Posted on 07/26/2013 5:56:57 PM PDT by Kaslin
New Jersey governor slams Kentucky senator for anti-national security positions.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie blasted Sen. Rand Paul’s (R., Ky.) foreign policy views as “dangerous” on Thursday, making him one of the few high-profile Republican lawmakers to publicly attack Paul’s non-interventionist positions.
“As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought,” Christie said.
“You can name any one of them that’s engaged in this,” he continued. “I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. … I’m very nervous about the direction this is moving in.”
Paul hit back, slamming Christie for allegedly supporting government “overreach.”
“If Gov. Christie believe the constitutional rights and the privacy of all Americans are ‘esoteric,’ he either needs a new dictionary or he needs to talk to more Americans, because a great number of them are concerned about the dramatic overreach of our government in recent times,” Paul senior adviser Doug Stafford said.
Paul describes himself as a “realist,” and often takes positions associated with non-interventionism.
While conservative Republicans on Capitol Hill have privately grumbled about Paul’s foreign policy positions, few have been eager to criticize the popular senator publicly.
Many jumped on board with Paul’s 13-hour filibuster in March, when he demanded clarification from the Obama administration on whether it would ever use drones to target U.S. citizens on American soil.
Paul is also part of a small but vocal group of Republican lawmakers that has railed against the NSA surveillance program.
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), a leading Republican national security hawk, was criticized after he called Paul and Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) “wacko birds” in March. He later apologized.
Some say Paul’s popularity with Tea Party grassroots—he currently leads the field of potential 2016 Republican candidates—makes fellow Republicans wary about speaking out.
“There’s a fear of confronting Paul because they suspect that he’s speaking for the public,” said Danielle Pletka, vice-president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. “But what they failed to understand is that the country needs information and leadership. Most Americans, I suspect, aren’t really isolationists.”
Like McCain, Christie received criticism for his comments, which some said were needlessly antagonistic toward libertarians.
“The Republican Party badly needs a debate over national security and civil liberties, but that debate will be useful only to the extent it gets beyond generalities,” National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru at Bloomberg wrote. “And another thing that Republicans need—at least those who are considering Christie as their presidential standard-bearer in 2016—is to see that the man is capable of a little finesse, especially when it comes to managing the Republican coalition.”
Others say Christie’s comments tapped into a widespread concern among Republicans.
“There is a real concern by many conservatives with Senator Paul’s perceived isolationism. A strong and active America is needed not only for those struggling for freedom around the world but also for our own national security,” said Republican political consultant Richard Grenell.
Grenell added that Paul “has great appeal and is a needed voice on domestic issues.”
On the Hill, hawks quietly backed Christie’s side of the debate.
“Christie represents New Jersey—a state that lost a lot of people on 9/11,” said one Republican Senate aide who declined to be named. “When you talk about terrorism in New Jersey, it isn’t not the constitutional thought experiment it might be in Kentucky—it’s the family down the block who lost their dad in the towers. Most Americans, Republican or Democrat, side with Christie on this one.”
Pletka said she does not expect many Republican leaders to aggressively challenge Paul on his non-interventionist positions for the time being.
“As to questions about whether Republicans will get courage from Christie, I fear not,” Pletka said. “But I hope so.”
That’s where we should be spending defense money.
I am puzzled. How is a strain of libertarianism going through “both parties”? I have not noticed any libertarians in the D party. There are some anarchists who may be roosting there; but anarchism is not libertarianism. In the previous two centuries, anarchisms was often allied with communism (oddly enough). In the Spanish Civil War, the Anarchists and the Communists were allies, until the Communists at length turned on their “friends” and tried to exterminate them. The doctrinaire anarchists have often been thenselves terroristic, and have advocated a fantasy-world of small-scale socialism, like local collectives, or rather like hippy communes. They are anti-capitalist, often violent, impractical, and are just about extinct (except in the Occupy Wall Street movement).
I am a believer in strong national defense, but I would not have expressed this the way Christie did. And what is this about a conversation with widows and orphans? What is he talking about? I think that part of the story is missing. I don’t see where the widows and orphans come in.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Franklin
I’m not a huge fan of Rand Paul, but most of the GOP is wrong on one of the top issues today, and he’s right on the mark. We need to protect our country and defeat terrorists, but we cannot protect a free America by circumventing the Constitution. Obama needs individual warrants for anything in Big Data (sorry, NSA). When we find actionable intelligence though, without violating the Bill of Rights, we need to follow the trail as far as we can and then crush every terrorist we find.
Crispy Danger.....
I understand the argument. Can you win a presidential nomination with that argument? General election? I think that’s the tricky part, but who knows?
A conversation with widows and orphans:
“I am sorry that you are a widow. Bad break. I hope that your family steps in to help you where necessary.”
And to orphans: “I am very sorry that you don’t have a father/mother. It is best to have one of each, and also some grandparents around.”
To assembled audience: “Of course, many more children are effectively orphans because of single-mother “families” or broken homes. We should not be promoting the policies and social attitudes which have destroyed the family. Almost half our children are born out of wedlock. Any questions?”
That’s one yankee I wish would enjoy a nice hot cup of shut the phuc up.He gives all the good Yankees a bad name.
Christie: Fat and Dead to Me
It’s hard to say - mostly because I seriously mistrust the word of either of them (they are politicians after all). Of their stated positions I lean slightly towards Paul but have reservations about his “throw out the baby with the bathwater” stance. Christie is right that we need intel but it needs to be exercised with caution and I think he’s too trusting.
The reason why I opposed the Patriot Act wasn’t because of the intrusiveness (at least the way I understood the way it was devised) as much as it was the fear that it would be misused in the wrong hands - just like we’ve seen with Øbongo.
The parenthetic part of my last statement is meant to show that my opinion is evolving (more against the PA) the more we learn about it and the way it is being used.
I don’t know if Rand is as isolationist as his father so I can’t way whether or not I agree with Christie on that assertion. If he is then I would agree that it is less than desirable. At the same time I believe that The United States should be more vocal about letting other nations pony up for some of the chores.
I believe that we as a nation are experiencing a sort of “future shock” with regards to technology and the confidentiality of data. I stand pretty strongly on Paul’s side of the fence there.
Christie isn’t just a RINO he is a RINO like speaker Boehner who loves the taste of DONKEY DICK IN HIS MOUTH!!!
Crissy is twice the man Rand Paul is.
LITERALLY!!! Bwahahahahahaha.
The question to ask is how all of a sudden is fat boy Chris interested in national politics?
Last year when it counted and he was sharing tongues with Obama he claimed it was because his only interest was NJ, and that he didn't care who was POTUS.
Suddenly he is interested in national issues, and hard to believe it is on Obama’s side too.
I gotta assume he’s running, he made his convention speech sound like an acceptance speech, quasi-endorsed Obama. Doesn’t seem like he wanted Mitt to win and clog up 2016.
Not exactly subtle, the guy must be an egomaniac.
Clearly
He and Rub and Paul and Ryan and Cruz are all acting like they are running.
But it seems he is the last person who could make it through a GOP primary.
Rand Paul thinks we should have a great military primarily geared for defense, that we should quit sending money to nations that hate us, we should help defend our allies, and nation building through war (Iraq) is not the right thing to do. Rand Paul thinks that if we have to go to war, we strike hard, using our power to defeat quickly rather than have a ar designed to make defense contractors rich.
No, instead let's establish military bases on every postage stamp of land AND randomly invade and bomb nations based on shareholder stock options of the military-industrial complex. That way, after trillions of dollar (that we don't have), the American taxpayer will realize a HUGE "peace-dividend."
*snicker*
Is Christie satisfied with the results of 10 years of "Nation Building" in Iraq, and another 12 years of chasing OBL around in Afghan-ee-stan and Pak-ee-stan?
Everybody feel safer yet?
Hey -- when a foreign nation is threatening American lives, let's strap it on THEN. (Bad enough letting the Trojan Horse enemy do it from within as the rest of us and DC yawn/cackle.)
I hope Potomac Fever (i.e. corruption) doesn't change him.
Well stated and interpreted by both you and Rand Paul.
HEAR HEAR!
Gee -- BIG surprise. The Chickhawks are usually also Big Guv and Statist. Connect the dots...
NO THANKS. Back off, Chubby.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.