[2ndDivisionVet]

Ben Carson? A man with absolutely no government experience of any kind? Huh? Remind me of the last time anyone was elected president with no government experience? And remember: The Army is part of the government. Bueller? Bueller?

[Lakeshark]

Ben Carson is a good man, but him being ahead of Cruz with conservatives? No way.

[RoosterRedux]

Walker/Cruz!

[hinckley buzzard]

I love Ben Carson but not as a candidate for president. He will only embarrass himself eventually by making rookie mistakes, and he has too much credibility as it is to squander it on a quixotic crusade.

[Yosemitest]

The LAME Stream Media is pushing this UNTRUSTABLE Walker very hard.
They really want AMNESTY !

[afraidfortherepublic]

Well, I was going to say Herbert Hoover, but he held appointed offices during the Wison administration.

Walker emerges as the conservatives favorite Republican candidate.

FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.

[Lakeshark]

And I doubt Hillary is who the gop candidate will be running against.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon who has never held elected office, finished in second, with nearly 25 percent of the vote.

This statement calls the entire validity of the "survey" into question.

[GeronL]

An unscientific facebook poll is news?

[Diana in Wisconsin]

I’ll hold her if he’ll beat her, LOL!

[Nifster]

Sorry Brent Bosell is not my go to guy for conservative information

I stand with Ted

[Finny]

It is nuts to calculate who the Republican candidate should be by basing the choice on whether or not he can beat the possible boogieman/boogiewoman du jour Democrat opponent.

It is letting Democrats both call and manipulate the shots.

How soon we forget how these boards read in 2007 about this time. It was ASSUMED that whoever the candidate turned out to be would have to be able to beat Hillary, the Great and Terrible. The constant question was "but can he/she beat Hillary?"

I really don't care who the Democrats nominate. The ONLY thing I care about is who the Republicans nominate. If "they" are already basing their consideration on Fear of Hillary, it bodes as ill for all concerned as it did in 2007.

Especially seeing as how in 2012, enough legal on-the-ground actual Americans spotted the sucker's bet of voting to endorse government tyranny either way, to let Obama "win" by default. That is what happened.

The only important thing is who will nominate or represent limited government Christian conservatism. Cruz (and Palin, for that matter), are the only two who fit that description. Sorry, though Walker is a good fighter of unions and pro-life, he has one too many examples of actual limited government principle sailing over his head. He wants to manage government better, tinker with it and "fix" it. A limited government Christian conservative wants to eliminate tyrannical government consistently, morally (judicial) and fiscally, so Americans can pursue free, moral prosperity again.