Gov. Scott Walker: "Governors Make Much Better Presidents Than Members Of Congress"

Real Clear Politics ^ | 11/09/2014 | RCP

[SMCC1]

Video

[C. Edmund Wright]

do you know how irrelevant and brain dead that question is? Gee wiz dude, what, 50-60 years ago? Different world now.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Don’t get me wrong, I like Walker and would happily vote for him - and I see the potential for him being a winning candidate. I stand by my only criticism, which is that this comment, like the similar one from Rick Perry - is shamelessly self serving and comes from an agenda.

[Lazamataz]

Isn’t that a touch harsh?

[C. Edmund Wright]

Sorry for the rant about the McCarthy post - but what “sconcin” was like 65 years ago has zip zero nada to do with today. Besides, I was making a generalization about Wisconsin conservatives - not every single one of them - and I stand by the fact that due to being from such a liberal state, there is that inner liberal lurking.

Some of it came popping out of Walker’s mouth during Romney’s campaign in fact. It was awful. Remember what I’m talking about?

[C. Edmund Wright]

Yes, and I apologized in the very next post.....:)

[Lazamataz]

Good on you! :)

[C. Edmund Wright]

I have my moments.....:)

[Lazamataz]

We’ll try to forget this accidental bit of manners. We have reputations to uphold! :)

[Dr. Sivana]

Gee wiz dude, what, 50-60 years ago? Different world now.

Agreed. But having just lived in Wisconsin, I make the case can be made that it is going to be a different world again.

I laughed reading the articles claiming the Republicans would have a 100 year majority in the House. I also laugh at articles claiming there is a blue wall for presidential elections, as the same people were writing about the natural Republican advantage in the electoral college a few years ago.

No, this is not the Wisconsin of Joe McCarthy, and the Wisconsin flavor of politics tends to be more pragmatist. Even conservatives found things to like in Dem William Proxmire. Paul Ryan and Ron Johnson may have a little too much Chamber of Commerce in their blood for our liking, but are still miles ahead of the northeastern version of same. Tammy Johnson was unchallenged to portray herself as being a mild, reasonable deviant, which is how she got in. Scott Walker has goaded the left into exposing themselves Baldwin cleverly avoided the fray, and Tommy Thompson was running 1994's campaign and wouldn't force her hand.

New Hampshire's arch-conersvatives are in more recent memory than Wisconsin's, but New Hampshire is far more gone. Is Cong. Sensenbrenner enough of a true conservative Wisconsinite, if you need a current example?

[Dr. Sivana]

I stand by my only criticism, which is that this comment, like the similar one from Rick Perry - is shamelessly self serving and comes from an agenda.

Agreed. But if Walker is thinking for going after the big prize, that is the EXACT kind of distinction that can honestly be made to carve out a voting bloc. It also happens to be mostly true, with Cruz being a likely exception, as he doesn't just live behind a bunch of 55-45 votes, but will stand as one of a handful (and taking the lead as needed) in a group of three or so.

Walker might be the best we could get that wouldn't lead to an outright split in the party. But we might well NEED a split in the party (with the crony capitalists who bolt replaced by non-voting populists or a certain flavor of Dem who cannot abide Richie Rich types like Romney and Kerry). Walker's and Cruz' positive traits are to some degree mutually exclusive.

[C. Edmund Wright]

But if Walker is thinking for going after the big prize, that is the EXACT kind of distinction that can honestly be made to carve out a voting bloc

That's conventional wisdom, and as such, a ton of people will agree knee jerk. But the history of conventional wisdom is that it is almost always wrong "upon further review." The way to win a primary is to run against your general election opponent better than the other candidates can run against the general election opponent. Consultants don't understand this. Think 2011-12: when Newt was doing this, which was at two separate times in the campaign, he was routing the field and motivating high turn out. When no one was doing this, the turn outs tanked and the race was horrible. Think about it..."upon further review."

[Dr. Sivana]

The way to win a primary is to run against your general election opponent better than the other candidates can run against the general election opponent.

Each primary season has its own dynamic. The way to win the nomination is to get a majority of delegates.

[C. Edmund Wright]

okay smart aleck, let me be CLEAR.

The way to win the primary IF YOU WANT A SNOWBLLS CHANCE IN HELL OF WINNING THE GENERAL is to do what I said. And no, straying off that dynamic will NOT work.

Dems ran their entire last three primaries against BUSH. Almost worked in 04 and damned sure did work in 08 and 12.

[Theodore R.]

Walker’s statement is a myth. It takes someone with principle and a willingness to stick to principle; that is what is lacking.

[Finny]

But we might well NEED a split in the party (with the crony capitalists who bolt replaced by non-voting populists or a certain flavor of Dem who cannot abide Richie Rich types like Romney and Kerry).

Crony capitalists aren't going to bolt the Republican party. They're going to stay right there insisting that they are the "grown ups" if only because they have the most money to finance and support what passes for them as "Republicans." Philosophically, that they are even in the party at all, let alone at the top of its 2012 presidential ticket, means I am apparently in the wrong party now.

UNLIKE ten or 15 years ago, now I am wiser and don't care what frikkin' party the candidate is in -- if he or she is a depraved amoral government pusher or worse, a morally bankrupt liar and overt cheater like Cochran, then I sure as hell will vote whatever way I can to weaken that candidate whether it's a Republican, a Democrat, OR BOTH. It's physics. Thinking you've just elected wankers like Cochran because it will help create a "good" Republican majority, is like thinking you can get away with making sweet orange juice from rotten lemons you've just purchased. It's material, it's physics. You get what you vote for, especially if what you vote for WINS.

From where I'm sitting, the scenario of "crony capitalists who bolt" the party looks like extreme wishful thinking. I think that unless a miracle happens in less than two years, the GOP will lumber forward nominating a leftist functional Democrat Republican for the 2016 presidential race. IF that happens, and your crony capitalists stay in the party, WE are the ones who will have to bolt to a third party.

The "holding their feet to the fire" thing can work in Congress with regard to Republicans, but it would always get a body blow the opposite direction under the administration of a functional Democrat Republican White House administration, especially if that president had a voter majority mandate.

It could even be that the best way to preserve the Republican party would be to vote "Independent" in 2016 so as to pull a Perot and make sure that whoever wins has a disgraceful plurality "mandate." It's the best we can do, and though I didn't vote for Perot, in retrospect I see that Clinton's plurality status both elections HELPED the Republican Revolution to succeed.

[Dr. Sivana]

Crony capitalists aren't going to bolt the Republican party. They're going to stay right there insisting that they are the "grown ups" if only because they have the most money to finance and support what passes for them as "Republicans."

That may well be true, in which case they would have to be treated as the non-base that they should be. Their money has earned them a disproportionate amount of fealty, and it is chasing out votes that could (and should) be ours. A lot of people are temperamentally Reagan Democrats, especially in the northern industrial region.

[BlackElk]

Myth Romney was and is: pro-abortion, pro-the entire "gay" agenda; a gun grabber; a tax hiker; the ultimate crony "capitalist;" a man who started a "business" to collect and dispose of the broken corpses of the unborn murdered at abortion mills; he is a spoiled rich brat with an apparently guilty conscience endemic to the breed who is actually worse than his idiot father George. Myth is an absolute enemy of folks who work with their hands for a living. Without oceans of corrupt Wall Street/K Street $$$$. If you are thrilled by Thad Cockroach, you will be thrilled by Myth Romney.

If Myth was in the middle of his second term, we would have a LOT of trouble seeing him as any better than we see Obozo. Any private sector job that could be outsourced to the Third World WOULD be so outsourced. Myth's judicial appointments would cause your skin to flay itself just as much as Obozo's. Envirowhacko? Check! Affirmative action of ALL kinds? Check! Atrophy the military? You bet! Kiss the backsides of foreign tyrants for trade deals? Yep! What on earth to some here see in this POS?

We have young candidates; principled candidates; CONSERVATIVE candidates! Ted Cruz, Joni Ernst, Cory Gardner, Scott Walker, Nikki Haley, and a host of others. Who needs Myth? Certainly not conservatives and not the USA.

[BlackElk]

Good for you! And I would join you. I live near Ryan’s district and I would never vote for him.

[Alberta's Child]

Right. I was referring to his leadership capacity, and nothing more.

Interestingly, a lot of candidates who are on the "right" side from a political standpoint are incapable of being a good President for a whole different set of reasons. Rick Santorum is a good case in point.

[Finny]

If Myth was in the middle of his second term, we would have a LOT of trouble seeing him as any better than we see Obozo. Any private sector job that could be outsourced to the Third World WOULD be so outsourced. Myth's judicial appointments would cause your skin to flay itself just as much as Obozo's. Envirowhacko? Check! Affirmative action of ALL kinds? Check! Atrophy the military? You bet! Kiss the backsides of foreign tyrants for trade deals? Yep! What on earth do some here see in this POS?

Great post!!! As for the answer to your question -- the ONLY thing they see is that he isn't Obama. It's very much like seeing something better in rotten hamburger because the rotten cheeseburger is so frightening. It isn't what they see, it's what they don't see that fools them. Hey, Elk, I used to be the same way! I woke up in 2012.