Posted on 02/23/2011 5:34:27 AM PST by Kaslin
"I am going to stand with the hard-working taxpayers of Wisconsin." -- Gov. Scott Walker
That is a pretty good place to stand if it comes to that -- as it has in Wisconsin, obviously -- and so arises another obvious point: What about Scott Walker for president?
Just asking. We have to see how the government-union tantrum up there plays out and to whose advantage -- that of the taxpayers or that of union members so attached to the public interest they'd rather mill around the state Capitol shouting slogans than perform the jobs for which they hired on. You know, teaching children to read and such like.
The showdown in Wisconsin over union privileges is, for all the hubbub that comes in its train, a wonderful, wonderful thing: too long in arriving. If Scott Walker pulls this thing off -- if, that is, he manages to tame his state's government worker unions -- he will have demonstrated leadership traits of a sort too little evidenced in 21st-century America.
Now the truth is, one doubts our new hero would actually go for the presidency with so much still on his state plate. And it's early days in his tussle with the public employee unions. Signs look good all the same. The governor's determination in behalf of the democratic principle -- to wit, the people rule -- has driven his critics into the frenzy they should have been in years ago. A weak or watery chief executive, facing the same set of circumstances, would have stalled and maneuvered to come up with a weak, watery compromise that might have made certain things better only in the short run.
What Scott Walker has done thus far is priceless. He has smoked out the public unions -- drawn them into a contest whose effect is to show what side they really are on. Were the public unions on the public's side, we would hardly have seen 70,000 or so of their members, teachers included, trying to browbeat elected public officials into doing things their way.
The main officials they managed to browbeat were the 14 Democratic senators who, like thieves in the night, stole away to Illinois to avoid letting the democratic process work as intended. It was one more lesson for the students whose teachers didn't show up: When the going gets tough, the morally flabby leave town.
Walker's proposal that makes public employees chip in for their health care and benefits as well as limits their collective bargaining rights is virtuous and necessary, the more so in straitened economic times.
Negotiations between the government and the people who work for it shut out the public, whose taxes fund whatever the government does. You can boycott a company that rolls over and plays dead for the unions: not so with the government itself, unless you know a secret cave in the Rockies.
President Reagan's dismissal of striking air traffic controllers in 1981 was recognition of the essential truth that that no union enjoys the power -- the legitimate power, that is -- to strike against the public weal and safety. The Wisconsin unions need a lesson -- one that professor Obama has shown unwilling to offer.
This brings to mind another bracing aspect of the whole Wisconsin shebang. It is that the states are taking action in their own behalf: not asking for permission from Washington, D.C., just doing it. It is the way a union of sovereign states was supposed to work all along: the people nearest a problem or difficulty fashioning their own approaches to the matter, within a national framework of generally agreed-on rules. Wisconsin is doing just that: figuring out for itself how to close a deficit projected to reach $3.7 billion.
"President Walker"? That may be looking (however joyously) a bit far down the road. But if Scott Walker doesn't seem the kind of leader who might straighten us so far, given time, well, who does -- the Democratic fugitives whose answer to a challenge appears to be, "Quick, gas up the car"?
Who’s jumping on a bandwagon? But the guy shows promise and bears watching. There’s certainly nothing he’s done in his short tenure that has turned me *off*, anyway.
By the way, this proclivity to jump at new talent is IMHO brought about by the sorry lack of much real, experienced leadership in the GOP. When the veterans suck so thoroughly there is a natural tendency to put a lot of responsibility on the shoulders of the rookies.
Powell, Rice, and Thompson were never "vetted". None had government experience as administrators.
Walker ran the largest county in WI for 8 years, then ran for Governor with a viscious campaign against an entrenched dem/lib/prog/pop party.
Not only did he win, but he carried both the state Assembly and the Senate with him in historic proportions.
Your comparisons are woefully wrong....just wrong.
agreed.
Fer Pete’s Sake! Wisconsin has had the guy for about 8 weeks now - and he’s kickin’ @ss and taking names! You all CANNOT have him until he saves my state from the LibTards!
I’ve waiting EIGHT LONG YEARS to have even a thimble-full of HOPE for my state!!
No! I. Said. NO! And I RARELY deny you kids ANYTHING, LOL!
BTW, I'm not one who believes a background in politics is necessary to be an effective POTUS. Character counts and I think that's why we are quick to jump on the bandwagon of those who show some backbone...West, Walker, Christie ...to name a few.
Scott Walker is not Scott Brown. Nor is he Christie.
Walker has ballz and governs better than he campaigns. Walker isn’t a gun control freak like Christie.
OK I LOVE everything about this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Walker_(politician)
In 4-8 years, after he has our state on track, we will give him to the country. He needs more seasoning, but already has far more executive experience than Obama.
So far he has shown the basic gonads required to represent us for the changes we want to reverse this trend of destruction of our country..We have a long way to go...
>> already has far more executive experience than Obama.
Heck, he already has more executive experience than John McCain and Obama put together.
many have been wanting Haley Barbour
>> BTW, I’m not one who believes a background in politics is necessary to be an effective POTUS
In many ways, for an executive office (governor, POTUS) a “background in politics” is an asset during the *campaign*, but a serious DETRIMENT to good governance once the pol gets elected.
There are a lot of good executives in fields other than government that I think would make outstanding Presidents. It’s just too hard for them to get any traction. Plus most of them have more sense than to run for POTUS. :-)
I’m not equating Walker to Brown or Christie. I’m simply saying that Walker’s only been in office for a month. Let the man do his job and watch him. His willingness to stand up to Unions and not back down or capitulate signals a VERY strong character. Provided his character doesn’t fall to pride or politics, I agree, he could be one to watch for 2012.
Some of the responses on this thread are just silly.
We have a LOT of strong, conservative Republicans who are showing leadership. This is NEW. This is GOOD.
I say, BRAVO WALKER. Keep it up.
This is very premature.
With Jan Brewer for VP.
West would get my vote, hands down.
I believe any man or woman who has proven themselves on a battlefield and comes back swinging like West does deserves the vote of every American who truly, deeply cares about America and its future.
He get my vote as well!
Daniels shot himself in the foot yesterday. Even our morning show host here, (younger guy, somewhat conservative but Rino in some areas) stated this morning that he is getting off the Daniels bandwagon b4 getting on it. The host had attended CPAC and came back with rave reviews about Daniels but after yesterday, Daniels is just an after-thought.
Wonder what the voters in IN are thinking...
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.