Posted on 03/13/2015 5:43:02 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
If Walker remains the most likely conservative to win the Republican nomination, then other conservative contenders will find their support and contributions going to Walker. As the race begins to boil down to Walker or Bush, conservatives will have an increasingly simple choice.
The only thing that might derail Scott Walker is if he seems to be unelectable. Yet Scott Walker is the only governor in American history to have ever won three elections in four years, and that in Wisconsin. The most recent Marist poll shows Scott Walker running neck and neck with Hillary Clinton, and it shows Scott Walker running better against Hillary than any other Republican. That suggests that not only is Walker electable, but he may well be the most electable Republican around.
Conservatives, frustrated since 1988, want a strong conservative to be the Republican nominee in 2016, and Scott Walker fits that perfectly. Republicans, practically all Republicans, want to win the White House next time around, and Scott Walker may be the best chance for a Republican president in 2016. It is hard to see moderates fighting Walker too hard, and it is almost certain that conservatives will coalesce around him fairly fast. Scott Walker seems unstoppable.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I think you could argue that given the last few elections and the number of candidates that got to—and lost—the number one spot, there is an increased appetite for stability.
Two factors are contributing to this:
1. The large number of candidates and their competing conservative positions split the vote and we wound up with the LEAST conservative—Romney and McCain, and we don’t want that to happen again.
2. The media and the big money Chamber of Commerce types have “pre-selected” Jeb Bush for us and that infuriates us, as he is more of a liberal than Romney and McCain—and we’ll stand by a conservative stalwart EARLY in direct opposition to Bush being thrust upon us.
Due to this, we might see Walker’s bandwagon as the one to jump on to—and stay on. Even for the next year and a half.
The only people who are claiming Walker flip-flopped are liberal media or GOP-e commentators.
Walker has flatly said "no amnesty" and has said he wants to end the ethanol subsidies.
He described both positions in great detail that allowed some to select sentences that seem to be a change in position. That is not true.
I suggest you read unedited transcripts of what Walker says and you will see he is thoughtful, clever and articulate.
“I see no reason for us to coalesce around anyone until Hillary or someone commits.”
We need to coalesce to defeat the republican Establishment first, and their preferred candidate, Jeb (or his backstop, Marco). THEN we can focus on the democrat.
Your thinking is the Establishment game: “we need to nominate somebody who can win, who can beat the democrat” then their candidate never beats the democrat. They focus on the democrat instead of focusing on choosing their best candidate (which always ends up being the worst possible choice). They focus on winning the independents and “Reagan democrats.”
We’ve done it their way several times before with no result. No more moderate losers who can “beat Hillary.” Nominate a conservative and any democrat will be toast! That’s why we need to coalesce early.
You make some good points, but here is why I don’t agree:
Ultimately, I believe it is Cruz, and not Walker, who will win the Rush/Drudge/Levin/Breitbart “primary.” And THAT is how you win the nomination as a conservative. Walker is where he is now due to Rush and Drudge, period. He’s benefitted from maybe 50 million dollars of free positive publicity in the last month. This is not gonna continue.
Bush, Christie, Huckabee - I walk.
Everyone else is in the "meh" bucket - will get my vote in the general, but not my enthusiasm.
And he has said he wants to continue them - which he said, last week, in Iowa. Hmmmmmmmm
The title is kind of a silly question. This is so early in the process that anything can happen. Walker is an early frontrunner, to the surprise of many. But as we saw in 2012, that status can change many times before we get a nominee.
I’d love to see a Cruz surge, although I am a bit leery of another first-term senator as president. But barring Cruz taking the race by storm, Walker appears to be an acceptable alternative - AT THIS TIME! But my view on that could change depending upon what else comes out about Walker’s policies.
God, I can’t imagine Jeb Bush....
I’m getting so cynical. I love Walker but I picture him choosing some some “moderate” for vp. Then, like Andrew Brietbart, it’s just a matter of a-dart-in-the-neck to stick us with another liberal.
Coalesce for Walker-Cruz or Cruz-Walker. 15 months out, and carry the Big Mo into the primaries.
I refer you to #42. :)
I read post 42 - it’s NOT correct. I saw and heard Walker’s comments last week to the Ag Summit in Iowa - which was nothing but a crony ethanol festival. The only candidate to come out against the subsidies was Cruz. Walker was in favor of continuing them.
It is what it is. Don’t project your fantasy on to the shiny new object du jour. You’ll always get fooled.
No.
He said he wants to continue them until open access can be given to the fuels market for ethanol, then the subsidies would be phased out.
This is an intelligent answer as the POTUS cannot just end the subsidies by executive fiat (unless your name is Obama).
Secondly, ending the program would put thousands of workers in the ethanol industry out of work overnight as the only way to sell ethanol as a fuel is through this stupid program.
So, Walker wants to open the door to competition for ethanol and phase out the subsidies. Then, ethanol can sink or swim on its own.
Walker also knows that he needs congressional approval for any change. His idea is also intelligent because it is a proposal that could win enough support in Congress from corn-growing states....which has been the stumbling block to eliminating the subsidies in the past.
You quote only the first words of what Walker said and omit the detail he provided after those first few words.
That makes you either uninformed or dishonest. I hope you were just uninformed and did not understand his articulate answer.
“I could live with Walker but Cruz is still my first choice by far. He doesn’t waver in his stand on any issue, he’s intelligent and articulate, and he’s the kind of firm leader we need right now. “
And two of Cruz’s past professors say he is the most brilliant student they’ve ever had.
A Walker/Cruz ticket sounds appealing to me!
You have given him the most positive spin possible - and demonstrated a desire to kick the can down the road. Maybe Walker is as strong on this as you say, but given his past statements and the notion that came from that summit - which is that he was among those who wanted it both ways - to assume your assertions are correct would be a fools errand.
And this does not take Congress. This is an EPA driven standard, not Congressional. And there are many ways to unravel it without instantly throwing a lot of people out of work. Then again, they went to work for what they should have known was a crony bullshit industry - wouldn’t bother me to see them out on their keisters.
You have it backwards.
Dittos.
So who is in charge of deeming someone freakin unelectable??????
I am.
Here’s my list.
Freakin unelectable:
Jeb Bush
Mitt Romney
Chris Christie
John McCain
Rick Santorum
Donald Trump
Linda Graham
Lamar Alexander
I’d hold my nose and vote for:
Newt Gingrich
Marco Rubio
Rick Perry
Bobby Jindal
I’d enthusiastically vote for:
Sarah Palin
Scott Walker
Ted Cruz
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.