Here's the Horse Sense: Scott Walker is an interesting candidate, but he has some problems that could, and maybe should, sink his candidacy. There are some important questions that must be answered before he is qualified to lead America.
Scott Walker has gotten the attention of many in recent weeks. His appearance in Iowa thrust him forward in the polls and popularity with some feeling he is the best choice as the GOP presidential candidate in 2016. But can he really gain enough support to win the nomination, let alone the general election? Many people who claim to be conservative are missing what could be Walker's Achilles heel.
Scott Walker has done a very good job in Wisconsin as governor. He's won multiple elections even though there have been huge campaigns against him by the left. He's done an excellent job with Wisconsin's economy. He hasn't backed down when threatened. Generally he's been a solid governor with an enviable track record. And many who support him cite those things as examples for why he should be the GOP candidate. Some also lean on the idea that only a governor should be considered because they have their track record running something their state as executive experience that makes them the best choice.
I partially agree with the concept that a governor may be a good choice because of their executive experience. Although I think that a successful businessman can bring those skills and more to the presidency, too. However, as important as that executive experience can be, there are other issues to be considered, too.
Walker's great weaknesses that I believe could torpedo his candidacy are core issues to many conservatives. There are some issues that are bigger priorities than anything else to many conservatives and Walker is, at best, questionable in some of these areas.
The first, and probably the most damaging to his run is his stand on immigration. On Sunday Walker was on ABC's This Week and danced around a key issue instead of addressing it head-on. He said, "I think, for sure, we need to secure the border. We need the [sic] enforce the legal system. I'm not for amnesty. I'm not an advocate of the plans that have been pushed in Washington. And I think, should I become a candidate, because I'm not yet, it's part of the exploratory process. We're a country of balance. We're a country of immigrants and laws. We can't ignore the laws or the people that came in. Whether it's Mexico or Central America."
Then he was asked if he supported deporting the 11 million illegals who are in the U. S. already and he said, "That's not what I'm advocating."
Cleary he's refusing to answer the question by giving such an answer. But if we look a little deeper we see that he does agree with amnesty, even though he doesn't call it that. In 2013 The Hill quoted him as saying that he believed that there should be a pathway to citizenship for illegals.
Now there are supporters of his that will quickly justify that that is not amnesty, but conservatives have held that it is. To not force people who've broken the law to be punished for it and, in the case of immigration, be treated just like anyone else who has broken that law, is to bend your position in order to be able to support Walker. His position is much like that of the Gang of Eight who wanted to push through a similar idea as immigration reform.
For those who don't remember, the Gang of Eight are the following four establishment Republican and four progressive Democrat Senators:
- John McCain (R)
- Jeff Flake (R)
- Lindsey Graham (R)
- Marco Rubio (R)
- Dick Durbin (D)
- Robert Menendez (D)
- Chuck Schumer (D)
- Michael Bennet (D)
To be honest with ourselves, we must accept that Walker is for something that those of us who believe in the rule of law and closed borders do not agree with. And that will hurt him with those conservatives who are honest with themselves. That could be enough to cripple his candidacy to the point that he can't win because many conservatives would refuse to vote for him.
A second issue that will haunt Gov. Walker is that he did not complete his college education. There are many in our society who believe that college is required to achieve in life, especially if you're going to be a politician. The left has set a standard that you are unacceptable not only if you don't have a college degree, but also if the degree isn't from a school that they prefer. In the case of running for the presidency, they seem to demand an Ivy League education.
They will pounce on this fact, but Scott Walker's experience should (but will not) offset that issue. He has proven his ability through successes in life, especially in politics, that should be enough. But in their hypocrisy, the media will paint a picture of Walker as a buffoon who couldn't finish his degree.
They will ignore the fact that some of their icons like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't get their college degrees, yet were astoundingly successful. And the public will buy into it because they have come to accept the same nonsense that a degree is absolutely essential in life. In fact, even conservatives will be subject to this fallacy while forgetting that one of their icons, Rush Limbaugh, also dropped out of college.
Rand Paul may get some similar attacks because he never got an undergraduate degree, but that won't last long because he scored so high on his medical school entrance exams that he was accepted without an undergraduate degree and went on to complete medical school and become an ophthalmologist. But don't doubt that they will try to make his lack of an undergraduate degree an issue, too.
So, regardless of how well Walker does in the primaries, that will be a point that will be hammered by those who oppose him (that includes Democrats and Republicans).
Before I get to one last point, let me say that there are many people who will scream at what I'm saying that we can't afford to deport 11 million people. They say it would cost less to let them stay and become citizens than it would to deport them.
Well, first of all, let's be honest that there is a cost to upholding law and order. But we decide to do it because it makes for a better society when we require people to abide by laws and have penalties if they don't.
And as for the cost to deport, people seem to think that we have an obligation to fly these people to their home countries and cover all their expenses. I would disagree. The cost is a bus ride to the border (plus food for them while getting there and security to make sure they get there). They come across our border and our only obligation would be to get them to the border and close the gate behind them. What they do when they're on the other side is their problem, not ours.
But there is something else, even more important to be said about not just Scott Walker, but all the people who've shown interest in running in 2016 on the GOP ticket.
America is in severe trouble and, as I've said over and over again, unless we turn from our immoral ways and become a moral nation that fears God again, there is no hope. Nothing is more important. Given that fact, it is imperative we elect a president who understands that. To my knowledge, only 4 people who've expressed interest in running for the GOP nomination in 2016 have called for our nation to turn to God and repent of our immoral ways. They are (in no particular order):
- Ted Cruz
- Mike Huckabee
- Bobby Jindal
- Ben Carson
Even if a person is weaker in some areas than others, if they honor God then He can give them the ability and advisors to help them lead in a way that honors God and helps return America to the nation it was created to be.
Scott Walker and other candidates may feel the way these 4 men do, but I haven't heard them say it yet. And that must be a clear criteria as we select our next candidate or we might as well give up on America now. Without God on our side, failure is inevitable.