Let us perfectly elucidate a rift in the Republican Party, shall we? Christie is very comfortable in this area, and with good reason. His argument from the perspective of a prosecutor appointed the day before Sept. 11 is, of course, a powerful one and an emotional one. But he also flippantly dismisses the 4th Amendment and Paul’s argument by appealing almost solely to emotion. He makes no nod to the balance of security and freedom that is so instrumental to the American experiment.
Paul, on the other hand, who could have won this debate on the merits, loses it by going full Paul and yelling his objections at Christie. Paul ended up looking like his dad (and again, I’m inclined to agree with him), and Christie ended up looking like an empathetic leader. Paul should have avoided the hug shot, which Christie parried well, and won the argument on facts.