Posted on 11/10/2014 2:21:34 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The ink was barely dry on Scott Walker’s ballots in his third statewide win in four years when Chuck Todd asked him about his pledge to serve out four more years. That’s understandable; everyone assumes the two-term Governor of Wisconsin has national aspirations, and his invitation to Meet the Press was not offered to discuss Badger State water policy, after all. Walker didn’t give much away about his own plans, of course, but he offered the GOP some advice on 2016 that may well be self-serving eventually:
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) is staying tight-lipped about his plans for 2016, but said on Sunday that a governor like himself would have a better chance of beating Hillary Clinton than a member of Congress.
“Overall, I believe governors make much better candidates than members of Congress,” Walker said in an interview with “Meet the Press.” …
Walker said the GOP will have to campaign on an outside-the-Beltway approach.
He pointed to the 31 Republican governors nationwide who could offer “a much better alternative from the old, tired, top-down approach in Washington.”
“We need something fresh, organic, from the bottom-up, and that’s what you get in the states.”
Self-serving or not, it’s still good advice. The driving force on both sides of the aisle the past few cycles has been populism — progressive populism for Democrats, conservative populism for the GOP in the form of the Tea Party. Both want a clean sweep of Washington, and both have gone after their own incumbents to get it. Putting up a Beltway candidate would fly in the face of that trend, especially anyone who has any actual legislative accomplishments on their resumé, since the only way to achieve those will be to work across the aisle. These days, with the grassroots on both sides (but more so for the Right), that makes you an establishment figure. Just ask Marco Rubio how it worked out on immigration reform, for instance.
In order to find someone with solid achievement on their record, especially reform, both parties will have to look to the states. Hillary Clinton could have been an exception had her only claim to legitimacy had been at State — and had the foreign policy of that era not been exposed as entirely feckless and incompetent. (Reset buttons are no more a resumé enhancer than Tuzla dashes, after all.) Hillary’s main claim to the nomination is that her family will have been in and around Washington for almost a quarter-century by the time the election rolls around. She has no executive experience other than State, which is a record she’ll be dodging rather than lauding, and making nostalgia and novelty (the first woman President!) the centerpieces of her campaign. Instead of being about the voters, Hillary’s campaign will be about herself.
Democrats don’t have many options outside of the Beltway, though. Progressives want Elizabeth Warren to run, but she’s also a first-term Senator who won a relatively close race in exceedingly-safe Massachusetts. Martin O’Malley looked like a good alternative until Maryland voters decisively sent his hand-picked successor packing, electing just the second GOP governor since Spiro Agnew in one of the bluest states in the country. John Hickenlooper might have had presidential aspirations, but just barely survived in Colorado on Tuesday. John Kitzhaber is a train wreck in Oregon, Jerry Brown is way too old in California, and Andrew Cuomo has too much baggage in New York.
Republicans have a lot more bench talent out in the states, many of whom have solid track records on reform. Walker certainly qualifies, as does Rick Snyder in Michigan, and Bobby Jindal in Louisiana. Mike Pence and John Kasich have Washington experience along with their gubernatorial CVs, although both have some skeptics among the grassroots. If Republicans want diversity, they can look to Susana Martinez in New Mexico or Nikki Haley in South Carolina, or even Brian Sandoval in Nevada, although his pro-choice position would probably scotch any presidential aspirations — and he seems to be salivating over the prospect of taking on Harry Reid in 2016.
On top of that, Obama’s disastrous and incompetent tenure practically makes the argument without debate over the need for executive experience in governance before taking on the presidency. This is why the gubernatorial ranks have traditionally been the farm clubs for both parties. Mark Levin disagrees in part, but only to the extent that gubernatorial experience alone qualifies one for President:
The point is that Republican governors are going to have to do much better than expect all of us to accept their self-serving definition of presidential qualifications; they’re actually going to have to tell us how their records justify us promoting them to the presidency, as will all other candidates. And I don’t care what political office they’ve held. If they’ve supported big-spending and big-government, and reject the constraints of constitutional government, they’re not qualified by any measure.
True — and one can deduce from that how Levin would judge a Kasich primary campaign, for instance. The implicit recognition in this argument, though, is that a candidate needs a record that shows how they will perform in office, as opposed to campaigning or operating in the legislative minority. Talk is cheap. Look at Obama and “hope and change,” for an object lesson on that point. If voters want a record of actual achievement, the ranks of the governors may not be the only place to look, but there won’t be many other options.
Walker is clearly talking about the modern era. Of course up until the 1920s any of these men regardless of their political position would make great presidents.
You are comparing feces to Angus beef.
Let’s say it’s Walker, who would be a good VP for him? Another Governor?
Not necessarily. After all, VP is not an executive position (until and unless s/he assumes the presidency). The reason VP tends to be such a meaningless office is that his job is analogous not to that of a king - as POTUS is - but rather to that of a prince. And there isn’t much in being a term-limited prince.My opinion? Name Senator Cruz to the VP slot, treating it as a campaigning position. Not to attack the opposing VP candidate but to attack the opposing presidential candidate. And after that? First SCOTUS opening that comes up, nominate Cruz to that.
Only then do you name a governor or ex-governor to VPOTUS. Possibly Sarah Palin.
VP: New Mexico Governor Martinez may be interesting, or a Congressman. The reason a Congressman would do well as VP is because the VP can be a liason job between congress and the President, if done well. Having someone who knows congress and the process helps.
Supreme court: Cruz. He is a constitutional lawyer and young. He can be influential for 30 years, not just 8.
Arizona Senator: Palin.
McCain: Old folks home.
that is crazy and a bit convoluted
How about we nominate the most conservative candidate and let them choose their own VP
Yes, I’d heard about that. Would need to know a whole lot more on the how/why, and why he thought it would be good for Ohio, tho as a rust belt state, the Q might answer itself.
But the question was: if Walker were the nominee, who would make a good VP candidate, another gov? Usually the answer would be NO.
VP candidates are typically brought in to balance the ticket, complement the top of the ticket. The govs have exec experience and ‘outside the beltway’ advantage so to balance experience the selection is usually someone who’s served in Congress; to offset conservatism/liberalism, a candidate more ‘central.’
A Walker/Kasich ticket brings 2 from the Midwest/Upper-Midwest, not a problem for the GOP geographically as they’d hold the South. On the downside, it’s two white guys which is apparently unacceptable.
I was not endorsing or promoting Kasich, merely pointing out that his qualifications would bring a good balance to a ticket if Walker were the nominee. Pence would have the same assets to bring to the ticket.
How about we nominate the most conservative candidate and let them choose their own VPWalker is conservative enough, is thoroughly vetted by the opposition over three elections, has demonstrated that he does precisely what he says he is going to do even in the face of tremendous opposition from the left and the media, and then has the ability to calmly and coolly communicate his message and record in a way that gets him elected in a blue state. What more can you reasonably want?
I of course agree Governors are not the only place to look, but they are among the best and most reliable sources of Political Executive experience. But frankly private companies, and the military are just as good.
What is not good is Federal legislative or exclusive experience. Few presidents who have come from the senate or house ever end up being very good presidents. Simply put they got too much invested in Washington politically already.
Sorry Governor Walker. I would say first qualification to be president would be a person who believes in, articulates well and fights for the principles of the Constitution.
Walker's statement is shallow. It draws attention away from the real qualifications, being right on the issues.
He’s feisty, now. I think he’s had (and been through!) MORE than enough. Heard he put on quite the show on, ‘Face The nation’ this past Sunday.
Kick some Wisconsin Socialist @ss now, Scotty. You deserve it!
Love My Gov! :)
Do your own search, it'll knock your socks off, you'll see just how wrong you are. I have no desire to do the work of someone who isn't interested in the truth.
Karl Rove and Reince Priebus agree. That's why they'll give us Chris Christie, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee in the primaries.
Bring em on. Those three will be among the first flushed in the process.
Kasich, perhaps.
I like Fallin, although I think she embraced Commie Core.
But she is in a deep red state.....I wonder how she could campaign in battlegrounds.
No.
Ted Cruz for president!
You are linking to the far left opposition paper (The Cap Times) in Madison - so far Left that it failed as a Statewide news source and like Air America barely subsists as a bomb-throwing, died-in-the-wool bolshevik, give-it-out-for-free as fishwrap newspaper. Like several other posters here, whose aim is to lash out at Walker there is a sense that they are willingly conflating several aspects of legal and illegal immigration. Everything written at the link you’ve posted is meant to weaken Walker. You would be hard pressed to produce any legitimate source for the charge that Walker is pro Amnesty.
First of all, Wisconsin does not have an illegal immigration problem like Minnesota, Michigan and Illinois. Our immigrants come largely from Eastern Europe and work in the dairy industry on lawful permits. When these expire they return to their native countries, not 100% of the time - but this is Wisconsin - not Arizona or California. The farms employing them do in fact need them, and the Wisconsin dairy industry would not be as successful without that labor pool available. Our Hispanic illegal population is around 1% and centered in Democrat areas of Dane & Milwaukee Counties.
In this article, the writer, Jack Craver places Walker’s position when he was still the Milwaukee County executive from 2009 and not yet Governor and slips it into the present solely to create the impression Walker draws an advantage by siding with the Emmanuel Goldtein’s of the left the Koch Brothers. He is doing the Koch’s bidding and only changed his immigration position to thwart attack’s from the Right. However Walker has plainly stated he opposes Amnesty.
Walker does have an evangelical side and is an ahem compassionate conservative, but he has stated he’s on the side of fixing the border by closing it and that that is the legitimate first step to fixing our border problem - so he in no-wise supports an open border nor amnesty for the large illegal immigrant population. To say that is a lie. It is classic disinformation. You may read the Breitbart exclusive on his position here:
A balanced article that addresses both legal and illegal immigration as it pertains to the State of Wisconsin is found here:
The authors take care to show the benefits of skilled labor versus the obvious crisis of illegal and unskilled migration into the States.
Some people here insist on using opposition sources to yield what they want to see as fact, in effect, what they see is what they want to see and what they’ve already formed an opinion of is simply reinforced. To get there they have to go to far Left sources to do it, but apparently they do not have a problem with that. It is doing precisely the work the disinformation media wants them to do. Divide and conquer.
I call it intellectual dishonesty.
No. He'll also need to be a social conservative. There are many voters who are tired of the Mitt Romneys of the world giving up on what's important to them. God still means something to a lot of Republican voters.
Walker needs to explain his position both on amnesty and on abortion, where he ran at least one highly questionable ad during the recent campaign.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3214398/posts
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.