Rand is a no-go, sadly. I like him, but no.
For me, its Cruz. Cruz/Walker will be a wonderful team. I don’t expect these two to spend much energy attacking one another because they are probably going to be partners for the next eight years.
I like Walker, but how many of those has he won against Washington Democrats? Just sayin...
And I’d add this, Cruz has much more appeal than just evangelicals, anti Obama Care folks and defense hawks. He’s big in the liberty community (tho not as big as Paul in that universe) and he’s big in the small business community - his leadership PAC, started years ago, is called “Jobs Growth and Opportunity PAC.”
The first and last qualify for higher office. The middle has to steel it illegally like Hussein Soetoro, pure and simple!!!
Walker and Cruz have a up side. Paul is stuck with whatever support he’s got now.
No argument from me, but only one from your list had actually announced his candidacy, and until Walker announces, I’ll support Cruz.
But financially, I’ll support FreeRepublic. This forum does more.
Rand is fine right where he is. Senators get paid to run their mouths, and he’s pretty good at it most of the time. He’s shown he will fold up his principles for the GOPe to get ahead. Stay in the Senate.
I think primary weight of the first ten states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Col, Minn, Utah, NY, NC, Mich, Nevada, and SC) is what matters...with Iowa and New Hampshire carrying a bump-up each.
Rand Paul can’t win or place second in any of these. Walker ought to win six of these minimum. Cruz might carry two of them. Bush will finish second or third in all ten...meaning that he’s out of the picture by the end of Feb.
Toss in the effect of the debates, and it’s mostly a race between Cruz and Walker, with the other guys carving out thirty-percent of the overall primary vote by the end. No clear winner till the convention.
1. Walker - Actually fights and wins against the left
(Recall attempts and unions)
2. Cruz - Brilliantly articulates freedom, conservatism
and the Constitution for everyone.
3. Paul - I have no idea.
You said Walker was the strongest candidate on immigration. Which position? He’s had several.
Ted Cruz said we have to enforce the laws currently on the books and secure the border. That to me is the soundest position on immigration.
1.) Paul is somewhat anti-establishment. I believe he is an ideologue who is convinced that government IS the problem. I think he plays nice the best he can with the GOPe but if given power would do what it takes to actually shrink government and not just grow it 90% as fast as the Democrats want.
2.) I think Cruz is very anti-establishment. I think he instinctively believes that conservatism is right and would defend it in the White House.
3.) I don't think Walker is anti-establishment. I think he did act bravely in the anti-union fight but ultimately it was a fight which had the blessing of the GOPe. Against Obamacare, the homosexual agenda, nationalization of industry, nationalization of education, abortion, immigration, the Chamber of Commerce, Corporatism, crony capitalism, etc... I don't think he would lift a finger without the GOPe's permission.
Cruz has great instincts and can draw support from the working class.
— I believe Rand is the best communicator of the bunch. Communicating his ideas, however, is one reason I won’t be supporting him.
— Cruz is by far the most intellectual. I agree with him on most everything. I do sometimes have a difficult time understanding what he’s saying.
— Scott Walker is a good communicator but he has flipped on a few issues like amnesty. I like him but that has been a negative for him to me.
This is a rather incomplete and incorrect list. As discussed elsewhere at great length in on Free Republic, Walker is clearly for legalizing illegal aliens, which is amnesty.
We need to pickup Blue States.
I sent $$$ to Cruz because I believe in him.
Texas is already in the bag.
Walker could likely bring IA, WI, NV, OH, FL and small chance of OR and PA.
Rand Paul maybe brings OR but unlikely.
Cruz, Walker and others all have substance and strong arguments for their supporters to advance.
Paul is just fluff and hot air, there just isn’t anything there.
If you compare Walker’s political battles to the political AND judicial battles of Ted Cruz, and do so with an open mind, I think that you may be surprised.
Chris Christie doesn't like unions. Rahm Emanuel doesn't like unions, since the Chicago teachers' union is trying to get him replaced. If that's our litmus test, we need a better one.
And I most certainly do not see Scott Walker as even opposing amnesty, much less as a candidate who will oppose it more forcefully than any other.
Walker is a decent conservative. But we can, and must, do better.
Article II, Section 1: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President...
I like Cruz, but have some lingering reservations.
What’s this about his Wife’s ties to the “North American Union” / NAU-enabling CFR task force?
http://christian-heritage-news.com/2015/03/23/what-about-cruz/#comments
During his coming out speech he seemed to really be straining to come accross as “Reganesque”, and as impressive is it was I’m not sure that he entirely pulled it off.
Is Cruz the best we can come up with? Maybe he is.
Can he win with both the GOP-e and the Democrat machines doing their best to destroy him every step of the way?
I’m convinced that the GOP-e would rather see a Hillary or Biden in the WH in ‘16 than any real Constitutional Conservative - especially a Christian.
As someone has already pointed out in retort to my skepticism - hardly anyone thought that Reagan stood a chance of winning, either - so who knows?