In this context of inquiring what candidates have actually done we read the post of Democrat_media who lists 17 remarkable accomplishments Scott Walker. Against that we have the record of Ted Cruz in the Senate where his options were certainly fewer than those of the Governor of a state but his record is nevertheless credible in opposing Harry Reid and, more significantly, Mitch McConnell.
And that brings us to the next consideration besides, "compared to whom" which is, "against whom." Both Walker and Cruz have splendidly passed this test, both of them are proven warriors against established and entrenched Democrat power blocs. Cruz has fewer battles to his credit and almost no victories but he does hold the edge in making war against the Republican establishment, perhaps because he was in position to do so.
Looking at the history of both men over all, I conclude they are, as far as politicians go, good bets to hold to conservatism once they gain higher office and that means they will have to make war on two fronts against a common foe, the Democrats and their henchmen in the media as well as against the Republican establishment and their henchmen on K St. and on Wall Street. These are daunting challenges for any president.
In judging these men we look at their weaknesses on immigration and I think that Cruz has overcome his H–1B position by his vigorous opposition to amnesty. Anyway, there are arguments on both sides of the H-1B debate concerning truly high tech candidates. The problem as I see it is that people in Silicon Valley are not above exploiting these candidates to drive down wages. But I am not fully knowledgeable about these facts. Any weakness Scott Walker has concerning immigration is compensated for by his courageous history of doing what he says he will do in office him him him and he has explicitly abandoned the dark side for the light.
If we apply these tests to the next rung of conservative candidates, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, they do not score nearly as high and Marco Rubio is virtually disqualified by his treacherous alliance with The Gang of 8 on amnesty. As Churchill says, he "re-ratted" as best could but Marco Rubio has betrayed a callow side to his character which leaves me terribly uneasy, even while conceding his considerable rhetorical skills. Rand Paul has taken on the Obama administration in his filibuster against drone strikes (and he won where Ted Cruz failed) but he has not shown much disposition to take on the Republican establishment. He cut his deal with Mitch McConnell.
I end where I began, in support of either Cruz or Walker and in that order.
