“Longtime Walker Adviser”: We’ll Become Moderate Later On
Here’s how we dishonestly manipulate you, said the “longtime Walker adviser”:
“You start in Iowa and lock up conservatives, because if you don’t do that, none of the rest matters,” said one longtime Walker adviser, who requested anonymity to discuss campaign strategy. “It’s much easier to move from being a conservative to being a middle-of-the-road moderate later on.”
On one hand, this surprises nobody. It is thought to be the standard presidential campaign strategy.
But it also reeks of a lack of principle, doesn’t it?
I think if a Ted Cruz adviser said something like that, Cruz would try to root out that person and fire them.
I hope Walker does exactly that. But I don’t get the sense he will.
They tell us they’re going to pull the football away at the last second and then
we’re amazed that they PULL THE FOOTBALL AWAY AT THE LAST SECOND!!!1!!!!!
I was paying attention last year and therefore did not vote for those who were
running because I knew what they were going to do and I will not be a part of
that anymore.
And I was correct.
jakee308 (c37f85) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:33 ama middle-of-the-road moderate later on.”
That ideological category would not have made me flinch in the context of decades ago, such as around the 1940s, 1950s. But today? “Moderate” in the 21st century means a person generally supports SSM but not polygamy, that Trayvon Martin was kind of a troubled youth but George Zimmerman was (and is) an even more questionable character, that illegal immigrants should be called “undocumented,” that Obama is a tad too liberal but George Bush was too rightwing, etc.
Bleech.
Mark (2857e5) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:39 amI think if a Ted Cruz adviser said something like that, Cruz would try to root out that person and fire them.
I would too, too. And so should Walker. “Don’t give away campaign strategy, idiot!”
nk (dbc370) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:41 amyes yes anonymous sources from the National Journal
we need to break out into discussion groups and chew on this thoroughly
happyfeet (831175) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:41 amWhat was Mark’s political affiliation in the 40’s and 50’s?
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:44 amDayspring is a recent hire, so who is the source, ‘caveat emptor’
narciso (ee1f88) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:50 amCarlitos, what is your affiliation today?
If your environmental instincts had leaned left back then (as they do now), that would have been one thing—when mercury and truly poisonous chemicals were polluting the landscape. I now realize I forgot to add the hysterics about AGW of the 21st century compared with the tolerance of, for example, the chemicals that caused the excessive brown haze that hovered over cities like Los Angeles decades ago.
Again, to have been a moderate in the context of, say, the 1950s was one thing. To be a “moderate” today is a joke or sleight-of-hand label.
Mark (2857e5) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:50 amCarlitos – mark was practicing compassion for compassion’s sake in the 40’s and 50’s, and attempting to pigeonhole people by their degree of squishiness.
JD (69d190) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:52 amJD, compassion for compassion’s sake might not have been as loony or idiotic during a time when , for example, proposed Congressional legislation to ban public lynchings (I believe raised during the early 1960s) was seen as controversial.
Mark (2857e5) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:54 amSo … no answer from Mark. Here’s the question in context:
I’m happy to be pigeonholed by my squishiness.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:56 amYou’re assuming that this person 1) exists, and 2) is in Walker’s employ. I don’t understand why you make either assumption.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:58 amInstead of getting upset by what an unnamed “longtime Walker adviser” allegedly said maybe the best idea would be to look at Walker’s actual record as Governor for clues as to how he would, you know, govern.
Mark Johnson (a64489) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:58 amA good candidate moves to the politics of the party. See either Bush.
A great candidate creates the politics of the party. See Reagan.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 7/14/2015 @ 8:04 amSounds like a second-fiddle got drunk and tried to seem important.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 7/14/2015 @ 8:11 amYou’re assuming that this person 1) exists, and 2) is in Walker’s employ. I don’t understand why you make either assumption.
Good point. It could be what Segretti called an “RF” (see “Canuck letter”), or it could be a reporter’s fabrication.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 7/14/2015 @ 8:13 amAgree with many comments above.
Remember “they” are trying to manipulate us, whether we are paranoid or not.
It is all they have, since they can’t stand on logic or facts.
Until a credible identified source can say so, let’s let his record speak for itself.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/14/2015 @ 8:19 am3 election victories in 4 years against seething mobs of blue from across the country.
I’m with Milhouse. What makes anybody believe these unknown sources? What makes anybody believe they even exist? Sounds like something a democrat would say to shake up the Walker campaign.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 7/14/2015 @ 8:19 amI will assume we are being manipulated since we know that Walker that Democrats fear most – they’re still reeling from his actions.
Dana (86e864) — 7/14/2015 @ 8:33 amEverything else in the news is a lie, why should anyone believe any of this?
JNorth (5fe1bf) — 7/14/2015 @ 8:39 amGlad i read the posts, as this was a story i read a few days ago and i’ve been disappointed that Gov Walker did not forcibly respond by getting rid of this adviser. gotta admit , good chance that theis source does not actually exist or such source is not close enough to know from knowledge.
seeRpea (187ee2) — 7/14/2015 @ 8:44 amlets consider what we do know:
http://therightscoop.com/watch-megyn-kellys-powerful-interview-with-kate-steinles-brother/
narciso (ee1f88) — 7/14/2015 @ 8:50 amInteresting assumption.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/14/2015 @ 9:00 amEyes. On. The. Prize.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/14/2015 @ 9:01 amhttp://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/14/scott-walker-throws-anti-conservative-super-pac-adviser-brad-dayspring-under-bus-he-doesnt-work-for-me/
mg (31009b) — 7/14/2015 @ 9:03 amIf Walker was really going be a moderate, wouldn’t he have done it before setting the whole of Wisconsin on fire?
JWB (aedb59) — 7/14/2015 @ 9:06 am“On one hand, this surprises nobody. It is thought to be the standard presidential campaign strategy.”
– Patterico
Our system is designed to incentivize this sort of campaign strategy. Consensus-building! Yay!
If we don’t like it when our candidates engage in this sort of behavior, we should look closely at the structural incentives that entice them to do so.
Leviticus (f9a067) — 7/14/2015 @ 9:15 amAlways trust anonymously sourced content from National Journal!
“Some people” believe it represents the gold standard of journalism.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/14/2015 @ 9:16 amAmerica is not monolithic, and candidates should not be expected to be, either. Let’s leave that to the Ron Pauls.
nk (dbc370) — 7/14/2015 @ 9:18 amMilhouse (a04cc3) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:58 a
Absolutely what Milhouse said. Believing such nonsense, when we have ample evidence of who Walker is and what he stands for, is just plain stupid.
felipe (56556d) — 7/14/2015 @ 9:28 amI always wonder if anonymous sources even work for the campaign they claim to work for. Heck, it could be Debbie Wazzerman-Shultz out to undermine Walker’s campaign. If you have the media in your pocket these tactics are possible.
Dejectedhead (e38efa) — 7/14/2015 @ 9:34 amGee, ya think? [/sarc]
Of course he won’t; it’s who he is — a liar.
(But then, he’s a politician, so that’s redundant…)
J.P. (cc46f4) — 7/14/2015 @ 9:38 amIt’s hard to believe that their are people who spend their time on internet disinformation campaigns and covert spinning. I guess some even get paid to do it.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/14/2015 @ 9:42 amnot their but there- sorry
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/14/2015 @ 9:42 amMr. Breitbart would be sad to see the puerile insipid website what’s being published in his name I think.
He would say, “This makes me feel sad, this puerile insipid website what’s being published in my name.”
happyfeet (831175) — 7/14/2015 @ 9:47 amWalker has changed positions on immigration and ethanol in recent months. These things happen in campaigns, especially national campaigns where every statement and position is scrutinized. Hiring Brad Dayspring for his PAC concerns me.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/14/2015 @ 9:51 amI’m with Milhouse. What makes anybody believe these unknown sources? What makes anybody believe they even exist? Sounds like something a democrat would say to shake up the Walker campaign.
Sounds like something any political insider would say if any of them ever spoke the truth.
PPs43 (6fdef4) — 7/14/2015 @ 9:54 amAt this point expect the anonymous commenters in the news and on blog sites, including this one, to cause so much background noise and smoke that no one knows anything for sure.
Discouraging people of any principle allows the low information crowd manipulation and turn out to win the day.
Yes, there is PLENTY of reason for cynicism and skepticism,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/14/2015 @ 10:03 amexcept when it comes to expecting the L to be dishonest 3 times out of 2 opportunities.
(Yes, I meant it that way.)
If Walker gets his wife to tease out his hair with mousse and a blow-drier for the Texas primary, then I’ll worry about his sincerity.
nk (dbc370) — 7/14/2015 @ 10:08 am(Yes, I meant it that way.)
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/14
Heh, well said.
felipe (56556d) — 7/14/2015 @ 10:17 amAt that point, nk, we have a crap load more to worry about than just his sincerity.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 7/14/2015 @ 11:18 am“Fiercely honest and scrupulously non-partisan” – how the National Journal describes itself … that tells you a lot …
Go by what Governor Walker is on record as *doing* – it is a much more reliable indicator of future acts than an unnamed possible spokesperson/possible disinformation plant …
Cummon, guys ! We are smarter than the media seems to believe we are, are we not ?
Alastor (2e7f9f) — 7/14/2015 @ 11:57 amThat’s assuming the source even exists. I see no reason to assume that.
Milhouse (7d5ad7) — 7/14/2015 @ 12:18 pmEthanol I’ll grant you, but how changed is his position on immigration? Was he ever for granting an amnesty before closing the border? I think everyone knows, whether they admit it or not, that eventually some sort of amnesty will be necessary and even desirable, but common sense says it’s foolish to even discuss it while the border remains wide open.
Milhouse (7d5ad7) — 7/14/2015 @ 12:22 pmDRJ
mg (31009b) — 7/14/2015 @ 1:03 pmWalker says the pac hired Dayspring, not him.
He’s just another etch-a-sketch Republican.
ThOR (a52560) — 7/14/2015 @ 1:19 pmis not
happyfeet (831175) — 7/14/2015 @ 1:25 pmThe dems and the Repub establishment would both like conservatives to be demoralized and stay home. They both would be dishonest to help the cause.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/14/2015 @ 1:30 pmSo, while there is plenty of reason to be cynical,
let us not get too excited about anyone being our messiah
but still plan on voting for somebody other than who we are told to.
The primary argument for Walker is he can win with the pieces in play on all sides.
Remember this is the rancid borehole of the GOP.
DNF (208255) — 7/14/2015 @ 1:59 pmBeing labeled as a flip-flopper hurt Romney and it will hurt Walker, too, but there’s an easy answer. Walker should have a ready response team to address stories like this.
It’s like Cruz’s book story — either admit the story or deny it. If he denies it, go on the offense and demand proof and a retraction. Anything else may mean this story won’t go away.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/14/2015 @ 4:19 pmThere was a lot of evidence to convict Romney of being a flip-flopper, it wasn’t just hearsay., especially the mix between RomneyCare and ObamaCare, though I know there was a difference.
I really am going to try to ignore anything and everything negative about any of the conservative candidates unless documented by people I know, including statements on this site by people I do not recognize.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/14/2015 @ 4:43 pmWalked admitted he changed his mind on immigration and on ethanol. I’m okay with that — this is the time to acknowledge that what you did as a governor isn’t always what you would do as a president — but let’s don’t pretend he never did it.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/14/2015 @ 4:48 pmCruz is going to get hammered on what he did about the debt ceiling and other actions/votes. He needs to stand up and explain himself, and so does Walker. The last thing we need is another candidate who is anointed.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/14/2015 @ 4:49 pmPlenty of people have pointed out that Big Media can make up anonymous sources. That’s fine as far as it goes — and if Walker has denied the story, I’d be wiling to go with his denial.
The fact that he has not denied it is not proof it’s true — he might just not want to give it any oxygen — but the flip-flop on ethanol strikes me as pandering. There is no excuse for anyone who knows anything about economics to pander on ethanol. Period.
And it’s character flaws like this that fit into the narrative being offered by the anonymous perhaps nonexistent adviser.
I know, most people think pandering is necessary and maybe they’re right. Ted Cruz doesn’t think so and I would prefer to believe he is right. Even if he is wrong about the need for pandering, I’d still rather support him than someone who panders on something like ethanol.
Plus, people should consider the very real possibility that the story might be accurate. You can’t dismiss every story you don’t like by pronouncing it a lie. Recognizing that it may be is one thing. Assuming it is, is another.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 7/14/2015 @ 5:25 pmMr. Governor Walker has a record of making America better. A governing record.
Whereas Ted Cruz has his diploma from Harvard and a best-selling book.
We have to weight the pros and cons of each candidate through a lens that favors Mr. Governor Scott Walker. When we do this you’ll see that Mr. Governor Scott Walker is clearly the best choice.
happyfeet (831175) — 7/14/2015 @ 5:41 pmI for one am not assuming it’s a lie. I’m just saying if they fail to identify their source then I take it with a grain of salt.
OTOH, if Walker is actually, seriously flip-floping on ethanol I have to dump him and go Cruz. Any Republican that signs on to the global warming hoax even a little I’m done with. I refuse to be part of the Algore, closed minded, settled science communist cabal of AGW. I pray to God they all don’t end up making conservatives like me sit out an election as important as this one is.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 7/14/2015 @ 5:45 pmGasohol has very little to do with global warming. It’s money for agri-business. The farm lobby and the farm states like Iowa are the ones militantly behind it. The AGW loonies are their useful idiots.
nk (dbc370) — 7/14/2015 @ 5:50 pmI realize that nk but to me it’s all art and parcel of that nutty AGW crap. At least that’s how they sold it.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 7/14/2015 @ 5:52 pmYeah, I don’t think his position has anything to do with AGW. It’s about pandering to Iowa voters. Click the link in DRJ’s comment to see Walker’s (non) reasoning.
Walker would be better than Hillary.
Ted Cruz would be better than Walker.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 7/14/2015 @ 5:54 pmethanol is just a method of turning domestic coal and natural gas into a transportation fuel
it has nothing to do with the global warmings
it was born out of a post-ww2 way of thinking that prized security and self-reliance – the idea was that having ethanol infrastructure in place was a good thing for in case of another war
but a cowardly declining pants-wetting whorestate like failmerica does not need to think this way
and as a purely economic question, ethanol makes no sense
happyfeet (831175) — 7/14/2015 @ 6:03 pmI know, most people think pandering is necessary and maybe they’re right. Ted Cruz doesn’t think so and I would prefer to believe he is right. Even if he is wrong about the need for pandering, I’d still rather support him than someone who panders on something like ethanol.
If it is, or becomes, necessary to pander in order to win an election, then what? Also, when you say you’d rather support him (Cruz) than someone who panders on something like ethanol, are you then suggesting there is something that you could see Cruz pandering on and be okay with?
Dana (86e864) — 7/14/2015 @ 6:14 pmIn 2006 President Bush wanted switchgrass as a fuel.
mg (31009b) — 7/14/2015 @ 6:16 pmThey should have listened. Less expensive to grow, harvest and refine compared to corn.
I’m happy to be pigeonholed by my squishiness.
Carlitos, you might just as well boast about your giving in to moments when common sense or logic escapes you. BTW, just about all of us humans are afflicted with that symptom on occasion, but it’s not something I’d want to brag about.
Mark (2857e5) — 7/14/2015 @ 6:18 pmNewt did some fabulous pandering in Florida during the last Dick show.
mg (31009b) — 7/14/2015 @ 6:20 pm53,60, don’t kid yourselves. Sen Cruz can and does pander with the best of them. And that’s OK. All politicians pander or they wouldn’t get elected. They just choose to pander to different issues and constituents. Putting Cruz on a pedestal is fine but please don’t put him on a pedestal as a non-panderer.
elissa (701910) — 7/14/2015 @ 6:34 pmEvery politician will disappoint their supporters now and then. Heck, even the best politicians
probably disappoint themselves at times. It’s good that the public can be understanding.
But the primaries are when the voters in each Party have the chance to choose, and we need to make the best of this opportunity. It’s the only time we will have leverage over the person who may end up as President. We should not waste this chance to make them tell us where they stand on the issues.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/14/2015 @ 6:35 pmI agree Cruz panders by focusing on what voters want to hear and telling them where he agrees. elissa is right that all politicians do that. I haven’t seen Cruz flip-flop much, if at all.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/14/2015 @ 6:38 pmelissa,
My comment at 60 was not stating that Cruz is a non-panderer, but rather it was a request for Patterico to explain what issues are acceptable for Cruz to pander on as his statement inferred that there might be at least some. Especially if it means winning an election.
They are politicians. By default, they pander. However, I think depending on the issue, and their explanation, it can be simply part and parcel of an imperfect candidate. I would prefer they be honest about it, though.
Dana (86e864) — 7/14/2015 @ 6:47 pmif ever a judge
need a Bubba packin’ fudge
don’t know what say you?
http://www.newsweek.com/judge-orders-dsouza-receive-psychological-counseling-353554
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/14/2015 @ 6:53 pmThere are three reasons against burning food in cars:
1. It depletes the topsoil which is not really renewable in less than 3,000 years;
2. It’s more expensive to produce than gasoline;
3. It provides much less energy than gasoline.
It’s not in my top ten deal-breakers for the next President.
nk (dbc370) — 7/14/2015 @ 6:57 pmMay I point out something?
kishnevi (294553) — 7/14/2015 @ 6:59 pmWalker has gored several Democratic oxen, and tried to kill some of their sacred cows, but never to my knowledge done the same to any Republican Establishment/Chamber of Commerce oxen and/or sacred cows. He has, as best I know, never bit the hand that feeds him.
To my mind that means he probably is an Establishment candidate trying to win Tea Party votes.
Unlike Cruz, who has bit the hand that feeds him. And done so more than once.
No, that’s not what I meant to suggest. Depending on how you define pandering, I am aware that he emphasizes parts of his belief system and principles that I think are most likely to get him votes. But that is different from caving on something like ethanol subsidies, which I see as a sort of test of intelligence and character. Are you intelligent enough to see that any subsidies, and particularly ethanol subsidies, are economically silly? And then, assuming you have that minimum level of intelligence, do you pander to Iowa voters by caving on that issue anyway?
Ron Paul, for example, went to Iowa and said screw your ethanol subsidies. Ted Cruz, more politely, also makes the case against them. If he didn’t, I have to say I would be disappointed in him. The fact that he doesn’t, I find reassuring, like most things I hear from him.
I was on a giant teleconference call with him and a bunch of his supporters tonight. He acquitted himself well as always.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:06 pmThe fact that he has not denied it is not proof it’s true — he might just not want to give it any oxygen — but the flip-flop on ethanol strikes me as pandering. There is no excuse for anyone who knows anything about economics to pander on ethanol. Period.
Um, Patterico, he has denied it. He said that the source does not work for him, but works for a SuperPAC that supports him, and that he is not allowed to tell them what to do.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:07 pmRon Paul, for example, went to Iowa and said screw your ethanol subsidies. Ted Cruz, more politely, also makes the case against them.
McCain went to Iowa in 2008 and said the same thing. Doesn’t prove much.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:10 pmMr. Governor Scott Walker opposes renewing the charter for the Chamber’s Ex-Im Bank
happyfeet (831175) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:11 pmSo Dayspring is the source? Or Gilkes? Both were hired by the PAC before Walker announced, so there was no restriction on coordinating between Walker and the PAC. Walker said he has no control now over the PAC but he had control before he announced.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:13 pmLook at what Dayspring allegedly did in Mississippi for Cochran.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:15 pmThe Establishment never helped Cruz, kishnevi. Wish they would but they won’t.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:17 pmColonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/14/2015 @ 6:53 pm
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:20 pmCouldn’t see the article, I hope he can pick his own psychologist or we’re talking soviet style.
Judge Berman is just steering a little business to another part of the prisoner industry. Will D’Souza be billed for the psychological counseling is what I wonder and my guess is yes.
nk (dbc370) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:20 pmIt’s no different than the payphones in jails and prisons which can only be used collect at about $3.00 a minute plus as much as a $15.00 connection fee.
nk (dbc370) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:24 pmIf his psychologist diagnoses “Obama Derangement Syndrome” it would become too Kafkaesque real quick.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:27 pmI live literally across the street from a halfway house, and I know what “literally means”. Six prisoners are feeding two resident counselors and half a dozen visiting ones. They put them in a van every morning except Sundays and take them somewhere until evening. I don’t know where but it’s a safe bet it’s some place where other people in our “justice system” are making their living off of them too.
nk (dbc370) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:34 pmTo me, political pandering is focusing on things you agree on instead of being confrontational about things you don’t. But that’s different from avoiding confrontation by lying about your position. Flip-flopping is very close to lying.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:38 pmThe hand that feeds Cruz are the millions of Texans he represents, not Establishment or Tea Party Republicans.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:40 pmThe federal probation people have to approve his psychologist.
Which makes the order so Soviet. Psychologists that the judge and the probation department agreed upon gave their recommendation, and their recommendation was D’Souza doesn’t need counseling.
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:43 pmBeats being in a 4×8 cell with two other guys 20 hours a day, though.
nk (dbc370) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:50 pm“D’Souza’s defense counsel Benjamin Brafman provided evidence to the court that the psychiatrist D’Souza was ordered to see found no indication of depression or reason for medication. In addition, the psychologist D’Souza subsequently consulted provided a written statement concluding there was no need to continue the consultation, because D’Souza was psychologically normal and well adjusted.”
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:52 pmIs that so? I am very busy with work and other issues and have not seen that story. Link?
If it’s the Breitbart story linked above, is it clear Dayspring was the source of that quote? I didn’t see that in the Breitbart story. But I certainly may have missed it elsewhere and would be pleased to see an article showing that Walker denied the existence of this strategy and is distancing himself from whoever said it.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:53 pmThe judge was appointed by Bill Clinton… Shockah!
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:53 pmHe did?
http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/11/13/8393132/index.htm
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/in-iowa-mccain-warms-to-us-role-promoting-ethanol/?_r=0
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/214430-ethanol-is-explosive-for-cruz-and-paul
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 7/14/2015 @ 7:58 pm“Ted Cruz would be better than Walker.”
Because if there’s one thing that’ll solve the woes of the last 8 years, it’s a one-term Senator.
Hmm, why does that sound so familiar? Oh, right, that’s what the Left said in 2008, and we all know how that turned out. And, don’t forget, it’s on record how right-wingers reacted to then-Senator Obama’s candidacy. So, what, it was wrong then to nominate an inexperienced Senator, but it’s okay now that the party affiliations are different? Do you really wanna have that conversation? Is anyone backing Cruz (or Rubio or Paul, for that matter) going to be able to come up with an argument that doesn’t look hypocritical? Not to mention the fact that it would completely short-circuit the age argument. “Oh, Hillary’s too old you say? Well, what about your candidate’s inexperience? I thought you cared about that.”
As to the broader question, Cruz would be terrible. He might have more experience than Obama did, but on paper, he’s (like Rubio and Paul) still a one-term Senator with little-to-no executive experience. In this contest, the only ones suitable for the job are governors and that’s Walker or Jindal. (I don’t count Jeb because he’s incredibly rusty, or Christie because he’s an idiot with imploding numbers. Neither of them are exactly fresh-faced, either, especially the guy related to two living presidents.) Obama has made a complete mess of things; only an experienced governor could even begin to try to fix it.
The main point here is that some right-wingers are upset because someone in the Walker camp said what is true of every single election throughout history. You play to the general audience–sometimes they’ll agree with positions, other times not. That’s how it works. That’s how Obama got elected; he actively avoided taking hard left positions (at least in public). That’s why some people suspect Hillary could be in trouble if Bernie causes her to go too far to the left in the primaries.
Everyone does it. That’s how it works. I hate to break it to all of you, but (speaking as a conservative), you’re not the mainstream. A lot of people in this country are middle of the road regardless of party affiliation. Yes, there is a difference between moving to the center and selling out your cause, but you can’t be hypersensitive about every tweak or change (or promise to change in this case). You’ll never be happy with anyone in the case. In all honesty, if anyone here believes that Cruz wouldn’t try to move to the center in the general and soft-pedal his rhetoric, you’re being hopelessly naive. I like Cruz; I do, but don’t forget that he is a Texan Senator. Pretty easy to cop the conservative attitude when you’re in a deep red state (or a Republican primary, for that matter); the same way it was easy for Democrats in deep blue states to talk about Obamacare last year without fear of voter reprisals.
One final note on Walker: he’s battle-tested. He won three elections in a blue state and crushed unions in the process. They dug up everything they could about him, and he still took the home prize against all odds. Walker’s a governor, has a record to run on, runs an impressive campaign, offers a greater than usual chance of no embarrassing stories coming out, and the Left hates his guts more than anyone else in the field. That’s more than enough reason to vote for him. Some whining about “moving to the center” isn’t going to change that for me.
tops116 (d094f8) — 7/14/2015 @ 8:06 pmhttp://t.co/8vR6IYzfdV
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/14/2015 @ 8:10 pmI had my differences with John McCain. When, in 2008, he secured the GOP nomination (he was my fifth choice among that year’s field), I put up a homemade banner ad on my blog that read: “Vote for the Grumpy Old Man. It’s important.” He would have been a troublesome and flawed President, but vastly better than the guy who beat him like a rented mule in the electoral college. But I never hated John McCain; I had, and still have, too much respect for him for what he endured in the Hanoi Hilton for that.
I had my differences with Mitt Romney. When, in 2012, he secured the GOP nomination (he was my disappointed first choice among the active candidates, in a spectacularly weak field given the depth and breadth of talent available to the GOP), I supported his candidacy too, because I couldn’t imagine how stupid America would have to be to re-elect the worst President since Jimmy Carter, probably the worst President of the 20th- and 21st-Centuries. Mitt was right about everything important, but campaigned like an android intent on shooting off every one of his own toes, and he managed to collapse before the finish line, thereby re-electing that self-same catastrophe.
One thing that the Grumpy Old Man and Mittens, despite their superficial and deeper dissimilarities, had in common was that they each employed a cadre of “professional campaign staff.” In another day and age — a more candid and honest day and age — these professional campaign staffers, these hired guns who claim to have the secret formula to turn out the vote and massage the message all the way to victory, would have been reviled and scorned and tarred and feathered and shunned by all right-thinking and sane Americans. But they are infectious and omnipresent. Without exception, every modern-age American political candidate of both Left and Right, Democrat and GOP, hire them and pay them and permit them to wreck havoc upon their campaigns, and thereby upon the Nation.
Our host, in this post, notes that Scott Walker’s nascent campaign has apparently hired at least one such professional charlatan-whore, and more probably, it’s hired many. That’s a damned shame.
Our host hypothesizes and hopes that another GOP candidate, Texas’ junior senator Ted Cruz, hasn’t. That remains to be seen, I suppose. If he’s avoided the contamination, the infection, I’ll rejoice but be much surprised.
Even Reagan had handlers who misserved his interests and his intentions. Largely, but not entirely, he rose above them.
Even Lincoln had handlers who misserved ….
Even Washington had ….
Well, I think you’ll catch my drift.
Campaigns and campaign staffs are ugly at best. We who aren’t part of them, but who are trying to do our best to choose among the candidates, must make judgment calls about who among those candidates have the native qualities — as proved by their performance, not just their campaign rhetoric — to overcome that handicap. Reagan did, mostly. Lincoln did, mostly. Washington did, mostly.
Walker’s performance under fire — a very intense fire from the Left, far more fierce and prolonged than anything that, say, Rick Perry has ever had to withstand — leave me hopeful that he might be able to rise above the petty, venal opportunism of his handlers and would-be handlers. Certainly Ted Cruz’ performance does as well.
I can’t say that for many others currently in the GOP field. I can’t see many others who have much steak to accompany their sizzle. Indeed, the current poll-leader and media sensation-de-jour, Mr. Trump, is nothing but sizzle: Even a passingly close glance at his history will show that he’s a clown, a phony, a con-man, a faker with nothing but hype. (I do give him credit for being, probably, his own most inspired handler and whore-monger; what else is reality TV but that?)
It’s early. Let’s let things shake out. Handlers aside, I was fairly impressed with Walker’s no-teleprompter, bare-naked-without-rostrum self-introduction to the country on Monday, a refinement of his stump speech no doubt, but an inspired and durable one nevertheless.
Bring on the debates.
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/14/2015 @ 8:17 pmIn all honesty, if anyone here believes that Cruz wouldn’t try to move to the center in the general and soft-pedal his rhetoric, you’re being hopelessly naive. I like Cruz; I do, but don’t forget that he is a Texan Senator.
There’s a fine line between a candidate being an ideological chameleon (ie, two-faced and a cynical opportunist) and a strategist who’s fully aware of the formula that will help him or her succeed in an election. I wouldn’t be as annoyed by a candidate being a squish-squish if he at least came out and publicly laid out what you’re describing. But too many people still grimace if even the labels of “liberal,” “centrist,” or “conservative” are spoken about clearly, loudly and fully.
For example, how many times in the public arena since 2008 has Obama even been denounced for his loony liberalism? So few instances, in fact, that idiots on the left still are able to push the meme that negative feedback about him is due to….RACISM!
Mark (2857e5) — 7/14/2015 @ 8:21 pmNobody wants to talk about a squad of Einsatzgruppen on Donald Trump’s campaign sign? http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s–RDf75Oru–/1340690695005756518.png
nk (dbc370) — 7/14/2015 @ 8:35 pmSo once a politician states a policy position the politician is not allowed to have a change of mind?
yuck.
I do hope everyone can differentiate between a politician lying and doing a flip-flop on a policy position in order to gain poll points and votes and a politician who changes due to time, experience, etc
seeRpea (4010cd) — 7/14/2015 @ 8:46 pmBoth Cruz’s Senate campaign and his Presidential campaign focus on the idea that Democratic and Republican politicians have let down the American people. He bases that on the answers people gave him to Question No. 10. If you want to know what that is, it’s in his book.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/14/2015 @ 8:47 pmUnless Trump’s daughter is his campaign advisor in charge of f-ing up stock photo placement, I’d guess that photo got someone fired.
steveg (fed1c9) — 7/14/2015 @ 9:27 pmHe might fire her too, but probably she’d still have millions to spend every year. Maybe next year she can hire someone to teach her how to pixilate the swastika over the reichstag
My favorite is drive-by walls of text telling everyone else they are stupid.
JD (69d190) — 7/14/2015 @ 9:31 pmHe has been loyal to me, his voter. I do not want him to betray my trust by being loyal to a corrupt political party. That corruption is a big part of what is wrong.
Dustin (2a8be7) — 7/14/2015 @ 10:21 pmNo, it isn’t; they were doing the ethanol thing back during the global cooling scare of the ’70s, long before anyone worried about global warming. As nk said, it’s about money for ADM and Iowans. If people just agreed to ignore the Iowa caucus there would be no more reason for anyone to support ethanol subsidies.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/14/2015 @ 10:34 pmHow does he, or anyone, know who the source is, assuming there even is a source? Has National Journal named this alleged source? My default assumption is that anything quoted from an anonymous source is really the reporter’s own invention, unless there is evidence otherwise.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/14/2015 @ 10:42 pmOn reflection, you’re right. That is a good assumption. I say that sincerely.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 7/14/2015 @ 10:49 pmDo you think lefties are unhappy with Obama because he came in inexperienced?
I don’t. We are. But lefties are happy by and large. They got ObamaCare. They got all kinds of other goals achieved.
If lefties like Obama, why do you think conservatives would be unhappy with Cruz?
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 7/14/2015 @ 11:00 pm0bama’s first six months he wasn’t even being an effective lefty, he was just flailing around, like someone who has never driven a car in his life, and suddenly finds himself beind the wheel of an 18-wheeler, doing 60 on a busy highway.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/14/2015 @ 11:15 pm59-
ethanol is just a method of turning domestic coal and natural gas into a transportation fuel
Wrong. Using coal or NG as a feed stock gives you Methanol, not Ethanol.
askeptic (efcf22) — 7/14/2015 @ 11:20 pmEthanol is “sippin’ whiskey; Methanol is poison.
You’re kidding.
Gerald A (949d7d) — 7/14/2015 @ 11:24 pmBob Dole was a big ethanol backer.
Gerald A (949d7d) — 7/14/2015 @ 11:26 pmAnd in 1996 I was fond of saying that the two reasons I could not support him were ADA and ADM.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/14/2015 @ 11:31 pmre #102:
read the whole article, not just:
Many sources hide behind anonymity to take cheap shots without anyone knowing they have an axe to grind or a dog in the fight. remember that Republican in CA who had to drop out of a race due to a charge that he was sexting a minor? The source for the utterly false complaint was within his own campaign staff.
Then there is 5 Questions to Ask Yourself Before Trusting Anonymous Sources
And then there is the question of Anonymous to who?
I don’t presume the anonymous is made up, i do assume agendas and probable bearing falsehoods.
seeRpea (4010cd) — 7/15/2015 @ 1:07 amOwning a farm with 9′ of the richest top soil in the world, I have seen the farmers become so self absorbed with mega profit they have lost all common sense. Everyone knows ethanol is a waste, but not one hack will try and stop it, instead pander the farmers for votes. Anyone that has to rent farm land is at the mercy of corn and soybean companies. My dad and I are slowly turning the land into a pheasant and wildlife home. Middle fingers to all my friends that farm thousands of acres with no worries. My farm is 25 miles from the Iowa border. Iowa caucus take a hike.
mg (31009b) — 7/15/2015 @ 2:44 amto suggest that a Harvard trash p.o.s. like Ted Cruz who doesn’t even deign to serve the ONE term in office he begged Texans to elect him to has more better character than a two-term governor who never once even thought of bailing on his job – under tremendous adversity – it’s ridiculous
add in the idea that he wants to make his sleazy goldman sach wife our first lady?
Gack. I recoil at this idea.
Me I’ll take a dozen Brad Daysprings over a Goldman Sachs pole dancer any day of the week and twice on sundays.
Just what failmerica needs – more hyper-entitled self-anointed ivy league elites in their white house.
It’s been such the formula for win so far.
happyfeet (831175) — 7/15/2015 @ 3:39 amsleazy goldman *sachs* wife i mean
happyfeet (831175) — 7/15/2015 @ 3:40 amMr. mg here’s an interesting chart what lays out where the politics of ethanol are most entrenched. Mr. Walker’s state, while a top 10 ethanol producer, is a bit more complicated cause of the prominence of the dairy industry in Wisconsin.
Dairy farmers aren’t big on ethanol cause of it raises the cost of feed.
I hadn’t realized California was a (minor) player in ethanol, producing just below Texas.
happyfeet (831175) — 7/15/2015 @ 3:53 amSince Nixon first enunciated the strategy for the 1968 campaign, every nominee has done just that – including the Democrats.
It is simply insane to pursue any other strategy. Nominations are determined by the party faithful, who are more ideological than the swing voters who decide elections.
But I have to laugh when Purity Police lambast every candidate but applaud Trump, the only one who favors nationalize health care and wants to pay for it with tax hikes and supports abortion on demand without restriction.
Estragon (ada867) — 7/15/2015 @ 5:26 am“Bob Dole was a big ethanol backer.”
– Former Senator Robert Dole, on July 4, 2012
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/15/2015 @ 6:05 amWrong. Using coal or NG as a feed stock gives you Methanol, not Ethanol.
Ethanol is “sippin’ whiskey; Methanol is poison.
Don’t know about all that, askeptic, but when I use beans as my feed stock, it gives me Methane. And, brother… it’s poison… just ask my wife.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/15/2015 @ 6:10 amThere is synthetic gasoline made from coal and natural gas — Germany did it a lot in WWII — but the ethanol we’re talking about is mainly from corn (you can make it from lots of other plants too even potatoes). It’s what’s in booze. And Haiku is on the right track. Methanol is also called wood alcohol and it can be produced from the ethanol distillation process simply by overheating the mash in the presence of copper which acts as a catalyst. That’s how people go blind or die from bad moonshine. But methane, the gas, is one of the components of the “natural gas” that fuels your stove and heats your water.
nk (dbc370) — 7/15/2015 @ 6:23 amcoal or ng is what powers the plant
corn is the feedstock
…and me I kinda go with the assumption that the corn (or some other crop) would be produced whether or not the ethanol mandate is in place
corn + (coal or ng) = ethanol
is how i see it
happyfeet (831175) — 7/15/2015 @ 6:23 amSince the comments have degenerated to speculation and innuendo, I guess it’s okay for me to join in.
I think this story makes political sense, especially if the “longtime Walker adviser” is from Walker’s Unintimidated PAC run by Gilkes and other Walker supporters, along with Dayspring who was formerly with Eric Cantor and the RNSC. These are Establishment Republicans who need Establishment money to fund their PAC. For now, Establishment support and money is primarily going to Jeb Bush, with far less going to Walker and Rubio.
This is the start of the prime season for primary fundraising. How would a Walker PAC convince Establishment money to get on board? By making sure donors know that Walker is their kind of guy — a moderate who will tack to the center after the conservative state primaries are over.
Walker’s ability to coordinate with his PAC ended when he announced but that doesn’t mean the PAC executives are at odds with him. They are his hand-picked guys, with the leader Gilkes described as a longtime adviser and Walker’s former campaign manager and Chief of Staff. If Walker follows Bush’s lead — as most candidates with big PACs will — then the Unintimidated PAC may end up running Walker’s campaign.
I won’t change my mind about Walker being my second choice because of this story, but I will remember it.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/15/2015 @ 7:17 amthat seems plausible, drj, but not reassuring, after all the medici, has put up mike ‘iceberg’ murphy,
narciso (ee1f88) — 7/15/2015 @ 7:27 amas his pac chief, and we know what that means,
Picking Murphy means Jeb doesn’t care about the base.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/15/2015 @ 7:35 amtack to the center has a whole lot more to do with messaging than it has to do with making actual compromises about what your governing agenda will be
food stamp tacked to the center and his governing agenda is exceedingly far left and anti-american, with a startlingly genocidal leitmotif of anti-semitism
happyfeet (831175) — 7/15/2015 @ 7:36 amHeh. Yes, go with that theme, happyfeet. “We’ll lie to you but we’ll do it so well that we’ll fool almost everyone.”
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/15/2015 @ 8:01 amOr: “Walker! He can lie as well as Obama.”
Is that what you want?
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/15/2015 @ 8:02 amI have higher hopes for Walker than that.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/15/2015 @ 8:03 amit’s not about lying it’s about what you talk about and how you talk about it
for example you want to win a mandate to cut the budget
but you know that a lot of your base R voters are unthinking dimwitted toadies for the military
so you don’t say you’re open to cutting the budget for the military you say that all options have to be on the table
is very easy
happyfeet (831175) — 7/15/2015 @ 8:10 amOr, for instance, when you’re in enough political trouble already, and you really don’t need yet another fight on your hands, you say that passing a “Right to Work” law isn’t on your agenda, that this is not the right time to have that debate, that it would be a distraction from all the things that need to be done. None of that means you don’t support such a law, or that you won’t sign it if the legislature decides to pass it anyway and puts it on your desk.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/15/2015 @ 8:15 am“it’s not about lying it’s about what you talk about and how you talk about it”
Translation: It is ALL about lying.
felipe (56556d) — 7/15/2015 @ 8:59 amyou gots to accentuate the positive Mr. felipe and also eliminate the negative while you latch on to the affirmative
and you don’t mess with mister in-between
it’s easy peasy!
happyfeet (831175) — 7/15/2015 @ 9:06 amOr like Cruz said: “When the sheep are walking among coyotes, it pays to be cynical.”
nk (dbc370) — 7/15/2015 @ 9:09 amhttps://patterico.com/2015/07/02/ted-cruz-on-the-media-they-want-to-destroy-you/
happyfeet,
Reading your comments make me realize how useless it is to be a Republican.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/15/2015 @ 9:10 ami too struggle similarly DRJ
but we have to soldier on into the uncertain future
hope for the best and plan for the worst
that’s what my best friend P’s grandma used to say back in the Old Whirl before her death several years ago
happyfeet (831175) — 7/15/2015 @ 9:17 amDid you know that Cruz was Boehner’s lawyer in 1997-98?
nk (dbc370) — 7/15/2015 @ 9:22 amAnd I didn’t know that Greg Abbot had declined to defend Texas’s sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas when he was Attorney General.
nk (dbc370) — 7/15/2015 @ 9:26 am132. Taking the possible nomination of Walker against the background of WI recent divisions in its electorate, the prospect for stopping short of open hostilities between classes running up to Nov 2016 is almost nonexistent.
Even this moderate selection is problematic to civil order.
DNF (208255) — 7/15/2015 @ 9:31 amThanks, happyfeet.
mg (31009b) — 7/15/2015 @ 9:39 amMakes me sick to see all that energy and land wasted on corn.
Back in 1979 when Congress and Carter bailed out Chrysler, Reagan opposed it. Then in 1980 after he had locked up the GOP nomination, I recall him visiting an auto plant and declaring he was “glad the bailout is working”. He saw no point in damaging himself over something that was not going to be reversed and wasn’t nearly the most critical issue of the day. I can’t help thinking if he was running today that would bring howls of outrage about GOPe yada yada.
OTOH I’m 95% certain I won’t vote for Bush if he’s nominated. He’s not conservative, period. Anyone with any discernment can tell the difference between him and Walker.
Gerald A (e1ec12) — 7/15/2015 @ 9:39 amGerald, that is not saying much. Jeb! is probably the least conservative candidate in the GOP field except for Trump.
kishnevi (083485) — 7/15/2015 @ 9:44 amnk,
Greg Abbott succeeded John Cornyn as Texas Attorney General on December 2, 2002, the day the Supreme Court agreed to hear Lawrence v Texas. My understanding is that it was Cornyn who decided the Texas AG’s office would not represent Texas in Lawrence vs Texas when the cert petition was filed in July 2002. The Harris County DA handled the case, since the charges originated there.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/15/2015 @ 10:01 am