Sometimes it really feels that those politicians (Woodrow Wilson comes to mind) with a nuanced, sophisticated and academic background do not always become the best leaders. Sometimes rather simple minded (Ronnie Reagan comes to mind) can be more effective leaders precisely because they do not get overwhelmed by nuance. Don't you think that Walker may just be too stupid for the job?
Let's look at the record. He promised he'd create 250,000 private-sector jobs in his first four years. Less than half that number were actually created, and Wisconsin underperformed most Midwest states as well as the national average. He promised he'd balance the budget. He produced a projected $2 billion deficit for the 2015-17 biennium. Failing at his employment goals, last year he touted an $800 million tax cut as the way to create jobs. Minnesota's Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton didn't follow Walker's standard ALEC policy playbook. The result? Unemployment in Minnesota is 3.7%, while the unemployment rate in Scott Walker's "open for business" Wisconsin is 5.2%. And while Wisconsin legislators struggle with that $2 billion deficit, liberal Gov. Dayton's Minnesota just can't agree on what to do with their almost $2 billion surplus. Walker's refusal of Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act will cost our state $345 million over the next two years and result in 81,000 fewer Wisconsinites being covered. That's right, we're paying more to cover fewer people. He turned back $810 million, again of our own federal taxes, that would have gone to a high-speed rail system knitting together Chicago, Milwaukee and Madison. That system would have been up and running now for over a year if he hadn't narrowly won election in 2010. So just between Medicaid and rail alone, Walker has turned his back on over $1.1 billion in federal resources that will just be spent in some other state. Did I mention he's running a $2 billion deficit? A candidate cannot be too stupid to get the job if he knows how to get enough stupid voters to support him.
Reagan was not as partisan-driven as Walker and most other modern Republicans are. Walker will get into office and be President of the Republican Party, not President of the US. Reagan, for all his faults, did what he thought was good, party be damned. Most modern GOP candidates do not have that kind of fortitude. Just look at how quickly Rand Paul folded on his anti-war, pro-weed position as soon as he stepped in a room full of evangelicals.
Mary Burke's talking points. LOL Wisconsin outperformed most midwest states over the last 3 years. They went back to the day he got into office to get the "last in the midwest" numbers. The Journal Sentinel fact checked Burke's campaign for claiming that and called her a liar. The $2 billion deficit is a lie and has been repeatedly exposed. But people like you are ignorant and so the Dems keep repeating it because they know you will keep falling for it. http://watchdog.org/204843/wisconsin-budget-scott-walker/ The high speed rail is a complete and utter joke. No one wants it and even the most optimistic estimates show that it will be a huge money sink. Milwaukee is also far to spread out for light rail to be efficient. This isn't New York. I am fine with refusing to expand Medicare because the government only has to cover it for 2 years. After that they can withdraw or adjust the rates how they see fit just like they have done with Medicare reimburesment rates. Remember when the government said they would pay all that money? All that being said. I have lost faith in Walker because he managed to completely flip flop on THREE major issues in just two weeks. He flipped on ethanol, immigration and Right to Work which he said initially he was going to veto.
Interesting reading: So why would Walker be a bad choice? Three reasons. The world is a dangerous place. We can't afford another commander-in-chief with no foreign policy experience who doesn't understand America's role in the world. As the governor of Wisconsin -- as opposed to U.S. senator (Rand Paul, Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz) or a former U.N. ambassador (John Bolton) -- Walker's diplomatic experience is limited to settling disputes with Minnesota during football season. He would be learning on the job while rogue actors like ISIS, Iran, Russia and North Korea threaten Americans, create unrest and perpetuate acts of terror. There are times to look to the states and elect leaders who can focus the nation's attention on domestic priorities like the economy, and there are times to look for leaders with a firm handle on foreign policy because the stakes are too high to gamble on that front. Guess which era we're living in. Built-in enemies are extra baggage. Walker has repeatedly fought organized labor in Wisconsin -- over collective bargaining, an attempted recall, running for re-election -- and scored impressive victories. But Walker has also antagonized that special interest, which will spend tens of millions of dollars in the presidential election to settle the score. Unions might otherwise feel ambivalent about a Hillary Clinton candidacy, especially with the prospect of an insurgent campaign by Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who would likely embrace more firmly the divisive rhetoric about income equality that union members love to hear. If Walker is the GOP nominee, ambivalence will be trumped by anger. An activated and animated base of union supporters throwing money at the Democrats is a headache that Republicans don't need. Finally, courage matters. Walker is not eager to grab hold of thorny issues. On immigration, he likes sound bites, declaring his opposition to "amnesty" and his support for "securing the border." He uses platitudes about how ours is "a country both of immigrants and of laws." During a recent appearance on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," host Martha Raddatz asked Walker what he would do about the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants. The governor responded that, while he didn't support the immigration bills in Congress, he did think the debate needs a "healthy balance" and he was not "advocating" the deportation of all illegal immigrants. Finally, he said, "we need to enforce the laws in the United States, and we need to find a way for people to have a legitimate legal immigration system in this country, and that does not mean amnesty." Clear as mud, eh? Walker also has difficulty on common-sense issues that should not be all that thorny, like evolution. On a trip to London this week, presumably intended to beef up his "foreign policy credentials," the governor bobbled a question on the topic and had to issue a follow-up statement. The only benefit that Republicans could reap from nominating Walker is that, while he is probably not ready to lead the country, he could settle an argument within the party that the GOP must resolve and put behind it if Republicans are ever going to win another presidential election. Most of the conservatives I know who think Walker should be the GOP nominee are convinced that Republicans keep making the same mistake of nominating moderates. The secret to beating Democrats, they say, is to draw contrasts and stay true to conservative principles. Republicans are confused: Do they nominate a moderate with wider appeal or a "true conservative" loyal to the party's principles? The way that those on the far right see it, they've failed twice with a moderate nominee (Sen. John McCain of Arizona in 2008, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in 2012). If the party nominates another moderate in 2016 (former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, former New York Gov. George Pataki, etc.), and loses again, that faction will continue to delude itself into thinking that the GOP must nominate a rigid conservative to win. There is only one cure for this delusion: Republicans need to scratch that itch and nominate a person they believe to be a strong conservative. Walker will do nicely. And when they nominate him, and lose anyway, they can put this argument to rest. Republicans will have run out of excuses. Only then, can they achieve the epiphany that could save them from going the way of the Whigs: Voters aren't just rejecting the GOP's messenger but its message.
Meanwhile, concerned Cheeseheads themselves are currently posing the pertinent question: If Scotty can hold onto his support from the Kochs and Adelman, he'll be the the 2016 model Willard - or, at least, the GOP's latest Fred Thompson. What other Repub has a realistic chance of being chosen by the American electorate to lead the nation?
The GOP's elite do not share the ideological fanatics' death wish of imposing Evangatollah Sam's disastrous Red State Model on the nation. Turdblossom's War on the TPs was already largely won by the time the Turtle fulfilled his giddy boast that the party's pampered denizens would "crush them everywhere!". The record-low voter turn-out of '14 was the dissidents' last fetid gasp; when they could not make even feeble inroads in their party's internal brawling under such ideal circumstances, it was time for the GOP's pragmatic leaders to pull the plug concerning any national aspirations the wacko birds might harbour. I expect that the evolution punter will evoke much sound and fury from right wing media entertainers and their rabid fan base, signifying nothing. The show must go on, but will the GOP's fat cats surrender the White House by nominating Walker, assured that their control of Congress will perpetuate their ongoing concentration of the nation's wealth? Meanwhile, the American electorate remains overwhelmingly centrist, and political party bosses attuned to existential realities. .
Based upon what I've read about Wisconsin Scott Walker can't even govern a state very well. http://legis.wisconsin.gov/senate/shilling/PressReleases/Pages/Wisconsin-faces-staggering-$1.8-billion-budget-deficit.aspx
maybe you can explain why the State of Wisconsin has elected him 3 times now? Just a guess here but I would think that the people of the State of Wisconsin would know more about how he ran their state than some Democratic shills. Or maybe you just believe that the people of the state of Wisconsin are stupid, my self I am willing to believe that by electing him as many times as they have that they are pretty pleased with hs performance\, What do you say ?
Once again. Its not a deficit, its a shortfall which happens EVERY cycle. Walker has a budget and if you bothered to read the link you would know that it was balanced. The Democrats are claiming a deficit because the various departments are asking for more than Walker's budget allows.
If your defense of Walker is that "It's just business as usual," there is certainly some truth in that: Whatever you wish to believe - even if you must deny the fiscal plight of Kansas under Brownback and Louisiana under Jindal - if you are not inclined to pander to the Kochs' interests and go along with Walker, can you answer Who the man? (Okay, you have license to "punt".)
Walkers approval rating in Wisconsin certainly is not bad Half of registered Wisconsin voters approve of the job Gov. Scott Walker is doing. The Marquette law school released its latest poll numbers Monday. The poll says 51 percent of voters approve of how the Republican governor is handling his job. Another 42 percent disapprove, and 6 percent say they're not sure. Those numbers are generally in line with Walker's recent ratings. His average approval rating has been 49.9 percent, and his disapproval rating has averaged a little over 44 percent. Approval ratings refer to how well people think Walker's doing his job. Their favorability impressions of Walker as a person trend similarly. The poll says 49 percent see him favorably and 44 unfavorably, about the same as in October. The poll interviewed 802 registered votes between Jan. 20 and Thursday. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. http://www.twincities.com/localnews...v-scott-walkers-approval-rating-remains-about
Are you seriously trying to compare the fiscal status of Democratic states versus GOP states. California and Illinois.........nuff said. Your OWN SOURCE says that Doyle the previous Democratic governor did the exact same thing. My cheese you suck at this. There is nothing illegal about it and governors have been doing it forever. You liberals can't even keep your numbers straight. Your first post said a $2 billion dollar deficit, and the next source claims a $283 million deficit. So which is it? At least the second one correctly states that the $2 billion is a shortfall which is completely meaningless in Wisconsin because no matter what the agencies want they are going to get whatever Walker and the legislator allow. I realize that you have a rabid, vitriolic, spittle spewing hatred of Walker but you could at least put some effort into vilifying him. This is just embarrassing. And of course you absolutely must throw KOCH in there because you don't think for yourself.........other people think for you and you just parrot what they want you to. Independent thought is not your strong suit apparently. I am not voting for President in 2016 most likely so I don't really care who the GOP puts up for nomination.
Walker, got my interest when saying he would chose Cabinet Members, LISTEN to them and make decisions based on their advise. For him to win the Presidential Election (if nominated), IMO he would need to be the first Candidate to name those potential advisors, in advance of the election. As was in 2012, he or any Republican Nominee (2016 RNC) will need to pull in the so called "Tea Party". I feel strongly Romney not getting Sarah Palin as the RNC's Keynote Speaker, played a big roll in losing the election, then basically undermining "Eastwood's" (Libertarian) appearance, saying only "it was interesting", kept a lot of Independents from voting. Shiva, Rand Paul should hold off a couple cycles, before running, if for no other reason than the next President (either party) best not be an isolationist. In fairness, I'm going to be active for Rick Perry's primary run, feeling experiences for the person, have never been more important, and I emphasize NEVER.
Are you desperately trying to avoid commenting on fiscal disasters occasioned by ideological zealots such as Brownback's self-proclaimed Red State Model? In case you refuse to take note, it has landed his state in a fiscal pickle. Can't say that I blame you for your avoidance and attempt to contrive a diversion, though. Yes, that's exactly what I explained to you - that I was supplying support for your "It's just business as usual in Wisconsin under Walker!" argument. And that was not the first time that I had propped up your contention with a pertinent citation: I'm afraid that I can't help you with those "liberals!" in your head, but, yes, Bloomberg reports that Walker, confronting "a $283 million deficit that needs to be closed by the end of June, will skip more than $100 million in debt payments to balance the books," whereas the LaCrosse Tribune had reported on Walker's "projected $2.2 billion deficit." Please try to pay attention. If you are unable to proffer an alternative GOP presidential candidate to Walker, I accept that, but don't imagine your inability to do so is not revelatory or unique amongst the GOP's hardcore. Far from it.
there are months before the GOP needs to start making any decision and plenty of people who have caught my eye. I like Walker a lot, does not mean he will get my vote in the primaries yet. I ccould just as easily switch to Rubio, Huckabee or Kasich. Competition in primaries is a good thing when you have solid candidates like the GOP has. Just glad the GOP is unlike the Democratic party who have to keep using baling wire to hold on the fenders and duct taping the tires on their only candidate. Democratic party is a complete joke this cycle
So which is it? Is it $2 billion like you first claimed or is it $283 million like you claimed in the last post? You can't even make up your own mind. Your argument is NOT "business as usual". Your entire premise is Republicans are fiscally bad for states. Texas and California are the two largest states with virtually identical demographics. California has substantially more debt than Texas. Why would I care about Brownback? As I said, if you think Kansas is in such bad shape why are you not harping on California and Illinois which are in far worse shape. I know why its because those states are run by liberals and Kansas isn't. And yes Illinois just elected a Republican but he didn't get into office until January of this year so don't even try and blame Illinois massive debt on him. Your selective outrage is duly noted. I never claimed there isn't alternatives to Walker, there are currently about two dozen of them. I said I probably won't vote in 2016 and it has nothing to do with Walker or any other GOP candidate. Unlike you, I am not a shrill partisan mindless drone that just parrots what I am told. I happen to like split government and so long as the GOP maintains firm control of the House and Senate I would prefer Democrat in office. I just refuse to actually vote for a Democrat so I will most likely sit it out.
You clearly did not hear about his extensive memoirs that he wrote. Even liberals were impressed by how much thought he put into decisions. Only a partisan hack liberal is stupid enough to believe that all Republicans are evil and stupid.
He didn't get a bachelor's degree - and? Neither did Washington or Lincoln. Some ten more, to include Truman and Monroe, didn't either. It's not a big deal. I'm not a big fan of Walker because he's risen up on fighting the Unions - I want a nominee who's risen up campaigning for liberty. The Union bit is a winning part of the old GOP, but it's time we get a libertarian candidate. Libertarianism is quite likely the future of the GOP.
You're still not paying attention. You seem to labour under the misconception that deficits are somehow immutable regardless of the timeframe. As noted, Walker's budget hijinks result in a $283 million deficit that needs to be close by the end of June. At the same time, it is Gov. Scott Walker’s own administration [that] is projecting a $2.2 billion deficit heading into the 2015-17 budget cycle. Are you now attacking his own numbers? You may find this article will help you. (Contrast the plight of Wisconsin with neighbouring Minnesota with it's projected $1.9 billion surplus.) Wrong. There are both responsible Republican and Democratic state administrations that are doing well amidst the national economic upswing. It is radical TP economics that has been disastrous for states. I back up your "business as usual" perspective on Walker without sparing his Democratic predecessor. To remind you of my citation that equated them: “They’re both borrowing for transportation, they’re both skating on thin ice as far as budget balances, they both have what CPAs call GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) deficit issues. In terms of numbers, fiscal nuts and bolts, they’re pretty similar. And that would, I think, surprise people. We seem to do the same things over and over and over again, make the same mistakes.” I can readily understand your attempts to avoid addressing what TP economics has inflicted on Kansas and Louisiana, but in so doing you actually blunder into California? Hey, if I had been a proponent of TP economics, I'd be disavowing his disastrous Red State Model as well! Glad you've been able to narrow it down. Who might give Walker a run for Koch's money for the GOP nomination? Well, dozens of guys not worth mentioning by name, of course.
And there we go with the Koch brothers again. Why did you post a POLL about Brown in CA? California has the highest debt per capita of any state. Of the top ten states 8 of them are liberal states, one is purple and one is conservative. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-most-debt-ridden-states-in-america-2011-10 You keep harping on Kansas, but Kansas doesn't even make the top ten list of states with debt, neither does Louisiana. Wisconsin also didn't make the list. 8 out of 10 of the top most debt ridden states are liberal California New York Texas New Jersey Illinois Ohio Pennsylvania Florida Michigan Connecticut
Because you insinuated California into the conversation, and you did not seem aware of Californians' enthusiastic support for their governor and his budget policies. The governors of states like Kansas, Louisiana and Wisconsin that have blown surpluses and/or confront mounting deficits as a consequence of radical policies do not evoke such impressive support amongst their residents. You may wish to spend your time searching for a GOP presidential candidate whom you could support and would dare to name rather that dictating to folks in the various states whether they should approve of their governor's budgetary oversight. When I explain the facts to you - such as Gov. Scott Walkers own administration projecting that $2.2 billion deficit heading into the 2015-17 budget cycle - you just become upset, and try to contrive diversions. The thread is about Scotty Walker. Is he is the best GOP nominee for '16? If you think not not, do you have a preference you are willing to name?
