What tasks great or small would Cruz be unable to accomplish as president, simply because he hasn’t been governor?
Without answering this question, one cannot rightly say Cruz wouldn’t be as good a president as any given governor.
I’m just saying it seems like a good idea to me to go with someone who has proven a track record governing over one that has no such record. All things being equal.
The quotes I’ve been provided by Walker seem to change the analysis though. Clearly if he sticks to that viewpoint, that border security is useless and we should just make everyone legal, if he sticks to that and doesn’t recant it then the choice is clear: Cruz all the way.
Again, let’s not get caught up in the “my guy is best” mentality that stuck us with Romney. I’m willing to go with Cruz first if Walker doesn’t clearly recant from such a ludicrous proposal. Are you willing to support Walker if he recants and leads over Cruz?
What if Walker doesn’t recant, but is still strong against Bush, Christie et al? Are we going to say he’s just as bad as them just because his immigration stance is abysmal?
All I’m saying is we should fight tooth and nail for either man, whoever has the greatest momentum against the GOP anointed one. If both are equal, then Cruz should get the support unless Walker clearly recants his position.