Image 01 Image 03

Scott Walker to GOP – Get Out There and Lead!

Scott Walker to GOP – Get Out There and Lead!

Limbaugh calls Walker a rising star in the Republican Party.

Scott Walker appeared on Sean Hannity’s show Tuesday night to discuss his recent victory.

In the course of their talk, Sean asked Walker for his message to newly elected Republicans. Walker responded by urging the GOP to “get out there and lead,” suggesting that Americans are looking for leadership and real solutions to problems.

Hannity begins the segment with a clip of Rush Limbaugh talking about Walker’s win and describing him as a star in the Republican Party.

Watch the video:

Some people are already talking about Walker as a candidate for 2016.

Rich Cromwell of The Federalist recently wrote:

The Nation Needs President Scott Walker In 2016

In 2008, we went with the cranky, possibly crazy, curmudgeon known as John McCain. We probably should have gone with Mitt Romney. In 2012, we went with Romney. His promise of competent, effective management coupled with all the excitement of Walker plus a side of toast was not well received. We probably should’ve gone with a sleeveless Rick Perry. With those facts in mind, in 2016, we should definitely go for a candidate with more charisma, right? Not so fast.

Look at Walker’s results. He slashed money from a bloated education budget. He dismantled collective bargaining rights for public employees. He reduced Medicaid spending. And he keeps getting elected in a state given to Prairie Populism, despite the fact that, like Coolidge, he tends to think citizens should be given to self-support.

But what does he offer our collective imagination? What does he do to inspire us to rally around a cause? What are you, a raging lefty? You’re missing the point. Walker doesn’t offer us anything, and we should be cool with that. It’s what we cynical GenXers have been working for—getting the government off our damn lawn.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



The guy has proven to be calm, quiet…and a killer in terms of getting stuff done. He drives the Collective NUTS.

That is all good.

I want to know a lot more about him.

JimMtnViewCaUSA | November 12, 2014 at 12:22 pm

I’m a huge fan of what Gov Walker has done. He has identified what needs to be done in order to create a level playing field for competing visions of the American Future. He had effectively moved to accomplish that, by removing public union money from politics. He stood up for the citizens against the insiders. He has endured vile attacks on himself and his supporters. He has an interesting personal story (no college degree?).
I’ve read he is a squish on illegal immigration, which is offputting.
Bottom line: I’d vote for him, but I’ll also vote for anyone who picks up that banner and tries to put that set of policies into effect on the federal level.

Keeping in mind that I’m kind of liking the idea of a Cruz/Walker or Walker/Cruz ticket.
I think it is necessary to look at Walker from a different angle. So I offer Joy Pullmanns rebuttal.

Winning Re-Election Doesn’t Mean Scott Walker Is Ready For 2016

I think that Walker has several of the necessary traits that a leader needs but he’s a little soft on some of the issues I find important, like immigration. And while Cruz is a firebrand that I like, Walker might be able to temper it somewhat to make it more palatable to squishes while being prodded further to the right in return by Cruz.

Off the cuff thoughts that I don’t have the time right now to expand upon. But I hope what I mean comes across anyway.

    Insufficiently Sensitive in reply to joethefatman. | November 12, 2014 at 2:00 pm

    I think that Walker has several of the necessary traits that a leader needs but he’s a little soft on some of the issues I find important, like immigration.

    His overall record of executive accomplishments trump any single-issue item. Unlike ‘holy Obama’, Walker IS an executive. A good one, not a blowhard. You’ll notice that he doesn’t devote one sentence to demonizing the half of the country not of his political party – which is an Obama specialty.

    It will be hard to find a candidate better than Walker to do the toughest job facing the country after the divisive Obama: the job of re-uniting it, with the President acting a chief executive of all of us.

      I agree with you, except on the immigration. Demography is destiny. Right now we have 50 million Central Americans in our country… When Reagan was prez, only 3 million applied for amnesty (double what was predicted). If we went from 3m to 50m in just 25 years, we won’t be able to take what another amnesty will bring us, starting at the existing 50m.

      You cannot assimilate these kinds of numbers of people. It just isn’t possible. And being balkanized is dangerous.

      But I believe on every other criterion, Walker is the best candidate, because he’s DONE things, not merely talked a good game.

        Immigration policy is set by Congress, per the Constitution. Reform is coming, it is impossible to deport the current illegals without becoming a police state. All law enforcement officers with the power of arrest, from local constable to state police to FBI to game wardens and ICE officers, make a total of roughly 2 million custodial arrests per year.

        That is do what they are doing now, full time. And they sure don’t catch everybody.

        We’d need to hire six times the current number of LEO officers with arrest powers now at all levels, over five million total, to arrest and detain 12 million people in a year, assuming we could find them. We’d need to institute random checkpoints. Are Americans ready to be pulled over on the way to work and hear a cop say, ‘Papers, please.’?

        – –

        So we need enforcement in place and working as a demand for reaching a deal on amnesty. And to insist amnesty does NOT include any ‘path to citizenship’ that gives them any advantage over those waiting to legally immigrate here.

        No Republican President is going to veto such a requirement as too strict, no matter how ‘squishy’ some believe he is.

They are right. Dems have thrown everything at him (including the John Doe stuff) and he’s won.

It could be a combo of a great leader and an environment of voters who have had enough of the Dems nonsense.

“Some people are already talking about Walker as a candidate for 2016.”

There’s no “already” about it. Some people (including but not at all limited to me) have been doing so for two years now. I don’t understand how he can not be seen as at least a viable candidate, even if you end up supporting someone else.

Walker has a fabulous record in Wisconsin, a series of battles and victories that will be studied in the political sciences for a long time. He clearly knows how to assemble a team that is always a step ahead of the political opposition, and faithful coalitions of voters. It is reasonable to believe that his work in Wisconsin is a microcosm of what he could achieve in Washington DC.

The GOP has other governors for whom much of the same could be said, particularly Rick Perry of Texas. I was enamored of Perry when he first joined the primaries in 2011, but, alas, not for long. He wasn’t prepared, and I’m sorry, but that counts. It’s the only record he has on the national level, a bit of a clumsy primary run. I’m certain he’ll do better in 2015.

I need to see more of Walker on the stump to see if his persona fits the office.

(Sarc alert ON): I’m concerned that Walker has publicly told the GOP to “get out there and lead”. It seems plain to me that’s the LAST thing the current bosses in the GOP want, and Walker will win no friends among the GOP leadership with this crazy talk about ‘leading’. (Sarc alert OFF).

I will say that if Walker is deemed ‘too’ conservative, his primary political opposition will come not from the Democrat Party but from the GOP elites, his own party.

    Karen Sacandy in reply to Henry Hawkins. | November 12, 2014 at 7:30 pm

    Perry said in his first debate, we were heartless for not favoring amnesty.

    Forget him.

      That is NOT what he said.

      He was defending the law, passed by the Republican Texas legislature, that allows the children of those illegally in the state to still pay in-state tuition at state colleges if they graduated from a high school in Texas.

      It was still a stupid remark to say those who dissented had no heart, but he was NOT talking about amnesty and it is lie to say he was.

Somebody needs to light a fire under the GOP. Current ‘leadership’ is pretty pathetic.

Leaders don’t require POSITIONS in order to lead effectively.

This is a widely understood subject in organizational behavior. You have TITULAR leaders who hold rank or authority. But concurrently you have PSYCHOLOGICAL leaders who are leaders in fact.

A good example is the captain of an infantry company versus the First Sargent of the company. The young captain may command by his authority, but the company may not trust him. It may look, instead, to the non-com who they know knows what he’s going.

People like Ted Cruz, Louis Gohmert, or Trey Gowdy are leaders, and we have leading ideas.

Witness that we don’t HAVE to lie to anybody, while the Collective lives ONLY by lying.

No! No! No! You can’t have him yet. We have a lot more work to do here. Running for Pres in ’16 means committing very soon and not enough time for our state. He needs to be in office for 4 years without the constant turmoil that has been in place in his first term. Now 2020? Let’s do it!

    Dear WI4Walker… I certainly do understand you position…

    a very strong WI is an asset to the whole Country….

    and Mittens did one term in MA… it was good for MA
    (? RomneyCare really ??) but squishy… and the follow on
    results were “squishy.”

    the 2016 slot is going to be brutal…
    or if Billary gets it the end…

    Not to be cruel… but we need a Pope Benedict… a place holder.. a fall guy… to start the “change”…

    then you have to give Walker to the Country..Deal?

Thank you Ragspierre and Henry Hawkins, your comments are useful.

Congratulations Scott Walker. Thank you as an honorable political warrior upon our behalf. Best wishes to you and your family.

That said, I was curious about the reference to “unemployment rate” under his leadership, from 10+ to 5’ish…

The Federal Leadership was touting the 6’ish unemployment rate just before the election… as something “they built” under their leadership…?

I am not sufficiently net savvy to achieve this… but one of those red/blue maps linked to employment rates would be very interesting…

Exactly who in this country has “built” that 6’ish rate for the current occupant?

    J Motes in reply to DB523. | November 13, 2014 at 3:06 am

    DB523 asks: “Exactly who in this country has “built” that 6′ish rate for the current occupant?”

    That would be the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which calculates the unemployment rate without considering the sharp decline in the labor force participation rate:

    In that link to The Federalist, Sean Davis explains:
    “If you hold total employment constant and increase the size of the labor force, the number of unemployed persons will increase, as will the unemployment rate. A shrinking labor force, however, can completely mask a serious job shortage by excluding those who stop looking for work altogether from the calculation of unemployed persons.

    “In June of 2009, the labor force participation rate was 65.7 percent … . Since the end of the recession, that number has nose-dived. At the end of last month, it hit 62.8 percent … .

    “What does this all mean? Rather than being the sign of a vibrant economy, the falling unemployment rate is actually an arithmetic artifact of the BLS head-counting process. If the labor force participation rate had held steady since 2009, the number of people in the labor force today would total nearly 162 million people. Instead, BLS reports the official number to be just shy of 155 million.

    “And thanks to how BLS calculates and reports the official unemployment rate, those 7 million people are not included among the ranks of the unemployed. Add them back in and you have an unemployment rate that averages a very stubborn 10.8 percent since the end of the recession.”

    DB523: Some sources place the actual unemployment rate in various demographic subgroups at a much higher percentage than The Federalist article reports — up to 20% unemployment among young blacks, for example.

    Obama’s bragging about a declining unemployment rate is all smoke and mirrors, but that probably will not surprise you.

      Estragon in reply to J Motes. | November 13, 2014 at 4:54 am

      Even that understates the problem.

      BLS statistics exclude ‘discouraged workers’ from unemployment numbers, but the idea those people ‘have stopped looking for work’ is BS, 100%.

      Your UE benefits run out, you are a discouraged worker. BLS doesn’t care if you’re pumping resumes and wearing out shoe leather 12 hours a day. They make no effort to find out what you do. It’s just assumed.

      It’s a cheap trick to make the numbers look better, but it began half a century ago. Just worse now with a declining labor force participation.

The ability to win hard-fought elections with a democratic-leaning electorate is huge.

And if the only major reform to come out of a Scott Walker presidency were to be a “reform” of the public sector unions, that would still be a huge win.

Eastwood Ravine | November 12, 2014 at 2:25 pm

Scott Walker gets it, just like Conan:

    Or perhaps ERavine… what we have had is a “Lamentation of Women”

    Like a “Murder of Crows”…. DWS, VJ, Nanny, Billary…

      DB523 in reply to DB523. | November 12, 2014 at 3:33 pm

      BTW.. as an older conservative Lady, not used loosely, I feel qualified to comment, such an embarrassment… my grandmother, who actually worked for “women’s rights” would be most displeased with these crows.

We have a deep bench for 2016 and beyond.

The first string of current or former Governors includes Walker, Perry, Romney, Jeb, Jindal, and Kasich.

The second string including Snyder, Martinez, and Haley isn’t half bad, either.

And there are others, too, perhaps not as well positioned politically, but with successful tenures running their states.

There is no need to consider those with no executive experience on their resumes.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Estragon. | November 13, 2014 at 11:56 am

    “There is no need to consider those with no executive experience on their resumes.”

    LOL. Need to do a better job of hiding your undermining of conservative GOP senators.