First and foremost, this newspaper actually sees fit to quote from Glen
Beck's rag, "The Blaze"? You couldn't find any quotes from
the National Enquirer, and had to sink to the next lower level?Secondly, why is it that articles about Scott Walker never mention the John
Doe investigations that are swirling around Scott Walker? The John Doe I probe
dealt with campaign law violations and led to the conviction of 6 people, 4 of
whom were associates/appointees of Walker and one of whom was one of his major
donors. Now Scott Walker's campaign is at the center of another probe (the
John Doe II probe) into criminal activities in the 2011-2012 recall elections.
Does the Deseret News want to push the candidacy of a person with
such close personal ties to campaign finance violations?
I suspect a union-hating union buster like Walker would have appeal to the
retrograde wing of the GOP and to the Deseret News.
Chymist,The Clinton campaign was found guilty of campaign finance
violations. Not just accused by some nobody in the opinion page, but actually
proven. They had to pay back the money they got that was traced to China (said
they didn't know that's where it came from). But I would be careful
about throwing around accusations. Especially if you don't know for sure
they are true, and especially if the person you plan to support next election
was part of a campaign that had actual finance violations.That
said... I don't think Scott Walker has a chance. The radical left has it
out for him seriously (after the tantrum they threw in Wisconsin) which made
occupy-wallstreet look like childsplay. Same group, same philosophy, just more
extreme in Wisconsin. They actually got violent (occupy wallstreet
didn't).If he runs... the leftists will make fools of
themselves protesting, but it will have an impact on the candidate. Nobody
wants a President that radical leftists promise they will go to war IF we elect
him. I guess sometimes radical tactics and intimidation work.
The Republican Party is shot through with anarchists in patriot's clothing.
It will be very hard, maybe impossible, for them to nominate a candidate that
can actually get elected as president in this country.First the
Republican Party needs to come up with a constructive agenda on immigration,
taxes, jobs, foreign policy, military, Social Security, health care, etc., etc.
Everything they can agree to advocate so far seems destructive rather than
constructive. Knowing they have this weakness reduces them to an eternal
defensive posture. They will never get great thinkers or statesmen out of Tea
Party districts.Scott Walker is an okay candidate and has potential,
but by the time the election comes, he will have to have said things that make
him unacceptable to the greater American electorate.
I don't see any Republican hopeful who has the charisma to get elected.Hillary Clinton is our next President, I don't see anybody
challenging her (from either party).Walker isn't up to it IMO.
Walker is duller than dirt. He is not a candidate to get excited about. He could
be the Republican Michael Dukakis.
The continued bashing of Scott Walker is easy to understand. A conservative
Republican wins the governorship of Wisconsin, takes the control of the state
away from the unions and progressives, then wins a recall election and is about
to win the governorship again in one of the most liberal states in the United
States. For the most part, he has relieved the state of the huge deficits and
because of his conservative ideals and principles, it looks like Wisconsin will
be one of the most solvent states in the country. He certainly has the pedigree
to be the next President of the United States. He's run a large business,
the state of Wisconsin unlike our existing President, who has never owned or
operated a business. For that matter, Hillary Clinton, who may run against him
in 2016, has no history of ever running a P&L as well. Like many of the
majority of the politicians, both liberal and democrat, she is simply a career
politician looking for a bigger job.
Misterpolitical. Why would we ever want a President that is a P&L person?
We don't run this country for a profit. We run it to ensure the life,
liberty, and happiness of it's citizens. In addition a national economy is
nothing...let me repeat nothing like a for profit business. Let me
be the first "liberal" to express doubts about the inevitability of
Hillary. The Clintons, bless their hearts, do come with a ton of baggage, both
within and without the party. She may be able to get the nomination
and be elected because Obama has all ready done the heavy lifting for her
(health care, immigration, wars,and all the debt stuff). Plus she could look
pretty reasonable against most of the obvious Republicans. Rubio,
and Ryan could be a different story.
An endorsement of walker is essentially an endorsement of Hillary. Thanks Dnews!
Misterpolitical,Walker may do a great job as a Governor, but if you
don't wow them on Satruday Night Live and the Letterman show... you
don't stand a chance now days.Now days it counts less that you
are a sound leader and governor... What counts to the majority of the voters
is... how you look on TV (and how much you promise to expand the programs that
will benefit them).People who propose CUTTING spending, or personal
responsibility... are not popular with the majority.
I should think most Democrats would be delighted with a Walker run for the
presidency. He might be successful in some primary elections, but the
information now coming out about him and his own inflated assessment of his
governorship will kill any chance he would have to win national office. We
don't know yet if he is just another not yet convicted criminal, but Fox
will have its work cut out for it to make him look like a viable candidate.
Republicans can and should do better.
Thank you for weighing in pragmatistferlife. Let me just say, while we
don't necessarily run this country for a profit, common sense tells all of
us that we want to run the country in such a way that we do not create huge
fiscal burdens or losses for future generations. Let me remind you that our
current President has built up a bigger deficit than all previous
President's in the history of the United States. So, while it's not a
profit business, the idea is to break even so that you don't have to keep
raising taxes. Scott Walker has proposed to cut property taxes in Wisconsin
because of his fiscal success. This is making a profit in my opinion. Tell me
what is wrong with that. Let's run the US profitably which would get rid of
the national debt which is going on $20 billion; half of which President Obama
bears the responsibility.
Let me correct my previous statement. The national debt is $20 Trillion, not
Billion. I wish that I was correct in my previous statement. One last comment
pragmatistferlife, I was simply trying to say that balancing the budget is a
wonderful thing. Something the Democrats have had such a hard time doing
throughout the history of their party.