Paul shushes CNBC host in testy interview

Rand Paul, CNBC, Shush

Sen. Rand PaulRand PaulWhat the 'Bernie Sanders wing of the GOP' can teach Congress GOP senators avoid Trump questions on rigged election How low is the bar for presidential candidates, anyway? MORE (R-Ky.) squared off with CNBC host Kelly Evans in a testy interview on Monday, at one point "shushing" the host as she challenged him on a tax proposal. 

In discussing Paul's plan for a tax "holiday" for companies bringing back cash from overseas, Evans said that research shows that plans like Paul's cost more money than they save over the long term.

When Evans interjected, Paul raised his finger to his lips and said "shhh."

"Calm down a bit here, Kelly, let me answer the question," he said.

More sparks flew when Paul was asked about a Washington Post story reporting on the senator's efforts to create a rival board of ophthalmology, with his wife and father-in-law as officers, because of a test the main board was giving to younger but not older doctors.

Evans asked about conflicts of interest on the board.

"Once again, you are mischaracterizing and confusing the whole situation," Paul said, saying he led an effort for recertification regardless of age. "So you have taken something and you have twisted it and so did the Post."

When Evans interjected to ask specifically about the members of the board, Paul replied, "You have taken an interview and you've 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."

Earlier in the interview, Paul defended his views that vaccinations should be voluntary.

"The state doesn't own your children," Paul said. "Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom and public health."

Paul is likely to run for president in 2016. Asked about his plans, the senator said biased media coverage is one of the obstacles in his path.

"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," Paul said. "I think this is what is bad about TV sometimes. So frankly, I think if we do this again, you need to start out with a little more objectivity going into the interview."