Scott Walker has been vetted and now they're down to (quite extensively) discussing twisted excerpts and the propriety of re-defining Walker's history.
Anti-Scott Walker activists certainly want to compile a "go-to" page for his opposition to sling dirt. It's an interesting look behind the scenes.
I spent some time going over the items in question and a lot of the talk back and forth between ‘agents’ on both sides of the argument. Clearly, it seems that there are some interested parties involved in ‘edit-wars’ over Scott Walker’s past - distant past in one case, and quibbling about donation amounts and sources in another more recent case.
What this tells me is 1) his opposition - and whoever is backing them (because the level of activity and frequency belies just one interested citizen interested only in accuracy) are paid to do this, and 2) His side are fighting back with equal ferociousness (campaign staff, etc.).
To my mind, a good tactic would be to take note of the Anti-Walker ‘editors’ and then go on over the Hillary’s entry and make some edits and see who pops up on the radar ‘edit discussion’ scene. Based on the level of response, work your way down from there to find out who the anti-Walker editors are working for.
What this should tell everyone is plainly clear - don’t trust Wiki for any unbiased accuracy, especially when it comes to politics.
They did the same thing to Sarah Palin’s wiki entry when she first entered the national stage. Obama trolls at work.
They are down to his BALD spot!
It is not about truth and facts. It is about manipulating through old fashioned story telling. A villain a hero a conflict a solution. Dems know they dont have facts on their side so they go straight to storytelling. Pubs always fall back on facts. Want to win? Take control of the story.
Posturing to create an image of Walker based on who’s against him doesn’t help change my impression that he’s a tool of the establishment.
Not going to matter in the end...Cruz is now running.