Posted on 08/18/2015 8:40:57 PM PDT by WilliamIII
Scott Walker has sought to reassure jittery donors and other supporters this week that he can turn around a swift decline in the polls in Iowa and elsewhere by going on the attack and emphasizing his conservatism on key issues.
In a conference call, one-on-one conversations and at a Tuesday lunch, the Wisconsin governor and favorite of anti-union conservatives told backers that his campaign is shifting to a more aggressive posture and will seek to tap into the anti-establishment fervor fueling the rise of Donald Trump and other outsider candidates.
During a conference call with top fundraisers Monday afternoon, Walker and his campaign manager were relatively candid in their assessment of the campaign’s shortcomings, according to notes of the conversation taken by a participant. Walker said the campaign will strive to do better in three areas: protest, passion and policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Mitt V2.0 is going to be the “me too” candidate now?
Lame.
Yeah...just watch Walker jump up and say ‘me too!’ every time Trump makes a policy statement.
Whoa!
The post names three of his big donors, Stanley S. Hubbard doesn’t want Walker to talk about “social issues.”
I think it’s terrible, and we have to act very strongly. But I will say, I watched Pam prior, and it looked like she’s just taunting everybody. What is she doing drawing Muhammad?…And it looks like she’s actually taunting people — and it’s disgusting that it happened and everything else. But why are they doing [sic] drawing Muhammad? Isn’t there something else they can draw?”
I mean it’s disgusting. Isn’t there something else they could be doing? Drawing Muhammad?…They can’t do something else? They have to be in the middle of Texas doing something on Muhammad and insulting everybody? What is she doing? Why is she doing it? It’s probably very risky for her — I don’t know, maybe she likes risk? But what the hell is she doing?
Just what I was thinking. “Me too”. Cruz and Trump have been leading the way.
Walker was asked on Fox Special Report whether he agreed with Trump’s pledge to prevent children born of aliens in the USA illegally from having automatic citizenship. He deflected the question though it was asked multiple times and instead gave the standard answer secure the border, etc. At the very least he could have stated that it would appear to be a non-issue due to the 14th amendment (Trump says that’s not certain; needs to be litigated). But Walker acted like it was never asked, certainly his only
repeating his talking points didn’t impress me in the least.
He yelled at someone holding up a yellow letter sized piece of paper.
I wonder what would happen if someone held up a pink sign?
Walker wants to attract Trump supporters?! Ha! Fat chance of that.
Fading in the polls, Scott Walker aims to attract Trump votersby lying and pretending he's something he's not.
Those voters are reserved for Cruz.
Wait, doesn’t George Will’s wife work for the Walker campaign?
Does Will (MR or MRS) think Trump Supporters are going to line up with Will world?
What a sad sack , as are most of the GOP field . A disgrace ...
New version of the Jack Kennedy quote:
“Governor, You are no Donald Trump.”
There's free speech and there's taunting. She was abusing her free speech right by using it to taunt...she was wrong.
That said, I still support Trump. His immigration stance is more important than anything else.
Not happening
What Trump clearly doesn’t understand is that the freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced.
Putting up with being offended is essential in a pluralistic society in which people differ on basic truths. If a group will not bear being offended without resorting to violence, that group will rule without any opposition being possible, for all others will be living in fear, curtailing their activities to appease the violent group. This results in the violent group being able to tyrannize the others.
Islamic law forbids criticism of Islam, Quran, and Muhammad. If they cannot be criticized in the United States, then we are in effect accepting Islamic law as overriding the freedom of speech. Is that what Donald Trump wants? This would establish Muslims as a protected class and prevent honest discussion of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism.
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.