Tag Archives: Rick Perry

Ted Cruz, Rick Perry and Carly Fiorina discuss the 2016 election with Sean Hannity

Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz appear on Fox News with Sean Hannity
Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz appear on Fox News with Sean Hannity

Ted Cruz was on Fox News yesterday for a one-hour townhall meeting in Arizona with Sean Hannity, a Trump supporter.

I noted that the Republican National Committee posted that video on Youtube. Is that a sign the establishment is coming over to support the rebel candidate?

Summary:

  • Should Ohio Governor John Kasich drop out of the race?
  • What will happen if no one gets 1,237 delegates before the GOP convention to choose the nominee?
  • What is a brokered convention?
  • What is a contested convention?
  • Is Donald Trump going to get to 1,237 delegates before the GOP convention?
  • Is Ted Cruz going to get to 1,237 delegates before the GOP convention?
  • Why does the establishment refuse to get behind candidates who are strong on legal immigration and border security?
  • What did Ted Cruz see on the border with Mexico?
  • Why aren’t Republicans concerned about border security?
  • What would Ted Cruz do about sanctuary cities?
  • What would Ted Cruz do about e-verify?
  • What would Ted Cruz do about tracking entry / exit of people who are given visas?
  • What would Ted Cruz do about welfare benefits given to illegal immigrants?
  • If Donald Trump is tough on border security, then why did he donate so much money to open borders / pro-amnesty Democrats?
  • Has Donald Trump released the New York Times tape where he explained that his real views on border security are much more moderate than he tells the public?
  • What would Ted Cruz do to encourage job creators to create more jobs, and rein in government spending?
  • What would Ted Cruz do to fix the regulations that are stifling small businesses?
  • What would Ted Cruz do to make health care more affordable?
  • Surprise guest: why does former CEO of Hewlett-Packard Carly Fiorina support Ted Cruz for President?
  • Surprise guest: why does former Governor of Texas Rick Perry support Ted Cruz for President?

Leftist Politico reports that the Cruz Campaign is not wasting any time going after Marco Rubio supporters:

In Utah, his leadership team moved to lock down the Florida senator’s lengthy list of legislative endorsements before next Tuesday’s caucus. Cruz is planning to meet with Gov. Gary Herbert Saturday at a campaign kickoff event for Utah Sen. Mike Lee, another Cruz ally. In Washington, several of Rubio’s national security advisers signed on with Cruz — after, in part, courting from [Victoria] Coates. And nationally, Cruz’s money team is making the case to Rubio’s former donors that Cruz’s time has come.

Their message: The party is running out of time to stop Donald Trump — and Cruz is the only one who can do it.

[…]The broad-based, national effort comes as Cruz seeks to consolidate the anti-Trump wing of the GOP behind his campaign. He lags well behind Trump in delegates, but his team is hopeful that with a united party behind him, he’ll turn that deficit into a lead by the time the he heads to the Republican National Convention in July. They insist he could do even better: assemble enough delegates to score an outright win — though that’s a path that has narrowed dramatically and remains a long-shot for Cruz.

A win in Utah on Tuesday, however, would be a significant first step toward catching up in the delegate count, and Cruz enjoyed a boost toward that goal Friday when former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney—whom Cruz has frequently criticized– said he would vote for Cruz in Utah over Trump and over Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

“A vote for Governor Kasich in future contests makes it extremely likely that Trumpism would prevail,” Romney wrote in a Facebook post, echoing Cruz’s argument. “I will vote for Senator Cruz and I encourage others to do so as well, so that we can have an open convention and nominate a Republican.”

Leftist USA Today reports that Marco Rubio effectively endorsed Ted Cruz earlier this week:

Marco Rubio hasn’t endorsed Ted Cruz, but he seemed to come awfully close during a conference call with supporters this week.

Cruz is “the only conservative left in the race,” Rubio told supporters in Minnesota, according to a tape obtained by the Twin Cities Pioneer Press.

Meanwhile, leftist CNN reports that even liberal RINO Lindsey Graham is throwing his support behind Ted Cruz:

In a sign of just how much the Republican presidential primary has turned the party on its head, Sen. Lindsey Graham will headline a fundraiser on Monday in support of Ted Cruz.

[…]Support for Cruz is an about-face for the South Carolina senator, who compared nominating GOP front-runner Donald Trump or Cruz to being shot or poisoned. He recently mocked Cruz’s unpopularity among his colleagues, saying earlier this month: “If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.”

“He’s certainly not my preference, but he’s a reliable Republican, conservative, which I’ve had many differences with,” the South Carolina Republican said.

When asked about his dramatic change in stance toward Cruz, Graham admitted that his Senate colleague is “not well liked,” but said, “I have doubts about Mr. Trump, I don’t think he’s a Republican, I don’t think he’s a conservative, I think his campaign’s built on xenophobia, race-baiting and religious bigotry, I think he’d be a disaster for our party and as Senator Cruz would not be my first choice, I think he is a Republican conservative who I could support.”

On specific issues, Graham said he believes Cruz would be a reliable partner for Israel, would build the Keystone XL pipeline extension, would repeal and replace Obamacare and would nominate a true conservative to be on the Supreme Court.

Still, Graham said he believes that the third remaining Republican candidate for president, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, would be “the most viable general election candidate,” but that he does not see how Kasich can win the primary.

The move is also a sign that Cruz might be starting to gain traction with his colleagues in the Senate.

Cruz picked up his first Senate endorsement from Utah Sen. Mike Lee last week.

I think it’s amazing that Ted Cruz has actually gotten the liberal Republican establishment to come over and support him, and all without compromising a thing. In my lifetime, I’ve witnessed the slide of the Republican party to the moderate middle. I never thought I would see the day when the moderate middle had to come over to the conservative right. And yet here we are! I pray it’s not too late.

Health premiums up $4,865 since Obama promised to lower them $2,500

Should we pick a candidate based on our emotional response to his confidence?
Should we pick a candidate based on our emotional response to his confidence?

Barack Obama had a lot of confident words and personal charisma during his campaign speeches in 2008. Many young people want to believe that their positive emotional reaction to confident words will somehow make plans “work out”. But can you really compel the universe to give you goodies just by having positive feelings? Does your emotional response to handsome looks and confident words mean that somehow the universe will give you what you desire?

I want to use this article from Investors Business Daily to illustrate the importance of not picking a President based on confident words and personal charisma.

It says:

Employer-based health insurance premiums climbed 4.2% this year for family plans, according to an annual Kaiser Family Foundation report. That’s up from 3% the year before.

Since 2008, average family premiums have climbed a total of $4,865.

The White House cheered the news, saying it was a sign of continued slow growth in premium costs.

[…]”We will start,” Obama said back in 2008, “by reducing premiums by as much as $2,500 per family.”

That $2,500 figure was Obama’s mantra on health care. You can watch the video if you don’t believe it.

And Obama wasn’t talking about government subsidized insurance or expanding Medicaid or anything like that. He specifically focused on employer provided health care.

For “people who already have insurance, and the employers who are providing it,” he said at one campaign event, “we will work to lower your premiums by up to $2,500 per family.”

Let’s watch the video. I want everyone to see how confident a clown can sound when he lies about being able to solve problems that he knows nothing about.

He had no record of achievement in this area. None, Zero, Zip. And the same goes for his claims about keeping your doctor, keeping your health care plan, and so on.

But America voted to elect him. There were a lot of voters who did not want to think too hard about economics in 2008, and again in 2012. They did not want to have to put in any work to study the achievements of the candidate in the area of health care policy, to see if he had actually done anything to reduce health care premiums. They had a problem: health care costs are too high. A charismatic clown stepped forward and made their fears go away with confident talk. They made a decision to believe him. They wanted to believe that serious problems could be solved by the words of a charismatic clown, so that they would then be saved from having to evaluate the records of the candidates, to see which of them had put in place policies that had solved similar problems in their past. That’s too much work for the American voter. Better to just pick the one who seems to be able to solve the problem based on surface qualities, like confident words that produce emotional reactions. The universe will adjust because we have a positive attitude.

This is an attitude that no practical engineer like me could take. It’s a recipe for disaster. Nothing important in life – from designing e-commerce web sites, to developing cures to sickness, to constructing jet fighters – is conducted in such a stupid, emotional way.

Now, I’m pretty angry that two of my candidates, Rick Perry and Scott Walker, are out of the 2016 election. And why? Because an unqualified leftist clown is ruining the process with brash, insulting confident talk. Again, we are dealing with a clown who has no record of actual problem-solving in the areas where the American people need problems solved.

This article from Investors Business Daily explains:

Which of these two sounds like someone on an ego trip, someone content to let the Middle East go up in flames and, like Barack Obama, someone overconfident in his own abilities to persuade others? And which sounds like he would practice the sober, principled foreign policy of Ronald Reagan as president?

Yet it is the latter, Scott Walker, who was just forced to drop out of the race, the reality TV star front-runner having sucked so much air out of the room that it was becoming impossible to survive. He laudably called it his patriotic duty to depart, thus consolidating the opposition to Trump.

Walker is one of the most successful governors in the country, having brought unemployment down from over 8% to about 4.5%, and turning Big Labor’s targeting him for destruction into three successive electoral victories in a blue state.

A week ago a governor with a longer record of accomplishment, in a state Americans are flocking to for its vibrant jobs-rich economy, was also forced to drop out. In doing so, Rick Perry of Texas made a statement affirming his rock-ribbed commitment to free-market principles, traditional values and a strong America on the world stage.

Perry and Walker are both leaders of substance. Eight years of the inexperienced, self-obsessed Obama had many Republicans concerned about 2016 looking to the governors’ mansions for someone with a proven track record of actually solving crises and reversing misguided big-government policies. These two may have been the most accomplished figures in the nation in that regard. How is it that they are early dropouts?

Political journalists are having a ball dissecting the ins and outs of fundraising and styles of campaign managing to explain Walker and Perry’s exit. But there is no ignoring the 800-pound loudmouth in the room.

In Donald Trump, the left’s caricature of conservatism — the bombast, the misogyny, the hype-above-substance — is defeating the real thing.

I do hiring interviews in my company. I always make sure to ask questions to test the claims on the candidate’s resume. It’s not hard to find out whether a person knows how to do what they claim to know how to do. Many of the people who show up for interviews try to finesse their way through engineering questions with confident talk, and emotional appeals. We don’t hire them. Why is it so hard for the American people to understand what is at stake here?

Carly Fiorina wins first GOP debate, Perry and Jindal survive to fight again

Carly Fiorina outperforms at first GOP primary debate
Carly Fiorina outperforms at first GOP primary debate

Carly Fiorina was the star of the first GOP debate, no one else was even close. I admit that even though I am someone who favors only conservative governors as candidates (Walker, Jindal, Perry).

Highlights:

The Fox News moderators were just awful, but Fiorina still shined. The other candidates who impressed me were Perry and Jindal.

The reactions on Twitter were unaninmous in declaring her the winner, with Jindal and Perry being mentioned as runners-up.

Twitter reactions to the first GOP debate
Twitter reactions to the first GOP debate

Let’s take a look at that article from The Federalist that Mollie Hemingway tweeted.

She says:

FOX News hosted an early debate for seven candidates whose polling numbers weren’t high enough to get on the main stage. Former New York Governor George Pataki, former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-SC, Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-PA, former Texas Governor Rick Perry, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and businesswoman Carly Fiorina answered questions from FOX News’ Martha MacCallum and Bill Hemmer.

Graham focused his answers on ISIL, discussion of which seems to be the main motivating factor in his run for presidency. Perry focused on his experience. Jindal emphasized the importance of conservative governance. Pataki and Gilmore emphasized records from their time as governors less recent than Perry’s. And Santorum revisited themes, such as helping out blue collar workers, he emphasized during his earlier run for presidency.

But it was Carly who stood out. Fiorina towered over her opponents, even though many of them handled themselves well. When asked about Donald Trump’s popularity, Fiorina pointed out progressive positions he held while also acknowledging that his popularity is a result of the GOP political class failing to serve its constituents. Still, she asked, “What are the principles by which he’ll govern?

“There’s a sharpness and intelligence about her. A precision of her message that really cuts through,” FOX News’ Chris Wallace said immediately after the debate.

That was seen in one answer when she went out of her way to draw distinctions between conservatism and progressivism, about how they differ at their core in their views of the individual, equality, and the role of the government. Though she officially ran out of time in this answer, she kept going until she made her point and a moderator would have been crazy to stop her, on account of how compelling the moment was. Her control of the stage at that moment had something of Reagan’s “I am paying for this microphone” to it, a defiance based in commitment to a cause.

Simply articulating conservatism, much less doing it with precision and eloquence, reminds viewers how rarely such defenses of conservatism are heard from current Republican leadership. It also reminds them how ineffective and inarticulate such defenses of conservatism usually are.

She should have been in the debate of the top 10 candidates, and let that clown Donald Trump go jump in a lake.

Now there was some division about who won – some people thought Jindal and Perry also did well the debate:

Jindal and Perry also did well in the first GOP debate
Jindal and Perry also did well in the first GOP debate

Rachel Alexander explain why she liked Jindal in this article at The Stream.

She writes:

It was clear who the winners were. Carly Fiorina and Bobby Jindal consistently had solid, confident, precise, conservative answers to each question.

The other candidates fared less well. Lindsey Graham was tripped up a couple of times on his lack of a conservative record. When confronted about working with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on climate change legislation, he admitted he would reduce the country’s use of fossil fuels. George Pataki likewise stumbled when confronted about his pro-choice record. Asked about the horrific Planned Parenthood undercover videos of selling fetal body parts, he responded that Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for over 40 years and he would not ban abortion before 20 weeks.

Rick Perry seemed unsure of himself on issues, stumbling a bit over his words. Rick Santorum kept saying he wanted to make the U.S. number one in manufacturing jobs — despite the fact we are a First World country and technology is naturally causing shrinkage in manufacturing jobs. Jim Gilmore seemed too focused on repeating his past experience.

When asked about Ohio Governor John Kasich supporting Medicaid expansion in Ohio, Bobby Jindal soundly refuted it. “We can’t afford the entitlement programs we already have today,” he said, and stated that it was a mistake to expand Medicaid.

He said Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are working hard to turn the American dream into a nightmare.

“We’re going to have too many people in the cart rather than pulling the cart,” he said, and it isn’t free money we’re borrowing from China. He then pivoted to simultaneously enlist Obama in the point he was making, and point up how loose spending weakens America on the world stage:

Yesterday, the president stunningly admitted this. He said, “we don’t have leverage with China to get a better deal on Iran because we need them to lend us money to continue operating our government.”

The president of the United States admitting that he’s weakening our government’s position, our foreign policy standing, because he can’t control spending in D.C.

Both Perry and Fiorina did well discussing the Iranian threat. Perry said he’s on the side that keeps Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. In a surprise endorsement of Fiorina, he said, “I would rather have Carly doing our negotiation than John Kerry.” If so, he continued, maybe there might be a deal that didn’t give everything away. There needs to be a Congress that says, “Hell, no” to this regime. If elected, the first thing he would do would be to tear up Obama’s agreement with Iran.

I also found an interesting exchange between Fiorina and that liberal clown Chris Matthews on MSNBC. She knows how to deal with the liberal media. Probably because she is used to being CEO and having people listen.

I listened to the second debate as well, but it was harder to follow, because of the crowd noise, and the more obnoxious moderators, e.g. – Megyn Kelly. Will hopefully have a post up about that by midnight.

Why didn’t Scott Walker finish his fourth year of college at Marquette University?

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

The Weekly Standard explains the terrible scandal – he got a job offer in his fourth year of college, and he took it.

Excerpt:

As Scott Walker surges in the 2016 GOP primary polls, Democrats and the mainstream media have taken a newfound interest in the well-known fact that the Wisconsin governor never received a college degree.

[…]Walker’s story about his departure from college has always been straightforward: He attended Marquette University in Milwaukee from 1986 to 1990, but in the spring of his fourth year he left Marquette “in good standing” in order to take a full-time job at the American Red Cross. He intended to finish, but couldn’t find the time.

[…]When he arrived at college, Walker threw himself into student government and campus politics, but was uninterested in class. The Post reports:

Even in politics class, Walker could appear disengaged.

“He seemed utterly bored,” said Michael Fleet, who taught him in a class on the politics of the Third World. Fleet said he’d hoped to get Walker into debates with the liberals in the room. But it didn’t work. Walker would only give occasional short speeches that made conservative arguments.

So Walker abandoned the pursuit of a political science degree not only to take a full-time job at the American Red Cross but also to launch his political career. In the fall of 1990, Walker ran his first campaign for the Wisconsin legislature. He knocked on 13,000 doors only to lose badly, but his longshot campaign set him up for a winning campaign in another legislative district in 1993. In 2002, he was elected (and re-elected twice) as county executive in overwhelmingly Democratic Milwaukee county and went on to win three gubernatorial elections between 2010 and 2014.

Look, I studied computer science, and I thought that was interesting, but if I were studying political science, I would quit it too – if someone offered me a job. Non-STEM programs are a waste of time and money, compared to a real job. The job experience is worth more. And if he left to work, then he could start running for office as soon as he stopped studying full-time. I think people on the left forget how much college costs compared to a job. If you are paying $15K a year for college, then making $45K instead is quite a swing in a positive direction.

I think people in the media are starting to go after Scott Walker, now, so everything gets put under a microscope.

The Weekly Standard also wrote about a New York Times hit piece on Walker that actually lied about his record.

Take a look:

New York Times columnist Gail Collins writes about Wisconsin governor Scott Walker’s recent speech in Iowa:

Mainly, though, The Speech was about waging war on public employee unions, particularly the ones for teachers. “In 2010, there was a young woman named Megan Sampson who was honored as the outstanding teacher of the year in my state. And not long after she got that distinction, she was laid off by her school district,” said Walker, lacing into teacher contracts that require layoffs be done by seniority.

All of that came as a distinct surprise to Claudia Felske, a member of the faculty at East Troy High School who actually was named a Wisconsin Teacher of the Year in 2010. In a phone interview, Felske said she still remembers when she got the news at a “surprise pep assembly at my school.” As well as the fact that those layoffs happened because Walker cut state aid to education [emphasis added].

Only one problem with that:

[T]he big error in Collins’s piece is her claim that “those layoffs happened because Walker cut state aid to education.” As you can see in the excerpt above, Collins is talking about teacher layoffs that occurred in 2010. Walker did not become governor until 2011. 

The truth is that Walker’s reforms actually saved teachers’ jobs. Right before the 2012 Wisconsin recall election, Walker’s Democratic opponent Tom Barrett couldn’t name a single school that had been hurt by Walker’s policies. When Walker’s 2014 Democratic opponent Mary Burke was asked to name any schools hurt by Walker’s collective bargaining reform, she relayed an anecdote she’d heard secondhand about one school. Burke’s story didn’t check out, and the superintendent of that school wrote a letter telling Burke she didn’t know what she was talking about.

The New York Times updated their article after two days, with a correction that didn’t go far enough, in my opinion.

Meanwhile, the knock on Walker is that he is not able to raise as much money as the RINO candidates.

The Wall Street Journal says boo to that:

Several GOP fundraisers from the financial-services industry and other Manhattan business sectors are hosting donor events for Mr. Walker, a likely presidential candidate, when he visits New York next week. The events show that while former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie have strong support in New York money circles, neither has a lock on the city’s big-dollar donors.” The report continues, “Several fundraisers who backed GOP nominee Mitt Romney in 2012 are now helping Mr. Walker, who is best known for challenging Wisconsin public-sector unions and winning three statewide elections in a presidential swing state.”

How is Walker doing in the polls? The International Business Times reports on a new Fox News poll:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is at the head of the class among possible 2016 Republican presidential candidates, according to a new Fox News poll. In a survey that asked respondents to assign letter grades to 10 Republicans who may mount a campaign, Walker received an average grade of “B.” Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., both received “B-” averages.

[…]Besides leading the Republican field in average grade, Walker also received the highest share of “A” grades among Republican voters at 18 percent. He was followed by Carson at 15 percent and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 12 percent. Ohio Gov. John Kasich got the lowest percentage of “A” grades among the 10 possible GOP candidates at 5 percent, while New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie got the highest percentage of “F” grades at 13 percent.

[…]The Fox News poll of 1,044 registered voters was conducted between Feb. 8 and Feb. 10. It has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

If you want to hear a great introductory podcast on Scott Walker, I recommend listening to this 10-minute podcast on Scott Walker from the Weekly Standard. Get to know your Republican candidates now, don’t wait for the mainstream media to pick another Romney for you.

If you want to learn more about Scott Walker, I recommend Walker’s new book. I actually got the audio version, and it’s read by Governor Walker himself.

Related posts

With Romney out, Scott Walker leads Iowa poll with 16%, Bush at 9%

GOP primary Iowa poll from 2/1/15
GOP primary Iowa poll from 2/1/15

A Des Moines Register poll from Iowa came out today, showing Scott Walker in the lead, and the lead increases if Romney is out.

Here are the details:

Presidential stage newcomer Scott Walker, the conservative reform pit bull who inspired death threats from the left, has become the one to watch in the race for the Republican nomination a year out from the Iowa caucuses.

At 15 percentage points, he leads a big, tightly packed field of potential contenders in a new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll of likely Republican caucusgoers. The caucuses are scheduled for Feb. 1, 2016.

The Wisconsin governor is also the No. 2 most popular choice for likely caucusgoers who want an establishment candidate, and he’s the No. 2 for those who want an anti-establishment candidate, the poll shows.

“He’s in a sweet spot,” pollster J. Ann Selzer said. “People who don’t want an ultra-conservative think he’s OK. People who don’t want a moderate think he’s OK.”

[…]The day after polling wrapped up, Romney announced he’s out of the competition. When the numbers in this poll are shuffled — by giving Romney’s votes to the contenders his supporters named as their second-choice pick — the five others in the top tier gain support.

[…]Walker’s support has jumped 11 points since the last Iowa Poll. In October, only 4 percent of likely caucusgoers named Walker as their first choice for president.

[…]At the same time, the favorability rating for Walker has climbed 11 percentage points; Carson, 9; Huckabee, 7; Cruz, 6; Santorum, 5; and Paul, 5, the new poll shows.

“The candidates perceived as more conservative are not only leading but are gaining,” GOP strategist Vin Weber, a former Minnesota congressman, noted after looking over the results.

Walker and Carson have the lowest “unfavorable” ratings:

GOP primary Favorability
GOP primary Favorability

This is good news for Walker, but it’s disturbing to me that Huckabee (big government tax-and-spend moderate) and Paul (Peter Pan isolationist pot-legalizer) are that high up in the poll. Ben Carson is looking good, though. I like that the leftist establishment candidates (Bush, Christie and Romney) all had high unfavorable ratings. That’s a good sign.

Walker was on ABC’s This Week show:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has not officially announced that he will run for president in 2016, but he is feeling very confident about his chances.

Martha Raddatz, host of ABC’s “This Week,” asked Walker on Sunday morning whether there is a 99 percent chance he’ll run.

“I don’t know that I’d take the odds,” Walker responded. “I’ll just tell you one thing. After three elections for governor in four years in a state that hasn’t gone Republican since 1984 for president, I wouldn’t bet against me on anything.”

A new Bloomberg/Des Moines Register poll shows Walker as the favorite among possible GOP presidential candidates. The governor was the first choice of 15 percent of respondents, just edging out Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

Walker said he believes he could defeat likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton because she represents an earlier era in Washington, D.C., politics for which most Americans are not nostalgic.

“People want new, fresh leadership with big, bold ideas, and the courage to act on it,” Walker said. “And if we’re going to take on a name from the past, which is likely to be former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, I think for the party we need a name from the future.”

Looking good. Again, we have to have a candidate who is competent enough on fiscal issues, and has the results, if we hope to get around the media’s tendency to go after social conservatives. My list right now is this:

  1. Scott Walker
  2. Bobby Jindal
  3. Rick Perry
  4. Susan Martinez
  5. Ted Cruz

Pence is off my list after a couple of recent big government missteps (state media and Medicaid expansion).

Related posts