How does a Walker- Carson ticket sound?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

LOL. Hollywood to the rescue...again.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

Oh really? The people of Wisconsin voted three times and kept him. In fact, most of the effort to get rid of him came from out of state.

I don't really care for cool-aide, but it sure beats the crap out of blue vinegar.....

I am aware. I think most of the intelligent people have left that state (like I chose to.) Well, the ones that could easily leave anyway.

a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

Hmm, depending on one's perspective, it could be said they're doing quite well sans your presence...

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

Hmm, depending on one's perspective, it could be said they're doing quite well sans your presence...

You are right, Wisconsin, and the rest of the USA is clearly doing "better" since I left. It must have been me keeping them down this whole time.

a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

It was a joke. Obviously, Walker invokes controversy. I, for one, see things his way regarding public sector unions and the debilitating retirement packages that they've been endowed.

I understand you do not. The thread was largely directed to the Conservative/Republican members-not that I didn't expect responses from the other camp-and was looking for the pros and cons of that potential ticket.

From an adversarial viewpoint, the more members of the left that comment negatively, the more I like the ticket...

a reply to: nwtrucker

Your reading comprehension needs some work. In my first post I clearly indicated I do not support republicrats. (if you need that explained to you, that means I do not support Republicans or Democrats.)

a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

Actually, I cut myself slack on reading comprehension- memory issues as well- it's not a uncommon occurrence when one gets old/tired.

Truth be told, I'm also not enamored with either batch. I do acknowledge Walker's 'all-in' approach. It's in the same area code as integrity. A rare commodity in politics.

Whatever the fix is, if there is one, that mentality will be a prerequisite.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Carson came out early because he wanted the surge in popularity that way he could later drop out of the race and sell his support/influence to someone else. Romney is out for similar reasons, obviously the party wanted Romney out to avoid a Romney/Bush fight but they have to make it beneficial for him to drop out. Romney has no love for Bush, most likely he'll provide his support to another.

I could see Carson getting behind Walker but I don't see Romney doing that and I dont see Carson getting on the ticket, his gun control stance is a death sentence among the crowd he targets, as others can have the same positions but be pro gun.

Romney strikes me as supporting Christie in the end and he needs it. Christie doesn't have much love among the Republicans because he dared to shake Obama's hand on stage but he's the most electable of the bunch if he could get through a primary.

a reply to: Aazadan

I hadn't given much thought to Christie. As this thread started before Romney's announcement, that has to be factored in.

A random thought that came up was the 'possibility' that Bush- and now that you have mentioned him Christie(?)- could ask Walker to join their tickets in an effort to consolidate the party's support.

A lot of potentials/variables at this point, LOL.

Kind of fun to play with it......

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Aazadan

I hadn't given much thought to Christie. As this thread started before Romney's announcement, that has to be factored in.

A random thought that came up was the 'possibility' that Bush- and now that you have mentioned him Christie(?)- could ask Walker to join their tickets in an effort to consolidate the party's support.

A lot of potentials/variables at this point, LOL.

Kind of fun to play with it......

Maybe, I'm registered as a Republican (atleast for now, I identify closer to some third parties) but I don't like Walker much, I'm not much of a fan of the people who are clearly tea party, I think they take good ideas and push them to an extreme to where they're no longer good.

Anyways, despite my dislike of Walker facts are facts and the man has won three elections in four years in a state that doesn't vote Republican. Policies aside, there is something about him that is very electable. I could accept Walker as a VP. My big concern with such a ticket is that Christie is closer to middle of the road and I would worry that Christie/Walker for example is just a repeat of McCain/Palin where there's a centrist with a tea party VP and we saw how well that worked last time, or maybe that's just because Palin got absolutely destroyed by the media and put a black mark on the campaign.

If I had to guess how things are going to break down right now Cruz/Perry/Walker/Carson are going to make up one branch, Bush/Rubio/Paul in another group, then Romney/Christie in a third.

a reply to: Aazadan

Hmmm, I really like your reasoning. Moderate-Tea party didn't work last time.

(After-thought) Although the McCain-Palin ticket would have stood a better chance if the Establishment Republicans didn't pile-on Palin almost as much as the media and the Democrats, in general....

The only point I'd raise is the average citizen wasn't anywhere near as disaffected by Obama last go-around. Whether that translates into a different result? Who knows.

The bottom line is we can shoot holes in any ticket, from what I can see.

Honestly, I more in the Tea Party camp. I consider the over-all state of affairs as too dire for these longer range, rope-a-dope/appeasement strategies by the Establishment Republicans. ( Perhaps that's the definitive difference between the two camps, One side sees time is short, the other sees pushing too hard, too soon just spins the wheels...)

a reply to: nwtrucker

I thought McCain stood a good chance in any year but 2008, he's always been divisive among the Republicans, in the span of 2000-2008 he flucuated between a primary nominee in 2000, an attempt to kick him out of the party in 2004, and the nominee in 2008. I think against most Democrats he could have won because he had a long history of reaching across the aisle and brokering deals. He's the sort of person that could get Congress to work together. Palin didn't help but I don't think she alone sunk him. The truth is that between Ron Paul and Obama it just wasn't his year. On one hand you had McCain who was facing serious questions as to his age and representing the establishment and on the other there was a young charismatic apparent reformer in Obama to undo the Bush years. Throw in all the Obamamania stuff and no one could have won. Then if that wasn't enough you had Ron Paul, who had and still has quite a following.

Anyways, the Tea Party is very popular with a specific demographic but they are extremely unpopular with everyone else. For example Ted Cruz taints my view of the entire movement because of how he has aligned himself and his position among their ranks. I will never forget that he nearly single handedly crashed the entire worlds economy and made the dollar completely worthless just to score a photo op for reelection.

When it comes to the idea that we don't have much time, I would suggest taking a step back and not getting caught up in the politics of the moment. When we empower government with emergency measures because time is short we get things like the bank bailouts. Our government is intentionally designed to move slowly, and it's best to work within that framework. Budgets, policy shifts, and all the rest... no good comes from rapidly changing these things.

It's too bad Giuliani never capitalized on his popularity surge in 2004. I think he would have made a good president and I have no doubt he could have locked up the 2004 and 2008 elections. If only he would have been willing to challenge W. On his record alone he's better than most Governors. NYC isn't easy to manage and it was in a great position under him, now that he's been gone awhile look at how it's run. There's an easy before/after comparison there and I still think he would make a great president if he would ever get back into politics.

a reply to: Aazadan
I completely agree about Giuliani. He'd have carried N.Y. 47 electoral votes!!!

I'm not sure what photo op you refer to. No idea actually.

I do like Cruz's willingness to tangle with Obama. I don't think he's electable. Perhaps a running mate?

I found it very interesting that 3 days ago, Rush positioned, and superficially backed it up, that Wall St. saw either Hillary or Jeb Bush as equally agreeable to their interests.....

You say no good comes from rapidly changing these things. In my mind the jury is out on that one if for no other reason is it hasn't been tried. Not in any significant way.

I hold that time is very limited, if it isn't already past the point of no return. There's just too much to fix with too many barriers to those potential fixes.

It will be worse in two years due to Obama not slowing down one whit on his agenda. I like Walker's approach in Wisconsin. He survived the battle and won it in a blue state. That's impressive.

There's so much I could opine on.

Don't underestimate the value of the Tea Party, sir, it's the only body willing to force the Republican Establishment out of their comfort zone riddled, good old boy network.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I'm not sure what photo op you refer to. No idea actually.

One of the many budget crisis over a debt ceiling increase. November 2013 I think it was? He eventually backed down but he took the US up to the very minute of causing a default which would have ruined the value of the USD along with most world markets. He was simply pandering to his base, and it was very dangerous. As it is that little stunt of his cost us billions of dollars in edgy investors and nearly billions more in just about triggering a credit rating downgrade.

What he did was extremely irresponsible, he basically played Russian Roulette with the USD.

You say no good comes from rapidly changing these things. In my mind the jury is out on that one if for no other reason is it hasn't been tried. Not in any significant way.

It doesn't have to be tried. Rapid changes are too emotional, people don't react on pure logic. Look at the gun control debates during school shootings. One side pushes armed teachers in the schools while the other side pushes locking people in their rooms like it's a prison. Neither of these are great solutions, the real issue is in addressing the psychology that pushes people to commit mass murder. No amount of guns or lack of guns on the premises is going to change that. And of course we have the ever looming issue that we're just a few years away from everyone being able to 3d print guns which means we all have access to any weapon we want at any time. Meaning not only that any gun control measures are destined to fail but that it becomes very feasible for a student to outgun a teacher. A student only needs to bring a backpack of weapons 1 day. For others to bring about equal firepower they would need to carry an armory with them every day.

It will be worse in two years due to Obama not slowing down one whit on his agenda. I like Walker's approach in Wisconsin. He survived the battle and won it in a blue state. That's impressive.

I'm not convinced on Walker but like I said before. He won 3 elections in 4 years in a state that doesn't vote Republican. At a very minimum he is worth hearing out, and if nothing else I think he would make for a great VP to whoever does get the nomination.

Don't underestimate the value of the Tea Party, sir, it's the only body willing to force the Republican Establishment out of their comfort zone riddled, good old boy network.

I think the members of the Tea Party are great, I just don't think much of their leadership including some of the prominent ones like Cruz and Bachmann and I agreed with them more before big money got involved, that really corrupted a large part of the initial message. The leadership has become a total mockery of what they stand for. It was originally a grass roots movement based around adhering to the constitution and empowering the states over the federal government. Instead we have a movement that's the largest financial block in politics, that spends most of it's money on putting people into federal positions with a hierarchical organized structure, the exact opposite of grass roots.

a reply to: Aazadan

Thank you for the response. I now recall what you were referring to re: the debt ceiling.

It did have one benefit in that it pointed out what seems to be an annually repeating phenomena being Obama's massive spending and the continued almost 'rubber-stamping' that the Republicans employed by raising that debt ceiling virtually without comment. year after year.

I'd appreciate a clarification on the point where 'big money' got involved with the Tea party. When was that and what big money? From whom?

I deduce from your responses that you are a Jeb Bush backer? (If for no other reason than the process of elimination )

To make a long story a bit shorter and my issues orientated views-lacking your depth of knowledge of the mechanisms involved- that IF Bush ends up nominated, be it with a Walker/Walker-like, Tea party appeasing, running-mate or not, and loses the next presidential election to the Dems, the Republican Party as we know it will go the route of the Whigs. (For the same reasons) A third party will come into play with all that that implies.

How about a Larry, Moe and Curly ticket?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
It did have one benefit in that it pointed out what seems to be an annually repeating phenomena being Obama's massive spending and the continued almost 'rubber-stamping' that the Republicans employed by raising that debt ceiling virtually without comment. year after year.

We all already knew about the massive spending though and it's not like debt ceiling increases are some rare event. They've happened every year or two for the past 100 years and the whole concept of a debt ceiling is absurd. We're the only nation that operates under such a restriction and it's a result of congress being lazy because they don't want to approve spending items individually. The debt ceiling is a procedural holdover from emergency measures acted during WW1 (another example of what happens when you act quickly)

I'd appreciate a clarification on the point where 'big money' got involved with the Tea party. When was that and what big money? From whom?

The usual suspects like the banks and large corporations are one but then you have others like the Koch's as well (I don't like the Koch's). What really drove this home to me was a couple weeks ago when McConnell shut down the senate in the middle of passing some bills just so he wouldn't be late to a meeting with the Koch's. I don't care what their stance on issues is, when not being late to a meeting with a private individual is more important than the business of the nation, reform is needed.

The Tea Parties original values were much different from how they currently play out on the national stage. I think you still have a lot of those original values on the local level but not so much in higher offices.

I deduce from your responses that you are a Jeb Bush backer?

(If for no other reason than the process of elimination

)

Not a Jeb backer, if he weren't a Bush... maybe, it's too early to say for sure but as is he will never get my vote. The only person I am less likely to vote for than Jeb is Hillary. And considering the Bush's and Clinton's are close enough to call each other family I see them as the same. Right now out of the R's I could see myself voting for Christie, Paul, Walker (Walker mainly if it's Hillary he's up against), or Rubio.

To make a long story a bit shorter and my issues orientated views-lacking your depth of knowledge of the mechanisms involved- that IF Bush ends up nominated, be it with a Walker/Walker-like, Tea party appeasing, running-mate or not, and loses the next presidential election to the Dems, the Republican Party as we know it will go the route of the Whigs. (For the same reasons) A third party will come into play with all that that implies.

I like the idea of financial responsibility, more localized government and so on but I don't really fall into the conservative crowd. I'm not afraid of large government, I just want the people to have control of it. I think that conservatives have moved further and further to the right over the past decade and it has resulted in pushing some very good ideas too far to where they're no longer good. Reagan isn't Reagan enough for conservatives these days and that says it all to me.

If that means the Republicans have to go the way of the Whigs, so be it. I don't think that would happen but such an outcome doesn't scare me either. The resulting power vacuum would give us multiple parties and a large part of our current issues are that we only have a two party system. I believe such a thing would also fracture the Democrats evening things out, again because the power vacuum would mean people don't have to fall in line behind one monolithic party in order to see their agenda through.

If one party were to fall apart, all debate rules would be out the window and suddenly we could have another Ross Perot show up. As it currently stands, such a thing is impossible.

Carson-Walker sounds like an American Taliban Theocracy.

NO THANKS.!

I was a Goldwater Republican for about 40 years.

“When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye. ”

www.conservapedia.com...

a reply to: Aazadan

I completely agree on Jeb Bush.

I will still disagree of the fast-slow point. We've been on the XL Pipeline how long? Since that one started, Obama has been delivering body-blows at a non-stop rate to this nation. Slow is a weak counter to what's been done by the opposition.

I understand your point on the debt ceiling. It's not a bad concept, at all...if applied. This crowd, both sides, have rendered it useless and nothing more than a substitute for a Budget.

On the Corporate/Bank support for the Tea party, my understanding is the opposite. (largely due an almost lock-step opposition to Obama's immigration reform?) With Chamber of Commerce and, as a result, big business support, the Tea Party is largely stuck with a grass-roots individual donations/support. Apparently, that's what the increase of Corporate Contribution bill was about, Republican establishment's first move was building it's own donations to an almost insurmountable level over the Tea Party's.

On going the way of the Whigs, rather than a power vacuum- it didn't happen when the Whigs passed on- the left-overs from the Republican side would split up and either join their brothers on the left or the right in the new party. (perhaps a few proudly proclaiming their independence from both.)

Giuliani-Walker? Visa-versa? hmmm......

a reply to: nwtrucker

As a Liberal, I approve of this ticket.

Unless you want to run with Palin/Cruz...otherwise, I fully support Walker/Carson.