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.