Should he or shouldn't he? Milwaukee Urinal/Sentinel examines Squatt Wankers 2016 hopes

[Scuba]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/gov-scott-walker-should-run-now-the-time-is-right-b99407630z1-286362161.html

Gov. Scott Walker should run for president now — it's his best shot

Former Gov. Tommy Thompson was a well-known, bold reformer who did a lot of things that Democrats didn't like and still managed to easily win re-election three times. His name was floated as a potential presidential candidate in the 1990s, but he waited. In 2007, he finished a dismal sixth place in the Iowa straw poll, proving that 14 years as a Republican governor in a purple state isn't enough to win a national primary if you don't stay relevant. In other words, if Scott Walker wants to run for president, he needs to do it now.

The left has thrown everything that wasn't nailed down at Walker — the mayor of Milwaukee, a millionaire, a war on women, millions of dollars in attack ads. But none of these attacks, not even a recall election or a John Doe investigation, were able to faze the seemingly invincible governor. He has won three major election victories in four years. As we approach the 2016 campaign cycle, the timing could not be better for Walker to run for president.

Congressional job approval shows little signs of recovering, bouncing somewhere around 10% to 14%. This bodes well for Walker since voters will be looking for a leader who takes action, rather than someone whose voting record can be picked apart. A governor is likely to fill this role. There is, of course, one exception — U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan.

...

Yes, he has some weaknesses. He's not a great orator, and he can be a little dull at times. Most active Republican Party members can still recite his campaign speech from 2010. Some pundits have compared Walker to Tim Pawlenty who was a solid conservative but not the inspirational leader they were looking for in 2012. But here's where Walker and Pawlenty differ: Walker passed bold legislation that incited the liberal half of the state to camp out at the Capitol for months, forcing him into an intense recall election. There's a reason Democrats love to hate Walker: He may not be the most engaging speaker, but primary voters could overlook this because his actions prove that he is a transformational leader.

As soon as you're finished laughing (or vomiting, reactions vary), here's the "rebuttal" ...


http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/gov-scott-walker-has-too-many-liabilities-to-make-presidential-run-b99407622z1-286361901.html

Gov. Scott Walker has too many liabilities to make a run for president

As a Republican, I voted for Scott Walker for Milwaukee County executive and for governor. But I would not vote for him for president. This is not to say Walker does not have his strengths. Clearly he does, or he wouldn't have emerged victorious from an onslaught of union-inspired attacks after the passage of Act 10. The man acts on political principle (whether you agree with him or not) and keeps his cool under fire. Further, Walker has cultivated a substantial base of support as he has battled his adversaries. Yet, these strengths are not enough to compensate for his shortcomings — shortcomings that don't matter much or can be managed at the state level — that would plague him if he were to run for president in 2016.

First is Walker's noticeable lack of foreign policy experience or even an indication of what he thinks on foreign affairs. OnTheIssues.Org, which touts "Every Political Leader on Every Issue," indicates that it has no recorded stance for Walker under the heading of foreign policy. This is troubling at a time when we face threats throughout the Middle East, from Iran, Russia, North Korea and China. On-the-job training isn't good enough. Not now.

Yes, Walker, like other governors who became president, could appoint experts to get advice. That, however, is not his strong point, as Kimberley Strassel recently noted in an otherwise complimentary Wall Street Journal op-ed piece. She wrote, "The Wisconsin dynamo (Walker) is good, but the knock on him is that he knows it. He has a reputation as a one-man band, serving these past four years as his own chief speechwriter, chief policy aide, chief fundraiser and chief political analyst. He is...for the most part anti-team effort."

..

Now consider U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican vice presidential candidate in 2012 who held his own in that role and at least got a glimpse of the responsibilities of the highest office. In regard to fiscal policies, Ryan leads the way for Republicans nationally, having served as the House Budget Committee chairman and now selected to be chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. Any recent Republican proposal dealing with tax overhaul, reform of entitlement programs, balancing the federal budget or addressing poverty has Ryan's stamp on it.

So to represent "both sides" of this analysis, the Urinal/Sentinel gets two Republicans to weigh in, ostensibly one in Squatty's camp and one not, but turns out they're both advocating for Paul Ryan. OK, I get it.

BTW, of course Wanker is "anti-team". Letting people onto your team means they become privy to your crimes.