To: afraidfortherepublic
Here’s my question: does anyone think that irritating the labor Unions is a good characteristic for Scott Walker as a presidential contender? Either way, Hillary is an insider who’s interested in D.C. for the money. Plus electing her is re-electing Billy Jeff back into the White House, can’t do either of those.
To: Morpheus2009
To: Morpheus2009
‘Iritating” the unions? Please. The unions are dead weight and need to be pruned way back.
9 posted on
11/10/2014 4:46:56 AM PST by
yldstrk
(My heroes have always been cowboys)
To: Morpheus2009
regardless of the nominee, do you think that big labor is going to love us?
14 posted on
11/10/2014 5:27:20 AM PST by
JohnBrowdie
(http://forum.stink-eye.net)
To: Morpheus2009
Get real. "Irritating the labor unions" is an unavoidable side effect of doing the right thing. It didn't keep Walker from winning three elections in four years and governing well.
To: Morpheus2009
F them. Walker and Kasich both won 2 terms in union heavy states. Both turned their states around in difficult circumstances. Walker even withstood the kitchen sink union effort for recall. Either would make good candidates in 2016, should they choose to run.
20 posted on
11/10/2014 6:13:40 AM PST by
edpc
(Wilby 2016)
To: Morpheus2009
Heres my question: does anyone think that irritating the labor Unions is a good characteristic for Scott Walker as a presidential contender?As a matter of fact.
Worked well for Reagan.
28 posted on
11/10/2014 6:50:52 AM PST by
Lazamataz
(First we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them. We have no 'news media', only a Soviet Pravda.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson