१७ जुलै, २०१९
"Whether this is a walk for the exits of public life, or voluntary entry into a cryogenic experiment to ride out the rest of Trump era is yet to be seen."
From a Bulwark article that begins, "Former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker will soon have a new job: President of Young America’s Foundation."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३७ टिप्पण्या:
I'm sure it pays a helluva lot better than Secretary of Labor and no headaches either.
Bulwark thinks that anybody will listen to them after the “Trump Era” is over. Your party is gone the way of the Whigs.
Sorry, but collaborators are collaborators. Even the Brits despised Benedict Arnold.
That’s a cute line...
who four years ago was an early favorite to be elected president of the United States
I don’t remember that at all. Did he lead in some local poll on some Wednesday? A poll conducted during dead-poll era?
The Bulwark against logic and reason.
Screw you, rational thought!
Did the Lefty billionaire send the check yet?
--The Bulwark
The McCan era is definitely over. The Romney era isn't going to happen. The Trump Era is the only thing preventing us all from the AOC era.
Always follow the money. YAF is another previously conservative organization that has recently been bought out by the open-borders Koch brothers and purged of its conservative agenda. Now opening borders, legalizing drugs, and attacking law enforcement will be in their wheelhouse. Walker owes the Kochs everything, so he'll be a good front.
They are triangulating to produce a leftitarian "libertarian" candidate to pull votes from Trump at their annual gathering in Las Vegas this weekend. This is the opening volley.
Wisconsin Mystery
Former Governor Scott Walker Has chosen a leadership role at the Young America's Foundation over a descending into a mire of bitter peevishness. The Bulwark's thinkers wonder, "Was he ever who we thought he was?"
"....ride out the rest of Trump era...
Still thinking that the good old days are coming back as soon as Trump leaves office, aren't they?
Not to worry, though. They're an adaptable pack of grifters; when the "principled conservative" shtick stops drawing donor bucks, I'm sure they'll come up with another remunerative pose.
Walker should change the name back to Young Americans for Freedom.
This is an ironic statement, coming from the Bulwark:
For people in the conservative movement, this question is non-trivial. Because in general, if someone is using an institution as a platform to build their own brand, then they’re not taking care of the actual institution
It's implied that the Bulwark considers themselves part of the conservative movement.
This is on the heels of Bill Kristol promoting the claim that judges, tax cuts, etc. don't matter , the only important thing is voting for the Democrats to save us from Orange Man:
Kristol promoting George Conway: ""Trump is...the president of the United States....What’s at stake now is more important than judges or tax cuts or regulations or any policy issue of the day. What’s at stake are the nation’s ideals, its very soul."
In 2016 I supported Walker, and after he dropped out, Ted Cruz.
I hope Walker distances himself from the Cuck Traitors at the Bulwark, or at the very least ignores them. They are not conservatives, they do not represent us, they represent the people that threw us under the bus so their liberal friends would let them have a table at Martha's Vineyard.
And I would caution Althouse - be aware that anything of interest you grab from the Bulwark will be treated here as fruit from the poisoned tree. I know that's not fair to what your intent is - providing interesting subject matter for analysis and discussion - but since it's illegal for us to hang these people, we're going to indulge a figurative tar and feathering in the comments.
Can you really blame us?
YAF is another previously conservative organization that has recently been bought out by the open-borders Koch brothers and purged of its conservative agenda. Now opening borders, legalizing drugs, and attacking law enforcement will be in their wheelhouse. Walker owes the Kochs everything, so he'll be a good front.
If that turns out to be true, then Scott Walker can go play in traffic.
He was my first choice in 2016. But I'm a native Texan, born and raised in Dallas. I followed the Dallas Cowboys from the days of QB Danny "3 and out" White. I had no problem throwing the NFL into the dumpster after the Kaepernick nonsense, haven't been back since.
The NFL is dead to me.
Dumping Scott Walker for aligning with treacherous weasels will be much easier than that.
I wonder if his staff checks in on Althouse. So much could be salvaged if politicians just took one advice from the late Andrew Breitbart - "read the comments".
It's why the Dems and MSM were blindsided in 2016. They didn't know what they didn't know.
"I know that's not fair to what your intent is - providing interesting subject matter for analysis and discussion..."
Don't assume you know my intent. Don't assume that because someone is not blatantly, expressively opinionated that they don't have a point of view. You don't "know" what's "not fair" to me. I regard YOUR comment as unfair to me. Ironically
I like Scott Walker and wish him well in this endeavor. He’s a plain speaking, no nonsense, patient but persistent conservative.
AND he has that cool accent.
Blogger Fen said... Can you really blame us?
so, what you are saying is it's not your fault.
"What’s at stake are the nation’s ideals, its very soul."
That's actually true.
On one side are the people who think America is great, that the Constitution is decent as written, that we are a sovereign nation, that we have and should protect our borders, that we should defend ourselves against Chinese misbehavior, and that love of country matters.
On the other side are people who think the soul of America is racist, that the Constitution should be alive, that sovereignty should be sacrificed to higher purposes, that our borders should be open, that we should not resist China, and that the country is not worth loving.
I take it the Bulwark stands with the second group.
Howard: so, what you are saying is it's not your fault.
No, I'm saying we have good reason to treat the Bulwark with contempt.
It's a universal concept that dates back to the Bronze Age:
"When we defeat an enemy, we tend to his wounded and treat captives humanely. But traitors? Traitors we hang." - The Book of Fen (7:3-4)
You could go 11 rounds with me, even burn my life to the ground, but I would never give you a traitors death. Because you come at me as an enemy, not a friend who smiles as he reaches behind his back for a shiv.
Leaf through your history books, you'll find that traitors have always been treated with more contempt than the enemy.
Manager Pete Rose's nickname for Ron Robinson was The True Creature. fyi.
I don't know if Scott Walker would have been a good fit for SecLabor. My actual interest is that the Labor Department by so inconsequential to my life that our doesn't matter who runs it or if it exists. For example, the Bulwark is so inconsequential to my life that it doesn't matter who runs it or if it exists. And the YAF thing really is inconsequential.
I'm sure someone would say those organizations are cabals intent on being consequential, but recent history suggests they aren't good at achieving their stated goals.
Walker owes the Kochs everything, so he'll be a good front.
I am getting that impression and wondered in 2016 if their failure to support him early was why he dropped out.
This is not a good career move for him but Chuck will still vote for him.
Don't assume you know my intent. Don't assume that because someone is not blatantly, expressively opinionated that they don't have a point of view. You don't "know" what's "not fair" to me. I regard YOUR comment as unfair to me. Ironically
Why on earth would the original comment get your knee jerking that much?
Ugh...
Fen: "I know that's not fair to what your intent is - providing interesting subject matter for analysis and discussion..."
Althouse: Don't assume you know my intent. Don't assume that because someone is not blatantly, expressively opinionated that they don't have a point of view. You don't "know" what's "not fair" to me. I regard YOUR comment as unfair to me. Ironically.
You seem to be taking offense where none was intended. In fact, I made a good faith attempt to paint your intent in the most generous light I could imagine.
What a odd way to respond to such a effort.
And your tone comes across as belligerent. If I treated you fairly and gave you the opportunity to explain belligerence wasn't intended, would you explain your actual intent and apologize for assuming bad faith on my part? Or would you respond in a manner that teaches me "no good (attempt to be respectful) goes unpunished"?
Ya know, our back and forth over the years was created by instances just like this. Has it never puzzled you how someone who so staunchly defended you during the Valenti Breast incident could turn? Not that it really matters, I'm no one. But it's reasonable to assume you wanted it this way. And that's fine too.
@Fen
Begin with the fact that it did bother me. Then, try to understand me. If that's so difficult, then consider your difficulty a key to my original comment. Your comment offended me because you portrayed YOURSELF as knowing what's in MY head AND your idea of what is in my head was nothing of any significance, just bland service of topics for OTHER PEOPLE to talk about. The fact that you didn't try to understand me when I showed my feelings underscores the problem I had initially. And your new comment reveals longstanding deeply embedded hostility toward me, which reinforces my sense that I had an accurate perception in the first place.
Exit from public life or cryogenic retreat.
Sounds like reasons to write for the Bulwark.
Your comment offended me because you portrayed YOURSELF as knowing what's in MY head
I made the assumption that your intent is to "provide interesting subject matter for analysis and discussion". I made the assumption because I can't know what is in your head. I don't think it is reasonable to be offended by that.
AND your idea of what is in my head was nothing of any significance, just bland service of topics
Nowhere did I imply that what is in your head is bland or insignificant. In fact, I've stated the opposite many times over the last several months. If I truly thought that way, why would I read you daily?
The fact that you didn't try to understand me when I showed my feelings underscores the problem I had initially.
I did try, I have tried in the past. I may have failed to understand, but that doesn't warrant lumping me in with the bad actors who want to hurt you.
And your new comment reveals longstanding deeply embedded hostility toward me, which reinforces my sense that I had an accurate perception in the first place.
My comment was an attempt at rapprochement, an appeal that things don't have to be this way, that we do not have to be at odds.
Your perception of "longstanding deeply embedded hostility" is inaccurate. But that's okay too. I'm not going to try to force the issue. I felt I needed to reach out and attempt to clear the air between us, clean up misunderstanding, and I tried to as best as I know how.
So I'm good. Carry on.
Walker was on a radio show this morning. His kids are grown and he will split time between Wisconsin, DC and the Reagan Ranch. He cited that Reagan’s optimism was key to his political formation and that optimism is key to communicating with young people today.
"What a odd way to respond to such a effort."
Fen, Fen . . . Odd, yes: I invite you to think deeply about that.
"And your tone comes across as belligerent"
Now that's funny. You triggered Althouse!
Which goes to show, divining the intent of cruelly neutral divas is a no-win proposition.
Unless you have an Althousian capacity to infer intent, on the order of spotting "deeply embedded hostility" in an anonymous commenter.
Giving Mommy lip claiming it was not your fault after a spanking. Nice. I bet her pussy hurts real bad now.
Ann Althouse: "@Fen Begin with the fact that it did bother me. Then, try to understand me."
When Althouse tells you she is thirsty, she doesn't want you to go get her a glass of water.
She wants you to "thirst" with her.
"Begin with the fact that it did bother me."
Recently, it seems to me, you're letting the meaningless crap that people write in your comments section "bother" you.
Short of a physical threat nothing here is important or meaningful enough to let it get to you. It's the comment section of a blog. Lighten up for your own good.
Also, Fen's a jerk who places an undeserved value on his opinions - like me.
Judging by the salaries paid at the top of the YAF, I'd say that it exists in it's current form primarily to provide those salaries.
990
(shrug) I can afford to open up and risk getting fouled. And I expected a Howard would take advantage to land some cheap shots. I chose to try it anyway. I don't regret it.
I will add that being a jerk in written form online doesn't necessarily mean that a person is a jerk in person. Many have an entirely different filter when they express themselves in text.
If Walker ambles into the Quisling camp during a fight, well, the title of Quisling is what he deserves. I don’t know where the Bulwark thinks that the electoral energy is going to come from if they get their way. The Koch Bros money?
I'm curious what plans NeverTrumpers and the Bulwark crowd have post-Trump.
They've destroyed their credibility.
They ripped up the old GOP bargain that we all unite behind the party's nominee. No one will ever hold their nose and vote for one of their RINOs again on the promise that they will do the same when our guy is the nom.
No one trusts them.
And the only reason they are relevant now is because Trump is President. When he leaves office, they won't exist.
What the fuck?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा