Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul had quite a contentious interview with CNBC host Kelly Evans, culminating in Paul calling her questions “slanted” and telling her to “start out with more objectivity” the next time around.
The interview got off to a rocky start when Evans asked if Paul wanted to take back his comments that some vaccines should be voluntary. “I guess being for freedom would be really unusual?” Paul shot back. “I guess I don’t understand the point of why that would be controversial?”
“I think vaccines are one of the greatest medical breakthroughs that we had. I’m a big fan…” he explained. “But for most of our history they have been voluntary… The state doesn’t own your children; parents own the children and it is an issue of freedom and public health.” (RELATED: How They’ll Cover It: Gov. Chris Christie On Vaccines)
Evans then pivoted to a one-time tax holiday proposed by Paul. “Senator, I’m sure you know that most of the research on this indicates that these actually cost more money than they save…”
“That’s incorrect,” Paul responded. “Let’s go back again. Your premise and your question is mistaken, ok? Most of the research doesn’t indicate that.” (RELATED: Did Rand Paul Use The Super Bowl To Announce A 2016 Run?)
The conversation was slightly more cordial in the following minutes, but became inflamed again when Evans asked Paul about his “potential conflict of interest” in the ever-fascinating world of Kentucky ophthalmology board certification politics.
“Once again you’re mischaracterizing and confusing the whole situation!” Paul said. “…You have taken an interview and made an interview into something where we got no useful information because you were argumentative and you started out with so many presuppositions that were incorrect.”
Toward the end of the interview, Paul even managed to take the standard “How about 2016?” question, and turn it into a dig against Evans.
“Part of the problem is that you end up having interviews like this where the interview is so slanted and full of distortions that you don’t get useful information,” he said. “I think this is what’s bad about TV sometimes so, frankly, I think, if we do this again, you need to try to start out with a little more objectivity going into the interview.”