Writes Steve Elbow, a reporter for the Madison newspaper the Capital Times, in a piece titled "Scott Walker's Iowa triumph: Is this really getting serious?" Here's what he quoted from Dickerson's "Best in Show/Wisconsin’s Scott Walker outshines the competition in Iowa.":
"Before the Iowa Freedom Summit on Saturday, one Republican activist summed up Gov. Scott Walker’s challenge this way: 'He doesn’t make the flashbulbs go off.' But at the end of the marathon day of speeches before conservatives, the Wisconsin governor emerged as the leading light."It's weird for people in Wisconsin — or at least in Madison — to see our governor — who's been hounded and belittled for the last 4 years — bursting out onto the national stage and suddenly seeming like the strongest candidate for President.
Elbow mentions some things Rush Limbaugh said about Walker yesterday, but he leaves out the part where Rush rejects the suddenly-last-Saturday template:
He has come out of nowhere, and my point is he hasn't come out of nowhere. He's been front and center but unreported on. But Republicans and conservative voters and so forth know exactly who he is and what he stands for.Also from Rush:
Now, we're constantly told -- the Drive-By Media, and even some of the Republican establishment, try to portray Scott Walker as a totally colorless guy, when he's not... [T]o those of us who know him, to those of us who've heard him speak, to those of us who have studied his career and know how fearless he is and how successful he's been, showing up in Iowa and giving a gangbuster performance is not a surprise. But it's a shock, it's an absolute shock to the media. And it's an absolute shock to some even in the Republican establishment, so much so that they're running around saying, "Where'd this guy go to get a charisma transplant?" Because they thought he was so dull....Rush doesn't do endorsements, but if he did, that would be the biggest endorsement I've ever heard from him.
Now, this is not a new Scott Walker; this is who he's always been. But he's appearing to be a surprise because there hasn't been a whole lot of reporting on the guy outside of the state of Wisconsin.... It's always been curious to me that Scott Walker has [been] looked on as second tier.... I really think that Scott Walker is the kind of guy the Republicans need to hoist on one of those chairs they used to take Caesar through the crowds with. What he's done in the state of Wisconsin is phenomenal.... And this is not an endorsement. I don't want anybody to think it's an endorsement....
Posts
34 comments:
Yes that's an endorsement, whatever he calls it.
Scott Walker is an excellent example of the real problem faced by Democrats. They have no "bench". No depth.
When your "fresh young face" will be pushing 68 years old in January, 2017 --- whilst your party hasn't had a new idea or effective answer in well over 40 years -- and you have no young, dynamic, successful governors or military officers rising in your ranks ... you have a serious problem.
The most astounding Republican gains if the last three election cycles have come at the state level, where leftist national media are of little influence in political contests.
Republicans have an abundance of young and dynamic choices, many of them experienced and successful in a wide range of endeavors. That trend will only continue at the state level.
Democrats have ... three tired old lawyers, with no experience actually running anything.
Steyn does a Kit Carson obit that's a little better than Rush's wandering one yesterday
here
He doesn't do endorsements? Maybe not in the technical "I endorse so and so" or "you should vote for so and so" but when it is pretty clear which candidate he favors, it serves the same function as an endorsement. Does anyone doubt that he preferred Romney over Obama in 2012?
I wouldn't be surprised if he "endorses" Walker ultimately--Rush seems to often follow the Buckley Rule, of supporting the most conservative candidate who can win. Walker may prove he can win, and I can't think of a more conservative candidate in the race who has a better shot at winning.
Rush didn't like Romney and he didn't like McCain before that. He let his disapproval show repeatedly.
Yes, you could tell that he thought you should vote for them, because he thought you should voted against Obama, but if that's an "endorsement," you have a pretty broad definition of the meaning of that word.
And Rush has a narrow definition of the word.
College dropout Scott Walker is my choice for president. There are candidates with more credentials. Who has a track record with more successes and fewer failures?
For the job I'm going to do, a stack of degrees is a must. For the job Scott Walker is going to do, degrees seem almost a detriment.
Where have you gone, Harry S Truman? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Walker is close to what Rush has been saying he wants, so Walker works as a chance for Rush to say, see, this is what I've been talking about, this is how Republicans win, this is what Ronald Reagan did.
Another candidate could step into that template and Rush would enthuse.
So I do think it's fair to say that Rush isn't a Walker partisan. Walker is just the one candidate who fits what Rush has been telling candidates they need to do. It's almost like Rush is seeing Walker as endorsing Rush than the other way around.
"Yes, you could tell that he thought you should vote for them, because he thought you should voted against Obama, but if that's an "endorsement," you have a pretty broad definition of the meaning of that word."
I'm going by the practice of most official endorsements, such as when newspapers endorse candidates. They often do so with reservations, and often as a "lesser of two evils" choice. In that sense, Rush has unofficially "endorsed" candidates on many occasions.
I never endorse candidates.
I sometimes reveal who I vote for, but it's usually mostly about rejecting the one I don't vote for.
If only someone had notice that Walker had potential earlier. http://althouse.blogspot.com/2013/11/if-you-are-republican-and-you-like-new.html
Maybe what Scott Walker should do is get that one last semester he needs to graduate is to take it online at some reputable place while campaigning. Thereby he shows how the new educational alternatives can work. Some courses in the history of machine politics or the history of Reconstruction or on the Green Jackboot or the Life of Lyndon Johnson. Some places let you do essays based on your work experiences, then he could write about his struggle with the unions and how they choke educational reform. Or how difficult it is to rebuild manufacturing jobs in a state where one party hates manufacturers and to rebuild construction jobs when one party wants no construction and how difficult it is the pay for government when more than 50% of the jobs are within government. A manifesto
Some current Slate headlines:
A Few Words With Kevin Daniels, the Actor Behind One of TV’s Best Gay Characters
When Did We Starting Asking Every Celebrity Are You a "Feminist"?
Shameik Moore on the Significance of Dope in the Wake of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown
Would You Rather Have a Potato Chip or a Penny?
Slash Discusses His Favorite Horror Movies and Directors
Your Next Reality Star is a Transgender Conservative Christian Drag Queen Father of Three
Zachary Quinto on Why He Wanted to Make a Movie About an “Ex-Gay” Activist
Dope Star Shameik Moore on the Music He Loves to Jam To
However, this non-Slate story (via Instapundit) deserves to be front page news....U.S. environmental groups take tens of millions of dollars from shadowy entities with links to Russian government. In other words, the money to stop US energy and oil exploration--and ultimately energy independence-- comes from our enemy Russia, and environmentalists are all to happy to take the money. It would be like the Ford Motor Company taking money from Nazi Germany funneled through Bermuda law firms and then using those funds to denounce Jews and support Nazi invasions.
If oil companies are as monstrously powerful as their critics say, then why isn't a story like this big news? Great story for the Wall St. J.
I'm getting close to sending the highly-sought-after Jane the Actuary endorsement his way, since Bobby Jindal has been letting me down (most recently here: http://janetheactuary.blogspot.com/2015/01/have-you-heard-about-bobby-jindals.html ).
Part of me says I should learn a little more -- does he have a good head on his shoulders when it comes to foreign policy, for instance? -- and part of me doesn't want to be disappointed in finding out that he's not so great after all.
But then, if you don't live in an early-primary state, in exactly what tangible way can you truly "support" one candidate or another, other than writing a check?
Oh, and I miss Rush. Used to listen to him while running errands with the little ones, until they started school, my work schedule changed, and the AM half of the radio stopped working.
Jim Geraghty over at National Review offers his view of "first tier." I'd like this to be true (though I'd like Rand Paul to be doing better), but I worry that it is wishful thinking.
Iowahawk had this contribution.
Whether or not it's an endorsement by Rush, it's a very clear picture of the media trying to make persons of incorrect goals and principles disappear - by refusing them the 'promotion' of honest reporting about them, which might give citizens an inkling that this guy is something they've been looking for.
Walker had the courage to stand up to the public sector unions whereas his potential opponent Romney didn't even have the backbone to resist the politically correct and largely discredited global warming crap.
In terms of "could actually win the nomination" I can picture it whittling down to Walker, Jeb, Jindal, Perry, and Kasich (if he runs). Each has a fairly conservative record, each was or is a governor of a medium or large state, and each has establishment cred.
I'd leave out Christie mainly because his Bridgegate scandal gives the impression that his organization is sloppy and his own activity in the 2012 election (buddying up to Obama mainly) will make a lot of GOP voters see him as more leftist than he is, and his personality is abrasive so I'd expect a lot of gaffes once this heats up.
Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Huckabee and Santorum are going to be seen as too "niche" to win the nomination. Rubio I think will decide not to run, which is the wise decision with Jeb in the race and him being young enough that there's no need to rush this time.
Walker has been the one who has had little experience with the national media, which is always hostile to Republicans. He has done well this far and that is a big plus.
JIndal had problems with his speaking attempts, notably his response a few years ago to the Obama SOTU speech. His speech in London about Muslim extremism is a plus in spite of the MSM reaction.
Kasich is annoying to watch as he is a bit too much of a braggart when his record is mixed. He tried something like Walker did and failed rather openly. He went for the Medicaid money and still brags about it.
Hugh Hewitt wrote about brokers GOP convention if no one wins outright and I am interested in the idea.
Christie seems to have done pretty well but he is a long shot nationally, I think. Perry is a very long shot although his record is good.
Charles Krauthammer and some others seem to be pushing Rubio for whatever reason, I can't think of any good reason. The only thing he has going for him is that he is a Cuban which would be more of a negative than a positive with the liberal media given their historical hatred of the anti-communists Cubans.
Ann Althouse said ...
It's weird for people in Wisconsin — to see our governor — bursting out onto the national stage and suddenly seeming like the strongest candidate for President.
'seeming' is a very flexible word.
Nice to know that Rush likes Scotty. Of course, Rush has found something nice to say about each of the 19 most likely GOP front runners. In the past, he always has found the Bush family especially praiseworthy.
I predict that Rush will continue to gush about the right's embarrassment of political riches, but, as 2015 fades into 2016, his true sentiments will clarify themselves. Republicans would do well to prepare themselves for a bracing dose of Jeb Bush. In GOP land, everything old is new again. Or it's morning in America. Or something.
you have a pretty broad definition of the meaning of that word.
I have a broad definition of the meaning of most words, it's a curse.
Sure, Walker can't use it in an ad, but why would he really? The people who need to hear it, that it would help with, heard it.
Thanks bbkingfish for your insider's view of Republican politics.
"Thanks bbkingfish for your insider's view of Republican politics."
The Dems would like to run against Jeb Bush, not gonna happen.
I haven't listened to Rush much lately but I did hear that part of his show yesterday and, yes, it was as close to an endorsement as I have ever heard him give. But, I've heard Rush speak of Walker before and I think Althouse was mentioned before regarding something to do with Walker. Maybe not, maybe it was something else, but Rush has definitely always been impressed by Walker. As he should be.
I could see Kasich as making a stronger bid than Bush or even Rick Perry, but frankly, he hasn't had as much success as Walker in his efforts.
Kasich took on the unions (to a degree) and was shot down.
bbkingfish said...
Nice to know that Rush likes Scotty. Of course, Rush has found something nice to say about each of the 19 most likely GOP front runners. In the past, he always has found the Bush family especially praiseworthy.
I predict that Rush will continue to gush about the right's embarrassment of political riches, but, as 2015 fades into 2016, his true sentiments will clarify themselves. Republicans would do well to prepare themselves for a bracing dose of Jeb Bush. In GOP land, everything old is new again. Or it's morning in America. Or something.
1/27/15, 10:43 AM"
Will five get me ten that you are ready for that fresh-faced Hillary?
EMD said...
Kasich took on the unions (to a degree) and was shot down.
So what is more important 'taking on' the unions and running a less successful state economy or showing some limited flexibility and running a more successful economy? Does ideological purity trump competence?
Bolton/Ernst in 2016
The old bromide goes that people get the government they deserve is demonstrably not true; No way do Wisconsinites deserve someone as good as Walker.
Does ideological purity trump competence?
Irony all the way down.
Post a Comment