More relevant than the day it was written, I would think.
Posted on 11/22/2014 8:01:48 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
After the GOP’s midterm-elections sweep, the Republican Party holds more U.S. House seats and controls more state houses than at any time since 1928. Having reached this goal, the GOP now needs to look for a 2016 presidential nominee to match this success.
President Calvin Coolidge, who sat in the Oval Office from 1923 to 1929, would be a smart model for the party. He reined in spending and reduced tax rates at a time when it was as needed as it is today. President Ronald Reagan admired Coolidge so much that he hung a portrait of the 30th president in his Cabinet Room.
One talked-about possible 2016 presidential candidate who shares many of Coolidge’s policy bona fides is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who won his third statewide race in four years on Nov. 4. The two men have so much in common that it is worth seeing what Coolidge’s experience can tell us about a potential President Walker....
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.reuters.com ...
Woodrow Wilson?
The consultants are part of the elite/establishment. If they find they can’t control the candidate (meaning: turn them into RINOs), they intentionally destroy their campaigns. See Michele Bachmann with Ed Rollins for an example.
Democrats of like mind supported Reagan. Norquist is not of like mind to conservatives.
Grover endorsement is one Walker doesn’t need.
If Grover likes him, I don’t.
“If Grover likes him, I don’t.”
Absolutely. An endorsement by Grover Norquist is the kiss of death.
He is mushy on immigration and that problem is not going away any time soon.
Walker just slid....
What makes Grover someone we would even want to listen to, let alone take seriously?
Ed Rollins “won” how many campaigns, was it one? Or none?
The democrats that supported Reagan were NOT the so called leaders....Reagan was supported by rank and file blue collar workers who liked his straight talk.
Perhaps you ought to find out more about Grover and his Palestinian muslim wife as well as Grover’s association with convicted terrorists. (financial aid to terror organizations is a form of terrorism). He is unrepentant and spends his time trying to get citizens of the US to be kind to people who want to slaughter them
More relevant than the day it was written, I would think.
Grover Norquist’s choice for president—really says it all!
Yes, Walker would be a good choice, for amnesty backers.
It's Cruz, Pence or Walker, anything else is a Yugo with Racing Stripes....
We need to coalesce behind all of them here on FR and stop the infighting and stop the Jebster, the Huckster, and all the rest of the Lilliputians off at the pass.
Let the 3 I mention duke it out mano-e-mano, my guess is any 2 of the 3 would make a great ticket POTUS and VP, and it would be all gravy...
He on board the Cheap Labor Express
thanks for the ping
We are fortunate to have a patriot like Ted Cruz preparing to run. I am not so pure that I will hold Ted's faults against him and refuse to vote for him. I stand with Ted.
Walker has many virtues. He's a good man and we are lucky to have an accomplished governor preparing to run. I am not so pure that I will hold Scott's faults against him and refuse to vote for him.
I will not vote for Jeb. Period.
Jeb has all the big money, so the COC wing of the party is his, and his alone. That means Conservatives are going to be split several ways. In light of his, Conservatives need to unite early behind one candidate.
The makings of a flame war between the Cruz camp and the Walker camp is already heating up. What I suggest is that we count our blessings to have two such fine candidates and agree to a pact.
If Cruz has more primary votes than Walker after, say, after S. Carolina we all stick with Ted. If Walker, we get behind Walker.
SC has been fixed by having Grahamnesty in the race, taking it out as any kind of springboard for a conservative.
Walker has been good for WI. I was born there and like what he has done for the state. He should stay and finish the job he started.
He’s for amnesty and should not be considered for President. We have had enough Presidents who refuse to uphold the rule of law. If we don’t elect someone who will uphold the rule of law, this country is finished.
So you'll vote for a governor who won't uphold the law?
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.