Posted on 03/05/2015 8:03:40 AM PST by GreyFriar
As soon as a conservative Republican emerges as a serious presidential contender, liberals in the media suddenly yank out the microscopes they’ve been keeping away from Barack Obama since 2007. They could care less what Obama did in college, how he got into college, who paid for his college, who wrote his letters of recommendation, what his grades were, and on and on—but we already know everything about Scott Walker and college. Obama’s media protectors could give a rip that the current president once had a mentor who was a literal card-carrying member of the Communist Party under Stalin. But as soon as someone like Scott Walker starts gaining ground, wow, “journalists” lunge for the magnifying glass and become real reporters again, profusely digging and questioning, looking for mole-holes to make into vast mountains of scandal.
On Walker, there will always be a new scandal as long as he remains viable. I don’t want to be regularly drawn into defending the man, but here are two recent episodes I’ve been asked to weigh in on, specifically because of their parallels to Ronald Reagan:
First, there was Walker’s comment at CPAC last week (I was there) on fighting ISIS and fighting government unions. Asked how he would handle a foe like ISIS as president, Walker said, “If I can take on a 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world.”
The answer was immediately blasted. It shouldn’t have been.
Go to the website and read the remainder of this excellent article.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Paul Kengor’s rebuttal to leftist attacks on Scott Walker’s CPAC speech and Morning Joe comments on leadership and foreign affairs:
“My point was just, if I could handle that kind of a pressure and kind of intensity [in Wisconsin], I think I’m up for the challenge for whatever might come, if I choose to run for president.”
Walker and Reagan drew “lines in the sand” and then filled them with concrete and stood firm, whereas BH0 has always retreated.
Here’s the difference. The electorate has been dumbed downed and brainwashed for another 35 years and the internet magnifies it. Going to very tough for any non Democrat to win.
The other difference between Ronald Reagan and Walker is communications ability. Reagan was the Great Communicator, whereas Walker’s ability to communicate extemporaneously is in doubt.
If Walker can’t start giving good answers thinking on his feet, he is going to be crushed in the election.
Yes lets don’t start comparing Scott Walker to Ronald Reagan just yet. I want to see him in a debate and I also want to hear a cogent agenda for restorimg the constitutional republic before I jump on the bandwagon. Show me the money.
I agree. Right or wrong, what really gets me about Walker's speeches is his generous use of the "Clinton Thumb." I can't stand that gesture. It screams "fake" to me. Instead of focusing on the content of statements, he's worried about appearances and manipulation. At least he doesn't have to dye his hair yet. I'm not interested in someone that's playing games. Just an opinion...
Yeah, that extremist Reagan. Too bad he could never win anything.
Thanks for the enemy media post and ping.
—Yes lets don’t start comparing Scott Walker to Ronald Reagan just yet. I want to see him in a debate—
Ever heard of YouTube? Go watch Scott Walker debate the two bums he crushed in gubernatorial elections in Wisconsin.
Lets see how he does debating the A team.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.