Posted on 02/07/2015 9:45:39 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker believes Mitt Romney is a "good man and would have been a good president," but now that the former Massachusetts governor has officially backed out of the 2016 race, Walker would like his support among the list of possible Republican presidential hopefuls.
"I would love to have his endorsement," Walker told Fox News Channel's Bret Baier during a segment that aired Friday of an interview that will be running as part of a series surrounding potential 2016 candidates.
At the same time, Walker said that he thinks it is "a time for new fresh ideas," and he appreciates "the fact in his comments that he pointed out it is time to maybe pass the torch and look for new leadership."
Walker, who took a call from Romney while he was being interviewed by Baier, said that there is no doubt that Romney's decision not to mount a third try at the presidency changes the Republican landscape....
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Ha! Like “CORPS”-MAN Obama! So much for all that “education” between jughead’s big ears.
Imams, lol. No, more like if we sense a candidate is destructible, we’ve learned it’s our side that needs to do the early vetting before we get all bunched up behind a candidate only to have the MenSeekingMen - or GOP-e - blow them out of the water 6 weeks from November.
I LIKE and appreciate Walker for what he’s done. I just sense he’s OK with pulling us left, when we need to be making a huge, hard turn back right, and Cruz is the only guy that lives that position, naturally. And Sarah.. who supports Cruz.
When Romney, Rush, Drudge and everybody except Bret Baier and Mark Levin are trying to shove the whole R electorate onto the Walker frigate and get them committed to him this early, that sets off terrible alarms for me.
As a principled purist, I won’t even say Deca#
Walker, who took a call from Romney while he was being interviewed by Baier,
It's one thing to say "Republican candidate X is too liberal for me and I don't think I can vote for him" - all of us have been there now and then.
It's quite another to say "ONLY candidate Y meets all the tests of agreement with ME. If he is not on the ballot, I'm staying home!!!"
And I think the day will come when Ted Cruz, if he runs and if he starts doing well, will (like every other candidate) make some comments apparently designed to draw centrist voters. At that point, we'll need full body Kevlar to protect us from the skull shrapnel here on FR.
Reagan’s colossal mistake was putting Bush as his VP.
No kidding! LOL
Another part being played out in the Bush/Romney/Walker Kabuki Theater production designed to shape their election battlefield- all leading to a Bush/Walker ticket IMO.
Boy GHWB's resume was impressive, but from a historical standpoint, yes it could have been better. On the plus side, GHWB was more of a hard @$$ than we knew. A good friend read a book ( I don't have the name ) where as VP he went to South America un-escorted and confronted a drug lord to get some of our people back. Not letting Schwarzkopf finish the Job in job in Iraq, bad move. Not listening to Bill Bennett and VP Quayle do not go along with George Mitchell and raising taxes, Stupid.
The question begs, who could have Reagan brought aboard instead of Bush.
Tangent to this is we as Conservatives will embrace the RINO's and make them part of the team when we win big, when they win big, they stick it too us. And that can be fodder for the Divorce I and now Tom Tancredo is talking about aka we will split off, they will go the way of the wigs if they don't change their behavior...
I'm with you but I fear that too many are more of a mind to help the Left because they so enjoy the excuses for bitching and boasting about how they never faltered as they aided and abetted the far Left as it destroyed us - misery seems to be an aphrodisiac for many.
Can I borrow your flame-retardant suit for a bit?
Ted Cruz, if he runs and if he starts doing well, will (like every other candidate) make some comments apparently designed to draw centrist voters.
This is the first election cycle in 30 years we’ve had a Reaganite guy running (although I count Palin in ‘08) that can capitalize on the almost-awake dems and indies that went R last November. Those dems and indies could have voted for Romney in 12 but didn’t, the pain wasn’t great enough then.
Zerocare and the illegal invasion are and will be the main cause of more great pain soon. Why nominate a guy who is in accord with Romneycare? And only extends good wishes to the invaders? Do we want the ‘12 stay-at-homes to do it again, and the dems and indies that came over to us in November to say ??what?!!? and stay home, too?
This is an admission that you do not KNOW what Walker stands for yet, but are doing this character assassination based on FEELINGS.
That is awfully like what liberals do when the candidate is wealthy or whatever....never looking at the issues.
Cruz is good...so far....but can we just please stop this anti-Walker stuff until we actually KNOW something?
Can we deal in FACTS? Innuendo, speculation and feelings are the way we burned witches (OK, not too many).
Strike one!
Thank you!
Scott Walker believes Mitt Romney is a “good man and would have been a good president,”
Do you realize Zerocare was the main reason for the crossover support that returned the Senate to us?
Have you ever heard Walker say *anything* about repealing zerocare? The law that for the first time in history, taxes you just for being alive?
First, my condolences.
Second, if they (libs) try that, it may be the ONE thing that might actually get conservatives to coalesce around Walker. Just maybe.
Not a smart move by the Dims.
I don’t like it either, but it’s the nature of politics.
Being absent from the process, or throwing your support behind somebody who cannot win, gives the other side a clear path to do whatever they want.
Pick the best candidate and fight like hell for him, but don’t give the other side a clear path by being absent.
I think conservatives need to ignore the labels of Republicans and Democrats.
We need to focus on WHO are the Globalist and who are not.
The Globalist are in both Republican and Democrat parties.
They are the ones that want to wipe out the sovereignty of the United States, the States and the individual. It’s a slow metamorphosis and people need to wake up.
Once you start viewing everyone as either a Globalist or not, then the picture becomes very clear. How are leaders lead becomes very clear. How they vote is very clear, and there are no surprises like in the Republican and Democrat party.
Thank you too. I’m going to follow your advice and keep my blood pressure down. :-)
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.