The left wing media declares jihad on Scott Walker

By 91 Comments 3,431 views

left wing jihad on walker b

Well over a year ago I wrote a post titled

The man democrats fear the most is already under attack by Obama

Walker has endured not one, but two secret “John Doe” probes into his campaign finances. Scurrilous democrats are utterly desperate to find something- anything- that can derail the Walker Express. They have been trolling for years unable to come with anything that will stick.

It is so rife with desperation that the democrat Nazis were issuing subpoenas to Walker allies in an effort to squeeze them until a judge shut that down.

Prosecutors in the John Doe investigation into spending and fundraising during the raucous Wisconsin recall elections were dealt a major procedural blow Friday, according to sources.

The five-county investigation remains open, but subpoenas issued in the probe to conservative political groups supporting Gov. Scott Walker were quashed, sources familiar with the development said. The ruling — which is sealed — raises First Amendment concerns about the subpoenas.

There is absolutely no question in my mind where this is coming from.

As Walker rises in prominence the left wing media has declared jihad on him. It’s no secret that Scott Walker didn’t finish college but you are going to hear that theme endlessly from the left over the next two years as if it was some kind of disqualifier. FWIW, here’s a list of billionaires who didn’t go to college.

Time magazine took a shot at letting people know in 2013 that Walker didn’t complete college.

Then came the ugly and wild assertions that Scott Walker was “kicked out” of college. According to Politifact Wisconsin the Wisconsin democrat party website ran this under its banner “The “Essence” of Dirty Tricks: Dropping out at Marquette”:

“Scott Walker was kicked out of student elections at Marquette University after masterminding a scheme that destroyed newspapers critical of him. Walker either dropped out or was forced out not long after.”

It was scrubbed since to read:

•Scott Walker ceased participation in student elections at Marquette University after masterminding a scheme that destroyed newspapers critical of him.

Because their accusation was a lie.

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin scrubbed its website Wednesday of accusations that Gov. Scott Walker was kicked out of Marquette University and student elections there.

The move was in response to a PolitiFact Wisconsin investigation that found no evidence Walker was forced out of either.

In the story published Wednesday, PolitiFact reported that Marquette, with Walker’s permission, released a letter that said he left voluntarily in spring 1990 and was in good standing each term. That means no conduct issues, academic or otherwise, blocked his registration.

“While we still stand behind our sources, only Scott Walker can clarify what happened in his time at Marquette University, and we’ll afford the governor the respect of taking him at his word on this,” Democratic Party chairman Mike Tate told the Journal Sentinel. “Accordingly, we’ve updated our website.”

(emphasis mine)

Daily Kos said Walker was a

“very, very bad man”

The sniveling little cockroaches at Kos weren’t content with that. A recent article blares this:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker claims to have a master’s degree

Upon what was this based? On Walker saying:

“I’ve got a master’s degree in taking on the big government special interests, and I think that is worth more than anything else that anybody can point to.”

That’s pretty pathetic but I guess they know their audience.

One social media outlet posted this:

“Walker had a 2.3 GPA when he was asked to leave Marquette University for cheating. Is it any wonder he’s attacking teachers now?”

Then the NY Time weighed in about Walker’s “nasal, Wisconsin flatness”, twice bringing up inappropriate emails by someone on his staff and unsuccessfully trying to stick them to Walker. One staffer was fired and as for the other?

Mr. Walker said his staff now underwent an elaborate training process and was required to sign a code of conduct that includes strict ethics laws and a standard of professionalism. “We apply that across the board,” he said.

The Times conveniently reminds us of the KGB tactics of Wisconsin democrats:

Under Wisconsin law, no one involved is permitted to discuss the secret investigation.

It’s been going on for three years with nothing to show for it.

So now it’s the Washington Post’s turn to smear Walker. “As Scott Walker mulls White House bid, questions linger over college exit” screams the headline.

Only if you’re an intentionally ignorant putz it is and I am going to have to assume David Fahrenthold is one of them.

MILWAUKEE — Scott Walker was gone. Dropped out. And in the spring of his senior year.

In 1990, that news stunned his friends at Marquette University. Walker, the campus’s suit-wearing, Reagan-loving politico — who enjoyed the place so much that he had run for student body president — had left without graduating.

To most of the Class of 1990 — and, later, to Wisconsin’s political establishment — Walker’s decision to quit college has been a lingering mystery.

Not even his friends at Marquette were entirely sure why he never finished. Some had heard that a parent had fallen ill, or maybe there was some financial strain. Others thought he had simply had enough of school.

There’s lots of innuendo too:

But in his classes, some professors said they never saw the same level of focus on schoolwork. In introductory French, for instance, Walker routinely barged into the room after the lesson had begun, loudly making excuses.

And more:

“I think I gave him a D-minus,” Boutet said, adding that he saw Walker years later, and the two laughed about the class. French, Boutet said, “was not his thing.”

Even in politics class, Walker could appear disengaged.

This is a most unoriginal rehash of past stories but it is necessary one in the left wing media jihad on Scott Walker. It’s a shame there wasn’t this level of scrutiny on Barack Obama’s drug dealers. Fahrenthold could have and should have included this from Politifact:

With that in mind, we asked Walker if he would allow Marquette to comment on his academic and conduct record. He did.

“Gov. Scott Walker was a student at Marquette from fall of 1986 until spring 1990 and was a senior in good standing when he voluntarily withdrew from Marquette,” the university said in a statement.

That means that no conduct issues, academic or otherwise, blocked Walker from continuing in school at the time of his departure, MU spokesman Brian Dorrington told us in early December 2013.

When we asked Dorrington whether any conduct issues were on Walker’s earlier school record, he said Walker would have to permit release of that information. Walker did so in response to our request.

“Governor Walker was in good standing each term while he was enrolled at Marquette University and when he left Marquette University,” Associate Vice Provost Anne Deahl said in a letter. “Governor Walker was not expelled or suspended from the university at any time.”

Fahrenthold also wrote this:

But before that streak came a string of defeats: the campus election, his failure to finish college and his first campaign for state office.

This is the sort of thing that often makes or breaks people. Walker is both a survivor and a winner, and that’s what scares the left wing media jihadists the most.

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

91 Responses to “The left wing media declares jihad on Scott Walker”

  1. 51

    Bill

    @Greg:

    The majority of American voters didn’t vote in the last election. They said nothing at all.

    No, they all spoke. Some voted for Republicans to kick lying, obstructing liberals out of Congress. Some simply could not bring themselves to go out and vote for more lying, obstructing liberals to do more lying and obstructing.

    If the majority wanted more of the same idiocy that brought us Obamacare, they would have voted for it. They either didn’t vote or voted against it.

    Oh, they spoke alright.

  2. 52

    Ditto

    @Scott in Oklahoma:

    Walker isn’t a lawyer, didn’t go to an Ivy League school

    That’s two points in his favor right there.

    @Ronald J. Ward:

    Well, at least your sockpuppets …

    The moderators here do not tolerate sockpuppets of any political affiliation. Curt verified that to Greg a mere two days ago. That is why This-One with his many aliases was the most recent puppeteer to have been shown the door and banned.

    @Ronald J. Ward:

    Let me be clear. I find it difficult to believe that so many different individuals post here with the same basic personalities,…

    There are actually quit a few recognizable differences in the manner which many here pen their words, (so to”speak”). You neglect to understand that this place on the internet was created for Conservatives to meet and “speak their mind”. It is therefore logical that there will be a concordance of view on many issues, and a greater number of Conservatives. It is also true that some of us who play here have had our disagreements with each other. (Sometimes as heated as with those leftist lurkers.) If you wish to continue laying your cards down here, I ( in the most friendly of terms,) gently advise you not to test Curt’s patience with continual spurious accusations. Your turn, call, raise or fold.

  3. 53

    another vet

    @Ditto:

    That is why This-One with his many aliases was the most recent puppeteer to have been shown the door and banned.

    Awesome. How could I have missed that one? (no pun intended)

  4. 55

    Redteam

    @Ditto:

    There are actually quit a few recognizable differences in the manner which many here pen their words,

    One thing most conservative poster seem to have in common is the they are concerned about the future of the country. Most liberals have something in common also: me,me,me, gimme, gimme, gimme.

  5. 57

    Ronald J. Ward

    @Ditto:

    It is therefore logical that there will be a concordance of view on many issues

    The problem with that argument is how consistently illogical these views on many issues are.

    My hypothesis is simply that. I obviously don’t have access to audit the ISPs or such nor do I care to. It’s that “walk like a duck” thing.

    About “This One”, how is it that you know of this ban and the many aliases you speak of? Was it discussed here on a thread? I selectively read here so I very well (and most likely) missed it but just wondering if you could link that discussion.

    Regardless, I really don’t care one way or the other as I tend to mainly chime in on blatantly incorrect or misleading forums that fail to stand up to scrutiny on any level. From that point, it’s just a matter of watching the kibitzing Calvary of nonsensical merrymen with their irrational gibberish doing all they can to defy reality, distract, throw me off, lie, insult, and just make total asses of themselves while all claiming victory to the argument, regardless of how jaw dropping ridiculous that argument is.

    The moderators here do not tolerate sockpuppets of any political affiliation. Curt verified that to Greg a mere two days ago.

    Well, looks like you got me again. I mean, if Curt said it, on FloppingAces, on the Internet, well, I guess that pretty much blows my case all to hell doesn’t it? What was I thinking?

  6. 58

    Nathan Blue

    @Ronald J. Ward: You have a lot of soul work to do, my friend…

    Claiming an argument is illogical, doesn’t make it so. You’re afraid of others being the very thing you’ve become, though subconscious as it may be.

    From that point, it’s just a matter of watching the kibitzing Calvary of nonsensical merrymen with their irrational gibberish doing all they can to defy reality, distract, throw me off, lie, insult, and just make total asses of themselves while all claiming victory to the argument, regardless of how jaw dropping ridiculous that argument is.

    I think the above “gibberish” marks all you’re holding back on yourself, brother.

    And, for the record, I think you meant to write “cavalry”, though using Calvary is rather telling. The only kibitzing nuisance in these conversations seems to be you. And indeed, it’s jaw-dropping.

  7. 61

    Redteam

    @Ronald J. Ward:

    Well, looks like you got me again. I mean, if Curt said it, on FloppingAces, on the Internet, well, I guess that pretty much blows my case all to hell doesn’t it? What was I thinking?

    You being all really brilliant and all that, I’m sure you know Curt is one of the moderators here, and yes, it was published on a thread back when This One was banished and why. and yes he just stated a couple days ago that there are presently no commenters under more than one name. Tell you what Zero Jr. Try commenting under another name and see how far you get.

  8. 62

    Nathan Blue

    @Ronald J. Ward: So we’re done here, Ace.

    Right?

    Any other infantile paranoia you need to get off your chest? Have to warn you though, I’m going to start charging money.

    And I think you’re going to need more than 24 hours of therapy. Make sure your healthcare information is up to date, and we can talk.

    Otherwise, I respond in your implied command of English: nah nah na-boo boo!

  9. 63

    Ronald J. Ward

    @Redteam: I think we can finally agree on one issue. I’m sure that if I were to comment under multiple names, it wouldn’t fly.

    How precisely does that makes your argument conclusive or my argument invalid?

  10. 64

    Redteam

    @Ronald J. Ward:

    How precisely does that makes your argument conclusive or my argument invalid?

    Ahhhh, I get it. You’re black and you think I’m a white racist. Right? So you’re playing your racist card, right?

  11. 65

    Ditto

    @Ronald J. Ward:

    About “This One”, how is it that you know of this ban and the many aliases you speak of? Was it discussed here on a thread? I selectively read here so I very well (and most likely) missed it but just wondering if you could link that discussion.

    Here is the link to Curt’s reply where states that “This-One” was banned for repeated sock-puppetry: we-cannot-be-protected-by-a-president-who-is-out-of-touch-with-reality

    I think we can finally agree on one issue. I’m sure that if I were to comment under multiple names, it wouldn’t fly.

    Your statement is inaccurate regarding Flopping Ace’s posting rules. To clarify: Anyone, (conservative, moderate, far-left, etc…) caught practicing sock-puppetry by commenting via multiple names will be warned, and failing to heed said warning, may very likely find themselves banned. You don’t have to take my word for it, go to the link I provided and read Curt’s reply.

    Or you could push your luck as Redteam suggests. It’s no skin off my back if you want to play the fool.

  12. 66

    Bill

    @Ronald J. Ward:

    Regardless, I really don’t care one way or the other as I tend to mainly chime in on blatantly incorrect or misleading forums that fail to stand up to scrutiny on any level.

    Is that so? If true, I myself have to wonder why you avoid answering the questions that arise from your faithful support of Obama failures? For instance, though you denounced all the views to the contrary, you never answered my question as to why Obama used an already shaky (facts-wise) example of racism and social injustice in America, before the world and the UN? Now, we have his on hyper-biased DOJ that could not find any civil rights violations in that example he used, making him look even more dishonest, stupid or racist… or all three. I cling to the hope that one day you will ask Media Matters for your balls back and come up with your own answer to my question. Is my wish hopeless?

  13. 67

    Curt

    administrator

    @Ronald J. Ward:

    Well, looks like you got me again. I mean, if Curt said it, on FloppingAces, on the Internet, well, I guess that pretty much blows my case all to hell doesn’t it? What was I thinking?

    Yes, I did say that. I have access to all IP’s, the city and state they comment from, the browser they are using as well as their OS. Sockpuppets are not tolerated whether they be right or left. Are you implying that I am lying?

  14. 69

    Greg

    Sometimes all the “left wing media” needs to do is to report the facts:

    Boehner “certainly” prepared to let DHS funding run out

    So, they’ll allow funding to run out for the department chiefly responsible for coordinating efforts to protect the nation from terrorism, because they’re ticked off about Obama deferring the deportation of undocumented aliens determined not to represent a threat and focusing instead on those who do.

    Are you following this logic?

    Meanwhile, they refuse to address underlying immigration problems, insisting that all that needs to be done is to enforce existing laws. This is an interesting argument, since the department they’ll let run out of operating funds is largely responsible for such enforcement.

  15. 72

    Bill

    @Greg: Well, all the Democrat have to do is stop fillibustering and offer amendments, something not offered to Republicans under stunt-man, Stumblin’ Harry Reid. Sorry, Greg, but if the funding lapses, it will be those obstructionist Democrats… again.

    But, of course, terror is over-hyped, we are on the offensive against ISIS and they are on the defensive, al Qaeda is on the run and all we see are random acts of violence. Who needs the DHS anyway?

  16. 73

    Ditto

    @Bill:

    Who needs the DHS anyway?

    All the Democratic held precincts, cities, states etc.. that disarm their citizens making them vulnerable to all criminal predators. Someone has to collect the bodies.

  17. 74

    Greg

    @Bill, #72:

    Well, all the Democrat have to do is stop fillibustering and offer amendments, something not offered to Republicans under stunt-man, Stumblin’ Harry Reid. Sorry, Greg, but if the funding lapses, it will be those obstructionist Democrats… again.

    Do you really believe people of average intelligence won’t understand that republicans have deliberately entangled Homeland Security funding with their efforts to block Obama’s immigration enforcement priorities?

    Republicans seem to be making a lot of incredibly dumb moves lately.

  18. 75

    Ditto

    @Greg:

    If you really believe the majority of people support Obama’s amnesty overreach and want it funded so that illegal immigrants can take US jobs and get a free pass on having to follow our immigration laws, it is you who are delusional.

  19. 76

    Bill

    @Greg:

    Do you really believe people of average intelligence won’t understand that republicans have deliberately entangled Homeland Security funding with their efforts to block Obama’s immigration enforcement priorities?

    First, Greg, Obama’s priorities are immigration NON-enforcement. He is ordering immigration officials to NOT enforce laws. So, there’s that.

    Secondly, I have no doubts how the corrupt left wing media will spin this. However, Obama was informed how this was going to be opposed before he did it. He even hoped for a Congress-bogging impeachment in order to make political hay from it. However, though warned that Congress would block funding of his illegal memo, he went ahead and did it anyway. Just as with the shutdown, which the Democrats could have avoided had they agreed to do EXACTLY what Obama later did illegally (again, just to save his on political butt), the government would not have shut down and recently the public has been becoming more and more aware of THAT fact.

    Again, if Obama really cared about funding DHS he would not have gone to the trouble to take illegal actions which Congress has to take steps to stop. Ask Obama why he did that.

  20. 77

    Ronald J. Ward

    @Curt:
    You gotta love the ole “you calling me a liar” rebuttal.

    Would the Internet lie?

    I’m more a man of mathematics man so I have to run the numbers to give an educated and conclusive response. I’m an avid stud poker player and it’s not that I distrust my opponents but the deal is that at the end of the game, you lay the cards on the table and they speak for themselves. From this very conversation, I acknowledged I’m not prevy to the ISPs whereas you are. I simply don’t have enough data to calculate nor can you provide proof of which you say. This is why I referred my analysis as an hypothesis rather than factual.

    But “honesty”, or at least an honest acknowledgement of some aspect of an argument, is something I’ve tried to pull from the regulars here from my first visit, only to find it to be way too tall of an order. Examples include:
    Could certain GOP states possibly be exploiting Voter ID in order to suppress Dem voters?
    Could the GOP be exploiting Benghazi simply because Hillary is expected to run in 2016?
    That problems actually existed in healthcare prior to ACA, that there really is a wage gap problem and no, Obama didn’t cause it, that there’s actually a gender pay issue, that economist such as Krugman and Reich do actually present some credible arguments, that Right to Work and crushing Unions has more to do with Citizens United V Fed Election Committee for campaign contribution purposes, that the GOP has intentionally sabotaged the economy in order to undermine Obama, that a racial divide still exist and no, it ain’t all Obama, that maybe we were somewhat conned into attacking Iraq, that ending the EPA in it’s entirety would have dangerous consequences, that “sending people home to die” is more of a GOP belief and certainly far from Christian, that Fox News might possibly have an anti-Democratic slant, that “death panels” are fear mongering nonsense, and good lord, where does one stop?

    Honesty is more easily defined. Your resident lapdogs have certainly fallen short. You lying? Well, again, I’d have to see those cards on the table. All I can do is evaluate the duck’s walk and talk and form my own opinions.

  21. 79

    Rich Wheeler

    I can confirm that the folks you are debating are not one and the same. I would agree they often sound the same. They come from the same mold. They are very set in their ways and their beliefs. They never admit they are wrong. Even when the truth is staring them in the face.
    You put up a good fight but to question Curt’s integrity is a mistake.

  22. 83

    Redteam

    @Rich Wheeler:

    They never admit they are wrong.

    Really? As you’ve admitted you are wrong about Obozo? Ordering the Marines to surrender their weapons and abandon American property is an heroic act?

    He claims all troops are out of Iraq but now we find out some Marines are surrounded there? Can anyone believe anything he says? Why?

  23. 84

    Bill

    @Ronald J. Ward: WAIT CURT!! Just a few more questions…

    Could certain GOP states possibly be exploiting Voter ID in order to suppress Dem voters?

    Tell me, Ronals, how does the GOP pinpoint the Democrat voters? Are they the only ones too lame to have or get an ID?

    Could the GOP be exploiting Benghazi simply because Hillary is expected to run in 2016?

    Couldn’t the Democrats have denied such an opportunity of the Republicans by simply being honest about what happened? Of couse, this in and of itself would have sunk Hillary’s chances, since it shows how incompetent and inept she is, but at least the Democrats would come off looking somewhat honest and concerned with American lives… as opposed to how they, Hillary and lemmings like yourself look now.

    I expect just as many answers to the questions difficult for a liberal bruised heavily by failure after you are exiled as while you were here, but I had to give it one last shot.

    Enjoy pergatory.

  24. 86

    Greg

    @Bill, #76:

    First, Greg, Obama’s priorities are immigration NON-enforcement. He is ordering immigration officials to NOT enforce laws. So, there’s that.

    The Obama administration has deported undocumented aliens at a higher rate than preceding administrations. Has the deportation of undocumented aliens ceased? It has not. We’re talking about prioritization of enforcement, not cessation of enforcement. Prioritizing enforcement represents an intelligent shift of focus. Resources—both manpower and money—are limited; obviously too limited to allow for the removal of over 11 million people. So, you can only remove so many.

    Which is smarter, and more in the spirit of American ideals: To deport undocumented aliens on a totally random basis? Or to focus on those who clearly represent the greatest threats to the community, while deferring action against people who—except for their undocumented status—could be viewed as positive assets? To deport unattached people first? Or to ignore the socially stabilizing effect of family units and randomly deport mothers and fathers who are supporting small children, just because they happened to come to your attention first?

    Estimates of the total cost to taxpayers of apprehending, holding, processing, and deporting a single undocumented alien vary from a low of $12,500 to a high of $23,480. Accept whichever you wish. Multiply that by upwards of 11 million, and consider the result you get before suggesting that they can all be removed. If they all can’t all be removed, doesn’t it make sense to prioritize enforcement to get the most benefit from the money and resources available?

    People seem to abandon logic whenever the issue under consideration involves a policy decision by Barack Obama. This is not a useful approach. Reflexively taking the opposite position isn’t likely to produce smart alternatives or good results.

  25. 88

    Pete

    I don’t know if any of you have seen the NYT story that just ran stating that in 2005-6 the CIA destroyed at least 400 nerve agent-filled Iraqi rockets but kept this information classified. IIRC, the NYT article explicitly states these were NOT previously declared and turned over to the UN inspectors.

    So in other words…MORE evidence that there most certainly WERE Iraqi WMDs over there….

    And reported not by Fox News…but by the NYT!

    I would have been waiting for RJW to find a way to call the NYT a sockpuppet for Fox News, but, oh well….

  26. 90

    Rich Wheeler

    @Redteam: You and Obama oughta get a room RT. You make everything about him. You seem obsessed with the guy.
    I said Repubs on here never admit they’re wrong .You said Really? Is that a yea or nay—or a lets change the subject? You are a very evasive sort RT—difficult to have any meaningful debate. lol

  27. 91

    Redteam

    @Rich Wheeler: :

    You and Obama oughta get a room RT.

    You’re the one complaining about not getting enough ass-kissing time with him.

    Is that a yea or nay

    yes it is.

    difficult to have any meaningful debate

    that’s because you don’t answer questions and change the subject

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *