[SoConPubbie]

Sure, in the same way that in 1980 Reagan was the backup establishment candidate if George Bush (as they called Papa Bush back then) failed.
No, not even close.

In the sense that he is much closer, policy wise, to the GOP-E policy platform: Amnesty, compromise or walk away from Social Conservative issue fights, and don't upset too many people:

Scott Walker to tea partiers: Let’s focus on taking out Democrats, not our fellow Republicans

Scott Walker: Gay Marriage Fight Is 'Over In Wisconsin'

Walker Says Legislature Shouldn't Focus On Right-To-Work Bill Next Session

YouTube Link: Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, in his own words, endorses a path to citizenship for Illegal Aliens and an Open Border Policy in July of last year.

I also have not been able to find any quote/statement by Walker where he calls for the complete repeal of Obamacare like Ted Cruz has, instead, he uses Obamacare, in effect, surrendering on this issue:

In Wisconsin, Obamacare with a twist

Those are not the actions of a Ronald Reagan type conservative!

CRUZ or LOSE!

[SoConPubbie]

I also have not been able to find any quote/statement by Walker where he calls for the complete repeal of Obamacare like Ted Cruz has

I take that back, just found one:

Walker: Repeal Common Core

Too bad he wants it both ways by moving Wisconsin citizens into Obamacare at the same time

In Wisconsin, Obamacare with a twist

[napscoordinator]

Scott Walker to tea partiers: Let’s focus on taking out Democrats, not our fellow Republicans

What is wrong with that statement? Goodness no wonder we lose the Presidential when the Republicans yell and scream at each other for months and let the Democrats get a free ride.

[TADSLOS]

It’s Ted Cruz or another November fishing trip.

[x]

Those are not the actions of a Ronald Reagan type conservative!

Look up Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. You can also look up Reagan's "Eleventh Commandment".

I know some people want to believe that there has always been a civil war and unlasting enmity between the two sides of the Republican Party, but once Reagan was established as the likely nominee in 1980, there wasn't much objection from the "Establishment." Not if you compare it too some of the more divisive elections in our history.

Sure, there were the expected fights over abortion at the convention, and one very liberal candidate (John Anderson) ran a third party campaign, but there weren't walkouts or bitter disputes and the party elite or Establishment fell in line behind Reagan. Anderson got support from liberal Democrats and people who weren't likely to vote for any Republican, not from established GOP bigwigs.

One big reason why there was no party split and little disaffection was that Reagan invited George Bush and James Baker and other Bushites or moderates into his administration. Reagan knew when to fight and when to compromise. He was the acknowledged leader of the conservatives -- there weren't all these factions promoting their own narrow agenda and particular favorites -- and the rest of the party also gave him their support, sometimes grudgingly, sometimes gladly.

If we had the situation we have today, Phil Crane or John Connolly or somebody else would have cozied up to some particular conservative faction and split the movement. Reagan might never have become president. If Scott Walker isn't the one and only love of some faction, it doesn't mean that he's on the same page or in the same lane as Jeb Bush. It could mean that he has the kind of unifying potential that Reagan had. I'm not saying there's an exact comparison -- I'm not saying he'll be the best candidate or win -- I'm just talking issue with some of the logic (or illogic) in the article.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Bookmarked, thanks. Please keep posting this.