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.
RE: 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.
_______________________________________
Here is what I posted above:
Sarah Palin on immigration:
http://www.ontheissues.org/sarah_palin.htm
Supports a path to citizenship, but no amnesty for illegals. (Oct 2008)
And your response is that I have not been paying attention since 2008.
Well, here is one of her latest responses circa July 2013 [with my comments in brackets]:
EXCERPT:
Do you then favor an amnesty for the 12 or 13 million undocumented immigrants?” asked Ramos.
“No, I do not. I do not. Not total amnesty,” said Palin. “You know, people have got to follow the rules. They’ve got to follow the bar, and we have got to make sure that there is equal opportunity and those who are here legally should be first in line for services being provided and those opportunities that this great country provides.”
[And how is this different from what she said in 2008 as I posted it? SHE’s AGAINST AMNESTY BUT SHE QUALIFIES IT WITH “NOT TOTAL AMNESTY”, which seems to imply that there is some path to citizenship she is open to ]
“To clarify,” said Ramos, “so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?”
“I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.”
[SO, SHE IS AGAINST AMNESTY BUT SUPPORTS A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP. SHE SAID SO JUST A YEAR AGO. HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I POSTED ON WHAT SHE SAID IN 2008? NOTHING DIFFERENT. YOU’RE MAKING MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. ]
As of this writing, all I can conclude are the following:
1) She’a against amnesty
2) But she supports a path to citizenship.
No different from what she said in 2008.
Unless of course, she changes her mind again...
What guv didn’t? But she’s repealed it: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/common-core-repeal-oklahoma-mary-fallin-107499.html.
Palin’s come around on amnesty, but Gov. Fallin has the best record on it.
Walker is not only pro-amnesty with eventual citizenship, but he’s for making it legal for”every Mexican (and anyone from anywhere else) who wants to” to come here legally—so there won’t be any need for them to ome illegally.
Oh, and dairy farmers in WI (and elsewhere) could simply pay market wages or automate: there’s nothing special about dairy farming that needs to be done by illegals.
Yes, anyone who read that Scott Walker immigration article needs to understand that was written by a lefty trying to weaken Walker. Basically every single archival news story done by a wisconsin paper the past four years tried to weaken Walker. Either make his base get discouraged or rile up independents or the left to go against him.
The immigration issues looks like it might have a direction anyways within the next couple months. If Obama declares amnesty, all the GOP will need to oppose it anyways. It is a winning political issue now for the GOP. Hopefully ALL of them realize it.
Prove it you arrogant nitwit. I know you can’t - the last five times you’ve posted the same link to the same commie writer’s blog - an avowed marxist. You must have a wooden head.
I’ve posted to articles in the Washington Post, The Hill, WI’s major newspaper, Breitbart, etc., that directly quote Scott Walker, as well as a video link to him speaking on the subject directly. You’re the one who bizarrely and disingenuously claims that such sources somehow aren’t accurately reflecting his position because of their ‘bias’.
thanks for the update, I had not heard or don’t recall hearing. :)
“[Walker] talked both sides of the issue [borders] in a smart way so nobody can pigeon-hole him.”
Great, so he’s a Romney without guiding principals, also.
Yuck.
This article is so disjointed, clearly a cherry picking lib commenter trying to impress us with their "Palin is confused and stupid" mantra.
As you are......
You obviously searched a loooong time to impress us with this devoid of source quoting from this unsourced, totally contrary to what she's been saying commentator. If this was true, you'd show us the interview. But you know it's NOT true, since you saw the stuff she's been saying since 2008, yet you post this as if it's representative. Here's a quote for you to chew on, it's from Breitbart about three weeks before he died:
"Liberals who attacked Sarah Palin were just a pack of animals. (So called) Conservatives who joined in were simply animals with no souls.
So which are you?
Walker will be on the 2016 ticket, either at the top or as the VP. The fact that he’s won three elections in four years in a Democratic state proves he’s battle tested and formidable. Cruz/Walker would be my choice. Aside from Christie, Romney, and Bush, the GOP has a deep bench of presidential candidates compared to the other side. With the Democrats it’s pretty much Hillary or bust! Can you imagine Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, or Martin O’Malley as the alternatives for the Democrats? Scary!
RE: What utter BS you post.
This article is so disjointed, clearly a cherry picking lib commenter trying to impress us with their “Palin is confused and stupid” mantra.
As you are......
NOPE, the onus is on you to show me that Sarah Palin has changed her mind on the PATH TO CITIZENSHIP issue.
Simply saying the article is BS and disjointed will not do.
She said two things in 2008 and repeated it 5 years later.
1) She is against amnesty
2) Is is for a path to citizenship.
now, please tell me that in 2014 her mind has changed again. Otherwise, I have no choice but to believe the news and link I posted.
You see, I am an open minded person. But you’ll have to convince me first. Attacking me personally ain’t gonna cut it.
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.