Video: Sure sounds like Scott Walker sides with Chris Christie over Rand Paul on national security

posted at 5:21 pm on August 2, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via cmdeb, skip to 1:03:15. Good lord, how did I miss this when it happened? I’ve spent the past week writing navel-gazing 2016 posts about how Walker (and Rubio) would end up trying to blaze a middle path between Christie and Paul in order to appeal to both wings of the party on natsec. Turns out Walker’s already weighed in on the subject — at the same event, in fact, where Christie himself first attacked Paul’s libertarianism as a “very dangerous idea.” Not only does he say, “I tend to agree with Chris on that,” he downplays the extent of the party’s drift on national security and defends Obama’s commitment to protecting the country. Pretty unambiguous. Looks like Rand might have the civil liberties plank all to himself in the primaries, which would be a serious strategic mistake by his opponents — not only because they’re ceding some gettable votes but because, if the primary becomes a referendum on this issue and the libertarians lose, it’ll fuel the idea that they should stay home or go third party.

But wait. This was Walker a week ago. This is Walker today, after a week of punches being thrown between Paul and Christie and polls showing that the base is more sympathetic to Rand’s position than some people thought:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) isn’t taking sides in the feud over between New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) that erupted last week.

“I don’t know that you could put me in either camp, precisely,” Walker said in an interview with Post Politics on the sidelines of the National Governors Association meeting here…

Christie has shown no interest in making up. But Walker said he thinks there is some value in “getting together” and opening up a dialogue.

Scott Walker, civil libertarian work-in-progress? Keep an eye on that middle path.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

On amnesty too…no, not…on that they are together.

You’re lovin’ this a lot, AP.

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2013 at 5:23 PM

I’ll take Walker over the other two any time.

KBird on August 2, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Christie has shown no interest in making up.

Ofcourse he hasn’t, Rand Paul is not an anti-American Marxist !

burrata on August 2, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Scott Walker will be the next Tim Pawlenty: undecided, unclear or lukewarm on a whole bunch of issues and he will look like a whimp on the national stage.

Valkyriepundit on August 2, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Pfft! Reagan sides with Rand Paul.

1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.

2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.

3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress.

4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.

RONALD REAGAN !!!

VorDaj on August 2, 2013 at 5:29 PM

And they wonder why republican turnout is so low.

lonestar1 on August 2, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Is the Constitution really that hard?

aryeung on August 2, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Using the lives and limbs of American troops as human sacrifices to the COIN “god” of “Winning Muslim Hearts-and-Minds” and creating a Gestapo NSA, where all Americans are presumed guilty until never proven innocent, are absolute and utter anti-American abominations. the Founding Fathers, to a man, would throw up.

VorDaj on August 2, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Walker just doesn’t seem to really care. Not exactly Presidential material. The only person to seem sincere in limited government on every national issue is Rand Paul.

ModerateMan on August 2, 2013 at 5:34 PM

And they wonder why republican turnout is so low.

lonestar1 on August 2, 2013 at 5:30 PM

I’m waiting for Christie to start bad mouthing Sarah Palin , in public, THEN we’ll know he is ready for 2016 as a Republican !

burrata on August 2, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Hawks

Christie is no hawk. He’s a muzzie-loving douchebag who thinks that his butt-buddy, Barky, has the Constitutional power to spy on any American he wants and to sic the IRS on all those who irk him.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on August 2, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Anyone whose ideas on foreign policy, civil liberties, and America’s role in the world are primarily poll-driven is not qualified to be Commander in Chief.

Sorry Scott; give up on 2016 and still to domestic politics where you do well. When you start talking about the border and national security, you look dumb.

Inkblots on August 2, 2013 at 5:39 PM

On amnesty too…no, not…on that they are together.

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Yep!

bazil9 on August 2, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Walker just doesn’t seem to really care. Not exactly Presidential material. The only person to seem sincere in limited government on every national issue is Rand Paul.

ModerateMan on August 2, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Also: this.

Inkblots on August 2, 2013 at 5:40 PM

The only person to seem sincere in limited government on every national issue is Rand Paul.

ModerateMan on August 2, 2013 at 5:34 PM

There is this guy down here in Texas…..

KCB on August 2, 2013 at 5:41 PM

I’m still waiting to see what Bobby Jindal does. Of the 2016ers he’s the one that’s managed to tread the fine line on the amnesty debate. (His stance was pretty much: We’ll do amnesty if magic leprechauns can guarantee a bunch of things that will never happen, so until then it’s a dead issue.)

If anybody can find the middle ground that respects the concerns of civil libertarians without just overwhelmingly gutting our national security apparatus in it’s entirety, it’s him. What most are ignoring, in my opinion, is that the corruption in DC over privacy rights are just that: corruption. It isn’t a problem with the Patriot Act and the laws in place. It’s that this administration, as usual, is not following the laws in place.

Gingotts on August 2, 2013 at 5:41 PM

I’ll take Walker over the other two any time.

KBird on August 2, 2013 at 5:23 PM

I’m thinking a Christie/Walker (or Walker/Christie) GOP ticket might be the deal. Go for the largest slice of the pie.

JetBoy on August 2, 2013 at 5:43 PM

There is this guy down here in Texas…..

KCB on August 2, 2013 at 5:41 PM
Yep..and so far I am impressed.
I hope it continues.

bazil9 on August 2, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Walker has fallen into line. The establishment has already started the trashing of Paul and Cruz. They did it in 2012 to Perry, and 2008 to Palin.
Wait til Christie becomes the Democrat nominee in 2016. It will serve them right.

lonestar1 on August 2, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Rand Paul seems to be the only potential candidate for the Republican nomination who resembles Ronald Reagan at all.

VorDaj on August 2, 2013 at 5:44 PM

I’m thinking a Christie/Walker (or Walker/Christie) GOP ticket might be the deal. Go for the largest slice of the pie.

JetBoy on August 2, 2013 at 5:43 PM

ROFLMAO! You’re killing me!

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on August 2, 2013 at 5:47 PM

For every ounce the federal government has done for national security, they have done a ton against it. And for this we must give up our Bill of Rights?

VorDaj on August 2, 2013 at 5:47 PM

The only person to seem sincere in limited government on every national issue is Rand Paul.

ModerateMan on August 2, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Rand Paul seems to be the only potential candidate for the Republican nomination who resembles Ronald Reagan at all.

VorDaj on August 2, 2013 at 5:44 PM

If only he didn’t look like the Tin Man from The Wizard of Oz

SailorMark on August 2, 2013 at 5:48 PM

This may seem off topic, but it relates to a way to stoop with the quibbling! We could stop all this quibbling and go with Palin. Yes, she has to decide to run. She can unify us, and do a lot more. For example, on another thread I was talking about Romney and how he failed to harness the ChickFilA protest fury on gay marriage; Romney backed away from that issue which until Romney had always been a winning issue for us. And indeed it can still be a winning issue for us. Look at Russia — that’s human nature, and we have just been browbeaten to death on it by the leftist forces of political correctness, but there remains a strong backlash waiting to happen on gay marriage. On the other thread I commented:

A huge point on gay marriage. And it also involves Palin. SHE, and I think only she, can revive that issue as a winning ChickFilA-fury style issue for us. Palin makes sense everybody.

anotherJoe on August 2, 2013 at 5:48 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/03/video-scott-walker-supports-path-to-citizenship-for-illegals/

Lets take a short walk down memory lane. ^^

As for border enforcement? what he says about border security: “I don’t know if you need any of that if you had a better, saner way to let people into the country in the first place.”

bazil9 on August 2, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Serious contenders for the White House are going to back issues like immigration reform, because the majority of the American people support that and they want to be seen as people who fix things..not just demagogue issues for short term political gain. They are also going to try to avoid sounding like the 2008 version of Barack Hussein Obama, which is pretty much what Rand Paul sounds like most of the time. They are Republicans, not libertarians.

Terrye on August 2, 2013 at 5:50 PM

I’m still waiting to see what Bobby Jindal does.

Gingotts on August 2, 2013 at 5:41 PM

we should provide an opportunity for those who came here illegally seeking to work for a better life to gain legal status rather quickly — Bobby Jindal

we should offer legal status to those currently here illegally so they can work and pay taxes via a guest-worker visa. — Bobby Jindal

Increase legal immigration, by a lot. — Bobby Jindal

We should increase legal immigration not only for unskilled laborers, but also for skilled workers from all over the world. — Bobby Jindal

We need immigration reform. The status quo is unfair to hardworking immigrants, to the businesses who need them, and to law-abiding Americans. — Bobby Jindal

sharrukin on August 2, 2013 at 5:50 PM

As for border enforcement? what he says about border security: “I don’t know if you need any of that if you had a better, saner way to let people into the country in the first place.”

bazil9 on August 2, 2013 at 5:50 PM

If hardliners have their way there will not be any legislation anyway so whatever enforcement we have now is all we have in the future…so what do they care? They like things just the way they are.

Terrye on August 2, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Serious contenders for the White House are going to back issues like immigration reform, because the majority of the American people support that and they want to be seen as people who fix things..not just demagogue issues for short term political gain. They are also going to try to avoid sounding like the 2008 version of Barack Hussein Obama, which is pretty much what Rand Paul sounds like most of the time. They are Republicans, not libertarians.

Terrye on August 2, 2013 at 5:50 PM

McCain/Romney 2016!

aryeung on August 2, 2013 at 5:53 PM

sharrukin on August 2, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Good God! Jindal sounds even worse than Rubio! And Obama!

VorDaj on August 2, 2013 at 5:55 PM

As for border enforcement? what he says about border security: “I don’t know if you need any of that if you had a better, saner way to let people into the country in the first place.”

bazil9 on August 2, 2013 at 5:50 PM

I’m less concerned about saner ways to let people into the country than I am about people that are in this country depending on the government.

The amnesty Republicans don’t get this.

aryeung on August 2, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Nice to read the comments and see how socalled conservatives like to stab their own in the back. I guess this means that any politician out there who thinks for himself or herself and fails to say how high high when certain people say jump can count on that knife in the back. With friends like you guys, the GOP does not need enemies. No wonder we are stuck with Reid in the Senate and Obama in the White House.

Terrye on August 2, 2013 at 5:56 PM

I’m not surprised Walker sides with Christie. His Department of Natural Resources is already using warrantless spying and drone strikes in their illegal and undeclared War on Deer.

HTL on August 2, 2013 at 5:56 PM

ROFLMAO! You’re killing me!

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on August 2, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Left-over Romneybot. What do you expect?

Valkyriepundit on August 2, 2013 at 5:56 PM

I’m thinking a Christie/Walker (or Walker/Christie) GOP ticket might be the deal. Go for the largest slice of the pie.

JetBoy on August 2, 2013 at 5:43 PM

I think McCain should be the nominee… go for the largest slice of the pie.

I think Romney should be the nominee… go for the largest slice of the pie.

JR on August 2, 2013 at 5:57 PM

Good God! Jindal sounds even worse than Rubio! And Obama!

VorDaj on August 2, 2013 at 5:55 PM

He does.

Republican leadership is collapsing.

sharrukin on August 2, 2013 at 5:57 PM

Hmmmmmmmmmmm,only a loud vocal group on Libertarianism!

Me thinks,the GOP needs a Political compass re-calibration
thingy on party direction!
(sarc)

canopfor on August 2, 2013 at 5:57 PM

If hardliners have their way there will not be any legislation anyway so whatever enforcement we have now is all we have in the future…

WTF are you talking about? We have no enforcement now. That has nothing to do with any new legislation, you blithering idiot. Meanwhile, you want legislation that makes sure that there will never be enforcement, since you want to print up American citizenships for anyone in the world who demands one. American citizenship isn’t your to give away, douche.

so what do they care? They like things just the way they are.

Terrye on August 2, 2013 at 5:53 PM

You are a brain-dead idiot who understands NOTHING. You really should stop commenting. You’re too dumb. Go play with a pencil or something.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on August 2, 2013 at 5:57 PM

Headline:
Progressive Strokes Fellow Progressive” Meh. Next.

Ozprey on August 2, 2013 at 5:58 PM

Tough guys talk tough.

portlandon on August 2, 2013 at 5:59 PM

If hardliners have their way there will not be any legislation anyway so whatever enforcement we have now is all we have in the future…so what do they care? They like things just the way they are.

Terrye on August 2, 2013 at 5:53 PM

No, if hardliner had their way, we would start deporting seriously tomorrow. Should be obvious, even to a rino.

Valkyriepundit on August 2, 2013 at 5:59 PM

Left-over Romneybot. What do you expect?

Valkyriepundit on August 2, 2013 at 5:56 PM

JetBoy’s been here from long before Romney. He’s just gotten much further into outer space since the Mittens run. Shame. He used to be okay on lots of issues.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on August 2, 2013 at 5:59 PM

Nice to read the comments and see how socalled conservatives like to stab their own in the back.

If they are pushing liberal policies then how they are on the side of conservatives?

With friends like you guys, the GOP does not need enemies.

Terrye on August 2, 2013 at 5:56 PM

McCain, Graham and Rubio and crew are given the same loyalty from the base as they themselves displayed to the base.

sharrukin on August 2, 2013 at 6:00 PM

aryeung on August 2, 2013 at 5:56 PM

I am with you there..was just supplying some linkage.

bazil9 on August 2, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Pfft! Reagan sides with Rand Paul.

2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.

RONALD REAGAN !!!

VorDaj on August 2, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Hate to quibble because I really liked Reagan, but there was that little mess in Lebanon where there wasn’t a really clear objective and 250+ Marines ultimately lost their life.

Bitter Clinger on August 2, 2013 at 6:02 PM

I am with you there..was just supplying some linkage.

bazil9 on August 2, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Ahem, I think you were stabbing people in the back!!!11!!!!!

aryeung on August 2, 2013 at 6:03 PM

The GOP could sure use a dark horse candidate but with the internets and all that its hard to stay under the radar.

JR on August 2, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Scott Walker will be the next Tim Pawlenty: undecided, unclear or lukewarm on a whole bunch of issues and he will look like a whimp on the national stage.

Valkyriepundit on August 2, 2013 at 5:27 PM

I agree. I’m not seeing any national gravitas with this guy.

rrpjr on August 2, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Sure sounds like Scott Walker sides with Chris Christie

…what?…he wants to be doggie dry humped too?

KOOLAID2 on August 2, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Hate to quibble because I really liked Reagan, but there was that little mess in Lebanon where there wasn’t a really clear objective and 250+ Marines ultimately lost their life.

Bitter Clinger on August 2, 2013 at 6:02 PM

And he learned from it. He wrote his foreign policy principles after that. Some like McCain and Graham and Obama are incapable of learning from their mistakes.

VorDaj on August 2, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Well played Allahpundit..Well played!!..:)

PS..I’m with “Big Boy” on this issue..:)

Dire Straits on August 2, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Tough guys talk tough.

portlandon on August 2, 2013 at 5:59 PM

…but…but!…Al Qaida…is on the run!

KOOLAID2 on August 2, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Terrye…ah..so predictable.
btw..I am not “friends” with them.
Waste of time to respond to your ramblings.
Keep bowing.

bazil9 on August 2, 2013 at 6:11 PM

If hardliners have their way there will not be any legislation anyway so whatever enforcement we have now is all we have in the future…so what do they care? They like things just the way they are.

Terrye

If liars like you have your way, the lying will continue and so will the insanity.

xblade on August 2, 2013 at 6:12 PM

And he learned from it. He wrote his foreign policy principles after that. Some like McCain and Graham and Obama are incapable of learning from their mistakes.

VorDaj on August 2, 2013 at 6:07 PM

True enough.

Bitter Clinger on August 2, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Ahem, I think you were stabbing people in the back!!!11!!!!!

aryeung on August 2, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Yeah..thats it! =]
I AM the enemy!

bazil9 on August 2, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Terrye on August 2, 2013 at 5:50 PM

You might be right. I hope they know it won’t take much to trigger a wholesale flight to a third party, in spite of the damage resulting from the vote split. I’m a bit older than you and have watched that threat bubble up, then subside with each election cycle. But, I’m absolutely certain that establishment backing of a Christie or Jeb type to the exclusion of all others will be the final straw in this election. Foolish? I dunno. I really don’t think the establishment really believes it will happen. It will. Then everyone loses.

a capella on August 2, 2013 at 6:13 PM

HawksTurkeys

VorDaj on August 2, 2013 at 6:14 PM

With friends like you guys, the GOP does not need enemies.

Terrye

With republicans like you, who needs democrats?

xblade on August 2, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Serious contenders for the White House are going to back issues like immigration reform, because the majority of the American people support that and they want to be seen as people who fix things..not just demagogue issues for short term political gain. They are also going to try to avoid sounding like the 2008 version of Barack Hussein Obama, which is pretty much what Rand Paul sounds like most of the time. They are Republicans, not libertarians.

Terrye on August 2, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Too bad no ‘serious’ contenders have come up with true reform (which would start with enforcing the laws we already have) and end up only sounding like amnesty shills.

Bitter Clinger on August 2, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Looks like Rand might have the civil liberties plank all to himself in the primaries, which would be a serious strategic mistake by his opponents

Paul looks like a man doing Kabuki theater, with over emphasized gestures. He also looks like Edward Snowden’s BFF. Maybe he can help Snowden’s girlfriend fly to Moscow so Ed isn’t so lonely…

He would rather have the Government know nothing about terrorists attempting to blow airplanes out of the sky until after something happens.

Abraham Lincoln went much further at the outbreak of the Civil War than merely asking for the addresses of senders and recipients of telegrams; he requested (and got) copies of every telegram sent so he could analyse and neutralize rebel sentiment in the North.

And Rand gets his panties in a twist over names and addresses on envelopes (which is what the metadata about which he’s concerned is). He’s a modern day Stimson.

Again, cannot see myself voting for him unless he’s the last person standing — he’s announced, in effect, that he’s a splinter candidate.

unclesmrgol on August 2, 2013 at 6:20 PM

The only person to seem sincere in limited government on every national issue is Rand Paul.

ModerateMan on August 2, 2013 at 5:34 PM

There is this guy down here in Texas…..

KCB on August 2, 2013 at 5:41 PM

… who used to work for George W. Bush. Cruz is a good egg, but he isn’t going to be POTUS.

Punchenko on August 2, 2013 at 6:23 PM

bazil9 on August 2, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Good to see you!!..:)

Dire Straits on August 2, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Scott Walker will be the next Tim Pawlenty: undecided, unclear or lukewarm on a whole bunch of issues and he will look like a whimp on the national stage.

Valkyriepundit on August 2, 2013 at 5:27 PM

I fear you are right. I donated to support Scott Walker during the recall election and started getting mailings from the Wisconsin Republican Party (I live in Michigan).

When I got one last week, I used the postage-paid reply envelope to tell them to f-off and take me off their mailing list. I was p.o.ed at Walker over immigration, Ryan over everything and Johnson for something this slips my mind.

bw222 on August 2, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Looks like Rand might have the civil liberties plank all to himself in the primaries, which would be a serious strategic mistake by his opponents…

The Stupid Party defeats itself as usual. Good news for Rand Paul. :-)

Punchenko on August 2, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Scott Walker will be the next Tim Pawlenty: undecided, unclear or lukewarm on a whole bunch of issues and he will look like a whimp on the national stage.

Valkyriepundit on August 2, 2013 at 5:27 PM

I think you nailed it. Some folks just aren’t cut out for the big stage. I can think of only Reagan and Bill Clinton who excelled on the big stage — but even Clinton followed the polls.

Rand Paul so far seems to be doing a good job which is causing Jennifer Rubin and other “conservative” stalwarts to experience great anxiety. :-)

Punchenko on August 2, 2013 at 6:30 PM

There are only two republican running next time that have a chance right now 2016 that are also reasonably conservative enough and also won’t get us into 10,000 national building projects around the world.

Those two are Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. It appears Cruz is more hawkish than Paul, which is fine because I still consider myself a hawk. I am no isolationist. However I am not a Neo-Con. Neo-cons are utopian idiots who believe in a fantasy image of war where Americans just have to show up and liberate people from oppression without having kill a bunch of people, and that those liberated people naturally will form a modern democratic style nation that will be allied to the United States. It is about as stupid and utopian as what the progressives are pushing.

They also are like progressive in another way in that they think limited resources are not limited. Hence they think the U.S. military can fight everywhere at once, with no rest, save every half baked nation earth from itself, and at the same time be able to defend critical U.S. national interest from a major growing military power like China. To put this in a simpler way they don’t mind wasting limited resources like healthy, young, brave Americans who are capable of fighting in wars that don’t do much for American national security.

I am leaning toward Ted Cruz if he runs, but if gets the Middle East syndrome, I could easily vote for Paul. At this point I don;t care how we get out of the Middle East, I just want out…we have more important national security issues to worry about like China and our own borders. Those Chinese are working on a plan to deny access to the U.S. and win a regional war with us. It may nor happen for another 20 years or it may not happen at all, but they are working on that and we need to be ready. You can’t get ready for that if we are blundering around in the Islamic world.

William Eaton on August 2, 2013 at 6:30 PM

I would not trust Christie on the Republican ticket. I would fear that he would actively throw the election to the democratics, kind of another Johnny Mac. I expect that in the election campaign he would tell us that the prospect of a President (Hillary, Dean, Holder, etc.) would not be all that bad.

slickwillie2001 on August 2, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Sorry Scott; give up on 2016 and still [sic] to domestic politics where you do well. When you start talking about the border and national security, you look dumb.

Inkblots on August 2, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Scott is my front runner at present. The biggest threat to us is our economy, and he’s already shown his cajones on that front.

He’s pro-life — opposes any government funding of abortion, and beliefs that personhood begins at conception and continues all the way to death — a death not hastened by any death panel.

He’s of the belief that marriage is to be between one man and one woman.

With regard to immigration, he supports an amnesty, but he is against provision of government welfare to non-citizens.

He’s for right to work.

He’s for school choice and vouchers.

He thinks the marketplace should decide on green energy — it’s not the Government’s place to promote or disparage it.

He’s for lowering taxes to encourage businesses to hire.

He’s for fixing common infrastructure such as roads and bridges, but not for building new infrastructure such as high speed trains or light rail.

He’s strong on national security, including our need to locate terrorist networks on our own soil and neutralize them.

I wouldn’t mind a guy like this as President — not at all.

unclesmrgol on August 2, 2013 at 6:33 PM

it is just as much about his dad than him.

tomas on August 2, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Sweet, a unionbuster AND a Foreign Policy guy.

AND a governor.

New frontrunner in my mind.

thebrokenrattle on August 2, 2013 at 6:35 PM

JetBoy on August 2, 2013 at 5:43 PM

That might get 59 million votes at the polls if they are lucky. It won’t win though. Walker seems to be pretty good fiscally but Christie is a non starter.

chemman on August 2, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Serious contenders for the White House are going to back issues like immigration reform, because the majority of the American people support that and they want to be seen as people who fix things..not just demagogue issues for short term political gain. They are also going to try to avoid sounding like the 2008 version of Barack Hussein Obama, which is pretty much what Rand Paul sounds like most of the time. They are Republicans, not libertarians.

Terrye on August 2, 2013 at 5:50 PM

McCain/Romney 2016!

aryeung on August 2, 2013 at 5:53 PM

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

kim roy on August 2, 2013 at 6:39 PM

So the conservative base refuses to give an inch on immigration or gay marriage, but can’t wait to abandon its traditionally hawkish foreign policy stance to embrace libertarian isolationism, because that may attract votes and clear a path to victory in 2016?

Excellent strategy as usual, conservatives!

Mr. Arkadin on August 2, 2013 at 6:41 PM

Terrye on August 2, 2013 at 5:56 PM

We don’t control the senate because “moderate/liberal” republicans voted for democrat at rates that if they had voted for the GOP candidate we would have at least 6 more seats than we do now including Reid’s.

chemman on August 2, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Mr. Arkadin on August 2, 2013 at 6:41 PM

Being Hawkish doesn’t mean we need to be in wars that are never ending or that we spy on Americans with 4 of 5 degrees of separation.
Those degrees of separation mean pretty much all of us instead of the bad guys.

chemman on August 2, 2013 at 6:48 PM

but can’t wait to abandon its traditionally hawkish foreign policy stance to embrace libertarian isolationism,

Mr. Arkadin on August 2, 2013 at 6:41 PM

Hardly. Supporting Barky’s surveillance of all Americans (with an emphasis on conservatives and Constitution-lovers, as per the DHS) is not being a hawk. That’s being an anti-American douchebag. Supporting Barky’s muzzie brethren in Syria is not being a hawk. That’s being an idiot – just as supporting Barky’s illegal war in Libya was being a treasonous idiot. Those things just injure American security. They don’t enhance it.

Nobody has abandoned a hawkish stance on true national security. Many, such as you, don’t seem to understand what national security is.

And Iran is just sprinting to nukes as all this goes on … without a peep from any of the “new hawks”. Good job, there.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on August 2, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Hotair could use one of those check boxes for thumbs up and down.

I’d take someone with executive experience any day over a Senator.

flataffect on August 2, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Nobody has abandoned a hawkish stance on true national security. Many, such as you, don’t seem to understand what national security is.

And Iran is just sprinting to nukes as all this goes on … without a peep from any of the “new hawks”. Good job, there.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on August 2, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Right, because Rand Paul and the libertarian crowd are willing to do what it takes to keep Iran from obtaining nukes.

And I guess all this Christie-bashing from conservatives for criticizing “dangerous” libertarian ideas is just the people who really understand national security, like you, setting McCain in a fat suit straight.

Got it, thanks.

Being Hawkish doesn’t mean we need to be in wars that are never ending or that we spy on Americans with 4 of 5 degrees of separation.
Those degrees of separation mean pretty much all of us instead of the bad guys.

chemman on August 2, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Obama couldn’t have said it any better, thanks!

Rand Paul is not planning to add a few safeguards to the national security apparatus. According the Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats already took care of that. Paul wants to dismantle it.

You must be very grateful to Obama for ending Bush’s never ending wars. All good libertarians should be.

Mr. Arkadin on August 2, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Obama’s embrace of the Bush era policies shows even a dove doesn’t want a terror attack on his watch versus some privacy/civil liberties issues. I think that is where Walker is. He wasn’t convinced there was a privacy vote to be had and went full on “whatever” for national defense because supposedly all we care about is terror. He is rethinking it now in seeing the response.

Conan on August 2, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Rand Paul is not planning to add a few safeguards to the national security apparatus.

Mr. Arkadin on August 2, 2013 at 7:01 PM

That national security apparatus seems to be aimed primarily at the citizenry while the mosques are off-limits by policy.

They missed the Boston Bomber who was surfing an offshore Al-Qaeda websites looking for bomb recipes. If the NSA isn’t watching Al-Qaeda websites, and ignored two Russian warnings about Tsarnaev then what exactly is it doing?

sharrukin on August 2, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Anyone whose ideas on foreign policy, civil liberties, and America’s role in the world are primarily poll-driven is not qualified to be Commander in Chief.

Sorry Scott; give up on 2016 and still to domestic politics where you do well. When you start talking about the border and national security, you look dumb.

Inkblots on August 2, 2013 at 5:39 PM

+1

FloatingRock on August 2, 2013 at 7:23 PM

Hotair could use one of those check boxes for thumbs up and down.

I’d take someone with executive experience any day over a Senator.

flataffect on August 2, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Obama has more executive experience than Rand Paul. Chew that over.

aryeung on August 2, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Conan on August 2, 2013 at 7:07 PM

You consider(ed) Obama a “Dove?” Interesting. /

Ozprey on August 2, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Obama’s embrace of the Bush era policies shows even a dove doesn’t want a terror attack on his watch versus some privacy/civil liberties issues. I think that is where Walker is. He wasn’t convinced there was a privacy vote to be had and went full on “whatever” for national defense because supposedly all we care about is terror. He is rethinking it now in seeing the response.

Conan on August 2, 2013 at 7:07 PM

The REB only embraced the President George W. Bush-era policies because he realized that such a machine could be very useful for attacking his domestic political enemies.

I expect that we will find that the NSA has been just as politically corrupted as the IRS.

slickwillie2001 on August 2, 2013 at 7:29 PM

GOP establishment media types keep saying that this is a debate about national security, but it’s not. We all want America to be safe, and none of the comments I’ve heard have anything to do with national security. What it has to do with is freedom and liberty. Who is a defender of Freedom, and who isn’t. Certainly we can secure the nation in a way that is consistent with American values, and if not, tell us why not, Christie and Walker.

FloatingRock on August 2, 2013 at 7:35 PM

and none of the comments I’ve heard

To clarify, I meant none of the comments in the back and forth between Christie and Paul, and now Walker. Based on those comments we learn next to nothing about the foreign policies of any of these men.

FloatingRock on August 2, 2013 at 7:37 PM

In fact the comments back and forth between Christie and Rand, and now Walker, don’t really tell us much at all about their their views on national security, except that in Rand’s case he wants to secure the nation in a fashion consistent with American values, and Christie doesn’t seem to care…. and Walker is like Sergeant Schultz, he knows nothing.

FloatingRock on August 2, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Scott Walker is a big illegal alien amnesty supporter.

bluegill on August 2, 2013 at 7:46 PM

So, he checks the polls for his positions? Got it.

rrpjr on August 2, 2013 at 7:53 PM

That national security apparatus seems to be aimed primarily at the citizenry while the mosques are off-limits by policy.

They missed the Boston Bomber who was surfing an offshore Al-Qaeda websites looking for bomb recipes. If the NSA isn’t watching Al-Qaeda websites, and ignored two Russian warnings about Tsarnaev then what exactly is it doing?

sharrukin on August 2, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Now THAT is an unambiguously excellent point! Thank you! That is exactly the point conservatives, or anyone concerned about national security for that matter, should be bringing up again and again.

Mr. Arkadin on August 2, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Good God! Jindal sounds even worse than Rubio! And Obama!

VorDaj on August 2, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Jindal also lacks charisma. Remember the State of the Union rebuttal, when he looked like the Indian Alfalfa?

bw222 on August 2, 2013 at 7:55 PM

I don’t like any of them so hoping we get someone I can support-not like the last two elections..

Bullhead on August 3, 2013 at 12:10 AM

VP at best.

Bmore on August 3, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Jindal also lacks charisma. Remember the State of the Union rebuttal, when he looked like the Indian Alfalfa?

bw222 on August 2, 2013 at 7:55 PM

Don’t get me started.

MelonCollie on August 4, 2013 at 1:18 PM