[erkelly]

The fact that Walker favors one party controlling the govt, does not mean that he favors only one political party. I am quite certain that Walker, who strikes me as a man who believes in our traditional values, favors free speech and free elections. Walker is exactly right this and people like you need to realize this; if you vote for an executive (whether governor or president) because you like what he says and you want him to do what he says he wants to do, you have to give him the legislature as well, otherwise it is nearly impossible for him (or her) to keep the promises he made with the voter. Walker could not have accomplished the reforms that he did had his party not been in control of the legislature. And it is high time that people everywhere realized this. We could have saved our nation a lot of grief over the last 50-60 years, had we as a people thought this through and given our presidents a congress that they could work with. Walker did not say that he favors a one-party system which would only lead to tyranny and corruption. The point of what he said simply is that if you want the chief executive to actually be able to do do what he says he will try to do, you HAVE to put his party in office. All Walker is doing is pointing out the obvious, and giving the wishy-washy middle-of-the-road compromisers something to think about (if it is ever going to be possible to get them to think.)

Now I do not live in Wisconsin but I did become very interested in Wisconsin politics after Walker was elected. It seems to me that Walker's primary goal was putting the state on a sound financial footing, reducing taxes,bring spending under control, and encouraging growth of business. A big part of achieving those goals was taking on the govt unions, but that is not the only thing he did. Stopping vote fraud was another part of his agenda.

If he would achieving those same goals for the federal govt, then clearly he would have to take on illegal immigration which is a huge cost to the taxpayer, and again, dealing with vote fraud means dealing with illegal immigration.

So I don't think overall, if Walker stays true to his goals, he will be pushing amnesty. So please, don't make good the enemy of the perfect!

[txhurl]

I appreciate Walker and your expansive post and fleshing-out.

I’m just saying, we already have perfect in Cruz, why retrogress? We know exactly where the Cruz jet is taking us, with Walker we have to search around to quell our fears that he hasn’t filed a complete flight plan.

Time is of the essence. There are huge broken things to fix, and we need execution, not exploration.

[conservativegranny]

“Walker could not have accomplished the reforms that he did had his party not been in control of the legislature. “

Neither could have Obama.

Gridlock is not a entirely a bad thing and there is a reason why our founders put checks and balances in our Constitution. We have a two-party system for a good reason. Our founders didn’t want to make it easy to pass laws. They wanted it to be difficult and a slow process.

I find Walker’s comments to be disturbing especially the part about checks and balances. Maybe a meeting with Dr. Larry Arnn from Hillsdale College would be of benefit.

I can understand that having a majority in the WI legislature made things a whole lot easier for him and I’m not saying that I haven’t felt grateful for it. But I wasn’t so happy about it when the dems had the majority. They can do much damage to our country as we have seen.