we need to get over all the emphasis on polls and go out and do real reporting, follow the candidates. thanks. thank you ves. thank you very much, senator. back to you, chris. spoke to mark halperin. give us your take. two issues with a real disagreement. one was war policy and how aggressive we should have with brand paul in donald trump being the more isolationist, to use that word. on the issue of immigration, clearly it was trump versus b h bush. saying we shouldn t let them become citizens at some point. trumpet basically saying, shove them back across the border. prerough talk. kasich was in that debate as well. there was that talked about taking people out of the coun y country. those were the hot flash moments of the debate without a doubt. overall, you see a debate that solidified rubio and cruz as the class of the field.
well, here s something we talked a lot about. senator paul agreed big money in politics is in control of both parties. he wouldn t quite go there, i said is it pushing both parties to the right on war policy but here he is. is big money in politics driving the republican party to the hawkish side the big god fathers of candidates who say i ll give you $200 million but talk the line? big money drives both parties. to the right. big money is in control of both parties. to the hawkish party. big money in general for a variety of positions. let me ask you about that. matt, again, it s a tricky question, but we have well-known billionaires out there you know sheldon adelson and this guy braman behind rubio, who openly have hard right hawkish positions on the middle east very hard right, and and they have these candidates that are almost like the devotees. it s getting pretty blunt. money is pushing us to the right, i think. what do you think? well, my criticism of my
protocol and dealing with our foreign policy. generally that starts with the executive branch and there s some consultation. this is the first time that this has happened. and for me it is not only this president, it is an insult to the office of the presidency. i didn t agree with george bush several times, but when a foreign leader said something about george bush i came to george bush s defense. i didn t call him names or try to go against him. so this is an insult not only to president obama but to the office of the president of the united states of america. to me this feels like a key point, that our partisan divisions are meant to end at the water s edge is how we ve generally talked about it. there will always be internal contestations but once we are in the realm of foreign policy the americans should present a united front, for example war policy or economic policy in our foreign affairs. if you re standing outside the
maybe the voters are. it makes sense. i love the fight. in 68 the democrats had the fight over the war. the reason is the democrats were in charge of the war. they were in charge of war policy. they were the hawkish democrats, the henry jackson democrats. it was natural to fight within the democratic party. now it s natural to have the fight within the war party. they started it. they started it. they are admitting, many of them, including rand paul, that it was a mistake. they will have to deal with the consequences. the question will be the and rand paul will have this position to himself in pure terms. that s what i think. he ll have it to himself in pure terms and will go to iowa and new hampshire and make his case. after ten years and trillions of dollars and after that he may have a case with those people. just remember, in the game of
being instinctively hawkish, the other side s line-up, rick perry is no thinker. he ll go with what he thinks works and has worked in the past. if chris christie can get back into this he ll be hawkish. he s a rudy giuliani type. who else? either guy. is anybody going to agree with rand paul in this debate? maybe the voters are. it makes sense. i love the fight. in 68 the democrats had the fight over the war. the reason is the democrats were in charge of the war. they were in charge of war policy. they were the hawkish democrats, the henry jackson democrats. it was natural to fight within the democratic party. now it s natural to have the fight within the war party. they started it. they started it. they are admitting, many of them, including rand paul, that it was a mistake. they will have to deal with the