New right to work state:

Walker in NH, killing it reportedly:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/walker-shines-new-hampshire_924064.html


another:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/nh-poll-walker-jeb-tied-crowded-field_903546.html

 

More on Walker:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...alker-proposes-bold-new-immigration-platform/




E-verify seems like a decent way to enforce laws already on the books. Is enforcement necessary?

 

I don't see a whole lot on the illegal immigration side of his plan that's particularly remarkable. I want to hear about toughening the laws against businesses that hire or contract with illegal aliens as well as ways to make e-verify more reliable and faster for them.

However, I'm impressed with his willingness to restrict legal immigration. Some people have asked me why I'm not receptive to becoming a Democrat since I have strong disagreements with the GOP on policy and even bigger disagreements on tactics. The Left's reaction to Walker's plan for legal immigration is a big reason. There's nothing silly, racist, or immoral about tailoring and sometimes restricting legal immigration to protect the interests of American workers in the United States. Every sane country does that, and there's nothing remotely wrong with it, and the fact that the usual PC ********* gets thrown around when the issue is raised tells me that Walker is onto something and that I should call the ****-flingers' motives into question.

To me, this issue is a good illustration of how the Democratic Party's base has and is shifting. They used to consider the middle class to be a key component of their base. No more. If you are a middle class person, the Democratic Party has nothing to offer you, except identity politics, which plays the same role that social issue pandering plays in the GOP. It's a diversion designed to take the focus off of ways the party is screwing its own people.

 

United States of America citizens first:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...ns-walker-sticks-to-tough-immigration-stance/

It is a commonsense approach. It may not be popular with the people who don't like to follow the rules of course. Maybe there will be enough voters who think it is time to pay attention to the rule of law?

 

It's not going to be popular with gentry liberals. They mostly aren't harmed by immigration, and they know that demographic changes give them a political advantage. They don't give a damn what it does to middle class voters, whom they mostly resent. That's why this New York Times reporter will use negative rhetoric like "hardening" to characterize Walker's view.

I hope he jumps on this issue, but he does need to do it carefully, because the media and Left will do everything they can to make him look like a flaming racist. First, don't be critical of the immigrants themselves, especially legal immigrants. Instead, extol them. They followed the law, and it isn't their fault that we let them in. Second, don't use inflammatory or emotional rhetoric. Discuss the issue in rational and logical verbiage. Third, look at other areas in which he can reasonably promote populist, nationalist economics, such as trade. That doesn't mean he has to be anti-free trade, but he should criticize sleazy trade deals (which is most trade deals). Doing so will contrast him as standing with working people over HRC, especially in light of the Clinton Foundation's sleazy overseas deals. Besides, a Republican can get a pass for opposing fast-track legislation when a Democrat is in the White House.

 

more on Scott Walker:

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ts-jeb-bush-south-carolina-speech-joel-gehrke

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...g-our-sea-ports-like-they-do-southern-border/

 

I like the quote from Samuel Gompers from back when labor unions were actually patriotic and gave a **** about American workers.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/20/scott-walker-wows-social-conservatives-withering-a/

Walker stirring the straw.

 

By the way, Walker is officially running for PotUSA.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article27246916.html

 

Walker bows out of the race for President for 2016. Guess he, like many others, got Trumped.

 

He got Trumped, but I'm not sure he should have quit now. Trump has been slipping, and as his numbers drop, it could have presented opportunities for Walker to regain his momentum.

 

There has to be more to this story. Way too early for him to quit. The front runners are guys that people don't think will hang around long term. This means their votes are up for grabs at some point. Wait it out and see if you can be the one that picks them up.

 

His exit speech pointed to a need to turn the Republican discourse into a more positive ideologically pure direction, indirectly pointing the finger at Trump. Like you, I suspect there is more to this. I suspect the Republican Party establishment must be trying to consolidate the non-Trump vote. The only way to do that is to get guys like Walker, Paul, etc. to drop. The question is, who is their candidate? My money is on Rubio, still. He was getting a lot of rave reviews from the Sunday Morning party insiders.

 

Interesting take on consolidating the vote. I hope it's Rubio that will get the push, but I could see it being Bush as well.

 

I agree that it could be Bush, but I sure hope it isn't. He can't win with that name. It's not fair that he has to answer for every bad decision his brother made, but that's just how it is.

 

I was on the Scott Walker bandwagon and am disappointed that he has chosen not to run. Of the remaining candidates, I'm very impressed with Ben Carson, bit not convinced that he can win. Marco Rubio would be my next choice. If Hillary is the Dem nominee, I will vote for the GOP nominee, even if it's Mickey Mouse.

 

Walker could have been a great candidate. I just don't think he really figured out how to handle Trump.

I'll almost for sure vote GOP over Hillary. She's horrifically bad. The only scenario in which it gets dicey is if Trump is the nominee. If that happens, I probably vote Libertarian.