The difference between William Weld and Joe Walsh, the primary challengers to Trump?

[kentuck]

William Weld is considered a New England "liberal" by most Republicans. Most Republicans probably think they may as well vote for a Democrat as vote for William Weld? After all, he was a staffer, along with Hillary Clinton, on the Watergate Committee.

With Walsh, he can argue that he is a "conservative" and that Trump has deserted conservative "principles". Born into politics with the Tea Party movement, he is about as right-wing as the average Trump voter. Still, in my opinion, he has a better chance of taking votes from Donald Trump than does William Weld. His "Trump is not a conservative" argument is still pretty strong with a few Republicans.

I think the Trump regime would be more worried about Walsh than Weld?

[dawg day]

1. i guess the GOP doesn't mind the "deadbeat dad" problem

Walsh has some serious baggage. But hey, if he can help Trump melt down into a puddle of blubber, more power to him.

[onecaliberal]

3. Dear leader is a child rapist. Of course they don't mind.

[smirkymonkey]

2. I would like to see Trump in a debate with both of them.

I think they would both tear him to shreds, which might make some Republican voters wake up if they hear it coming from someone on their side. Weld has no illusions about becoming the Republican nominee, he just wants to get Trump out or at least bring him down.

[struggle4progress]

4. "If we elect Joe President, he won't drive around Illinois uninsured!"

[Hortensis]

5. Weld is a conservative libertarian. He's NOT a liberal.

Calling libertarians liberals is an enormous insult to liberals and to libertarians.

Libertarians are a real thing, a mercifully smaller personality type than the two main ones of liberal and conservative. The Kochs style themselves as libertarians, and Weld has been a Koch associate for decades, all during the time they've tried to destroy the system of government that America's liberals and conservatives (aka "normal" people) intended to benefit us all.

The top libertarian principle, and for hard-cores the only one, is individual freedom. Milds may support public education, moderates would agree some taxes will be necessary to pave necessary roads, etc., while hard-cores like Charles Koch insist taxation is justified only to provide protection for person and property. For strong libertarians, things like zoning laws are invalid because they interfere with the individual's right to store dangerous chemicals without safety regulations on his own property. Individual freedom.

Studies have determined that, not surprisingly, libertarians are, strikingly, either very limited in or devoid of altruism, which is what creates society's sense of duty to others. Libertarians see altruism as a weakness and the cause of most of society's problems, and the Kochs have worked (successfully) for decades to subvert the Republican Party into encoding that principle (euphemism: small government) into government. And they're right that, if we stopped making people pay taxes to subsidize medical care for the current epidemics arising from new lifestyles, such as childhood asthma and lung, heart and kidney disease, many millions of ill people would die off. As intended, for the good of a healthier society. Ultimate selfishness as the ultimate virtue.

Weld's too wily, and probably far too moderate, to admit any but the mildest and most sellable points, but also don't expect him to either claim to be liberal and certainly not to endorse the liberal principles and goals of the Democratic Party.