Posted on 02/17/2015 6:22:35 PM PST by Brown Deer
Scott Walker, the little-known governor of Wisconsin, is emerging as the main challenger to Jeb Bush in the race to become the Republicans' 2016 presidential candidate.
While Mr Bush is raising tens of millions of dollars and attracting huge media attention across the country, polls indicate a quiet momentum is building for the more conservative Mr Walker.
The 47-year-old governor is trailing Mr Bush by just a few points in the polls in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina - the three early voting states that will shape the course of the Republican primary election.
While the 62-year-old Mr Bush, the younger brother of George W Bush, is a favourite among the Republican elite, the younger Mr Walker may turn into a rallying figure for the more conservative party base.
An NBC/Marist poll found Mr Bush on 16 per cent in Iowa compared to Mr Walker's 15 per cent.
Three much talked-about Republican senators - Marco Rubio of Florida, Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky - all failed to break into double digits in the Iowa poll.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
And again we have to get the truth from the UK!!
Interestingly though, Walker has been getting hammered for years by unions and dem apparatchiks for years now and he's shrugged it all off and just kept winning. So it will be interesting to see how he stands up when his "friends" try to stick a knife between his ribs.
And the Left thanks you.
Well, I think each is a fair argument. I can argue points 1 and 3, but there are valid arguments on either side. The Medicare expansion in itself has validity, and it is an issue he clearly ran on. It also was well crafted to stay within budget...and provided a missing component to health care for seniors. On the other side, it further expanded government involvement in health care and was not paid for with additional taxes or reallocation.
For the war, it was a mistake only in that it was much more complicated than any war plan scenario. The goal was mutually agreed across both parties over two presidencies. The execution was good initially. The long term problems clearly stated. A middle east without Saddam is far better than one with him. Notice how much less attacks there are in Israel post Saddam...he’s not funding them anymore. He and his family were tyrants and the world is much better off with him and his sons gone. Strategically, it also was good to have our presence on either side of Iran. That was squandered by the current buffoon with no residual bases. That said, the Iraq war has had an overwhelmingly negative influence on our politics as it opened the door to Pelosi, Reid and Obama getting a large majority and ushering in horrible policies including Obamacare. The long term effects of that war may likely haunt the nation of a hundred years and be a part of his demise.
Your #4 is spot on...and I ended up abandoning Bush when he nominated her and when he went on that terrible offensive to push amnesty. He had a horrible second term on everything except the surge strategy that he adopted to save the Iraq effort. I used to think he also got two good justices in during his second term, but Roberts ended up a catastrophe who has somehow been compromised. He had a good start, but his record since Obamacare’s decision has been nothing short of catastrophic.
Your points on Bush are all legit. The problem is, someone could put together a nearly equal negative list on Reagan with his amnesty, a bad Supreme Court nomination and more. No president is going to be perfect. Bush would be in a much better position historically if they had better communicated, especially in the second term. They squandered a good reelection victory and 55 seat majority in the Senate in a matter of months, and two years later, the far left was running Washington.
If you read the article very closely, what you will see is typical political speak. Those two quotes are not the opposite of each other, the one I provided uses the term 'legalize'. Your says no amnesty.
The question I raised, how will legalized illegals not eventually get amnesty?
In the real world, that would make sense.
The Bush Family doesn’t share power and Walker has 3x the political skill of anyone in the Bush Family.
They would never pick Walker.
They will probably pick an moderate already in their camp like Jon Huntsman or Mitch Daniels
Add Rob Portman to the list of VP selections for Bush.
He would NEVER pick Walker
Well I’d like to add, that the Medicare expansion was OPPOSED by US House conservatives and..
that these policies I mentioned led DIRECTLY to the nation electing President Obama, while I can forgive some of this: I CANNOT forgive the total as it gave us THE WORST President in my lifetime!
Walker wants to accelerate the invasion. Ted Cruz will at least slow it down.
Go, Cruz!
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.