Skip to comments.Scott Walker to tea partiers: Let’s focus on taking out Democrats, not our fellow Republicans
Posted on 05/18/2014 2:57:03 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Some righties are grumbling about this, but c’mon. No one expects a Republican governor who’s up for reelection in a blue state to lead the “throw the RINOs out!” movement. Besides, this makes strategic sense if I’m right about Walker’s niche in the 2016 field. I see him as an establishment/tea party “hybrid” candidate who’ll challenge Christie from the right (especially on social issues) and whoever emerges as the tea-party favorite from the center (especially on immigration). His war with the left over collective bargaining reform in Wisconsin is already so legendary that there’s practically nothing he could do to ruin his conservative cred before the primaries. He’ll be acceptable to tea partiers. His task now is to make sure he’s acceptable to establishmentarians too before they settle on Christie and one obvious way to do that is to discourage tea partiers from challenging Republican incumbents. He opposed the shutdown for similar reasons, I assume, saying at the time, “I support limited government. But I want the government left to work.” That might well be his 2016 campaign slogan — and Christie’s too. Christie will simply have a harder time selling it to righties than Walker will. There may well be a new debt-ceiling standoff next month over ObamaCare (or maybe not). How do you suppose Walker will come down on that one?
Is this true, though?
[G]o and help in those elections [against vulnerable Democrats] and elect new Republicans because a year from now things will be much different if Republicans hold the United States Senate.
How? Obama might have to use his veto a lot more next year, but that’s fine by him. He’s a lame duck. At best, forcing a lightning rod like O to play goalie against GOP initiatives instead of leaving it to Harry Reid will free up a few centrist Democrats like Joe Manchin to vote with Republicans on hot-button issues knowing that they have no chance of becoming law. And this assumes, of course, that Republicans build on Reid’s precedent and nuke what’s left of the filibuster so that they can pass bills through the Senate with a simple majority. I’m not sure they will. They gain nothing politically from it given the reality of O’s veto and they’ll take a predictable beating for it from lefty hacks in the media (all of whom cheered Reid for nuking the filibuster vis-a-vis executive appointments). Worse, Democrats will be primed to exploit the new rule in 2017: It’s the GOP that’ll be defending the lion’s share of vulnerable seats in the 2016 election, which is bound to have higher Democratic turnout than usual because it’s a presidential election year. It’s worth nuking the rest of the filibuster if/when Republicans once again control the Senate and the White House. Before then, why?
The only important difference in having GOP control of the Senate next year is that Republicans will be able to veto Obama’s appointments, including/especially Supreme Court appointments. They can still do that now in theory since the filibuster remains in effect for SCOTUS nominees, but if someone on the Court resigns this year, it’s a cinch that Reid will go ahead and nuke that provision too. Having 51 Republicans for the last two years of O’s term would solve that problem going forward — if they hang together and vote unanimously against a bad Obama appointment. You trust Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, John McCain, and Mark Kirk to do that, don’t you?
Scott Walker thinks any Mexican who promises to behave is welcome.
Whatever happens no more Busch names
Remember, Bloomberg claimed to be a republican.
Why are you reposting an article from early January on May 18?
I prefer Cruz, but that is pure BS.
A backstabbing Republican is more dangerous than a full frontal assaulting Democrat
Hey Scott, they are Democrats masquerading as Pubbies. Get lost.
Sometimes, I get the impression that the snake on the Gadsen flag should be replaced with an uroboros .
Walker is a pro-amnesty RINO.
He became something of a conservative folk hero with his union reform, but he had seen Mitch Daniels do something similar without blowback in Indiana and had simply thought it would be an innocuous budget-friendly reform to institute in WI.
Sure, he may try to wrap himself in a tea party cloak in order to run nationally, but we shouldn’t fall for it.
That is not pure BS. Walker has expressly used Mexico as an example in saying that he wants open borders for all who want to come here. He wants us to make it super-easy for every single prospective immigrant to come here legally, so nobody will bother coming here illegally.
Scott Walker is some kind of RINO squish backstabber GOPe favority.
To think I sent the creep money the first time around.
It’s about creating dissension.
It’s okay to support you favorite candidate, nothing wrong with that.
But using the lefts rhetoric makes some of us useful fools.
Scott Walker was fine, when it comes to getting the public sector unions in line. But it turns out his interest was the cheap labor, which ties nicely with his support of the invasion of the US. My impression is he did the right thing for the wrong reason.
Heck, the other day I saw someone on here imply that Walker has “legal troubles.” I seem to think it was the same day the Fed threw out the John Doe.
It would appear to me that there are some on here that would not accept anyone beyond their own selected candidate. And that anyone else is fatally flawed.
As far as I can tell, there ain’t a 100% out there. There are a few in the 80% range, each with their own weaknesses.
But to claim to be conservative, then to lie about others on the right, has got to be amongst the slimiest things that we see the far left do. Which makes me ponder the credentials of these folks.
“[G]o and help in those elections [against vulnerable Democrats] and elect new Republicans because a year from now things will be much different if Republicans hold the United States Senate.”
Where have I heard that one before?
Walker has been an outstanding governor of Wisconsin.....good grief, am I supposed to hate him now, too? Please.
He is not a RINO. He may not line up with you on every issue, but he stood on principles against the unions and won...he deserves to be heard and he is one of very few politicians that does what he says he is going to do...So get a grip...
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.