnesty? Follow the money.

Wino on July 30, 2013 at 10:19 PM

GOP is letting the Democrats and their MSM pick the the GOP’s candidates already…and remember, no blacks or women are allowed.

Karmi on July 30, 2013 at 8:10 PM

I was on another site; and it seems that the leftists have already started their “only viable Republican candidate” yammering…and Christie is duh One.

Next, they’ll start babbling about how “only Christie scares the dims because he’s the only one who could win”.
Just wait for it.

Solaratov on July 30, 2013 at 10:20 PM

Christie can go to hell
TX-96 on July 30, 2013 at 7:55 PM

Your wish is my command, lol.

abobo on July 30, 2013 at 10:23 PM

Christie picked this fight for some reason, and he’s losing it.

rrpjr on July 30, 2013 at 10:25 PM

After a debate some years ago, Hillary’s Republican opponent crossed the stage with his hand out to shake. She flinched, surely for the cameras. The next day, the man was skewered in the media for trying to bully and intimidate that poor helpless woman.

As you said, Christie will get the same treatment.

Liam on July 30, 2013 at 8:41 PM

War on Wimmins!

Christie will be portrayed as a fat, ugly, and menacing Tony Soprano mafioso type who does not have the first class temperament to have his finger on the button.

Meanwhile, Hillary will be heralded as a calm, cool, and collected Mother of the Nation who knows how to operate on the global stage. She was Secretary of State, you know! She has the frequent flyer miles to be POTUS! Oh, and as a bonus, WE GET BILL BACK! Who didn’t love the ’90s?

- She cleans up with the demographic Christie is after — Reagan Democrats and centrists.

- She cleans up with Hispanics.

- She might even turn a Red state or two in the South blue like her hubby did way back when.

Rand Paul is probably the only one who could beat her.

Punchenko on July 30, 2013 at 10:25 PM

I remember when Chris Christie threads were something other than a long succession of fat jokes. We liked him better in those days.

Burke on July 30, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Back then, he didn’t act like such a dipshit.

And it was nice to see someone stand up to the unions for a change.

Christie’s brought it on himself.

Solaratov on July 30, 2013 at 10:34 PM

Punchenko on July 30, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Agreed. Christie would have no chance picking off disaffected democrats if Clinton ran. He’d be Clinton-lite. Who would that appeal to? What appeal would he have to young people, or libertarians ripe for the picking in 2016? How would he expand the party? And what about the base? Who the hell would even get excited about him outside of RINOs?

rrpjr on July 30, 2013 at 10:39 PM

The tipping point to me in the last election was the abysmal keynote speech delivered by the mouthy, lard-ass governor from N.J.! It was an abject failure! It was particularly galling that the previous V.P. candidate was not asked to speak, mentioned one time, nor even invited to attend! Shameful! Paul, Perry, Lee, Cruz,or Palin are the only ones with the balls to save us from the liberal communist wing of the GOP! I’m tired of losing with these dimo-lite wusses! Just told that to the GOP fundraiser on the phone wondering why my donations are not coming in!! Ha!

Marco on July 30, 2013 at 9:20 PM

Exactly. Christie’s speech was a self-oriented thudder that did nothing to advance the Romney candidacy. But Romney’s speech wasn’t any good either. So Romney was the main problem. And the names you mention, Paul, Perry, Lee, Cruz,or Palin, that’s my list too.

anotherJoe on July 30, 2013 at 10:39 PM

GOP is letting the Democrats and their MSM pick the the GOP’s candidates already…and remember, no blacks or women are allowed.

Karmi on July 30, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Why is this earth-shattering? They’ve done it for decades. The GOP elite are in bed with the Dems to screw the middle class over.

Myron Falwell on July 30, 2013 at 10:40 PM

If Christie didn’t bring home the “bacon” it’s cuz he ate it all on the way.

stukinIL4now on July 30, 2013 at 10:45 PM

I’m enjoying this. It’s like watching a fistfight on the Titanic as a diversion to keep your mind off the fact that there are no more lifeboats. Carry on.

SailorMark on July 30, 2013 at 10:17 PM

So true. Sadly

questionmark on July 30, 2013 at 11:02 PM

Agreed. Christie would have no chance picking off disaffected democrats if Clinton ran. He’d be Clinton-lite. Who would that appeal to? What appeal would he have to young people, or libertarians ripe for the picking in 2016? How would he expand the party? And what about the base? Who the hell would even get excited about him outside of RINOs?

rrpjr on July 30, 2013 at 10:39 PM

I agree too. And Romney was in effect Obama-lite in 2012. He was not able to fire people up, thus the “missing white vote” which cost Mitt the election.

Romney seemed assured that he would pick up all the conservatives despite his missteps on gay marriage and immigration and fumbling on abortion. But a lot of these voters weren’t conservatives per se but independents with hybrid (mixed) ideologies (as, perhaps, pro-choice, but against gay marriage).

Romney’s equivocations and circumlocutions, especially on gay marriage, left people shaking their heads. Because of his dissing of ChickFilA Romney was actually not able to tap into the livid rage driving millions of voters on the traditional marriage issue; so in fact, despite Romney’s “supposed” nominal position against gay marriage, these voters for the most part voted for O or stayed home. (And Romney killed the gay marriage issue as a winning issue for us, and now we’re faced with what we’re faced with.) The moment he said he was a “severe conservative,” and at that point he hadn’t quite clinched the nomination, we should have dropped him like a hot potato. For any alternative.

Probably a pipe dream on my part, but I like Palin. Because I think she can appeal to those independent voters. Even the pro-choice ones, because they will feel her passion and sincerity. I wish she’d reconsider and run for president. I know she’s living the good life, but what about the country? The greater good?

anotherJoe on July 30, 2013 at 11:22 PM

Just a curiosity, but who would better know the details and value of intelligence programs to be able to make informed comments on them, a senator or a governor? Do they both have the same security clearances and access to the same information?

And how much lower is Paul’s clearance given he isn’t a member of the select intelligence committee, compared to, say, Rubio, who is on the committee?

Dusty on July 30, 2013 at 11:36 PM

I would pick Christie to dismantle HUD, IRS, and NEA, but not for President.

SouthernGent on July 30, 2013 at 11:52 PM

Each time I see Christie open his mouth, I am reminded of a braying jackass.

mobydutch on July 31, 2013 at 12:17 AM

At some point the cumulative effect of his antagonism with the right will present an electability problem.

I’ve voted for every GOP POTUS candidate since I could vote no matter how nauseous it made me. The only reasons I voted for Mccain is that I knew what Obama was and was hopeful about Palin. I’m not voting for Christie unless it’s a vote for the next unconstitutional f*** we’re hanging from Jefferson’s tree of liberty. Actually, the only other possible (though I think improbable despite some rumblimgs of late) 2016 GOP POTUS candidate I can say with surety I will never vote for is Huckabee.

Electibility problem? For me and a few of my also reliable GOP voting friends, Christie is already unelectable nationally and it is only 2013.

deepdiver on July 31, 2013 at 12:29 AM

MORE!

BoxHead1 on July 31, 2013 at 1:37 AM

Yow…that left a mark.

Jaibones on July 30, 2013 at 10:06 PM

Straw men don’t typically leave marks.

fossten on July 31, 2013 at 7:51 AM

The message to righties will be that they may prefer Paul on the merits but he simply can’t win the general election.

Hmm, this sounds familiar.

bgibbs1000 on July 31, 2013 at 8:00 AM

Given MKH’s unofficial title as Queen of Bacon, I anxiously await her ruling as to any other Bacon ‘royalty’.

And surely, Annie ‘Get your Gun’ Coulter would agree with Paul, but for far different reasons.

socalcon on July 31, 2013 at 8:20 AM

With every Republican President in my lifetime, there has always been something I admired about them even if I didn’t always agree with every policy – from Nixon’s foreign policy chops, Bush’s basic decency and strong leadership, to Reagan’s small government principles.

But if Christie won the White House, he’d be the first Republican President I held in as much contempt as Obama.

I hope even the Republican squish primary voters who gave us Romney and McCain have enough sense not to support Obama’s personal knob-polisher, someone who puts his own selfish interests not only above his party’s interests, but over those of the country, as well…someone who stabbed a friend in the back and helped re-elect the worst President in US history. Allowing this douche to win the nomination would mean a majority of Republicans have simply surrendered to big government, and that those who want to restore our country to its founding principles have no home in the GOP and should look elsewhere.

Because if Christie gets the nomination, I’m done with the GOP. And the country as we have known it is done, as well.

DRayRaven on July 31, 2013 at 8:23 AM

isn’t the eagle about to take a big dump on NJ and NY? the tunnel that kreme shut down is being taken over by the Feds

RonK on July 31, 2013 at 8:25 AM

CC is to fiscal conservatives as Todd Akin is to women.

The only sure thing is the establishment GOP will deliver the candidate on candidate violence of the Republicans to the MSM on a platter…all the way to the 2016 Convention.

socalcon on July 31, 2013 at 8:30 AM

Nuh, Uh … I’m the King of Bacon!

kregg on July 31, 2013 at 8:40 AM

Grow up Repubicans.

kregg on July 31, 2013 at 8:42 AM

“Bacon” is that reference to “pork barrel” budgeting which is produced by legislators — in which they reward their districts with extra money, usually in a “quid pro quo”.

Last I looked, Mr. Christie is Governor of an entire state, and has little or no say in what is appropriated in Congress for his state.

That said, Mr. Christie does have available to him a line item veto, such that he can cut pork in the state budget (but not the federal budget) if he chooses.

Mr. Paul, on the other hand, is a Senator, one of two for his State, and has quite a bit of control over the bacon brought home from federal taxes to Kentucky.

In this matter, I would say that Mr. Christie has the advantage, particularly since Mr. Paul is of the philosophy of local government budgeting for their own citizens — and a Governor is far more local than a Senator.

To put it more bluntly, Mr. Paul’s bacon, which is generated by my tax dollars here in California, affects me far more than Mr. Christie’s bacon, which is generated by the internal tax dollars of New Jersey. One is a matter for New Jersey voters, while the other is a matter for all of us.

unclesmrgol on July 31, 2013 at 8:54 AM

Grow up Repubicans.

kregg on July 31, 2013 at 8:42 AM

Sexual innuendo will get you nowhere.

unclesmrgol on July 31, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Marginalize Paul for what purpose? I’m not voting for a pu$$y who’s trying to baffle me with bulls**t. If Porky has a problem with money going to Kentucky, then man up and call for the closing of Fort Knox. If not, STFU, as you’ve long since lost any chance of me voting for you.

MNHawk on July 31, 2013 at 8:55 AM

There was an interesting article on NPR yesterday during my morning commute, in which a researcher contends that, at the State level, levels of pork — and corruption — correlate strongly to how far a State capital is from the population centers of its State. As a side effect, how much a State expends on administrative expenses (including salaries for its elected state officials) correlates strongly to that distance as well.

By the researcher’s rankings, New York was at the top of the list, with California not being much further down. Tennessee was also near the top, but, amazingly, Massachusetts and Connecticut were near the bottom.

The researcher hypothesized that the reason for this was that newspapers in population centers tend to concentrate their front page coverages on local news rather than state news, and so what legislatures in these states can do often flies under the radar, so to speak.

The person did not mention interesting places like New Jersey or Kentucky or Texas or Alaska, but I’d say that from a standpoint of containing pork, there’s a strong argument for much smaller States.

I’m trying to find the program so I can post a link.

[The effect, if true, can be extended to Washington D.C. -- because Washington is as far away from nearly every population center in the country as you can get.]

unclesmrgol on July 31, 2013 at 9:07 AM

MNHawk on July 31, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Ditto for Porky from Kentucky. As a result of the NSA vote, in which Paul used a very dangerous form of Kabuki to make a point — to the point where he aligned himself with the far left — I can’t in good conscience ever vote for him.

He’s just another politician, and not a very smart one at that.

unclesmrgol on July 31, 2013 at 9:09 AM

I can’t in good conscience ever vote for him.

He’s just another politician, and not a very smart one at that.

unclesmrgol on July 31, 2013 at 9:09 AM

That’s EXACTLY how I feel about Christie. I’ll never support him.

Nineball on July 31, 2013 at 9:14 AM

To put it more bluntly, Mr. Paul’s bacon, which is generated by my tax dollars here in California, affects me far more than Mr. Christie’s bacon, which is generated by the internal tax dollars of New Jersey. One is a matter for New Jersey voters, while the other is a matter for all of us.

unclesmrgol on July 31, 2013 at 8:54 AM

What pork would that be?

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) did not make any known requests for any earmarks in 2008-2010
http://www.legistorm.com/earmarks/details/member/2817/Sen_Rand_Paul/page/1/sort/amount/type/desc/year/all.html

His position on earmarks hasn’t changed to my knowledge. He differs greatly with his old man on earmarks.

Are you now saying that any Senator elected in a state with low-income high welfare recipient populations is now a “porker”?

What specific spending has Rand Paul voted for that resulted in an influx of fed dollars to Kentucky?

weaselyone on July 31, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Christie is a walking heart attack, face it…

Pest on July 31, 2013 at 9:30 AM

The election of Christie and McDonnell was fairly heartening to me back in ’09. I liked Christie because he didn’t suffer fools and unions and McDonnell because he ‘appeared’ honest and conservative. Well, both have lost their luster. Christie isn’t the Republican he should be and neither is McDonnell. Beware of politicians that tell you they are conservative. We’ll know because of your actions, not your speech. Neither one has proved to be trusted to do the right thing.

I am not a huge Rand Paul fan, but dang!!! He is showing signs of life here. If you want to be president and you are a Republican, you had better be able to fight to the conclusion. I can’t get too excited because it is still early, but going after Christie, who would make a better Democrat, makes me smile.

BetseyRoss on July 31, 2013 at 9:33 AM

To put it more bluntly, Mr. Paul’s bacon, which is generated by my tax dollars here in California, affects me far more than Mr. Christie’s bacon, which is generated by the internal tax dollars of New Jersey. One is a matter for New Jersey voters, while the other is a matter for all of us.

unclesmrgol on July 31, 2013 at 8:54 AM

Rand Paul was against the Hurricane Sandy Relief Bill that contained excessive spending beyond simple relief.

We all know what Christie had to say about those who opposed the $60 billion spending bill.

I heard Wendy’s was now making a Quadruple Baconater in honor of the Big Guv.

weaselyone on July 31, 2013 at 9:36 AM

I feel your pain, CA here. At least 1/3 of our state is still rational. Don’t know about NJ.

arnold ziffel on July 30, 2013 at 8:08 PM

About the same number here. To think, I supported this jerk after he defeated Lonegan in the primary 4 years ago. Never again. I’m not voting for him in November. I’ll write myself in first.

I still won’t support Rand though until he realizes amnesty will lead us to destruction just as quickly as all this profligate spending will. He needs to grow up.

njrob on July 31, 2013 at 10:10 AM

To put it more bluntly, Mr. Paul’s bacon, which is generated by my tax dollars here in California, affects me far more than Mr. Christie’s bacon, which is generated by the internal tax dollars of New Jersey. One is a matter for New Jersey voters, while the other is a matter for all of us.

unclesmrgol on July 31, 2013 at 8:54 AM

Six California cities are in bankruptcy. San Diego is almost there.

Don’t talk about things you don’t understand. Just continue to ruin your own state.

tetriskid on July 31, 2013 at 10:22 AM

I can’t stand Christie but this needs to stop. Republicans don’t need to purposely be the Laurel and Hardy of the media.

Cindy Munford on July 31, 2013 at 10:23 AM

unclesmrgol on July 31, 2013 at 8:54 AM

Since we don’t seem to be able to reduce the amount of money, we, the taxpayers in every state, send to D.C. to support their bloat, it is the duty of our representatives to get as much back to the state as possible. And if it doesn’t line the pocket of some donor or the bank account of the Member, bonus. Now, I understand that Gov. Christie needed federal money after Sandy, I think helping the reelection of Obama was too much.

Cindy Munford on July 31, 2013 at 10:28 AM

“King of Bacon”—Good, very good.

stillings on July 31, 2013 at 10:40 AM

I can’t stand Christie but this needs to stop. Republicans don’t need to purposely be the Laurel and Hardy of the media.
Cindy Munford on July 31, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Hahahahaha. That’s so true. It does look like that.

bluegill on July 31, 2013 at 10:47 AM

I hope these two drama queens continue to duke it out in the media. I can’t stand either of them. I hope they eliminate each other as real contenders for 2016 with their petty bickering.

Ted Cruz for the win.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on July 31, 2013 at 10:48 AM

I can’t stand Christie but this needs to stop. Republicans don’t need to purposely be the Laurel and Hardy of the media.

Cindy Munford on July 31, 2013 at 10:23 AM

One can hardly call Christie’s actions that of a Republican.

weaselyone on July 31, 2013 at 10:55 AM

weaselyone on July 31, 2013 at 10:55 AM

True but the media loves nothing better than to hit and highlight anyone with an R behind their name and like it or not Christie has one. Covering this allows them to ignore their guys.

Cindy Munford on July 31, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Aside from saying I can’t stand Christie, which I’ve already done, I’ll add this:

It’s way early for this kind of squabbling between candidates. I say this not from a “let’s all get along” viewpoint, but from a “we’re over two years away from the first primary” vantage.

Christie going after Paul just shows me he realizes his standing with the kind of Republican voters who show up for primaries has seriously deteriorated. He’s desperate, and we’re two years away. Yes, it IS positioning, as AP says, but a confident candidate doesn’t need to “position” himself by attacking other Republicans this early (I’d say “in the process,” but the process hasn’t really started).

Strategically, there might be a huge vacuum between Paul on one side and RINOs like Christie and Bush on the other – a hole that can be filled by Perry and/or Cruz. Whichever it is, I’d be happy.

Not that I dislike Paul very much. I’d be happy with Perry, Cruz, or Paul.

DRayRaven on July 31, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Just more of the petty in house Republican establishment fighting that has pretty much dominated this party since Reagan has been out of the White House. To coin a phrase from “Braveheart”. “They are so busy fighting for the scraps from the table of the Democrats that they have missed their God-given right to something better. There’s a difference between us: You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide these people with freedom.”

bandutski on July 31, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Christie picked this fight for some reason, and he’s losing it.

rrpjr on July 30, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Yeah… he’s got a reason. I once thought of Christie as an up-front, what-you-see-is-what-you-get, kind of guy. He’s not. He’s apparently very calculating.

He’s lobbing bombs at libertarians in order to impress New Jersey centrists ahead of the gubernatorial election. Then, after that’s finished, he thinks he can stake out the middle ground in the Republican presidential primary, split the conservative vote as John McCain did, and win the nomination. At which point, we’ll be so terrified of whatever lurking horror the Democrats are running, we’ll toddle to the polls for him.

Even if he’s right and it all works out just so… we’d likely be looking at the same 2008 outcome. Yeah, you can scare people to the polls… but you can’t make them enthusiastic about it.

Murf76 on July 31, 2013 at 11:28 AM

I hope these two drama queens continue to duke it out in the media. I can’t stand either of them. I hope they eliminate each other as real contenders for 2016 with their petty bickering.

Ted Cruz for the win.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on July 31, 2013 at 10:48 AM

I would much rather go with Scott Walker or Rick Perry for 2016. Enough with trying to foist freshman senators with the Presidency. In fact, enough with senators period. This is the exact same crap the democrats did with a freshman senator from Illinois who has driven the country into the ground.

No more senators period.

eva3071 on July 31, 2013 at 11:45 AM

On the other hand, Paul’s the one guy in the field who might force a significant chunk of hawks to stay home (or cross the aisle)”

I think you have a strange definition of what constitutes a hawk.

VorDaj on July 30, 2013 at 8:01 PM

I agree.

Amjean on July 31, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Alternate headline: “Member of Paul family suddenly opposed to shutting down military bases.”
Yow…that left a mark.

Jaibones on July 30, 2013 at 10:06 PM

Rand Paul never said he wanted to shut down military bases. Actually,
it was Clinton that actually did shut down bases. Remember?

Amjean on July 31, 2013 at 12:03 PM

It is a long time off, but I’ve toed the line the past few rounds putting a check in the box for the latest/greatest Rino with an R beside their name. No more this time around, I can’t expect different results from the same scenario. If we get served up a Christie, a Rubio, etc, I stay home or vote elsewhere.

deuce on July 31, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Catfight

CoolAir on July 31, 2013 at 12:37 PM

Each time I see Christie open his mouth, I am reminded of a braying jackass.

mobydutch on July 31, 2013 at 12:17 AM

Each time I see Christie open his mouth, I expect someone to toss a fish into it.

sauropod on July 31, 2013 at 12:59 PM

he should be honest and run as a democrat.

VorDaj on July 30, 2013 at 7:59 PM

He’s more popular with Democrats than Republicans.

gallup

JannyMae on July 31, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Alternate headline: “Member of Paul family suddenly opposed to shutting down military bases.”

To my knowledge, RP was never really against domestic bases as much as he was against bases overseas.

scrubbiedude on July 31, 2013 at 4:23 PM

weaselyone on July 31, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Hmm. $1.51 out for every $1 in.

Let’s see….

Kentucky is establishing an Obamacare “insurance exchange”. Lots of federal dollars there.

How about the Kentucky Home Preservation Tax Credit — paid for by the feds.

He has made other concessions to the mainstream. He now avoids his dad’s talk of shuttering the Federal Reserve and abolishing the income tax. In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad “symbol” of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky’s share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it’s doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. “I will advocate for Kentucky’s interests,” he says.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704353504575596591626268782.html

unclesmrgol on August 1, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Comment pages: 1 2