April 27, 2014
"Governor With Eye on 2016 Finds His Rise Under Scrutiny."
A NYT headline on an article about Scott Walker that adds nothing to what we in Wisconsin have heard many times. The man is vetted to the point of boredom, but I guess this stuff is new to nonWisconsin Americans. One time one guy on his staff forwarded a joke based on the premise that it's more of a burden in life to be a Democrat than to belong to 13 discriminated-against/burdened subcategories of humanity. And one time some campaign official tweeted her annoyance from a bus crowded with people who don't speak English. Oh, the sins that count against a Republican! If the NYT were willing to drag down Democrats over such things, it might amount to something.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
29 comments:
How about the time Walker fucked over a model citizen and college student who was looking out for his mom?
When did Garage get a Times byline? All the news that fits on a secret router.
The amount of scrutiny, or at least the amount of stories about being scrutinized, The New York Times will publish about Scott Walker in the run-up to 2016 will be a fairly accurate gauge on how the editors at the Times perceive Walker's chances are of winning in 2016l. The more stories over the next 12-18 months, the more they see him as a possible Republican nominee and general election threat (Conversely, the Times' preferred candidate on the Democratic side -- Hillary, Warren or whomever -- will receive the least amount of scrutiny and/or stories about being scrutinized from the Paper of Record).
What's missing from the article is that Gov. Walker is finding his rise under scrutiny by the NY Times. They do cite anyone else that they could find scrutinizing his rise; only them.
Walker is positioned as a winner, if the GOP insiders will let him run.
Any NY Times Leland Yee coverage?
The media's omission in its coverage of Clippers owner Sterling -- shhh! He's a Dem -- proves your point.
http://twitchy.com/2014/04/27/it-would-be-reported-repeatedly-drudge-others-hit-media-for-missing-an-important-detail-of-sterling-story/
(Sorry if this is duplicate ... had trouble signing in)
Walker is not the only one under scrutiny in Wisconsin.
Some questions are never answered.
Just my gut feeling, I have a hard time seeing Walker as being a contender (I do live in WI). If this is the "depth" of what lurks in his background, it's not a very deep pool. Compare this to what can be thrown against Hillary - i.e, husband who was impeached, Benghazi, missing files, Travelgate, etc. Or Warren - claiming Native American ancestry, suspect data used in the book she wrote with her daughter, etc.
Leit Bart: "The media's omission in its coverage of Clippers owner Sterling -- shhh! He's a Dem -- proves your point."
As mentioned elsewhere, it will take about 2 weeks for the media to turn sterling into a "conservative" implying "republican" implying dixiecrat.
And then they will find a guy who once attended a Clippers game who happens to know another guy who once heard of "Scott Walker" and presto-chango, Sterling will have become the "leader of the republican party" and Scott Walker will be called upon to denounce this "supporter" of his.
Remember when that Hagee guy, who McCain had met once, suddenly became the "leader of the republican party" and someone for whom the media/dems (but I repeat myself) demanded McCain distance himself from?
Limbaugh/NRA/Grover Norquist/Luntz/Breitbart et al probably enjoyed the 1 week break in being labeled the "leader of the republican party" that week.
I have to admit, one of the primary reasons I read this blog is to catch the latest from betamax3000.
FYI betamax, I'll be in LA this week (LA LIVE!). As a former San Diegan, this is not going to be an easy trip. The distaste. It just keeps growing!
Interesting. If they are already running this kind of story, that means someone is getting nervous about him.
I certainly don't have a clue of what Walker's intentions are but he should feel complemented by the attention given him by the NYT.
"Oh, the sins that count against a Republican! If the NYT were willing to drag down Democrats over such things, it might amount to something."
This strikes me the same way talk of Africa arises when the subject is America's role in slavery. Trying to minimize the image of Scott Walker's staff being a hiding place for racists - an image reinforced by their exposed interests in their most vulnerable citizens - by distracting us into looking at someone else. After the Republican Party has admitted it has a race problem, why Scott Walker has a clubhouse for public servants of such despicable character is a valid question. Why anyone feels the need to protect a politician, who would do so, is also. Let Scott Walker stand or fall on his own.
The NYT is a liberal rag. I know that. But, since the citizenry of this nation insists on dealing with it's race problem in a piecemeal fashion, I'm forced to take what I can get as I get it. I'm grateful someone cares - even the NYT - because, except for blacks, there's no counting on anyone else to root it out. They'll lose interest, too. And then I'll look to another. The only thing I can count on is, as far as consistency, these stories will keep coming. Commented on by others, aimed at us.
And real lives - not just Scott Walker's - are being affected, in real, concrete, ways,...
I was driving back today, listening to news stories about the Clippers' owner, and not one mentioned what he is alleged to have said. (This was only on WBBM AM 780, though). Lots of umbrage quotes from Obama though.
Been out of touch -- has the content of what he said been so widely reported that it's valid to assume listeners know what he said? Or it's too inflammatory?
It was distinctly odd to get only half the story.
After the Republican Party has admitted it has a race problem, why Scott Walker has a clubhouse for public servants of such despicable character is a valid question.
I suspect that racists can do valuable work. As long as the value of their work exceeds the embarrassment quotient of their views, why fire them?
You're forgetting that for the NYT, being a Republican is the sin. The only actions they look favorably on from Republicans are instances of public agreement with Democrats.
I remember the days when a Crack comment was a bracing read; he was popping cultists in the chops left and right.
He was a much better commenter before he became a cultist himself.
@Crack: does the desire on my part to pay less taxes make me a racist?
cubanbob,
"@Crack: does the desire on my part to pay less taxes make me a racist?"
According to Lee Atwater, it is - at the least, you've been suckered into it. And, if blacks need "big government" to counter the affect of white racism, why can't it be seen as racist to oppose it, considering the country's history? And, if whites can't identify the problem, in themselves ("We don't even think about race!") can the case be made they're racists AND the "colorblind" policies they support, that DO hurt blacks in concrete ways, are evidence?
White ignorance - especially willful-ignorance in this historical hothouse - is definitely evidence of something,...
Today on the radio, they decided to air Republican Sen. Corker's comments on Sterling, where Corker agrees with Obama's comments.
Now, I wondered why they would even consider this "news" until I figured it out:
They merely wanted to say the word "Republican" next to the name "Sterling" and "racist" and let the listener do some assuming.
Today on the radio, they decided to air Republican Sen. Corker's comments on Sterling, where Corker agrees with Obama's comments.
Now, I wondered why they would even consider this "news" until I figured it out:
They merely wanted to say the word "Republican" next to the name "Sterling" and "racist" and let the listener do some assuming.
Today on the radio, they decided to air Republican Sen. Corker's comments on Sterling, where Corker agrees with Obama's comments.
Now, I wondered why they would even consider this "news" until I figured it out:
They merely wanted to say the word "Republican" next to the name "Sterling" and "racist" and let the listener do some assuming.
MadisonMan wrote: Been out of touch -- has the content of what he said been so widely reported that it's valid to assume listeners know what he said? Or it's too inflammatory?
Sterling's remarks were so bad that every white man who didn't associate with Sterling's own political party are now being given a litmus test and, upon failure, are being seriously urged to turn in their man cards.
It's that grim.
Brace yourself for Monday.
I am pretty sure that the NY Times (new motto: "All In for Hillary!) will use just about anything to drag down any Democratic governor who might possibly perhaps maybe get any idea about running for President.
Wow. Sterling wasn't just a dem. He was a HUGE, beloved, award-winning Dem. Sterling was about to receive the NAACP's Lifetime Achievement Award. That honor has, of course, been revoked.
But there aren't any "NAACP Lifetime Achiever Is Racist" headlines to alert you. You'd have to read CNN's entire story ... Sterling's now-revoked award is buried towards the end.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/27/us/nba-team-owner-alleged-racist-remarks/
The Times has run Christie out of the race with, oh, about 100 articles on Bridgegate, which is a pretty minor event in the annals of New Jersey political shenanigans. (Not so many stories about a true sleazebag, NJ Senator Robert Menendez.)
Now it is training its guns on other potential Republican candidates.
It's Chinatown, Jake.
"Been out of touch -- has the content of what he said been so widely reported that it's valid to assume listeners know what he said? Or it's too inflammatory?"
He told his arm-candy, that he did not care if she had sex with blacks, but not to do it in public, especially at LA Clippers ball games.
This man must be punished.
Damn, @Drago. You totally nailed it and wrote this afternoon's headline for Mother Jones before you'd gone to bed last night.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/04/donald-sterling-republican-democrat-politics-nba-racism
Post a Comment