Noah Rothman:
How do you know that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has taken at least temporary custody of frontrunner status in the race for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016? Beyond, of course, the polls that show him rocketing to the front of the pack in critical early primary states likeIowa? The political press is coming down hard on him and his nascent campaign.
After three unambiguous statewide victories in a Democratic state in just four years, Scott Walker is thoroughly vetted. If there were skeletons in his closet, the media and the myriad opposition researchers scrutinizing his past would have found them by now. “Scott Walker could very well be indicted in the coming days,” the forlorn MSNBC host Ed Schultz predictedon the night of Walker’s second statewide victory. He never was.
So, the press has taken a keen interest in catching Walker in unflattering moments or making hash out of otherwise minor controversies. Rudy Giuliani was speaking at an event for Walker when he sent the political media into a manic frenzy in which reporter and pundit alike tripped over one another to denounce what they dubbed the New York City’ mayor’s callous and quite possibly racist assertion that President Barack Obama doesn’t love his country. Only now, on day five of that story, is it finally beginning to fade from the media’s focus.
When Walker refused to denounce the former Big Apple mayor to the media’s satisfaction, they pounced. “What Scott Walker did ought to disqualify him as a serious presidential contender,”Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank hyperventilated. “Clownish,” insisted Rachel Maddow Show producer Steve Benen. “Spineless,” The Washington Post editorial board averred.
And all this merely because the Badger State governor said “the mayor can speak for himself” despite conceding that his comments were “aggressive.” The press would not have been satisfied unless Walker had thrown himself upon a pyre in penitence for the sin of having attended an event at which the president’s values were questioned and his honor attacked. It was bizarre to see the political press respond to Giuliani’s remarks as though they had been personally insulted.
This episode did provide the media with the opportunity to quiz every Republican candidateabout how they feel about a politician out of office for over a decade. Despite the fact that the head of the Democratic National Committee is involved in a significant quid pro quo scandaland remains suspect of interfaith marriage and the Vice President of the United States is aserial groper, Democrats are spared association with these figures by an energetic political media.
I am getting tired of the gotcha questions that are thrown at Walker and other GOP candidates. Surely there are more pressing issues than BHO’s religion. For me I think BHO has pretty much settled his religion question.
I still want to know more about Walker, but I confess the leftist media attacks against him certainly make him more attractive. It also makes one wo der how much Jeb’s machine is working behind the scenes in the effort to derail him.
@Pete #3:
“LEFTIST media attacks”???
This from FOX NEWS:
“By repeatedly insisting he (Walker) has no need to answer queries he doesn’t like, the Wisconsin governor has turned what might have been a one-day flap into a weeklong story.”
“Conservative columnist Matt Lewis says Walker’s answers were awful”:
“I’m tired of this whining and playing the victim card. That’s what liberals do. If Republicans are to win the White House, conservatives will have to take this advice: Learn to adapt and overcome — not complain about media bias.”
Does FOX News’ scolding make Walker less attractive?
And if FOX’s scolding makes Walker less attractive, how does the MSM’s scolding make him look any different?
(Pete, I’m feigning ignorance of the obvious here because I don’t want to accept that you might actually be stupid enough to base your approval of a candidate upon the MSM’s disapproval of him. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” rarely ends well.)
@George Wells: You’re right, George
The Right whines about the “lamestream media”, the Left whines about Fox..
Conservatives excoriate Soros, the Left blames the Koch brothers..
Is it any wonder that the percentage of voters that are identifying themselves as indies is growing?
I don’t think Scott Walker can win a general election. I don’t think HRC will run–she’ll cite health reasons..
Jim Webb for Prez. Semper Fi
@Rich WheelerLet me correct your quote for you.
I think most are identifying as ‘ignorant’.
The biggest problem politicians have is that they can only be said to ‘betray the public trust’. This is on both sides. Does anyone think that Obama openly ran on a policy to ignore Islamic Terrorism? To destroy the American military? To promote muslims in the country? To run from all enemies, foreign and domestic?
Did Clinton run as a ‘skirt chaser’? Politicians seem to only run to furher their own personal interests.
@Redteam: “most are identifying as ignorant” you say.
That must explain why Repubs. currently control both Houses.
@Rich Wheeler:
“I don’t think HRC will run”
If she doesn’t, she might well site health reasons, but her real reason would be that she has failed to say ANYTHING that will send Democrats, much less independents, to the polls in 2016. I’m hearing that she is holding her good stuff back strategically so not to have it go stale by election day, but I’m thinking that maybe there simply is nothing much left upstairs. If that’s the case, “Health Reasons” would be the convenient excuse. Otherwise, she’d better start rolling out some real ideas soon, or she won’t get the nomination.
“I don’t think Scott Walker can win a general election.”
If Hillary really runs, and if she is indeed running on empty, Walker could walk away with a landslide win, but that requires him to get the GOP nomination. Smart Republicans understand that among all of their current candidates for the nomination, Walker has the BEST chance of winning the presidency, but smart Republicans are not in control of the primary process. The extreme right tail of the party wags the dog, and the brains of the party are at the other end, so-to-speak. At the moment, Walker is being so coy about not answering questions the answers to which will either upset GOP primary voters OR national election voters, and if he keeps up that strategy, he won’t win anything. It gets to looking like he has something to hide, and voters don’t like that.
After CPAC, it’s clear that the GOP has exactly two potential winners to choose between: Walker, and Bush. Between them, Bush has the experience edge, the fund-raising edge, and the wider appeal among moderates and independents. Walker looks better to the far right, and for exactly the same reasons, looks less appealing to middle-of-the-road Americans – the “silent majority.” Neither candidate will be strapped for cash, given the stakes of the game, so the practical question boils down to electability. Which gives the better chance to win the presidency – appealing to the GOP’s far right base, or appealing to the center of the whole country? And do you think that the far right base that has this disproportionately large influence on the nominating process has the sense to make the right choice? I suspect not.
@George Wells: Do you really think the center could vote for another Bush? I think a Kasich or Paul.
Did you see this duck wacker’s speech? Unbelievable guys like this exist in modern America.
@Rich Wheeler #10:
Kasich doesn’t yet have the necessary name-recognition to win a national election.
Paul does have the name-recognition, but is hurt by his father’s… bizarreness, and by his own isolationism. The libertarian approach would need a perfect fit with the country’s sentiments on just about every issue not directly linked to personal liberty for a candidate to best the more conventional choices, and Paul does not fit that bill. Too many in his own party treat him like a flake – the proverbial snowflake that has a zero chance in Hell.
@George Wells: I think the candidate is Walker and vp either Kasich or Carson. No one wants another Bush that is the weakest ever on amnesty.
@Redteam #12:
Carson would scare off more whites than he would attract Blacks. If you need discussion of that, let me know.
Maybe Kasich would help – I don’t know. Not a “dream-team”, though.
@George Wells:
interesting. So you are the opinion that the GOP has more racists than the Dims do? As long as the liberal, blacks, and Hispanics are in the Dim party, that’s not very likely. I don’t believe that you will find many Repubs that didn’t vote for Obama because of his color, I suspect it was because Repubs tend to be much more aware of politics and qualifications and anyone that is looking for a ‘qualified’ person, would not vote for Obama. Has nothing to do with race.
@Redteam #14:
“So you are the opinion that the GOP has more racists than the Dims do?”
No.
Can you find ONE statement I have EVER made ANYWHERE that suggested that?
(Hint: The correct answer is “NO.”)
Considering that there are REALLY only about five TRUE BLUE REPUBLICANS left in the World – all the rest being “RINOs,” as identified by all of the finger-pointing that goes on under the GOP tent – it stands to reason that there are a whole lot more racist Democrats than racist Republicans.
“I don’t believe that you will find many Repubs that didn’t vote for Obama because of his color.”
Proof that nobody EVER lost money UNDERESTIMATING Redteam’s intelligence. The country is full of racists, and always will be, just as it is full of homophobes that will never disappear, no matter what the courts decide. And loads of people – like me – have a favorite issue that they put ahead of all the rest, and vote accordingly. Maybe not ALL racists vote their bigotry, but plenty of them do.
The rose-colored glasses that you view your own party through do not become you.
@Redteam: Fool hearty to anoint Walker, Perry and Paul will battle hlm. Not to mention windbag Christie Bush will call on 3 generations of Rhino’s and raise an incredible amount of money.
Kasich gets compromise win with Carson Veep.
@ Rich Wheeler:
Kasich? With Carson?
What a yawner!
Who, besides Ohio insomniacs, knows anything about this boring governor? And if the GOP didn’t learn from its mistake putting first a clown and then an angry flip-flopping misfit in the VP spots, then they deserve what they will get if they put Carson there. He’s put his own foot in his mouth enough times to scare away anyone with enough curiosity to wonder what the country would become if Carson’s president dropped dead. Maybe that team would have a chance if Hillary picks a lightning rod for abuse for a running mate. No, I can’t suggest a GOOD VP choice for her. We’ll have to wait and see.
@George Wells: I’m not voting for HRC or Bush–won’t vote for Walker.
Kasich or Paul can win–and INMO is the best ticket combined. to attract Dems and Indies—also electorally sound.
@Rich Wheeler:
OK. I’ll bite.
WHAT would make a majority of GOP primary voters pick Kasich? Is he RUNNING?
Do you expect that GOP conventioneers will be sick and tired of every other option by the time the nomination rolls around, and that they’ll DRAFT him??? And then do you really think that Americans in general will pick someone they DON’T KNOW?
You know that old phrase “You can’t BUY this kind of publicity!” ?
Well, Kasich hasn’t BOUGHT any, and he hasn’t earned enough to get elected to the top national office, either. At this point, maybe he’d make a good VP option, but not for the #1 spot on the ticket.
And I don’t care WHAT CPAC straw poll results say. Paul’s got max flake factor, and that’ll keep him out of the White House. Hey, I think he’s… fun. But that isn’t enough.
@George Wells: I asked this question: “So you are the opinion that the GOP has more racists than the Dims do?” To which you ask:
Well, there’s this from 13 above:
That’s why I asked the question. Other than ‘racism’ why wouldl Carson ‘scare off more whites’?
That’s because no one would bet on that. If you would, let me know.
I certainly wouldn’t disagree with that. I would bet that there are more blacks that have ‘racial’ issues than others, just as I would bet that homosexuals have more homophobe ‘issues’ than non-homosexuals do. My perception is that few non-homosexuals spend any time at all thinking about the subject until a homosexual brings up the subject. Same for racism.
I don’t think I see through ‘rose colored’ glasses. I think 98% or more of elected politicians of both parties ‘only represent’ their own personal interests. Black voters in the Dimocrat party would vote against Carson because they see him as a ‘black person that has sold out his race’. That’s also true of all other members of the Dimocrat party. Look at the amnesty issue in both houses as an example of the Republicans not representing the voters that voted for them to deal with the amnesty issue. They appear to be more afraid of the Dimocrats than they do the voters that voted for them.
@rich wheeler:
I feel, right now, as if Walker will be the nominee, unless he stubs his toe along the way. Perry might be the best overall candidate based on management experience, but I think he’s about shot himself in the foot over amnesty. Ryan is not and will not be a serious candidate.
Bush a non-starter. Amnesty will kill him. He would have half the populations of Cuba and Mexico in the US within 5 years. Kasich and Carson only other serious candidates and Carson only for VP.
@George Wells:
not sure who that is representing, but the VP slot is not important. I mean, remember Joe Biden?
Maybe I’m not following close enough, but I can’t think of any examples of that. If ‘putting foot in mouth’ is a disqualifier, then Hillary will never get a nomination. No, I think people overlook most ‘mis-statements’. I understand, especially if it’s a Republican, that the press is gonna blow up everything they can, while they completely cover up anything the Dims screw up on.
@George Wells:
Is he running? As of now, you could likely say that about every single candidate. I don’t think anyone has ‘announced’. If so, I missed it. Kasich is every bit as well know at this point as Obama was at the same point before the 08 election. Most Conservatives know of Kasich very well. I’d guess 50/50 right now.
Trump says he is about 80% sure he’s running. If he does, he’ll likely be the candidate. If he is the candidate, I’d say he’d likely win.
I agree on that. He seems to be too ‘political’ and the last thing we need more of is ‘politicians’. While I didn’t think Trump would be a good candidate in 08, he might be a better one now. While he does some things I don’t like, that’s also true of most others. Not one candidate on either side gets a check mark in all categories.
@Redteam:
He’s already stubbed his toe, in 2013 when he was for making the borders even more open than they already are (making it easier for people to come in) and for a path to citizenship. The border states are not going to accept his flip-flop now that he’s trying to gain the brass ring.
Also, Walker is peaking waaaaaay too early. He has no where to go but down.
Fixed it for you. Christie is dead in the water, as is Rubio. Rand Paul is just the fluke of the libertarian leaning CPAC. His daddy won more than once and we know how that worked out.
@retire05:
well, I used future tense because the nonimating process hasn’t happened yet. But I agree, he is an ‘open borders’ guy.
Agree, Christie a blowhard RINO, Rubio, not eligibe, not a natural born citizen, open border guy.
I agree Walker changed his opinion on border issue, but there is not a candidate that hasn’t. That’s my only negative on Perry. I can’t say he’s ‘changed’ just always has been too lenient on illegal aliens. There is not a good candidate on the ‘border’ issue.
@Redteam: That’s Rand Paul not Paul Ryan. Much more electable than his father. Think he’s a very smart ,personable guy, who wants it real bad.
Trump–you’re joking??
@rich wheeler: Thanks Rich, I’m aware of who the subject was and I still agree he is somewhat of a flake.
@Redteam:
“@George Wells: I asked this question: “So you are the opinion that the GOP has more racists than the Dims do?” To which you ask:
Can you find ONE statement I have EVER made ANYWHERE that suggested that?
(Hint: The correct answer is “NO.”)
Well, there’s this from 13 above:
Carson would scare off more whites than he would attract Blacks.
That’s why I asked the question. Other than ‘racism’ why would Carson ‘scare off more whites’?”
Here’s the problem:
My comments weren’t about the GOP, they were about the entire population. Particularly, count in all of those Democrat racists that you are so fond of pointing at, and all of the Blacks who don’t like Carson’s brand of “Uncle Tom” or who won’t EVER vote for the party that doesn’t promise them giveaways, and you pretty much have to come up with a very compelling reason for the remainder of voters to pick Carson, and I’ve a hunch that there isn’t one.
“There is not a good candidate on the ‘border’ issue.”
Aren’t you curious about why that is?
You have the House Republicans and the “Tea Party” howling about this issue as if the American public cares, while a majority of the public actually supports legalization and/or citizenship… AND THE GOP CANDIDATES KNOW THAT!
That’s why, FOR YOU, there isn’t a good “border issue” candidate. You’re in the unpopular minority on this one, chump!
@Rich Wheeler #26:
“Trump–you’re joking??”
I sure HOPE he was…
Know anyone who will give me ANY Odds on Trump winning the presidency?
@George Wells:
You’re sure of that? Why not tell me what my position is on the ‘border/amnesty’ issue. I don’t think you have a clue on that. While you’re at it, tell me what your position on that issue is.
@rich wheeler:
Didn’t even notice that comment. No, actually I’m not. I can’t think of any ‘good’ candidate, and that includes Trump. The only reason I even think he might do ok is that he’s a ‘non-politician’. Though I suspect he would very quickly become one if elected. He has plenty of business management experience, something that has never been elected as president before.
I know you think Jim Who would make a good candidate, but there aren’t more than 30 people in the country, outside of his state, that have ever heard of him. He’s a turncoat, used to be a RINO, now he’s a DINO. In other words, a politician. Why would ANYONE support him?
@Redteam: Webb War hero–supports 2nd Amendment.
Eats Conservatives for lunch–ask George Allen Jr.
@rich wheeler:
Webb who? Supports 2nd amendment, until after the election? Is he running? How do you know? I haven’t seen him on the News.
First you claim he supports the constitution, then you say he eats people that support the constitution. Which is it? Macaca and the liberal press defeated Allen, had nothing to do with Who, uh, Webb War, er uh Who.
I notice he’s been married 3 times. Why would the country like someone that his wives don’t?
Rich, I’m checking out Webb on google. Some interesting stuff on him. Running as a ‘white man’ in a ‘black party'(my words). Found this, what do you think about this:
What did Kerry do that changed Webb’s opinion of him? Do you see that as a ‘sell out’ of principle? A man that is not worthy of a handshake is worthy of a vote to be president? Do you see that as ‘principle’ or ‘political’? quote above from: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/jun/26/the-jim-webb-story/
@Redteam:
There’s one.
So you think signing a bill passed with a super (veto proof) majority for in-state tuition is lenient? No one ever talks about that.
Is it being lenient putting the Texas Guard, and the elite Rangers, on the border in the Rio Grand sector where most of the illegals were crossing last summer? Is it lenient to have the state buy its own drones for border security just to have Obama’s FAA shut them down? Is it lenient to purchase high speed boats to patrol the Rio Grand when that should be the fed’s job under the Border Patrol?
Perhaps you can tell me what other border states did that helped control the number of illegals pouring over their borders?
Again, there’s one.
@Redteam: He wouldn’t shake “w” s hand either–when he was POTUS.
He’s a very feisty guy. A true longshot.
As pointed out, Walker has been known to bend with the wind.
That’s politics.
A White man in a Black Party. What kind of stupid backwoods statement is that? lol
@rich wheeler:
Yes, compare the Kerry thing vs the W thing. He actually had a legitimate reason to not shake Kerry’s hand, a traitor to the military. Not answering a question about his son with the statement: “That’s between me and my son, Mr. President.” is very petty. Why would Webb Who think a military person in Iraq is not a concern of the president or of the country? Why would he think no one but the Soldier’s father would care about his welfare? Sounds like an ‘angy, pissed off at the world, attitude’. I’ll be surprised if he’s not married to no. 4 before long. Not many women would put up with that kind of attitude, why should the country?
quote from above: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/jun/26/the-jim-webb-story/
@Redteam: Not pissed off at the world–pissed off at w. Good for him.
@rich wheeler:
Compared to what he said, that’s a ‘mild’ assessment. go to that first link about him above and read a little. It tells why he thinks the ‘white man’ is being discriminated against. No women in combat, no integrated (male-female) dorms, etc. George Wells wouldn’t be a supporter.
@rich wheeler:
more so than Kerry? for what? He got over it for Kerry, not man enough to get over Bush being a Republican? kinda small of him, and this is the kind of person you admire?
@Redteam: He got over it with W as well.Too bad he can’t run against the former Conservative Savior George Allen Jr.. Junior was decorating the oval office till he ran into Captain Webb.
@retire05:
Why would ANYONE agree to allow illegal aliens to pay in state tuition but Americans citizens have to pay out of state rates?
And you consider that ‘tough’ on amnesty? Veto proof or not, he signed it and said he strongly supported it.
I wish.
While I’m in favor of his efforts to enforce the border, that’s not the issue. The issue is all the illegals in the country and what to do with them. Doing things like letting them pay instate tuition isn’t very unfriendly. I don’t know of any positive thing he has done to get rid of all the illegals,
@rich wheeler:
What kind of stupid backwoods statement is that? lol
@Redteam:
Did you vote for Romney over Obama?
The issue, Redteam, is that all those illegals would not be here in the first place if the border was enforced. So yes, enforcing the border is the first order of the day, not just an afterthought.
Perry signed legislation that was passed by a veto proof majority. But I guess you think Perry is the only governor that has ever done that.
Quote the part of the Constitution that gives enforcement powers to a state governor. It is not a governor’s duty to “get rid” of the illegals, it is the federal government’s duty. Why hasn’t your own governor gotten rid of the illegals in your state? And don’t tell me you don’t have any.
@Redteam: You’ve never been much for originality though imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thanks RT
@retire05:
instead of.
As I said, I support enforcement of the border. But the illegals that are not here are not as much of a problem as the one’s that are here are. I’m more interested in what to do with the ones here.
I think most agree that the border needs to be enforced. But that’s not anymore the governors job than is what to do with the illegals that are here.
A governor should not sign legislation that he does not approve of. If he didn’t support it, he could just not sign and let it become law without him signing. He has said he supports it. Nuff said. why approve of illegal aliens getting a USA benefit that American citizens can’t get? 18 states have provisions allowing in-state tution rates for undocumented students, Texas being one of them. La is not one of them.
You are the one referring to him illegally spending money to enforce the border when he’s not authorized or empowered to do so. But that’s not the point. He does not have any solution for dealing with illegal aliens. If he does, it’s not a public position.
As I said, I don’t know of anyone running for president on either side that has a strong position on dealing with illegal aliens.
Because it’s not the governors place to deal with them. I will say that Louisiana has probably accomplished more to make Louisiana a less desirable location than Texas. But as far as I know Jindal is not running for national office so his position on illegals is not as important as those that are running.
@rich wheeler:
Nothing is original on this blog. However I did notice that you gave style points to my statement:
@Redteam:
First you say:
Then you say:
Which is it? Or do you hold Perry, former Governor of Texas, to a higher standard than you hold Bobby Jindal?
How so? I don’t speculate in probables. Louisiana has no common border with Mexico, so unless the illegals are coming by water, they do not enter Louisiana first and settle there. But enter Louisiana they do, so you tell me what Jindal has done to protect the Louisiana border. After Katrina, New Orleans was loaded with illegals. Did they all get there by sea?
@retire05: First you say:
Then you say:
I am, and have been, talking about their plan to deal with illegal aliens ‘as the president of the USAl’, not as the governor of the state.
My original statement dealt with, I don’t know of any candidate for president that has a good plan to deal with illegal aliens.
As I said, Louisiana does not allow in state tutition for illegals, Texas does. That’s one way that the state is acting to lower the attractiveness to illegals. I don’t believe that Texas is the only state where illegals are entering the country. I think some illegals do come into La from the Gulf, but I’ve not studied the situation.
until he becomes a presidential candidate, I’m not interested in his illegal alien plan for the US.
I think Perrry is one of the better candidates for pres, except for his illegals plan. (But then no one has a good plan that I have heard of, as I previously said)
@Redteam:
Texas was the 12th state to allow in-state tuition but it also has the most restrictive law on the books for its in-state tuition requirements.
Do you really think that the average illegal coming across the border is saying to themselves “Whoopie, I can get in-state tuition in (name the state).”?
Since Perry hasn’t announced yet, you are holding him to a benchmark of when he was Governor. Yet, you do not hold Jindal to the same benchmark. What does he do about the illegals in your state that drive drunk and put other drivers in harm’s way? How many citizens of Louisiana have been robbed, raped or murdered by an illegal? How many illegals are packing drugs into Louisiana? What is Jindal doing about that?
What I object to is your different standards for different governors.