Posted on 03/02/2015 1:02:43 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
You may have noticed that the media likes to run critical stories about Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker — sometimes without doing much checking first.
As the Walker for president talk gains steam, you can expect to see more media attempts to break him in. That’s to be expected. But for now, that might be less important than the media he does have in his corner.
Consider how rapid Walker’s rise has been. As late as November, he usually polled in the single digits. Public Policy Polling had Walker at 5 percent last March, compared to 25 percent in its latest poll.
The turnaround in Iowa is even more pronounced. Walked typically polled around 5 percent of the vote last year, with his best performance in a survey of possible GOP caucus-goers 8 percent. In late January, he broke into the double digits for the first time. Two February polls had him in first place with more than 20 percent of the vote, which happens to be his Real Clear Politics polling average in the state.
Ditto New Hampshire, where Walker’s best performance last year was just 7 percent. He’s been pretty consistently in the double digits since then, even though Jeb Bush, Rand Paul and Chris Christie are all strong in the first-in-the-nation primary too. Gravis Marketing had Walker as high as 23 percent in February.....
[SNIP]
[Rush] Limbaugh has long joked about fighting with half his brain tied behind his back, just to make it fair. Maybe that’s all the fairness Walker needs.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
...........Getting back to those pesky facts, it is important to keep updating the progress of real per capita disposable personal income, per capita GDP, and total GDP over the course of the Reagan and Obama administrations......
Yeah, here’s how the fraud “handled” Wallace:
What horse are you backing?
At this point probably Cruz. Though I wish Cruz were better on amnesty, he’s at least better than Walker.
That one 2013 interview where the question “Could you envision.....” followed by his answer “Sure, it makes sense.....” was a very big sticking point I had with him.
I detest ANY politician who plays games with the word “Amnesty” and contorts it to fit their personal views of how they’re would ‘pathway illegals to citizenship’.
This interview with Wallace (a closet liberal) makes a pretty clear statement that he’s changed his mind on that and dispels the notion that his version of Amnesty might contain some aspect of ‘pathway’ and that he would not allow it as a President.
Hopefully, this just isn’t him changing his tune but not his heart. Nonetheless, it is very encouraging.
I’d have a discussion with you but for the fact that you label Walker a “closet liberal” which makes it fruitless to pursue a rational dialogue.
Go back and look at what I wrote and you will find that “Wallace” does not equal “Walker” :0)
Marking....
I thought you'd lost your mind - but it was my bad!
SO VERY SORRY!!!
The Fraud?
No problem.
Amnesty, and its myriad interpretations by politicians, is my bellwether; it is my FIRST litmus test for a candidate.
Illegal immigration is my number one issue above all else because if they are allowed to become citizens we are lost as a country, frankly. Once that gate is passed successfully, then the rest of the concerns can follow.
I am highly suspicious of it [Amnesty in general] because of McCain and Kennedy’s 2007 attempt to do exactly what I’m afraid of. WITH avid support from GWB I might add. When the announcement of the proposed bill was made, my two Senators here in Georgia, Isakson and Chambliss, got on that wagon like it was Saturday night and it was goin’ to town.
What happened next was that those two got b!tch slapped back to the stone age by constituent outrage. So much so they both immediately retracted and opposed. But what they did was change their tunes and not their hearts.
Both continued to be backstabbers - Chambliss later figured he’d probably not survive a primary challenge and retired, Isakson now again acting like a conservative because he is up for reelection next year. But he is a still a compromising RINO in his heart. (You will see a serious challenge to him in the primary I think).
So. I look for two things: specificity in how they describe what they’ll do (e.g., no equivocations or twisted word meanings), and the believability in their sincerity of what they are saying which is awfully difficult to judge.
Regardless, Walker has now set it down clearly about Amnesty and I’ll take his word for now and will have to wait how sustained that position will be. Still, his Wallace interview is more encouraging than the 2013 interview.
I imagine that Scott Walker is a good poker player.
Dunno.....it makes me kind of nervous because he, or any politician/poker player, aren’t just playing for themselves (hopefully) with their own stake.
They are playing with OUR money, OUR sovereign country, its Constitution and supporting laws, and the futures of our children and grand children.
You got to ask yourself...do you allow politicians to change their minds like the rest of us do? There is no such thing as an honest and rational person who doesn’t occasionally change their mind. To expect otherwise is to invite disappointment.
As for amnesty, I think its a nonissue anyway. The uniparty is firmly behind it and will figure out a way to jam it down our throats well before November 2016.
And as a sadder but wiser Rubio said at CPAC: the lesson he learned from sucking up to Schumer on amnesty is that no matter what caveats they put in the bill, Americans DO NOT believe the govt will do any of it (to protect Americans).
Did you read the link?
Fixed... :)
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.