Scott Walker's stunningly ill-reasoned op-ed

We've all read a lot of disingenuous op-eds in our time, but I doubt we'll ever read one more cynically mendacious than Scott Walker's in USA Today. It finishes:

There has been much discussion about a media double standard where Republicans are covered differently than Democrats, asked to weigh in on issues the Democrats don't face. As a result, when we refuse to take the media's bait, we suffer.

I felt it this week when I was asked to weigh in on what other people said and did and what others' beliefs are. If you are looking for answers to those questions, ask those people.

I will always choose to focus on what matters to the American people, not what matters to the media.

What Walker presents here is the classic Sarah Palin gambit: While exploiting the media, he portrays himself as a victim of it. Has Walker risen in the polls because he has "focus[ed] on what matters to the American people"? Or has his rightist popularity soared precisely because he has said nothing of any value to anyone?

It's Walker's suggestion. We could ask Ms. Palin how that gambit worked out for her. We wouldn't get a straight answer, of course, and therein lies the even more salient reason why Palin is now a complete nobody in politics. Even blinkered right wingers figured out she has nothing to say.

In dodging what were never sensitive questions, Walker has tailored himself a haunting straitjacket. He thought it cute and politically expedient to deny knowledge of Obama's religion or love of country, and indeed it was expedient. The cheaper the politics, the more the GOP base eats it up. Yet presidential campaigns are long, grueling, and as much about questioning others' ideas as avowing one's own principles. And here, Walker cuts himself out of the game. You wish to know what he thinks of "others' beliefs"? Walker puts it in writing: You'll have to ask them.

If the political press does its job — granted, that's a big if — this is a shortsighted blunder that will stalk him throughout the primaries.

One other thing. I can assure the governor that those political others won't be shy about questioning Walker's beliefs, as well as his past activities. And once their assorted opposition-research teams begin spewing their mountains of dirt and skulduggery, the questions will abound. What will Walker's answer then be? That he doesn't talk about himself, either?

This clown is amateur hour personified.

 

Comments

[Peter G]

Your piece here depends upon two premises, the first is that people have memories and the second that they demand logical consistency. No one is going to question Walker about this in exactly the same way no talking head or pundit is going to question Republican outrage over the prior use of the filibuster and their current disdain for it. Except you of course. Which is one of the reasons I'm here.

[Jeff]

I think you are misunderestimating Walker by drawing a straight line between him and Palin with their use of bashing the media. That gambit is hardly unique to the two of them, I doubt one gets invited to CPAC without a few good media bashings under their belt. Speaking of which, not repudiating Giuliani is not saying nothing. The message will be heard loud and clear at CPAC and along with the media bashing will only server to bolster the enthusiastic applause he will receive.

Walker is the favorite to win the nomination right now and it's really his to lose. He's loved by the blood thirsty base and has the best story to tell to the money people. If I were raising campaign funds on commission I'd want to be selling Walker rather than Bush. Winning 3 times in 4 years in a blue state while crushing the unions is a way better story for the republican donor base than saying ran for governor like 20 years ago in Florida where Hillary is kicking his ass and his brother did such a bad job the result was Obama.

[Turgidson]

Yeah, I'm not on board with PM's early dismissal of Walker as a clown. Don't get me wrong, I think he's a clown, but he's much more adept at threading the wingnut needle while not seeming daffy to everyone else in the universe than Sarah ever was. He plays the exact same put-upon-conservative victimization tune as she does, but he is able to simultaneously play a "basher of liberal heads" tune due to his multiple wins and union busting. He seems inoffensive at first glance.

There are so many scandals bubbling up around him that I'm not sure his crony judges can protect him from them all, and even if they do, oppo researchers will hopefully find some gold in there. That might eventually trip him up, but even then I'm not sure - the kinds of things he's being investigated for are the strong-arming and corruption things that the wingnut base has no problem with as long as it's a Republican doing it.

We'll see. It's a big clown car this time. The sideshows are a little less absurd, but only a little.

[Jeff]

Good points. The downside is that with enough oppo gold Bush is the nominee. 1) I've lived through 2 Bush recessions and I don't want to lve through a third. 2) I've lived through three Bush wars and I don't want to live through a fourth. 3) my mother sent me her living will shortly after the Terri Schiavo episode. JEB is surely the biggest asshole of the Bush clan and that's a high bar.
Don't get me wrong. I want Walker to go down in flames in the general but I fear and loathe the Bushes so much I'm not willing to see another one get a shot even if it is long.

[David & Son of Duff]

Gov.Walker can take care of himself but in the meantime we are all waiting for a really decent diatribe against Holder’s ‘apparat’, aka the non-Justice Dept., who have dropped all further interest in the totally innocent Mr. Zimmerman?

Er, by the way, that’s “totally innocent” as in ‘completely, 100%, no shadow of a doubt’ innocent!

Should he, I wonder, sue the Feds and as supporters (sort of) of individual liberty shouldn't you support him?

[Peter G]

A brief review of the case law as it relates to prosecutions for civil rights violations would soon teach you that the bar is set very high. Feel free to educate yourself. You are, interestingly enough, on common ground with quite a lot of lefties who likewise criticize and despise Attorney General Holder for his failure to politicize his department. As George Bush infamously did. It's kind of ironic how both the far left and far right claim to be all about personal liberties yet they constantly howl about the failure of the system to jail everyone they don't like. It proves to them the system is corrupt and as a belief system, is, itself, proof against any fact or black letter law. Somebody on the internet said someone else was a criminal and they haven't even been arrested! It's a police state!

[David & Son of Duff]

"A **brief review** of the case law as it relates to prosecutions for civil rights violations would soon teach you that the bar is set very high." [My emphasis]

So why has it taken Holder's henchmen so long to conduct "a brief review of the case law"? Meanwhile, keeping a totally innocent man under immense fear and pressure!

Is that OK with you - and our distinguished host - in the Land of the (nearly) Free?

[Peter G]

They did what they were supposed to do which is an exhaustive investigation of the facts before making a determination. Once again though I have to question your logic. Let's see if we can tree your logic. Are you saying that investigations should never take place because the person being investigated might not like it? Or are you saying that they should be rushed in order to minimize anxiety time? Or are you saying that they should know in advance whether or not someone is guilty of something before proceeding with an investigation?
They did not, of course, say that Mr Zimmerman was innocent and no sane person would believe that armed adults need to hunt unarmed teenagers. They simply said that they could not prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is true. Because juries will always have people like you. No system is perfect.

[shsavage]

"...no sane person would believe that armed adults need to hunt unarmed teenagers."

Perhaps they're just using the Hunger Games model, Peter.

[Peter G]

Perhaps. Personally I found some of the evidence of Mr. Zimmerman's racial animus rather persuasive. The fifty plus calls he made over the previous years to the police to report suspicious activity had a common feature and that is that every person so reported was black. Every single one. This, in a mixed race neighborhood. Some were walking suspiciously, some were strolling auspiciously and some were even ambling suspiciously in groups. In groups!

[David & Son of Duff]

Ah, so first of all it is "a brief review" then it is "an exhaustive investigation". Er, you're not a lawyer by any chance, are you?

Next you set yourself up as being superior to the jury that heard the entire case:

"After sixteen hours of deliberations over the course of two days, on July 13, 2013, the six-person jury rendered a not guilty verdict on all counts."

Now tell me, Peter, what is it about the words "not guilty verdict on all counts" that you fail to understand?

That verdict was handed own 19 months ago! Is that how long it takes Dept. of (non)Justice lawyers to make up what passes for their minds whilst a totally innocent man is on the rack? Do not they have a 'duty of care' to their citizens?

Finally, why is it that all you Lefties always know better than any jury that fails to agree with your pre-trial decisions? Didn't you learn anything from 'To Kill a Mocking Bird'?

[Peter G]

I have considerably more faith in juries than most people. That is why jury nullification is a rare phenomena. In the Zimmerman case they concluded, absence of any living witness but Zimmerman that there was insufficient evidence to convict Zimmerman. That does not in any sense imply that they endorsed his behavior. They found reasonable doubt.

You may recall that the guiding principal of our common adversarial judicial systems is that it is better to free the guilty than to convict the innocent and so we have Zimmermans and OJs. For myself I believe that the Grand Jury in the Ferguson case made the proper determination based on the evidence presented to them. And also that the medical examiners report on the cause of death of Eric Garner, giving two possible causes only one of which was possibly prosecutable, made prosecution virtually impossible because that is the very definition of reasonable doubt. So your assumptions about what lefties believe is somewhat erroneous. Let me shock you to your very bones. I think the current Attorney General of the United States has done a fine job.

[David & Son of Duff]

"They found reasonable doubt."
How do you know that, were you in the jury-room?
And in any case, "reasonable doubt" means 'innocent'!

"the guiding principal of our common adversarial judicial systems is that it is better to free the guilty than to convict the innocent and so we have Zimmermans ..."
Would you care to re-read that again - slowly? It's not even an implication, it is a straight forward statement that Zimmerman is guilty despite a jury clearing him of all charges. Do you and your Leftie pals realise just how totalitarian you sound as you constantly call for more and yet more "investigations" and trials until you find a jury that will give you the 'correct' verdict?

And the only way you would shock me, Peter, is if you said that Eric Holder was a despicable racist agitator with no thought or concern for due process. I am not holding my breath!

[Peter G]

Uh no it doesn't. Not guilty means only that there was insufficient evidence to find a person guilty. As to investigations, have you ever heard of Whitewater? Benghazi? Fast and furious? IRS? How many Benghazi investigations have there been and how many have found anything that indicated anything at all illegal? Investigations and witch hunts are pretty much all American right wing politicians do these days. I admit that's playing to their strengths because they sure don't have a clue how to govern.

[David & Son of Duff]

Ah, I see, so in your looking glass world, Congress doing its duty (sort of!) in holding the executive to account is witch-hunting. Is that what the makers of the US constitution thought of it?

And sorry, but "no it doesn't" to you as well! 'Not guilty' means exactly that, the accused is innocent of the charges. The reasons for a jury coming to that conclusion are their business and attempts to insert what *you* think are their reasons simply turns you into a second-guesser - with attitude!

However, to close this chat on a positive note, I am happy to concur with your final thought to the effect that the Republicans do not have much of a clue as to how to govern. The last one to do so with genuine skill was Ronald Reagan. But then, watching this Obama regime stumble-bum its way through - what were your examples? - oh yes, "Whitewater? Benghazi? Fast and furious? IRS?" - simply convinces me that most American politicians, Right or Left, are simply not very good. Well, why would they be, most of them are only in it for the money!