But it was worth the visit to see what tiny lady she is. I had not idea!
Posted on 02/15/2015 10:37:24 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Good bet for the ‘under’ then, no?
Accomplishment entails compromise and accommodation. What’s wrong with standing on principle?
The last thing we need is another "trainee president". Everything looks easy to a person who has never tried it. The closest experience to leading the country is being a successful governor of a major state.
But it was worth the visit to see what tiny lady she is. I had not idea!
Do you really think Breitbart would come out for a candidate in the primaries?
“Accomplishment entails compromise and accommodation..” Possibly, but necessarily true. Are you suggesting that to be a successful governor one can’t stand on principle?
What does Governor have to do with foreign policy or military command, which are the only real duties of a Presider? Otherwise the Presider just signs bills, or vetoes them once in a long while. He or she may from time to time send over a state of the Union.
>>Are you suggesting that to be a successful governor one can’t stand on principle?
Well Brownback is trying but it isn’t going so well. I might give Sam a pass, but he isn’t running. Huckabee and company, no.
The beauty of the no-full-term-governor thing is it clears the field of all the riffraff, leaving just Cruz, Carson, Paul, Palin and a few others.
I am suggesting that to be successful governor one has to have the ability to accomplish your goals without compromising your principles. The ability to use the power of the office and the bully pulpit in a positive direction to encourage consensus.
Right, at least this early in, on Scott Walker.
Wrong like many other poopooers against Cruz. Don’t blink, he’ll fool ya.
Nobody has experience being the president with foreign policy or military command except a former president.
However governors have experience being the commander of a large sovereign state. That is about as close as one can get.
Designated loser. Yes. He is a True Republican and has put in his Time for the Party and he deserves to be Nominated but he doesn’t actually want to be president. It’s a drag and not for high class people. He will throw the election as his daddy tried to do the first time and succeeded in doing the second time and as Dole and Ford and McCain and Romney did hen they sat for election. Bush 2 didn’t throw himself to the mat but he punched pretty limply.
I have already made my first donation to Cruz - here’s hoping he prevails.
not officially.....but in terms of the tone and amount of coverage.
Drudge didn’t officially “come out” for Walker last week, but it gave him a helluva boost. Ditto’s Rush.
No more Bush! See ya Jeb!
I will not vote for a liberal, including Christie or Bush. Hillary may thank me, but this is a case of liberals battling each other. Neither Christie nor Bush will nominate good judges, balance the budget, address the runaway “entitlement programs,” honor the sovereignty of the states, or anything else conservatives want, so why should I vote for them?
I am done voting for blue state compromises. Walker did great with unions and the budget, but has made miss-steps with the press and is sending mixed signals on immigration. Cruz is my first choice.
I think this is inevitable since Hillary! can't seem to get above 50%. We just have to make sure that WE are not the ones to push the third party candidate because we are not happy with the R ticket. We are in grave danger of splitting the vote on the right and enabling a D win.
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.