Scott who? Scott Walker


Neutral source – Herald Sun:

A few months ago, Walker was an obscure underdog with little more than an outside chance of becoming the nominee. Now he’s being seriously considered for the most important job on the planet.

Walker, 47, has been the Governor of Wisconsin, a relatively small northern state, since 2011. He’s best known for his role in a bitter political spat with the state’s unions, which was sparked by his efforts to eliminate a variety of collective bargaining rights for government workers.

That battle almost forced Walker out of office, as the unions triggered a rare recall election in 2012. No governor in US history had survived one, but Walker defeated his opponent by a healthy margin. It established his reputation as a stubborn but successful politician, who was willing to fight for ostensibly unpopular reforms.

In virtually all policy areas, Walker is a “model conservative”.  Looks good to me but the issue is the RINOs in the party.  More:

Walker has the same problem as every other governor who tries to run for president. He’s perfectly comfortable talking about economic and social issues, but seemingly out of his depth when it comes to foreign policy.

Of course, if he’s to become president, Walker will likely need to defeat two of America’s most powerful political dynasties: the Bushes and the Clintons. Good luck with that.

As always, it does help to read the opposition on someone, just to put it all in perspective, remembering these people still have the vote.

A friendly source:

When the race for the nomination boils down to Bush and Walker, then Walker’s numbers will quickly balloon to a clear majority of Republicans.  At that point, the race is over.

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.

Keep your eye on this man.  It does affect us.

6 comments for “Scott who? Scott Walker

  1. Chrysalis
    March 15, 2015 at 14:34

    Regarding Walker and Clinton (in your posts), neither are as popular with your average American as the press or polls would have you believe – these polls are being taken only by fans of those publications anyway, especially this far ahead of the election. The loudest mouths (whether publications or people) have never represented how most of us feel in general, which I suspect is also true in your country.

    Because in actuality, America is tired of both types of economic “extremists”, having historically proven to us time and time again that tax breaks for large corporations and larger shareholders will never “trickle down” to the middle class, nor will government financial support of the poor solve the problem of the shrinking middle class, and neither method will ever increase spending and stimulate our economy.

    What possible candidates are getting the most buzz in the real world, by everyday, informed Americans, at present?

    For the Democrats, the preferred name on the actual American tongue (who even many Republicans would vote for) is former Republican Elizabeth Warren, because of her focus on stopping “middle class shrinkage” and her belief that it is the middle class who needs tax protection, not the rich OR necessarily the poor.

    She vehemently opposes Obama’s Asian Free Trade Agreement because we’ve already seen production and even skilled jobs outsourced enough overseas and told it was “stimulating good for our economy”, when in actuality, besides the mortgage crisis, this is the single biggest move we’ve made that ended up tanking everyone not in the $250K income range by 2008 – and we can thank Mr. Bill Clinton for NAFTA for that, helped along with greater tax breaks pushed for by the Bush administration and granted by Congress in the early/mid 2000s. Also, we have seen the harmful effects on our children, even our pets, due to lack of regulation and inspection on food products and candy. Elizabeth believes this will lead to more lawsuits which actually weaken our US law on these issues rather than strengthen them, as well as she argues there is not enough transparency in our government to ensure any promises provisions for these things during such an agreement would be upheld.

    However – Elizabeth has not actively sought candidacy, as of yet, mostly because she knows that in addition to Republican opposition, she wouldn’t have Obama camp supporters – plus her uncompromising support of other issues such as “any reason okay” abortion does her more harm than good. She does have an interesting idea of “privatizing” birth control by giving extra tax breaks to churches to private organizations to fund birth control, as well as asking the church to take more responsibility it offering it.

    For the Republicans, like Elizabeth Warren, Jeb Bush is the actual frontrunner in everyday American opinion that even some Dems might vote for.

    Despite most of us wanting to avoid anyone named “Bush” or “Clinton”, I can tell you myself from formerly living in Florida, Jeb forged his own path at times, fiercely protective of the environment (as most Republican Floridians were). Florida’s economy grew (slightly) after the crash of 2008, while the rest of us tanked. Though he’s unfortunately clearly still a Bush and wants “tax break for corporations and CEOs/big shareholders”, he is also makes his own statements on the status of our debt, i.e., state debts should be paid before paying debt overseas, which is just good sense. Additionally, his wife being Mexican gives him an interesting perspective on Immigration.

    Having said that, the biggest drawbacks for me, having lived in his state while he was governor, was that he never went after the price-gougers before and during the 2004-2005 hurricanes, as promised, for $100K an offense, who were charging $5 a gallon for water, a loaf of bread, gasoline etc. Instead, he stood on the news and begged for private donations to help us with disaster from people who’d already paid their taxes, turning a blind eye to this “white collar crime”, when the repeated infraction fine of 100K per offense would’ve more than paid for disaster relief.

    Also, he was the governor at the time I told you of the infamous 2004 Florida election, on which I was forced to vote on “marriage being between a man or woman” as part of the 2004 election ballot. This isn’t about gay marriage for me – this is about the government not having a say in private choices and not putting that stuff on my ballot, right or left.

    However, I will say that he is the only candidate thus far (as far as I know) who will bend when it comes to abortion – as opposed to Walker who states “under no circumstances” and Clinton and Warren who say “under any circumstances.” Bush says “incest and rape should be the only legal reasons.”

    Also, don’t rule out Rand Paul from my state just yet. He’s surprisingly come up with some recent interesting ideas regarding us needing to have the right to amend bills/laws passed through Congress after their passage that people are taking notice of. Other things he and the “Tea Party” say scare me, but that one is interesting.

    Speaking of the supposed “Tea Party”, there really isn’t one, they are still mostly just far-right Republicans trying to distance themselves from the Bushes, with a few different ideas by calling themselves “Tea Party Libertarians”, but at least they have some new ideas.

    And that is the biggest problem that I have with our current political system – even if you agree with one candidate only 50% of the time, you end up voting for them because it’s still more than the 25% you agree with the other guy on. There’s just something inherently wrong with voting a president into office you only agree with 50% of the time, but what can anyone do about it?

    • March 15, 2015 at 15:49

      Warren, with the red-indian blood. Her concept of truth is well known across the U.S.

      She’ll be used by the Democrats in the same way they turned on Blair over here. It was obvious Blair was a socialist so the left first labelled him “right wing” [LOL] and then were able to vilify him in typical left factionalism. Over there, the damage done by Obama is so great that no one can own him, so the left need someone who will vilify both him and the Clintons as the bad old days. Nothing to do with the New Innocent Democrats of course.

      Remember the left mantra:

      1. None of our policies can ever go wrong – it was other factors.
      2. We are the good guys. Period. The one we all voted for was not truly of us.

      Jeb Bush – yes, clearly up there with them. Rand Paul – dark horse, as you say.

      but what can anyone do about it?

      Vote for a candidate who is outside this club. Admittedly, that’s easier to do over here as there is an obvious candidate but over there, yes, it’s not so easy.

      Tea Party – there isn’t one

      That’s true – it had its time two mid-terms ago. Had to smile at “far right” – dead giveaway of a leftist, LOL. We won’t bicker over your definition, against most people’s that they are “ordinary Americans”, not far anything but actually dead-center. LOL again.

      Thank you though for the overall analysis – food for thought. [Oh and adored Timothy 1. 😉 ]

  2. Chrysalis
    March 15, 2015 at 16:20

    P.S Actually, I believe there is a “far left” as much as there is a “far right” – it’s just the Tea Party is organized. The far left (who aren’t full-on communists) have no official title. However, I DID mention them above as “The Obama Camp” opposing Elizabeth Warren? 😉

    Whatever box you feel you need to put me in, just know I consider myself a “left-leaning libertarian” actually. I’m sorry, but I refuse to use the terms “conservative” and “liberal” anymore because I believe, at least here in America, the sudden resurgence of those terms was specific Republican PR strategy for within the last 10 years so they could distance themselves from the Bushes and people would still listen to them 😉

  3. james wilson
    March 15, 2015 at 20:22

    What is the far right in America? Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Adams? What remains of the far right in America is tiny but their behavior is admirable, the style of people who have mastered difficult understandings and those understandings have also informed them that they have lost what was gained by generations long past. Understanding has to be it’s own reward because it is the only reward. The far left is huge and ever growing. It answers to many different sweet smelling names, all the better to think well of itself.

    Walker jumps ahead in the polls because he is the only candidate to have actually done what he said he would do, at any cost, including failure. I like him for that, and for what else horrifies the left, that he does not have a college degree. But it is hard to imaging he is the man with the imagination to really take on Washington, if such a thing is possible in the first place. If the left had a rational moment, which of course they cannot, they would realize it is in their best interest to have a Walker in the executive to clean up the worst of their wreakage or there will be nothing left to wreak in their next go.

    • Chrysalis
      March 15, 2015 at 21:17

      I’m not sure if Mr. Wilson’s question was for me, considering I was the one that mentioned the “far right” – if so, may I respond?

      First, I actually agree that Walker does seem to follow through on what he promises. In fact, most of my assessment above is weighing the pros and cons of each as I’ve gleaned thus far, and not ruling anyone out automatically because of what hat they “say” they wear (because to me, people are individuals before the groups they belong to, and I don’t let a few bad apples like GWB and OB spoil the whole bunch.) However, perhaps I didn’t mention that positive or any positives for that matter.

      Perhaps it’s more difficult for me with Walker because IMO, he is the least like Jefferson, Washington and the Adams out of the contenders. As separatists, those men would roll over in their graves rather than taking a public stance on hard-line legislation of gay marriage, abortion, jewish/muslim/christian issues etc. as being religious issues, due to their firm stance on separation of church and state. He allows no room for “gray areas” that will come up, when that was the entire purpose of leaving the constitution so vague and the Supreme Court.

      As an additional note, I also doubt our forefathers designed the first amendment and our right to freedom of speech to protect just one opinion, PC or not – and they definitely did not design it (nor did people die in battle) to protect people who just want the right to continue to speak and act like a (bleep) without consequence.

      I don’t think the government should stop them unless that speech incites violence, but if they continue to speak and act like a (bleep), they really can’t cry when people treat them like one then either, IMO.

      And let’s face it, as far as accusations of any politician I’ve listed above as “lying”, these people were mostly all lawyers before they were politicians – propaganda/PR was their job – try and get you to focus on what they wanted and distract you from what they don’t want you to know. PR is necessary for both business and politics and it’s not inherently ‘evil’ unless it’s not true or actually suppresses evidence.

      And if anyone believes your candidate at that level doesn’t?

      It’s really time to wake up and smell the Kool-Aid because they ALL do it, it was their former job.

      Regardless, it’s not our job to silence “lawyer” rhetoric – propaganda or not – because it’s still free speech. If they are lawyers, then we are the jury, having heard both sides fully, rolling our eyes at rhetoric, weighing ALL presented evidence, sift out the basic truths and make a decision based on the information we have at the time.

      Because as I’ve said before, I don’t focus as much on these used-care salesman/lawyer message-bearers themselves, as I do their message – most of them have crappy motivations for what they support anyway, many not even privately supporting the public issues they ascribe to (much like Thomas Jefferson’s “all men are created equal” versus his private slave ownership).

      But if the message is right, I’ll vote it, regardless of the flawed message bearer 🙂

  4. james wilson
    March 16, 2015 at 19:53

    There are no far right candidates in America, nor are there even conservative
    candidates– just as there are none in England. Under universal suffrage every
    fool votes, rich and poor, and there are many more who are dependent than who
    are rich. The difference in the poor today is that in the “progressive” politics
    of universal suffrage they are almost without exception takers, and that
    unfortunate condition has bled into the middle class as well. An entire class
    of issues can no longer be discussed in elector politics without committing
    suicide, so after a time neither can they even be thought. What we are reduced
    to identifying as a conservative is someone who defends the radical positions of
    the left from two or three generations past while the left is staking out new
    radical positions, and we are even grateful for him.

    In other words, Chrysalis, you are on the right of the left wing, a Republican.
    Your understanding of the Founders could be improved if you actually read their
    letters. They abhor nearly everything you think they stood for. Here’s a little
    clue: there are and can be no “tax breaks” for corporations, because they never
    should have been taxed in the first place. But you are so far removed from their
    understandings that you cannot begin to imagine a life without corporate tax
    schemes, which has been entirely scrubbed from your thought process.

Comments are closed.