Posted on 09/24/2015 6:43:45 AM PDT by Kaslin
I liked Scott Walker, I really did. I still do. His record of accomplishment as governor of Wisconsin is unrivaled, both by his fellow governors and by its success. That being said, he was a horrible presidential candidate.
Still, Walker dropping out of the race so early came as a shock to the political world. He’d been the frontrunner most of the spring and summer. But once he started to slide, as all early frontrunners do, he seemed lost as to how to stop it.
The Walker campaign had a lot of problems, and every one of them was self-inflicted. A lot of pundits say the emergence of Donald Trump killed the Walker campaign. It did not. Scott Walker’s campaign failed because he, like many before him, drew his line in Iowa.
Iowa has a lot of allure for Republican presidential hopefuls. It goes first and starting strong “feels” like the right way to win. It’s rural, so a limited government appeal will work with people who simply want to be left alone by Washington. It’s a caucus, so you need dedicated supporters willing to put in some time to have their votes count.
The last point is true, but it costs a lot of money, which helped kill Walker. The first two couldn’t be more wrong.
Iowa is the fool’s gold of Republican politics.
Winning the Iowa caucus is not the key to winning the Republican nomination. Since 1980, the Iowa caucus has been an abysmal predictor of who the eventual GOP nominee will be. The only Republican candidates who were not running unopposed to win the caucus and the nomination are Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000. Every other “winner” went on to lose the nomination.
George H. W. Bush beat Ronald Reagan in 1980, and Bob Dole beat George H. W. Bush in 1988. Reagan won in 1984, Bush the elder in 1992, and Bush the younger in 2004, but all were unopposed and incumbents.
Remember President Mike Huckabee’s tenure in the White House? How about President Rick Santorum? They won Iowa in 2008 and 2012, respectively, and lost the nomination. Dole at least won the caucus and the nomination in his 1996 try but was beaten soundly in the general election.
Iowa is the race you don’t want to win. It may seem like a sprint, like you have to hit the ground running. But this isn’t a 100-yard dash; it’s a marathon. The fastest person off the starting line is rarely the first one across the finish line.
What Iowa should be is a place for candidates to get their sea legs and get used to the scrutiny that comes with campaigning on a bigger stage than they’ve ever been on before. It helps weed out candidates but usually only candidates who decree Iowa their “make or break” state. Walker did just that.
All the time and money Walker spent in Iowa was wasted. Not just because he’s now out of the race, but because it wouldn’t have mattered.
Iowa voters, as history shows, are not indicative of Republican voters throughout the rest of the country. They like subsidies. No, they LOVE subsidies. If you don’t support tax dollars for ethanol forget it.
That doesn’t sell with conservatives outside of Iowa. Candidates are left with a political dilemma – sell out conservative principles to appeal to voters in a state you probably won’t win in the general election, or tell a bunch of Americans you want to derail their gravy train and ensure you won’t win the state in the general. They can’t win, and they shouldn’t play.
Scott Walker put all his eggs in the Iowa basket.
Where Iowa fails, New Hampshire succeeds. Although not a perfect indicator, the Granite State picked non-incumbents Reagan in ’80, Bush in ’88, McCain in ’08, and Romney in ’12. Winning Iowa doesn’t help win anything else; winning New Hampshire, or even performing well, does.
Walker’s campaign spent a lot of time and money in Iowa, appealing to Iowans on issues Iowans care about. Although there is a Venn diagram overlap in what Iowa caucus goers and the following primary state voters care about, it’s a small group. By focusing on Iowa, Walker ignored the rest of the country. The rest of the country noticed…or, more precisely, didn’t notice Scott Walker.
Then, as always happens, Iowans noticed someone else, Walker’s support dried up, the basket was gone. And now, so is Scott Walker.
The shiny appeal of Iowa now will set about seducing its next mistress, who will spend a lot of time and money trying to seduce caucus goers – and perhaps will. If you have a favorite candidate left in the race, you’d better hope he or she can resist the allure of that fool’s gold.
Walker was just a poor candidate to start with. His regional record and lack of charisma did not translate to the national stage. In addition he simply appeared to have no core beliefs.
Wrong. The fence was authorized and funded back in 2006 and is still on the books. Just nobody has wanted to build it. As for the lawsuits, Trump can issue an Executive Order declaring it a national security emergency and just do it. And I believe he would.
As for someone dropping that on him, you think it hasn't been already? I've heard interviewers make that point, and his response is "Believe me, I'll get it built." The biggest half of leadership is having the will to use the power you have.
Well reasoned argument, but I do have one quibble with your salient point:
If we are to demand that our candidates “DO” something, Trump is in trouble. Why? Because the things that Trump has done are the antithesis of what we want for a President. He’s spoken about a need for more gun regulation, he’s used eminent domain improperly, he’s supported the Clintons, he’s used H1B visas to bring in foreign workers. The thing we like about Trump is his laser like focus on immigration. However, that is just talk right now.
So, if our demand is for candidates to DO something, I do not believe that any will meet our criteria.
Wrong. It has been stopped by the courts. It is effectively no longer on the books, nor was what was authorized complete.
As for the lawsuits, Trump can issue an Executive Order declaring it a national security emergency and just do it. And I believe he would.
Not within his powers, unless you want to develop dictatorship in this country. Is that your goal?
As for someone dropping that on him, you think it hasn't been already?
Quote it.
The biggest half of leadership is having the will to use the power you have.
Under divided government, the biggest part of leadership is knowing how to get it done under the rule of law. Abuse of "emergency powers" (we've been under emergency powers since 1933) is the first step to absolute tyranny. I cringe at the thought of Democrats in power after your boy has pulled stunts like that.
Trump could put on his Commander-in-Chief hat, order the wall built by the Seabees and Corps of Engineers as a military operation under the supervision of SecDef. Detach MPs and Marines from nearby installations for patrol and garrison. Gird and cover it with razor tape, trenches, mines, and machine guns with clear interlocking fields of fire, and man it up like the 38th Parallel in Korea.
Uh, pursuant to what declaration of war? The courts have stopped such military operations before. No, the best step is to take the jurisdiction over border enforcement out of the hands of the Federal courts. Hell, put the jurisdiction over ALL aliens outside the Federal courts and set up a second set of courts for handling deportations. It still takes Congress to get it done.
BTW, I’d use detained illegals to build the fence. There’s a certain justice in it.
What I’d like to see the Governor do is this:
How about traveling around the country to other RED states, and show them how to defeat the UNIONS ..??
He could give them a boiler-plate plan to help relieve their states from the burden of union pressures.
I think it would be a great success .. and help him later on if he decides to run for President again.
A tiny issue of Posse Comitatus Act...
I prefer the Constitution, thank you.
His immigration plan would be precisely what I want in a president.
What he would do on the positive side would far outweigh anything negative. But standing still, which is what virtually everyone else offers, is just not an option. Nation won't be here in four more years.
Actually, though, there are ways to get legislation done. LBJ was a master. Trust me, there are deals to be made that will advance ANY agenda . . . if you are willing to pay the price. Some of my ideas would involve steep prices at the outset, but in the short run get our agenda advanced and in the long run pay off huge.
Including the Gun Control Act of 1968? No thank you.
And it's laughable how "they're gonna GET Trump in the next debate." Someone will "drop these" on Trump.
A great example of how a chief executive makes a constitutional end run around congress is the Panama Canal. Read the history of how that was done, how congress's own commission didn't accomplish anything, and how TR singlehandedly got the whole project working.
yep, gonna be sooooooo much better with one of the other duds. Oh, yeah, btw, Cruz cannot get above 8% so don’t put him in the mix.
Yes but the question was “what has he DONE” and I was pointing out that such a meter, when applied to all, leaves Trump behind the pack.
Sorry, you are badly misinformed. It was only 700 miles, and you knew it. It stopped in the courts pursuant to environmental treaties.
I take it you admire dictatorship and benevolent despotism. I prefer the Constitution.
Because the media give the free air time to Trump. He's their boy, all 'doth protesteth too much' to the contrary.
Oh, now it’s the media’s fault. Never can be the candidate’s fault.
But, have fun. I know I will with Pres. Trump.
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.