Posted on 01/31/2015 8:44:29 PM PST by ObamahatesPACoal
Gov. Scott Walker is praising fellow Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan for the congressman's role in broking a bipartisan budget bill that's been blasted a by number of conservatives.
Walker said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that Ryan provided strong leadership on the bill that passed the House Thursday and awaits Senate action.
(Excerpt) Read more at weau.com ...
“Walker never mentioned citizenship in his comments.”
There is a video of an interview with him and at the end he is asked if he could forsee a time when people who were already here illegal could, if they paid fines etc. become citizens (this is not a direct quote you’ll have to find the video there are lots of links to it here). Walker’s response was “Sure”. No he did not use the actual word citizenship. He has said numerous time “a pathway to citizenship”.
This immigration issue has been around since before Bush. I’m sure he has formed an idea of a policy by now. He just doesn’t feel that it is politically expedient to share it with the rest of us yet. Let’s hope he does, clearly, sooner rather than later.
I’d rather know what that is before I jump on someone’s bandwagon. I well remember how Chris Christie was such a hero around here for awhile because he talked tough to the teacher’s union and stood up to them. Look how that turned out.
Well I love Cruz. And he’s fine where he is ... Walker seems god to
Me. Am willing to face all negatives and to reject humid need be
Couldn’t find anything pro abort about him
His success as a gov will make it tough for the goons at the GOP to eradicate him out front. It’ll be ax sneak attack. They how’ve their orders to get the third bush in there. When we get to where we’re hoping, well find out whom they were are working for
Three repub presidents since Reagan all with one thing in common. They none of them have ever had a kind word to say about Reagan or conservatives. Oh. And they’re all three from the same immediate family.
Auto correct yikes
Agreed-—on all points.
R Reagan’s biggest mistake was Bush 41.
Walker isn’t only pro-amnesty, he’s virtually an open borders guy.
No, thank you!
While you are correct that Walker is not the
staunch conservative that Cruz is, I would say that
it is one thing to be a staunch conservative senator
from Texas but quite another thing to be staunch
conservative governor in blue Wisconsin. I wish the
whole country would vote like the vast majority of
Texans but it won’t. Whether we like it or not local
politicians have to play to their local voters. I
want to see how Walker’s world view develops if he
seriously gets in this thing.
I think more of us from Wisconsin need to better describe the stuff Scott Walker GOT DONE here versus many of the other candidates who just spout off hot-air soundbites on Meet The Press every couple months.
The guy proposed eliminating the ability of government unions to collectively bargain. This was they biggest problem in Wisconsin. The unions had taken over the State. The minute he proposed the bill, 50,000 union types laid siege to our statehouse and camped out there for weeks. Walker figured out how to still maneuver the bill through and get it done. My property tax bill (which is a huge expense here in WI) has gone down for three straight years under this guy.
He also got through a very tough Voter ID bill, which despite every leftist judge attempt to stop, should be in place this spring finally.
Then he got through concealed carry, tax-incentives for business, was a trailblazer governor in shooting down accepting Obamacare and the state exchanges and he immediately joined the amnesty lawsuit as well.
The guy just keeps preaching the Reagan mantra of freedom for Americans from government, and acting out his beliefs.
Walker for me.
Cruz also good, but why are only ivyleaguers electable??
The more WINDYflier says the more I like Walker.
These pictures are not going to deter me from voting for Walker.
Republicans voted for Mitt in 2012. He was the best of two electable choices.
"Develops"? That's sort of like 'evolving', isn't it?
I'd rather not see a candidate shift or modify any of their positions during a run for office. I want to know what positions they've held for an extended period of time, as that's the real measure of the person.
Politicians are famous for tailoring their statements and positions for the express purpose of getting elected. I'm not the least bit interested in any of their campaign rhetoric.
“Politicians are famous for tailoring their statements
and positions for the express purpose of getting elected.”
That is the reality regardless of what interests you and me.
In a national election or within a state with a politically
mixed electorate you don’t get enough brownie points for
standing solidly on all of your core principles.
Keep telling yourself that. Perhaps it will assuage your conscience for having given your vote to a man whose politics bears no substantial difference to Obama's.
It's why four million conservatives refused to vote for him.
Reagan did.
But that's not the point. As I said, listening to a candidate's rhetoric during a campaign doesn't tell you much about who and what they really are. For that, you have to look into their past records in office, and their documented positions on issues.
A very good example of this, is Romney's run for office in 2012. He had the gall to tell the American people that he was "severely conservative", when his record in office as Governor of Massachusetts proves beyond doubt that he's a statist, big government liberal. No question about it, yet the people and the Republican party allowed him to deceitfully sell himself as something completely different during the campaign.
I posted Romney's record here for months and months, in order to get people to look at his actual record, and stop listening to the campaign hype. Sadly, Romney won the nomination anyway, then lost the general because of who he really is. At least four million conservatives saw through the bullcrap and refused to be had yet again by the party bigwigs.
“Reagan did.”
Reagan was HALF the equation in the 1980 election.
The other half, of course, was Jimmy Carter. Times
were WAY different. For one thing people voted against
Carter as much as they voted FOR Reagan. Today, the MSM
carries much more Democrat water than they did in ‘80.
Reagan did not have to bend too much in those days.
Remember ‘Reagan Democrats’ in ‘80 and ‘84? Do you
think we’ll see ‘Cruz Democrats’? Not so much. And,
Reagan was a lot more flexible as president than many
of us are willing to admit.
Mitt was governor of the bluest of blue states. Running
for governor as a Republican in Massachusetts one would
expect him to kowtow to the local liberal mindset. But,
I could never understand why a “severe conservative”
would ever want to be governor of such a state. That
takes an extreme example of ‘compromising your principles’
to accomplish. A pox on Romney’s house! Did I vote for
him? Yes, but I was voting for what I hoped Mitt wouldn’t
do as opposed to what I was sure Obama would do.
To me, choosing a candidate is a lot more complicated
than who does or doesn’t stand on EVERY SINGLE ONE of
their principles to the max.
Only because it is true.
....having given your vote to a man whose politics bears no substantial difference to Obama's.
Substantially untrue.
Substantially untrue.
I find it interesting that you've been a member of FR since 2004, yet somehow managed to avoid digesting any of the thousands of posts containing solid documentation of Mitt Romney's extremely liberal record.
Despite the R velcroed to his sleeve, Romney's got a record in office that would make any liberal Democrat blush with pride. I'd be very interested in any data you could provide to back your claim that Romney's politics are substantially different from Obama's.
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.