Here's a picture I took of the monumental head on February 25, 2011, a little over a week after the big protests had begun in and around the Wisconsin capitol:
I originally blogged that here, with other photographs, including one showing how some protesters had used the back of the Veterans Memorial as a component of what they called their "Information Station."
And let me use this post to comment on something Scott Walker said at the end of his CPAC speech yesterday. What would he do about ISIS? "If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the globe." That was bad, obviously, and Walker has sent his spokeswoman to rephrase what was supposedly in The Head of Walker. (I'm saying "The Head of Walker" because I'm picturing a "Soviet-like" head of Walker some day, in the capitol, eye-to-eye with Bob La Follette, which would be the "more speech" alternative to iconoclasm.) The spokeswoman said:
Governor Walker... was in no way comparing any American citizen to ISIS. What the governor was saying was when faced with adversity he chooses strength and leadership. Those are the qualities we need to fix the leadership void this White House has created.There's still a problem. How would the form of leadership demonstrated during the protests transfer to the war on terrorism? Scott Walker's approach to the protests was to let them play out — replete with loud chanting and drumming and lots of taped up signs in the capitol and huge marches outside — all the while knowing he had the votes in the legislature to pass the law that the protesters were protesting. He chose silent inaction, putting up with it, in a situation where he knew he'd win in the end, and, in fact, when the legislation finally passed, the protests ended. There was still the recall effort, and there was plenty more speech lambasting Walker, but Walker knew all along he had the upper hand, and instead of trying to counter the speech of the protesters (or even to get them cleared out of the capitol), he sat back and let them have what probably looked to most Wisconsinites like a big tantrum. He knew that the protesters knew that they could not cross the line from semi-organized protest to anything like violence or the threat of violence. The no-response response was therefore effective.
Is that the kind of leadership he's proposing to use in the war on terror? It can't be. The relevant component of leadership that I'm seeing is something I associate with George W. Bush: silent acceptance of abuse from his critics. Walker said "If I can take on 100,000 protesters," but he didn't take them on. He let them carry on. That may have been wise under the circumstances, but it tells us close to nothing about what he would do with enemies who won't limit themselves to protesting and when he can't control the outcome through partisan domination of a legislature. Sheer cockiness won't do the trick — "If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the globe." And that was a cockiness beyond what we saw — and got tired of — in George Bush.
Posts
164 comments:
I can't believe the media is already all out to destroy Walker in the name of discovering if he's ready for "prime time".
We have a guy in "prime time" right now. His name is Obama. How ready is he? 6 years in and still not ready for this job.
If I were to spin it, I would say he did take on the protesters--he accurately identified their biggest weakness--the level of intensity required is hard to maintain--and simply let that intensity burn itself out. He will deal with ISIS the same way, identify their biggest weakness and exploit it.
However, that is spin, the reality is it was a very poor attempt to paper over his lack of foreign policy experience. It would have been much smarter (and quite refreshing) for him to be the anti-Obama and admit his own weakness and then give his plan to be successful anyway (i.e., anti-Obamism in its purest form:: surround himself with wise counsel and actually listen to them).
There was a time when "Speak softly and carry a big stick" led to President Roosevelt winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
@MayBee So... what do you want SW's message to be: Less unprepared than Obama.
I fear for our country and for the world. No one is ready or good enough to be President, and yet we must have somebody. I understand the desire to preserve the candidacy of somebody who might approach qualifying for the job that no one is qualified for, but we need to rise above the urge to blind ourselves to the deficiencies of a person who has flipped our "HOPE" switch.
"There was a time when "Speak softly and carry a big stick" led to President Roosevelt winning the Nobel Peace Prize."
How does that apply to Scott Walker who is know for: 1. Not talking at all (refusals to answer), and 2. Strong, cocky statements like that CPAC crack?
"If I were to spin it, I would say he did take on the protesters--he accurately identified their biggest weakness--the level of intensity required is hard to maintain--and simply let that intensity burn itself out. He will deal with ISIS the same way, identify their biggest weakness and exploit it."
So... leading from behind?
You do realize how much this sounds like things Obama has done that haven't worked out too well.
instead of trying to counter the speech of the protesters (or even to get them cleared out of the capitol)
Not true. His administration enacted new regulations which, among other things, required groups as few as four people to require a permit in order to gather. Over 300 people were arrested. Those cases were later thrown out due to constitutional issues.
It is a falsehood to claim he didn't try to clear the protesters out of the capitol. Walker did try to do exactly that and he failed at doing so.
Unforced error. Let's see if it becomes a trend.
How can you claim to be a brilliant fight strategist where you had one enemy and it was known all along to be vulnerable to the tactic of your not doing anything?
What if you have to act? How can you say "I'll be able to act because I was so good on that occasion where not acting was the best action"?
"Not true. His administration enacted new regulations which, among other things, required groups as few as four people to require a permit in order to gather."
I think that was after the protests. It was a dumb thing to do, though, and I opposed it at the time.
They threatened to gut his wife and kill his kids. They called him a Nazi constantly. DWS accused him of bitch slapping women and pulling their hair.
His campaign and supporters were investigated, harassed, and muzzled by a secret cabal accountable to no one.
Fuck them. They have forfeited the right to be touchy.
Yes, that permit requirement came in December 2011, and I said: "Conservative politicians, forced to meet in Madison, Wisconsin, have the problem that the sudden, troublesome crowds consist overwhelmingly of their antagonists. The Governor's seemingly neutral rules obviously fall heavily on his opponents. The stricter the limitations — and these are absurdly strict — the more non-neutral they really are. But even if you can pretend these rules are as neutral as they look on the surface and need only be reasonable to satisfy the First Amendment, these rules are plainly unreasonable. This is craven repression and a shocking violation of free speech rights."
It was pretty obvious from the entire answer to the question Walker was asked, which Althouse (like everyone else) does not quote, that he was referring to the character trait of not allowing himself to be intimidated off of the the right course of action by threats of violence and supreme unpleasantness, even when those threats are personal in nature and right in his own front yard. As they unquestionably were during the Act 10 fight.
Further, if the average person hearing this quote from Walker gets in his mind that the Left and their union allies are somewhat similar to Islamist terrorists, even better for Walker once the Left and it's union allies once again rear their heads at him going forward.
This is similar subliminal messaging to what happened with Rudy and the "is Obama a Christian" stuff last week.
First candidate that, regarding ISIS, brings up nukes wins.
I am Laslo.
President Walker will enact new regulations which will require Islamist terrorist groups with as few as four people to get a permit in order to gather.
And then he'll kill them.
Per the earlier post: ISIS is already destroying the few things we wouldn't want to destroy with nukes. So: clean slate.
I am Laslo.
@MayBee So... what do you want SW's message to be: Less unprepared than Obama.
No. I don't think he's less prepared than Obama.
I don't think this answer indicates he is less prepared than Obama.
I think nobody could be less prepared than Obama, who is actually in office right now and "preparation" should no longer be an issue.
I do not think answers to questions that are rhetorically inartful indicate lack of actual preparation.
I doubt Scott Walker is, in reality, ready to take on ISIS right now. Of course he is not. It isn't in his list of responsibilities.
What we need to do a better job of is evaluating whether someone's skill sets indicate they will be ready to do the job of president. NOT whether they will always say the right thing when campaigning for the job. They won't.
"Don't bet against him" is cocky. But what's so wrong with confidence.
Walker is trying to be another Ronald Reagan, who was a great actor.
Reagan acted like a cowboy, which means cocky, at the Soviets, but then he carefully waited out their fall. The Soviets were in a box and would fall unless they could successfully invade western Europe as they were planning to do. But Reagan went cowboy on them in face of 100,000 Nuclear Freeze protestors surrounding intermediate range Patriot nuclear missiles being deployed into Europe.
I think that was after the protests
Over 300 people were arrested under Walker's unconstitutional laws but there were no protests happening at the time?
Spin it how ever you want, but the fact remains it is untrue to state Walker didn't try to get the protesters cleared out of the Capitol. He tried and he failed.
I'd say the leadership shown was not cowing down and begging.
If he crumbled in front of protestors, he'd do worse in front of ISIS.
...you know, like Obama has.
Ann Althouse said...
"If I were to spin it, I would say he did take on the protesters--he accurately identified their biggest weakness--the level of intensity required is hard to maintain--and simply let that intensity burn itself out. He will deal with ISIS the same way, identify their biggest weakness and exploit it."
So... leading from behind?
You do realize how much this sounds like things Obama has done that haven't worked out too well.
You do know what the word "spin" means in this context, don't you?
"Spin it how ever you want, but the fact remains it is untrue to state Walker didn't try to get the protesters cleared out of the Capitol. He tried and he failed."
They're still there? Threatening to "gut" Walker's wife "like a deer"?
NB: Isis is not that powerful yet. They are only winning because Obama wants them to win and refuses weapons to any Ally who wants to fight them.
Obama has an enemy list, and ISIS is not on it. His enemies list is Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and surviving Christians....surprisingly the exact same enemies list as Iran's.
I think you're maybe reading a bit into this. Walker didn't say "I will use the same tactics against ISIS as against the rabble in Wisconsin", he merely pointed to a stressful and difficult political situation that he had successfully navigated and said "Look, I'm good at handling things."
Of course it's fair to be skeptical of his facile equivocation between the two challenges - wars are dissimilar to recalls and protests in important ways, no matter how contentious the latter. But on that standard the only answer anyone who hasn't already been CIC can give is "I have no idea - I'm totally unprepared."
Walker's quote reads to me more as a general assertion of executive competence. After all, there were a lot of possible wrong moves - he could have suppressed the protests, for instance, or lost his head in some other fashion.
Another interpretation could be that dealing with ISIS is a difficult problem, just as dealing with 100,000 protesters. That two problems are difficult does not mean they require the same solution or are even related in any other way.
It's like pretending Mitt Romney's "Binders full of women" indicated he was not yet ready to be president because he didn't know how to interact with women.
The truth was, Mitt Romney had an incredible skill set to be president. He was uniquely ready to be president. Obviously, there were people who absolutely disagreed with is policy ideas. That's fair. But that didn't get used against him. Instead we heard about stupid shit like he caused cancer and didn't understand Russia. Remember that? OMG he called Russia our biggest foe. What a stupid word choice. So not ready!
We really need to stop this game. The sad thing is, most people know its a game. But they keep playing because they think it helps their team win.
Althouse, you pointed out at the time (and do so again in this very thread)that Walker used facially-neutral language as a tactic to shut things down that his opponents wanted to do.
This line from his answer about ISIS is also "facially neutral" in the sense that it can be interpreted a number of ways. He even used the standard, "I didn't mean to call them terrorists" line in the post speech private Q & As with the reporters outside the hall. Of course you did, Scott. You just can't outright say so.
He also used that follow-up Q & A to tell the media that they were intentionally misinterpreting him.
So, what is the result of all this?
1. He gives a the slam-dunk speech of CPAC.
2. He puts a dog-whistle out there that only the dogs hear.
3. He gets to stick to the media once again.
4. He sucks even more media oxygen out of the Bush tent.
5. He'll be even more solidly in first in the next week's polls.
What did Walker do to try to clear out the protesters? It seems to me the Capitol police were mostly facilitating the protests and barely doing anything. If Walker wasn't choosing the passive strategy — in some kind of rope-a-dope — he wasn't doing anything.
comparing fellow Americans to ruthless killers..."murderous terrorists"
...sounds like a winning platform.
Re: "Speaking softly and carrying a big stick."
Teddy Roosevelt was our most belligerent talking president ever, and some say the only one whose military never fired a shot in anger.
(Though I think I remember that at least one soldier fired his rifle once and killed someone during the Panama caper.)
" the character trait of not allowing himself to be intimidated off of the the right course of action by threats of violence and supreme unpleasantness,"
I agree with this and one reason why CPAC liked it may be the contrast with the Republicans caving every time the Democrats raise a fuss.
A year and a half from now this will be the first link in the post titled How Walker lost me.
The guy who failed to step up strong and show leadership during the 2011 protests is the guy sitting in the White House right now.
Ironic comments are a luxury no presidential candidate with an 'R' by their name can indulge. The perception of irony relies on a like minded audience. The press is a like minded audience only for Dems.
2. He puts a dog-whistle out there that only the dogs hear.
This obsession with "dog whistles" is just a mechanism liberals use because they are blind and clueless to the way conservatives actually think, which is openly discussed in front of them non-stop on the internet.
Walker scurried around in rat tunnels and hid from the public. He signed ALEC model bills written for him behind closed doors. He arrested little old ladies in the Rotunda. Failing to see what he "took on".
So... leading from behind?
You do realize how much this sounds like things Obama has done that haven't worked out too well.
No, that is ya sloppy precis of Tim's comment. Tim's point is that Walker developed his approach based on an accurate strategic analysis of his opposition's biggest weakness. "Leading from behind" most emphatically did not arise from such an analysis. It was a response based entirely on the political left's ideological view of America's proper place in the world order. The point is, Scoot Walker is pragmatic analyst, not an ideologue.
They're still there? Threatening to "gut" Walker's wife "like a deer"?
"They" (as in the group) really said? Interesting that you would believe such a thing.
I used to think you were just trolling, but it is becoming obvious you aren't joking at all. You (and many of the other Althouse followers) truly don't believe it was a few extremists who were making those vile threats but rather you view the entire protest movement as nothing but violent thugs who wish to murder any who stands in their way.
Know that about your point of view makes it easier to understand your hatred and outrage.
A few comments from yesterday that bear repeating here:
bgates said...
Fellow Americans protesting their legal rights is suddenly the equivalent of Muslim jihadists who behead their enemy?
ISIS and Wisconsin labor are worlds apart. One group sporadically occupies territory that doesn't belong to them, makes death threats against American government officials, and believes other lesser people somehow owe them tribute. The other group is mostly Arabs.
2/26/15, 11:24 PM
bgates said...
I think Republicans should be asked more questions about Obama's beliefs.
Do you think Obama was lying in 2008 when he promised to cut federal spending, or was it a legitimate change of mind from the politically advantageous position for the general election to the politically advantageous position to keep his party happy once he was in office?
Do you think Obama has made good on his promise to the Russians to be more flexible since 2012?
Do you agree with top Obama advisor David Axelrod that Obama lied to a pastor in a church when asked about gay marriage in 2008, given that he had expressed support for gay marriage both before and after his election as President?
Barack Obama's choice as Secretary of State was Hillary Clinton, of whom he said, "on the biggest foreign policy disaster of a generation, she got it wrong". In your cabinet, would you follow Obama's lead in appointing people who you thought had made gigantic mistakes, or would you try to find people who would make good decisions?
Obama promised that his health care plan would save the average family $2500 and noone would lose their doctor. He either had no understanding of how the plan drawn up in his name would work, or he was lying to the American public. If you were President, would you be honest and competent, or would you be more like Obama?
Great retort Meade. But what about Obama?
Does anybody, left or right, honestly believe the way Walker answered this question indicates whether or not he could handle ISIS if he were to become POTUS in 2 years?
I'll take George W. Bush's "cockiness" over Barack Obama's smugness, any day.
If Walker's cockiness and chess moves to defeat an opponent makes him such a dunce, then there is always Paul Ryan. He has true Northern Mid-western humility and just wants to ask his opponents when and where he should surrender.
bgates is a genius
What did Walker do to try to clear out the protesters?
He enacted a regulation which would require groups of more than 3 to have a permit, resulting in the Capitol Police arresting over 300 people.
Progressivism of the 20th and 21st century have both been characterized by a cult of personality. It seems to be a particular weakness of Lefty ideologies. (see Fascism and Communism)
"Great retort Meade. But what about Obama?"
You tell me, garage. You voted for him twice. How's that working out for you?
Not telling Islamic supremecists what he is going to do exactly puts him head and shoulders about our current President.
the Wisconsin State Capitol doesn't belong to citizens of Wisconsin?
Teddy Roosevelt was our most belligerent talking president ever, and some say the only one whose military never fired a shot in anger
Tell that to the Columbians. Teddy basically stole Panama from them.
We really need to stop this game
But it is not a game to the Left. It is power.
So what would've been a good answer for him? We're not thinking on our feet and have plenty of time.
Perhaps the best thing in general might have been to answer a question you want to answer instead of the one that was asked. Maybe this was a clumsy attempt to do just that, turn the topic back to his strong suit and away from his foreign policy inexperience.
There is no good answer at this stage for the question, 'What would you do about ISIS?'
Walker's statement is as ridiculous as Obama's assertion that since he ran a great campaign, he would be great at running the federal government.
"There is no good answer at this stage for the question, 'What would you do about ISIS?'"
"Nukes remain an option."
People need to fear a crazy America.
I am Laslo.
Teddy Roosevelt did not get the Nobel Peace Prize for "Speak softly and carry a big stick." He got it for organizing the Portsmouth Peace Conference, which ended the Russo-Japanese War of 1905.
"Nukes remain an option."
Better save that one for the Inauguration Day Speech.
"Better save that one for the Inauguration Day Speech."
I was figuring Inauguration Day would be when the nukes are employed. Start big. Everything else after that will be a trifle.
I am Laslo.
The unspeakable, honest answer would have been, "I don't know. Probably about what President Obama is doing now."
If Barack Obama had been asked in 2008, "How will you end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?", his honest answer (as shown by the following six years) would have been, "I don't know. Probably about what President Bush is doing now."
I for one did not get tired of Pres. Bush and his "cockiness". Of course, I never saw it in the first place. Just determination.
Re: Comparing Walker's doing nothing and waiting out the protesters vs. handling ISIS.
In Graham Wood's widely read piece about what ISIS wants, he made the case that the West's best option is to harass them, but mostly wait and let ISIS burn itself out because it is so extreme it can't be maintained and will be its own destruction.
Someone has to win the presidential race in 2016. As Althouse says there is no one out there that can do the job, so we are going to have to do the best we can among a group of flawed candidates. Walker is promising in many respects, but there are some things that he has not had to deal with that are essential parts of the presidential toolkit. As he feels his way forward, he is going to have to have to demonstrate to the electorate that he can do the job. Though he has many fine qualities, he is not helping himself by attempting to trumpet skills that he doesn't obviously have. I personally admire and support him, but he needs to keep his legs under him in some very rough seas. As Althouse points out, his resolute and skillful dealing with the Wisconsin protests is not an apt analogy to the ISIS Crisis (sorry), and he needs a better way to present his thoughts about what we should be doing, if he is going to talk about it right now. I would suggest that he present a coherent case regarding the merits since WWII of American leadership based on peace through strength vs. the current withdrawal strategy being embraced by Obama. He is not going to win on this issue based on his personal experience in Wisconsin.
"I was figuring Inauguration Day would be when the nukes are employed."
There's no reason you can't do both.
"These are Americans...You are talking about, in the case of ISIS, people who are beheading individuals and committing heinous crimes, who are the face of evil. To try to make the relationship between them and the unions is inappropriate."
"These are Americans...You are talking about, in the case of ISIS, people who are beheading individuals and committing heinous crimes, who are the face of evil. To try to make the relationship between them and the unions is inappropriate."
Which explains calling the Tea Party the Taliban wing of the republican party I guess.
Is it just me, or does that bust resemble Billy Graham? (Sorry to be off-topic)
What is really scary is the way our political process now compels candidates to think of the most artful response to questions like these, instead of actually seeking out policy prescriptions that would be potentially successful.
I think probably the best way for a decent candidate (were there one) to respond is to deflect on the questions that can't be answered in sound bite form while publishing lots of white papers and giving long form speeches to describe policy.
It's all a bit much isn't it. No Republican candidate can stand this kind of scrutiny, justified or not. The Obamedia know this and use it to narrow the field to Democrat Lite.
Democrats, OTOH, are uninterested in the flaws in their candidates and are pleased to elect grifters, adulterers (and their facilitators), liars, etc., so long as the spigot stays open.
Substantively: Walker was in a conflict with the protesters. He elected a course of action. He prevailed. Is there more? Really?
the Wisconsin State Capitol doesn't belong to citizens of Wisconsin?
The Capitol was acoustically designed in such a way that one person can stand in the middle of the Rotunda and their voice could be heard throughout the building. There are even color diamonds on the floor to guide you where to stand to get the best carrying effect.
I want a fighting conservative as President. That looks more like Ted Cruz to me!
Gahrie said...
Teddy Roosevelt was our most belligerent talking president ever, and some say the only one whose military never fired a shot in anger
Tell that to the Columbians. Teddy basically stole Panama from them.
2/27/15, 9:22 AM
Obviously you never asked a Panamanian their opinion on that matter.
No foreign policy experience!!! The only President in the last 200 years with extensive foreign policy experience was Dwight Eisenhower.
Eisenhower was also a bit marble mouthed - often on purpose.
No Meade he won the Nobel Prize for mediating peace in the Russo- Japanese war. Had nothing to do with his "Big Stick".
machine said...
"These are Americans...You are talking about, in the case of ISIS, people who are beheading individuals and committing heinous crimes, who are the face of evil. To try to make the relationship between them and the unions is inappropriate."
2/27/15, 9:46 AM"
There is a little bit of a thuggish relationship between them and the unions or their members have been known to make violent threats.
Walker could have handled it better. He simply could have said the way he would deal with a problem like this is first start by hiring smart, competent people people and working closely with our allies in the region. Compare and contrast with the current Klown-Car Administration. Incidentally Sarah Palin is still more qualified to be president on Day One than Obama is after six years in office.
But Reagan went cowboy on them in face of 100,000 Nuclear Freeze protestors surrounding intermediate range Patriot nuclear missiles being deployed into Europe.
And then promptly signed the INF, giving the protestors exactly what they wanted (elimination of an entire class of nuclear weapons).
Unforced error. Let's see if it becomes a trend.
Mr D has the correct assessment.
As Obama would declare about Walker vs. the protesters "He Won!". Walker decided on a strategy and it worked. He has been reelected twice since the protests began.
Obama has yet to decide on a strategy to combat ISIS. Perhaps Walker was trying to say that he would , at least, develop a strategy.
I think we are wrong to fall into the trap the MSM is creating. Ignore their BS for a couple of weeks and they will be off somewhere else.
"No one is ready or good enough to be President"
Not true. The people who are ready and good enough either don't want to run or don't get elected.
"not good enough" and "not electable" are two different things, unfortunately.
Just another presidential election: Sleazy, unqualified Democrat and the mediaswine vs. Democrat Lite (probably better qualified and less sleazy); predictable result; Democrat and mediaswine win; continued degradation and plundering of the country.
I think John Hay once said he did not want the Panama caper to be marred by the slightest taint of legality - or words to that effect - but the shooting was all done by others; no American forces involved.
Is that the kind of leadership he's proposing to use in the war on terror? It can't be.
Sure it can. And it should be.
The Wisconsin protesters wanted a fight, because it would allow them to frame their misbehavior against a tyrannical and frightening crackdown by an out of control governor.
The Jihadists want a fight for pretty much exactly the same reasons.
In both cases, the right approach is to ignore the loud and stupid masses and still quietly take action against the folks who did cross serious lines.
How would the form of leadership demonstrated during the protests transfer to the war on terrorism?
Recognize and separate the truly dangerous from the loud and stupid.
Recognize and work to choose the battlefield rather than letting your opponent.
There was a great article the other day about what a debacle Libya has become, and it's evident that the Walker strategy would have been much preferable there:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/143044/alan-j-kuperman/obamas-libya-debacle
But did Walker create the conditions that led to the Wislamic State
OnWISISconsin!
Althouse: "I fear for our country and for the world. No one is ready or good enough to be President, and yet we must have somebody. I understand the desire to preserve the candidacy of somebody who might approach qualifying for the job that no one is qualified for, but we need to rise above the urge to blind ourselves to the deficiencies of a person who has flipped our "HOPE" switch."
There is something illogical about this.
If no one is qualified, why wouldn't we rise to the defense of the person we perceive to be the least unqualified?
As for the "HOPE" part, Walker does not seem the type to inspire Obama-type idolatry. Is somebody still smarting from 2008 delusions?
Teddy did build up the Navy as his "Big Stick," and no one doubted he would use it, if it came to war.
He painted the ships white to show his "peaceful" intentions and then sent them on a cruise around the world so that the commanders of other navies could count the guns and see their sizes.
@Freeder... Yes, Reagan achieved backing the Soviets down on their build up of short range nuke missile they had set to force a quick surrender from Europe with Carter's blessing.
Reagan is guilty as charged. He stopped the USSR by refusing to fear them...sort of like Walker did to union thugs in Madison.
Sorry that hurts so much.
@Ann:I fear for our country and for the world. No one is ready or good enough to be President, and yet we must have somebody.
If our civilization depends on a political office being filled by a philosopher-king, then our civilization is doomed.
I can tell you this--if we left the Presidency vacant for four years it would do us a world of good. Almost everything would continue on as it has been.
Walker kept cool, he didn't fight on the protestor's prepared battlespace, he didn't try to take them head on, and he worked behind the scenes and won in a way in which the other side didn't even know how or why he won.
I'm not saying ISIS can be compared to an intra-state political battle....no senator or governor has any relevant experience to such a threat....
But I can EASILY see how he's saying his approach, his strategy, and his demeanor were a reasonable test of how he acts under pressure.
Whether it's politics, warfare, or car sales - Sun Tzu's advice was well followed by Walker.
Incidentally, why is Scott Walker or any other potential President going to be required "handle" ISIS?
Why don't we just keep our big fat snouts out of it?
If there is anything that is going to cure the Middle East of infatuation with Islamic radicalism, it will certainly be having to live under Islamic radicalism.
I don't see that they are any threat to any legitimate national interest we have. No doubt we'll see the price of oil go up again, and we'll start tapping the tar sands and the shales again and maybe build some nuclear plants if it's really bad.
As bad as ISIS is, there's worse going on in other parts of the world that we haven't been bothering with. Why don't we just butt out of this one?
He defaeted them without them even knowing he was defeating them!!!
How awesome is that???
Certainly a gaffe--silly to compare the two. Governors should be able to compete on foreign policy issues without trying too hard to stretch their actual experience where it doesn't fit. Besides, it's not as though any of his competitors have relevant foreign policy experience.
It would be nice to hear some thoughtful proposals on counterterrorism, though. So far we know the GOP candidates think Obamas doing a lousy job, but he's out of office soon--what will they do differently, and how will it work?
Meade--appreciate your perspectives, but as a matter of information TR did not win the Nobel peace prize for the big stick thing. He won it for his good offices resulting in the treaty of Shimonoseki ending the Japanese-Russo war in 1905
Interesting pair of posts to compare and contrast:
tim in vermont said...
2. He puts a dog-whistle out there that only the dogs hear.
This obsession with "dog whistles" is just a mechanism liberals use because they are blind and clueless to the way conservatives actually think, which is openly discussed in front of them non-stop on the internet.
--and--
Meade said...
A few comments from yesterday that bear repeating here:
bgates said...
Fellow Americans protesting their legal rights is suddenly the equivalent of Muslim jihadists who behead their enemy?
ISIS and Wisconsin labor are worlds apart. One group sporadically occupies territory that doesn't belong to them, makes death threats against American government officials, and believes other lesser people somehow owe them tribute. The other group is mostly Arabs.
Aside from that, perhaps someone can explain how Walker can describe ISIS as Islamic when he's never had that conversation with them before.
"Sheer cockiness won't do the trick — "If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the globe." And that was a cockiness beyond what we saw — and got tired of — in George Bush."
Agreed that this was a cocky statement. The situations are so different that it called his judgment into question. And now he's going to have to address this issue even sooner as a candidate.
There was a cockiness to Bush. In an unserious situation, you saw it in the shoe thrower incident. But Bush was also clear that we were not invincible, and that the efforts of others--not his personal toughness--were the crucial element. He was and is an unusual combination of brassy confidence and humility.
The point is that he didn't back down to the protesters. The terrorists require a different approach because there are obvious differences.
Incidentally, why is Scott Walker or any other potential President going to be required "handle" ISIS?
Why don't we just keep our big fat snouts out of it?
How did that work out for us in the 1930's?
By experience, Hillary Clinton is the most "prepared" for dealing with ISIS and other international problems. But she is so reliably dishonest, and demonstrably incapable of sustained effective action, that I would hate to have her in that position.
Walker suffers from the deficiency that most governors have. They come with little or no foreign policy experience. Bush 43 was reduced to touting the border of Texas and Mexico. Jimmy Carter had traveled all over the world, but underwater. Bill Clinton did it best, simply with his bullshitting skill, when in fact he knew next to nothing. Strangely, only Reagan, the Hollywood actor, was prepared in foreign policy, because he had spent decades reading, writing and thinking about it.
Bush 41 and Eisenhower both had outstanding preparation for dealing with international issues. The rest did not.
It comes down to personal qualities, judgment and the ability to find and absorb good advice. Does Walker have that or does he not? We will see,
I think it will take a courageous, resolute and competent man to deal with the terrorists. I think Scott Walker has a record that shows he is a resolute, courageous and competent man. I can't think of anyone who has demonstrated that more than Walker.
What did Walker do to try to clear out the protesters?
Are they there now?
Then what he did --- which was passing legislation ANYWAY, letting voters see the benefits and watching the protests fizzle out --- worked masterfully.
comparing fellow Americans to ruthless killers..."murderous terrorists"
...sounds like a winning platform.
Got Obama elected in 2012. Dems have had few qualms calling their political rivals terrorists.
And he even used the IRS to go after those Americans he didn't agree with.
Just sayin.
Walker scurried around in rat tunnels and hid from the public. He signed ALEC model bills written for him behind closed doors. He arrested little old ladies in the Rotunda. Failing to see what he "took on".
Wisconsin is about to become Right to Work.
Not sure what part of strangling the public unions you missed and the now move to not force workers to join unions.
Great retort Meade. But what about Obama?
So the President is irrelevant but the former mayor of NY is vitally relevant?
the Wisconsin State Capitol doesn't belong to citizens of Wisconsin?
It does.
The protestors didn't seem to notice that it didn't belong to THEM alone.
"These are Americans...You are talking about, in the case of ISIS, people who are beheading individuals and committing heinous crimes, who are the face of evil. To try to make the relationship between them and the unions is inappropriate."
Dems have called Republicans terrorists repeatedly.
Spare me your outrage.
Aside from that, perhaps someone can explain how Walker can describe ISIS as Islamic when he's never had that conversation with them before.
They are quite open about the faith and seem quite knowledgeable about it.
Obama's knowledge of Christianity seems...sketchy.
Flashback:
"NYT op-ed: "Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people."
By Joe Nocero, who is one of the regular columnists now. Quite aside from the outrage of comparing tea partiers to terrorists, Nocero is — presumably unwittingly — insulting Muslims."
machine said...
#1: What else would you call them? Kidnappers I suppose...instead of using the Democratic process (pass a Bill thru both Houses, President signs), they held the US economy hostage in order to get their agenda enacted;
#2: They are not anarchists either...they simply want to enjoy the benefits of government (Social Security, Medicare, Defense) but don't want to pay for it.
8/2/11, 10:39 AM
Flashback:
NYT op-ed: "Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people."
By Joe Nocero, who is one of the regular columnists now. Quite aside from the outrage of comparing tea partiers to terrorists, Nocero is — presumably unwittingly — insulting Muslims."
garage mahal said...
I prefer Teahadists.
8/2/11, 9:24 AM
"So... leading from behind?
You do realize how much this sounds like things Obama has done that haven't worked out too well."
No. Not at all.
More like Rope a Dope.
He let them punch themselves out, knowing he could take it, took it, and won.
How is that remotely like leading from behind? The protests were only there as a result of his leadership in the first place.
damikesc said...
Aside from that, perhaps someone can explain how Walker can describe ISIS as Islamic when he's never had that conversation with them before.
They are quite open about the faith and seem quite knowledgeable about it.
Obama's knowledge of Christianity seems...sketchy.
2/27/15, 11:50 AM
It has been argued by others on there that Walker said that because his faith dictates that he can't possibly know what faith lies in others' hearts, though one can also argue that it was a dog whistle intended for those who don't believe that Obama's a Christian, apparently.
Bottom line, Walker got the job done and it wasn't clear to me at the time that he would ultimately win his battle with the public sector unions. Twenty twenty hindsight and Monday morning quarterbacking is easy.
It is going to be a long and excruciating 20 months.
Aside from that, perhaps someone can explain how Walker can describe ISIS as Islamic when he's never had that conversation with them before.
Nice one.
If you look in the upper right hand corner of the pic, on the 2nd level, you'll see what appears to be an ISIS sleeper cell. Don't let the "Family Farm Defender" look fool you.
Scott Walker's battle was with the public sector unions and the Dems, the demonstrators were a sideshow and its to Walker's credit that he didn't let them distract him from his goal which he ultimately achieved.
Walker can describe ISIS as Islamic because they say so AND are behaving as Muslims have behaved for centuries.
One cannot conclude Obama is Christian by observing his behavior.
Some of us can't see the forest for the trees.
One cannot conclude Obama is Christian by observing his behavior.
Why not? He's acting the way Christians have acted for centuries.
Hombre, I explained it about 10 minutes prior to your post.
"When faced with loud protests, biased media coverage, and personal attacks I refused to change my position and saw my plan through to the end. That was how I stuck to my guns in my home state (and improved things in x,y,z ways...), and that's how I'd approach any irresponsible opposition to my actions to protect America were I to be elected President."
garage mahal said...
But did Walker create the conditions that led to the Wislamic State.
Wislamic State is pretty good, but if you're going to argue root causes, you know, it seems like that'd have to start well before Walker became Gov.
"These are Americans...You are talking about, in the case of ISIS, people who are beheading individuals and committing heinous crimes, who are the face of evil. To try to make the relationship between them and the unions is inappropriate."
"Spare me your outrage."
wasn't my outrage...it was a republican's...hence the quotation marks.
@Gahrie:How did that work out for us in the 1930's?
Right, every sniffle is incipient cancer and justiifes surgery and chemotherapy. And every radical nutter is Hitler and justifies another few hundred billion od dollars and a nother few tens of thousands of human lives--ours and theirs.
But ISIS is not taking over the most advanced technical civilization in the world in the very heart of Europe, now is it?
In twenty years--or twenty thousand at the rate ISIS is going--there might be a real threat there. It's unlikelt they will ever be adanger to anyone but their immediate neighbors.
I note that no one here believes Obama will have effectively dealt with ISIS by the end of his term.
Re:Walker
A Fabian strategy is a strategy and has been known to be effective. Obama's strategy is ....? And been effective where?
And Ms. Althouse, I am surprised that no one challenged your strawman; "leading from behind" is not a fair approximation of Tim McGuire's "spin" comment.
hombre: "One cannot conclude Obama is Christian by observing his behavior."
Revenant: "Why not? He's acting the way Christians have acted for centuries."
Revenants argument would be stronger if it wasn't for the fact that obama is acting in ways that non-Christians have acted for centuries as well.
The best (and probably easiest) argument to make is to clarify that Gov. Walker was not comparing pro-union protestors to ISIS, but comparing pro-union protestors to anti-war protestors he'd face if he proposed taking any kind of military action against ISIS (or anyone else). Code Pink is still around, guys, it's just that the Media doesn't find them useful with a Democrat in the White House. If an R ever gets back in we'll have protests in the streets, hear nightly news reports about how awful drone strikes are, etc.
Speaking before a Republican audience Walker needed to give an example of his backbone when faced with hostile Media (and minority-group popular) opinion. Many Republicans regretted nominating candidates who didn't stand up more forcefully when they were unfairly attacked as racists, poor-hating, elitists, etc. I would spin Walker's comment as him showing the crowd that he's faced that kind of crap in the past and has overcome it/hasn't let it beat him, so we should expect the same in the future.
Real people not subject to micro aggressions knew what he meant.
Walker/Rubio 2016
I think Ace of Spades as the best take on this. It's basically another lost opportunity to a point that resonates.
Given that the media is already going all in against him and are already outlining how Walker can be attacked by making sure distinctions are not made which will muddy the waters (they are openly speaking about that, it's come this far already), Walker simply cannot allow opportunities to go "un-" or "under-" utilized for making his case.
"But I can EASILY see how he's saying his approach, his strategy, and his demeanor were a reasonable test of how he acts under pressure."
Correct. He kept his cool, used his opponents' perceived strength against them, and stuck to a strategy. All good traits.
Walker's first order of business is to win the primaries. Given that goal, he is acting quite rationally.
Of course, beyond the primaries, he'll need votes even from people who say that "we saw" cockiness in W and got tired of it, some even going so far as to vote for the obviously non-cocky, pragmatic Barack H. Obama. So far he has resisted the temptation to treat absurd perceptions as opportunities to score debating points. Another good trait.
But GOPers will expect him to satisfy them first before he reaches out to the AAs of the country.
Way too literal, Ann. I read his comment as meaning he can take a punch (or a 100,000 punches) and come out victorious.
TNR: "The Unelectable Whiteness of Scott Walker" - Nature and Nurture in Wisconsin
When Dubya said "I won"; now that was cocky.
Walker is running for VP, wants to be the red meat talk radio guy to a more moderate sounding person who is able to think on their feet.
You heard it here first.
I get knocked down, but I get up again.
The only question: Is he having a whisky, a vodka, a lager or a cider?
If I've locked that song in your head now: You're welcome.
Our hostess has, as is her custom, brilliantly dissected the contradictory substance of Walker's statement. However, I do not discount the possibility...even likelihood... that Walker said it on purpose.
Someone else referred to it as an unforced error. But I think of it in the same way as Dear Leader must have sussed out his opportunity to publicly give the finger to Hillary and others of those he despised without consequence. Walker's statement was made under circumstances that couldn't possibly cause him harm. And yet...the looselugnut libruls in Wisconsin clearly got the message. He gave them the finger in public, and it was easily camouflaged as his subsequent statement showed.
Obama said he was merely scratching his head.
I don't care who you are, politics is about grudges, and Walker surely has a croakersack full of them by now.
- Krumhorn
It wasn't a gaffe. Walker has been saying he was tough on unions so he is ready to take on ISIS and Putin.
Thanks Wisconsin.
Someone else referred to it as an unforced error. But I think of it in the same way as Dear Leader must have sussed out his opportunity to publicly give the finger to Hillary and others of those he despised without consequence. Walker's statement was made under circumstances that couldn't possibly cause him harm. And yet...the looselugnut libruls in Wisconsin clearly got the message. He gave them the finger in public, and it was easily camouflaged as his subsequent statement showed.
What I still want to know is WHY is it so vital that he profess to Obama's faith?
I don't get why it matters.
And he could simply note that Obama lied about his gay marriage views so, without knowing him, it's hard to know what he actually believes.
Ann,
All of the Republican candidates wil be flawed, Deeply flawed.
You're just going to have to trust me on this one.
"Aside from that, perhaps someone can explain how Walker can describe ISIS as Islamic when he's never had that conversation with them before."
As others have noted, bravo to this.
But of course the answer is simple. He stands to gain something from listeners who would actually consider voting for him by describing ISIS as Islamic, and he stands to gain something from his listeners who would actually consider voting for him by "not knowing" whether Obama is Christian or loves his country.
The whole argument along the order of "how can he know what's in another's head" was always ironic.
Interesting question. If Scott Walker were asked, "Is the Islamic State Islamic?", would he say,
1) I can't tell what's in their heads.
2) No, Islam is a religion of peace.
3) They call themselves Islamic. That's good enough for me.
4) Other.
Revenant: "Why not? He's acting the way Christians have acted for centuries."
Really? You are obviously better equipped than I to divine something particularly Christian about Obama's behavior.
Please share. I'll check back in.
Back to your sockpuppetry, Bitchtits?
We haven't seen "eelpout" in quite a while.
@Roger Sweeny (3:22): He could say, "They call themselves Islamic. They enslave and behead infidels who won't convert. They subject people to dhimmitude and call it that. They propose to have their caliphate governed by Sharia Law. Next question!"
Hope that helps.
Revenant: "Why not? He's acting the way Christians have acted for centuries."
Really? You are obviously better equipped than I to divine something particularly Christian about Obama's behavior.
You're making the incorrect assumption that Christians have for centuries acted "particularly Christian". Christians act the same as pretty much everybody else, Muslims included.
Revenants argument would be stronger if it wasn't for the fact that obama is acting in ways that non-Christians have acted for centuries as well.
And ISIS are acting in ways that non-Muslims have acted for centuries. So how do we know they're really Muslim? Joseph Kony's not Muslim. The Khmer Rouge weren't Muslim. The mass-murdering mobs of Rakhine aren't Buddhist.
The "Muslim" way ISIS is acting consists of murdering people who don't do things their way and using scripture to justify it. That's about as uniquely Muslim as the idea of prayer.
Hope that helps.
Obama has said he is Christian, attends church, celebrates Christian holidays (and calls them that), went through a Christian marriage ceremony, etc.
So how is he not Christian, if ISIS is Muslim? If deeds and speech are enough to label ISIS, they are enough to label Obama. If you're going to play the "blur blah blur what's in his heart nurr" card, you have to play it on ISIS too. After all, maybe they're a bunch of cynical fucks using religion to gain person power. They'd hardly be the first, no?
@Revenant (3:45): Ah. So there is no "particular" behavior by which one can identify a Christian. Several billion Christians over many generations, especially those who have been martyred for their faith, would be surprised to hear that.
You need to get out more.
@Revenant (3:54): Obama rarely attends church. Many non-Christians celebrate Christian holidays. Obama also celebrates Muslim holidays, i.e., Ramadan. Similarly, many non-Christians are married by Christian pastors. (I'm assuming here that Jeremiah Wright is a Christian despite his adherence to Black Liberation Theology, which is not Christian.) moreover, Obama demonstrates a decided bias toward Muslims including refusing to identify Muslim terrorists as such and refusing to acknowledge the religion of their victims and/or that they are other than random victims
Nevertheless, none of this compares to the religious practices of the minions of ISIS described in my comment at 3:30.
You are obviously not well acquainted with Christianity that extends beyond "Christianish."
As others have noted, bravo to this.
Which is asinine, of course.
If you know a subject ell, you know its doctrines. All most of us know about Islam is that it REALLY hates Jews, its Prophet seemed to have God back him up on every thing he wanted, and it has a violent tendency.
I will easily say I have no idea if somebody is a Christian because I know what Christian theology says (that simply going thru the motions isn't enough).
I don't know the Islamic "rules". If somebody says "Dude, I'm Islamic", praises God when they slaughter somebody, and can cite the Koran well --- I will defer to their judgment on their faith.
You're making the incorrect assumption that Christians have for centuries acted "particularly Christian". Christians act the same as pretty much everybody else, Muslims included.
I've missed Christians shooting up kosher stores and Parisian satire magazines. But I was sick last week, so it could've slipped under the radar.
And ISIS are acting in ways that non-Muslims have acted for centuries. So how do we know they're really Muslim? Joseph Kony's not Muslim. The Khmer Rouge weren't Muslim. The mass-murdering mobs of Rakhine aren't Buddhist.
Umm, they never CLAIMED to be, either.
I guess Al Qaeda isn't Islamic. Nor Muslim Brotherhood. Nor Hamas. Nope, not Islamic at all.
The "Muslim" way ISIS is acting consists of murdering people who don't do things their way and using scripture to justify it. That's about as uniquely Muslim as the idea of prayer.
Can you cite the Christians slaughtering people and using the Bible to justify it? I missed that story.
Obama has said he is Christian, attends church,
Actually, no, he doesn't really attend Church. Less than 4 times a year for years now.
celebrates Christian holidays (and calls them that), went through a Christian marriage ceremony, etc.
He refers to holidays as Christian holidays? When?
And I wasn't at his wedding. Were you?
I know he had his kids baptized by a virulent racist and noted moron, so I don't assume he had better decision making with his wedding.
So how is he not Christian, if ISIS is Muslim? If deeds and speech are enough to label ISIS, they are enough to label Obama.
Except words and deeds are not terribly material in Christianity. You can say the right things and not be a Chrsitian. It is what is in your heart and that is between you and God.
I wouldn't say that the people in my sunday School class are Christian. I'd say that you should probably ask them.
Walker's stupid bit of chest-beating has diverted attention from the real dangers disclosed by his speech: "we'll send a message not only that we'll protect American soil but do not take this upon freedom-loving people anywhere else in the world." This is early G W Bush evangelism at its worst, "bringing God's gift of freedom to the world". It's going abroad looking for monsters to slay with a vengeance; a recipe for endless military interventions in other countries in the name of "protecting freedom-loving people". The line could have come straight out of the Cold War ... from the Soviet side.
The man doesn't just lack foreign policy experience. He lacks knowledge and judgement.
The left takes time out from lecturing, interminably, the right about not accepting religious labels at face value re: islamic terrorism to now lecture us that we must take religious labels at face value.
"He lacks knowledge and judgement."
Well, that does seem to be a requirement lately. Have you checked Obozo ?
"But of course the answer is simple. He stands to gain something from listeners who would actually consider voting for him by describing ISIS as Islamic,"
So, does that mean that ISIS, which calls itself Islamic, is running for US president ?
Dope.
Bu Bu but what about Obozo.
BREAKING NEWS Scott Walker threatens to bomb Madison liberals, send in Army...! Oh, wait, he didn't do that? You can't tell by Twitter...or the NYT....
"Conservative politicians, forced to meet in Madison, Wisconsin, have the problem that the sudden, troublesome crowds consist overwhelmingly of their antagonists..."
That could be because conservative gatherings like Tea Party rallies don't make trouble.
Could it be that behaving in an antisocial manner leads to being treated antisocially?
We don't mandate harsh punishments and restrictions on people who DON'T rob liquor stores...
garage mahal: "Bu Bu but what about Obozo."
It appears our middle schooler has found what he believes is his sweet spot.
harrogate: "He stands to gain something from listeners who would actually consider voting for him by describing ISIS as Islamic."
Because domestic political considerations by an American conservative governor who has sights set on higher office is really the only reason any individual anywhere could possibly ascribe islamist tendencies towards these er, militant "must not call them islamist at any costs!!!" terrorists.
Thank you for your reasoned and dispassionate analysis harrogate.
According to the lefties, the worse these "not islamist at all and don't you dare say such an unfair thing" terrorists behave the guiltier Christians throughout history and republicans/conservatives today become.
damikesc: "Except words and deeds are not terribly material in Christianity. You can say the right things and not be a Chrsitian. It is what is in your heart and that is between you and God."
This is neither entirely accurate nor biblical. Do you believe God judges only what is in your heart?
Don't you remember Gov. Walker chaining himself to the rotunda balcony rail and shouting, " Mr Dem Representatives in hiding, tear down this Union."
I don't remember it either....but he did seem to be like Ronald Reagan at times.
Ann Althouse said...
"There was a time when "Speak softly and carry a big stick" led to President Roosevelt winning the Nobel Peace Prize."
How does that apply to Scott Walker who is know for: 1. Not talking at all (refusals to answer), and 2. Strong, cocky statements like that CPAC crack?
2/27/15, 8:37 AM MayBee said...
It's like pretending Mitt Romney's "Binders full of women" indicated he was not yet ready to be president because he didn't know how to interact with women.
The truth was, Mitt Romney had an incredible skill set to be president. He was uniquely ready to be president. Obviously, there were people who absolutely disagreed with is policy ideas. That's fair. But that didn't get used against him. Instead we heard about stupid shit like he caused cancer and didn't understand Russia. Remember that? OMG he called Russia our biggest foe. What a stupid word choice. So not ready!
We really need to stop this game. The sad thing is, most people know its a game. But they keep playing because they think it helps their team win.
See, Maybee, This is a game that Althouse plays with republicans. Walker has governed her state for four years and has used his influence and position to guide legislators into enacting policies which have had a beneficial effect in a variety of ways, yet Althouse declares that Walker is known for "not answering questions and being cocky." LOL! Of course, she happily pulled the lever for the candidate who made such memorably idiotic remarks as: "It's above my paygrade." "We wouldn't need to drill for oil if everyone just kept their tires properly inflated." "I'm for redistribution of resources- share the wealth." "My plan is to make it prohibitively expensive to open new plants." "My policies are going to make energy prices skyrocket." And more, much more. But Obama was never the candidate who said dumb things, or was going to cause prices to rise and innovation to perish. To Althouse's credit, she did only vote for the moron the first time.
Barack Hussein Obama: "I'm really good at killing people." Now that's cocky! Not to mention, psychotic, obnoxious, and factually wrong- yet I don't remember Althouse wringing her hands over Barry's demented arrogance and blood-lust.
Barack Hussein Obama: "I can do every job better than those I hire to do it." Cocky!
So Walker passed unconstitutional laws concerning protesting in the Capitol. Can any of you making this claim cite the court that ruled this way? If these laws are still being enforced, then they are not unconstitutional.
Unless someone can point to a Court's ruling, then the unconstitutionality of the laws in simply an opinion. Has anyone even challenged them?
You mean like the 4th circuit did, Goju?
After this loss, they have dropped the appeal and let about 400 tickets disappear instead of continuing to prosecute them.
http://wbay.com/2015/01/29/court-requiring-permit-to-sing-in-wisconsin-capitol-unconstitutional/
http://m.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/appeals-court-upholds-dismissal-of-ticket-against-capitol-protest-singer-b99435447z1-290217161.html
So Walker passed unconstitutional laws concerning protesting in the Capitol. Can any of you making this claim cite the court that ruled this way?
http://www.nbc15.com/news/headlines/Solidarity-singers-getting-ticketed-at-Capitol-216789461.html
This story refers to 20 or more people needing a permit. The original rules, which a Federal judge temporarily overrode until a ruling was issued, had the threshold at four.
Of course, many of Althouse followers were perfectly with this rule, because in their mind the teachers and other workers protesting are no better than the ISIS terrorists.
Goju, read this story about how they changed the tickets after issuing them and these got thrown out. There are many facets where Walkers palace guard overstepped.
http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/steven_elbow/judge-blasts-scott-walker-administration-for-altering-solidarity-singer-citations/article_6805343c-841b-51f7-9f52-8cbd2bfb303f.html#ixzz3T0KxcwIN
But of course the answer is simple. He stands to gain something from listeners who would actually consider voting for him by describing ISIS as Islamic,
How is ISIS unislamic?
Yeah - what's so bad about hating democracy and the voice of the people and comparing the voting public to the enemy Taliban?
Ann, you really need to run for office.
So much political masturbation on this thread. The guy will not play nationally. At the very least, his shit-headed comment won't. Madison is a land in which some retards can believe they're the center of the American political universe, apparently.
I think Walker should respond to all questions like that with, "At this point, what difference does it make?"
BTW, I never observed Bush's cockiness, or his famous smirk. I just didn't see it.
OTOH, I have no problem seeing Obama's Mussolini sneer.
Post a Comment