“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas

Monday, February 02, 2015

Scott Walker might be a stealthy moderate just like Bush

So based on this article over at Hotair, you can probably add Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to the disappointingly long list of GOP contenders who won't be getting my vote next year.
Among the ways he and I would likely part company is..... 

A: his thinking that re-invading Iraq and starting a new ground war in Syria against ISIS are acceptable middle east strategies, if not likely ones of a Walker presidency.

B: his primary front for "decreasing government" would be just reducing union influence in DC the way he did in his home state. He doesn't really talk about small, limited, less expensive government......and finally,

C: he's talking a lot about mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, something I used to be in favor of until I read that it was immensely costly and found that only 2%-3% of welfare cases were getting high......so what? Don't most of us assume they're going to get high anyway? So what are you left with, dying, starving, Americans in the streets unable to get back on track? Who is OK with that? I might support a limited program of spot checking, but mandatory across the board testing for all illicit drugs? No way.
Walker's neo-con/moderate positions leave a lot of room to his right for a libertarian-leaning candidate to stake a claim for the younger, less socially conservative voters. I hope one emerges or I might be sitting this one out.

Gov. Walker reacts to the news that I won't be voting for him next November. 


Bill said...

So, you're Ready for Hilary?

I've never heard of a candidate who was my avatar 100% of the time.

Ed said...

I don't want Hillary, but are establishment republicans all that much different? Sure she'll do a bunch of XO's that he wouldn't do, but the big stuff won't be that distinguishable.

The Pentagon generals will be agitating for war with ISIS and both Hill and Walker will do what's recommended to them.

I may be surprised and my mind's still open, but do you think an establishment repub. will repeal much of Obamacare to make a difference?

Do you think Walker will actually reduce the size, expense, and scope of government or just slightly slow it's ravenous growth? In order to get the establishment money and support for a general election, you have to be willing to be an insider and play ball with those guys. And the insiders get what they want regardless of who's president.

Bill said...

If being acceptable to the "Republican Establishment" makes him unacceptable, we're doomed to Hilary.

Rush, who is at war with the whole establishment, consultant, money class in the Republican Party, loves Walker and had all but endorsed him as showing the way to beat Dems by taking them on.

I suppose that I favor a muscular policy regarding ISIS, Iran, and Russia sets us apart. Our current White House occupant may make all this a moot point by 2017 anyway.

Ed said...

I'm not saying I will absolutely not vote for him if he's the nominee, but these three items, highlighted by Nick Gliespie over at Reason.com, make me think twice.

Since I left the GOP in 2006 and embraced libertarianism, I see things differently.

Bill said...

Well, I pledge to you that I would vote for Rand Paul over Hilary or any other Dem. He's by far the most libertarian person who is ever likely to get a major part nomination.

His father is just a total POS, in my opinion. But he had no chance of being nominated.

Ed said...

I agree Bill, Ron Paul gave the party a bad name because he's a tad off the rails. Rand is at least on the tracks and hasn't said anything too weird.

Bill said...

If old Ron showed up dressed out with some Code Pink loonies, would anyone be surprised?

Ed said...

Probably not. I'll admit to leaning slightly more toward isolationism than I used to, but it's because I see the folly in our recent adventures overseas.

Ron Paul wants total withdrawal from the world and I'm certainly not there. Nor do I think Rand is either.