The other way to look at it is:
What is the point of ONLY supporting those who have lost every single battle against Dems and then blaming their own own failures on their team for their losses?
Unlike the others Walker has beat them on their home ground that drive libs nuts..
Yes, Walker is going to disappoint me many times over.
But he sure won't be an Obama 2.
Get us someone better than him who can beat Jeb and then Hillary.
Get us a shown winner.
Cruz talks a good talk.
Walker actually accomplished gutting union power in WI. In order to do that, he had to hold his people together in the legislature, while union thugs rampaged through the capital making violent threats. He held his position, and got his team to hold with him. That counts a lot for me.
Walker/Cruz.
Excellent point. Your post demonstrates why so many conservatives are leaning Walker at this point. He had a proven record of winning in an entrenched RAT state AND of enacting AND fighting for conservatives principles in aforementioned RAT state. (I refuse to use the media assigned colors for "blue state")
Can we "trust him" 100% not to support some form of amnesty? No. But unless some Tancredo-style candidate enters the race, there really is no candidate we can trust 100%, and if there was a hypothetical Tancredo-style candidate, its extremely unlikely that person would be able to make it thru the primary, let alone the general election.
Walker is not perfect and there is no doubt some times he will stray from conservative orthodoxy and disappoint us. But he certainly would be 1000 times better than Obama and 100 times better than Jeb.
I can at least say I "trust him" to be MORE conservative overall on immigration that several candidates that were endlessly hyped as conservative saviors by the Levin crowd and self-appointed Tea Party leaders, such as Marco Rubio, Liz Cheney, Rand Paul, and Rick Perry. For example, one of Walker's first acts was to move to cut in-state tuition for illegal aliens in Wisconsin (which had become law before he was Governor), whereas Rick Perry happily signed it into law in his state, and continues to defend it. (and remember, Perry represents a far more conservative constituency than Walker does).
But NOW they're "concerned" that Walker might not be strong enough on immigration. Gee, wish why they been as "concerned" about it when they were touting the others. Any comment that Rand Paul might not be reliable on the issue with his libertarian background was meet with jeers of "you must want the RINO to win!"