Posted on 03/09/2015 12:52:36 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
I pretty much agree with you, Ted Cruz has the *demonstrated* stones to stand up to testudinous GOP Senate leadership and the ferally partisan 'RatMedia. </minus five points for pleonasm [/Bill Buckley's ghost] >
Walker stood up to the unions and the so-called "NetRoots" (Rahm's infamous "ankle biters" who used a Dem-crafted killer ethics law in Alaska to drive Sarah Palin out of office), and that counts for a lot.
My question about Walker is, will he stand up to the Chamber of Commerce on wide-open borders? He hasn't been tested against them yet: Union busting is one of their faves, too. I want to know which way Walker will break on NWO/Chamber/NAU issues aimed at breaking down the People into the ants the Chamber wants to step on.
I'm pretty sure Cruz will do that, based on what he's done.
Like you, I wouldn't burn down DC if Walker gets the nomination, he's at least acceptable as a second choice. But you appear to have made no mistakes about who's bringing the Real Stuff. So far, it's Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin (tho' right now she needs a vehicle, and possibly additional mainstream Electoral "heaviosity" </ Woody "Child Molester" Allen, New Yorky pervert par excellence>).
Sarah needs a Senate or gubernatorial slot in not-Alaska. Arizona appears to be her adoptive State, and it'd be a damn good place for her to get her immigration spurs under a Walker or Cruz administration.
That said, she's still *all that and a bag of chips* </off Aussie gecko>. People who are writing her off are being foolish.
Thank you for your courtesy in posting the link.
Probably the ones who told us in 2008 that we HAD to choose between "Rudy or Fred", and then in 2012, we HAD to choose between "Romney or Perry".
Now they dislike being told the choices are Jeb or Walker. That's not fair! We want to hear about other candidates like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz! You can't dictate our options and give only two candidates ALL the coverage in conservative circles!
Ironic, isn't it? What goes around, comes around.
I have the same two things.
Keep in mind though that millions of citizens who served in the reserves are not technically counted as veterans.
I agree. Mike Pence or Bobby Jindal would make a good VP candidate as well.
So you’re saying the more revenues we pay to the federal government the less power they’ll have?
It seems that Milton Friedman's Law is in full play with regard to tax cuts, i.e. the outcome of a law is almost always the exact opposite of the intention. When good conservatives at the local and state level keep taxes low, the end result is that the largest percentage of taxes that anyone pays ends up going to the feds. Yes it's nice that our local and state taxes are lower than they might otherwise be, but if federal taxes and deficits continue to escalate then power continues to move towards DC.
Unless and until the deficits move toward zero and the debt begins to fall, it really doesn't matter what happens taxwise at the state or local level. Sure, some states will be more advantageous taxwise than others for businesses or retirees, etc. but those states continue to exist in a country where most of the money is going to the feds and is then returned to the states with strings attached.
Why can't each state, for example, pay for the upkeep of its own roads and bridges? Why do we have to depend on the federal highway fund? Because of this states are coerced into following federal regulations if they want to continue to get federal highway funds. I would be in favor of the federal part of the gas tax being replaced by a state tax so that all gas taxes go to the states and there is no round trip through DC where the taxes can be skimmed, misallocated, and then directed back at the states with strings attached such as requiring states to spend money on mass transit and other boondoggles.
I would also be in favor of eliminating the National Guard and requiring each state to fund its own militia.
I would also be in favor of the complete elimination of the Dept of Education and expecting states to fully fund their own schools.
If this means state and local taxes go up, that's OK so long as it results in federal taxes going down and federal control over states diminishing.
My fear is that most citizens don't really want the current system to change that much, and politicians certainly don't want things to change at all.
When millions of Republican primary voters see that Jebbie is the favored one, they will fall in line like lemmings from NH to SC to CA.
Not an unreasonable analysis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.