The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarter's Expenses?
Posted on 02/27/2015 7:27:08 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The first instinct of many upon reading this headline will be to dismiss it. Presumably, “Republican powerbrokers” can be understood to mean Jeb Bush’s stable of handwringers for whom nothing is more frightening than an outspoken conservative who governs like one. But if we step back and suspend disbelief, it is not hard to see where Walker’s critics have a point.
First off, who are Walker’s critics? Well, outside of the political press and the nation’s editorial boards, which have determined that the Wisconsin governor is a “panderer of the first order” because the media is not the target of his pandering, Walker’s detractors are largely anonymous.
“There’s an emerging sense in the early states that Scott Walker is not ready for primetime,” Politico reported on Friday.
One open-ended question this week asked early-state insiders to pick which candidate of either party has made the biggest mistake this year. Scott Walker was the most common response.
Though a plurality of insiders still believe that the Wisconsin governor would win the Iowa caucuses if they were this week, several uncommitted Republicans marveled at what they described as rookie mistakes.
There’s a pervasive feeling that Walker erred by refusing to distance himself from former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, after Giuliani said at an event Walker was also attending that President Barack Obama does not love America. He also wouldn’t say whether he believes Obama is a Christian.
Clear-eyed conservatives should perhaps take a critical look at Walker’s level of preparedness. Take, for example, the twin controversies involving Walker that dominated the news cycle last week.
Those in the media who continue to scold Walker for his refusal to vigorously denounce Rudy Giuliani after the former mayor had the temerity to call into question Barack Obama’s patriotism (formerly a time-honored practice when George W. Bush occupied the Oval Office) are not exposing a weakness in Walker so much as they are revealing their own biases. Walker called Giuliani’s comments “aggressive, and that should have satisfied reporters.
But Walker’s response to a silly question about Obama’s devotion to Christianity is a different story. Go back and re-read it. The Wisconsin governor’s response was rambling and improvised. While he eventually settled on a fine retort in which he called into question the political media’s sensibilities, he did open himself up to criticism by pontificating at length on the imperfect nature of truly knowing another human being. He was winging it until he found his footing. Walker said five sentences when one declarative statement would have served his purposes.
Without the conservative blogosphere to call out the media for its silly attachment to cornering Republicans with “gotcha” questions, would that controversy have taken a greater toll on the Wisconsin governor’s presidential stature? And just how many times are conservative bloggers expected to rush to the governor’s defense in the coming months? Surely, their time would be better spent on offense rather than defending their hapless 2016 nominee.
Walker is not entirely the victim of an overzealous reporting culture that is seeking to throttle the governor’s infant presidential campaign in its crib. A fair appraisal of the governor would concede that he has a tendencey to invite controversy. Scott Walker stumbled into what National Review’s Jim Geraghty called a “genuine unforced error” at CPAC on Thursday when he insisted that his national security bona fides were established when he successfully faced down the Badger State’s progressive protesters.
“If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the globe,” Walker said of ISIS.
“That is a terrible response,” Geraghty wrote.
First, taking on a bunch of protesters is not comparably difficult to taking on a Caliphate with sympathizers and terrorists around the globe, and saying so suggests Walker doesn’t quite understand the complexity of the challenge from ISIS and its allied groups.
Secondly, it is insulting to the protesters, a group I take no pleasure in defending. The protesters in Wisconsin, so furiously angry over Walker’s reforms and disruptive to the procedures of passing laws, earned plenty of legitimate criticism. But they’re not ISIS. They’re not beheading innocent people. They’re Americans, and as much as we may find their ideas, worldview, and perspective spectacularly wrongheaded, they don’t deserve to be compared to murderous terrorists.
That’s fair. If a Democratic officeholder had compared the tea party protesters to ISIS terrorists, Republicans would be consumed with righteous indignation. It’s only honest to acknowledge that liberals have a justifiable claim to feel slighted.
More importantly, as Geraghty said, this does not convey confidence that Walker either is prepared to serve as commander-in-chief or understands the nature of the threat posed by ISIS. Some conservatives, like MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and Daily Caller columnist Matt Lewis, have cited Ronald Reagan’s mass firing of the nation’s striking air traffic controllers as an example of how a president’s approach to domestic affairs can reshape the geopolitical landscape. The Soviets were taken aback by Reagan’s fearlessness in putting down by air traffic controller’s strike in 1981, but the Islamic State is not the Soviet Union. The Kremlin wanted nothing more than to avoid direct conflict with Washington and recalibrated their approach to foreign affairs accordingly in response to Reagan’s forcefulness. By contrast, ISIS is most desirous of drawing America into a fight inside the nascent caliphate. They want confrontation, preferably the direct kind, and they would likely welcome a more pugnacious president.
With all this having been said, Scott Walker remains an impressive candidate. He has proven he can talk over the heads of the media, he is thoroughly vetted, and he unites two increasingly fractious wings of the Republican Party. Commanders-in-chief are made, not born, and Walker has plenty of time to reframe his message on foreign policy.
Those who are casting a sideways glance at Walker today are, however, legitimately concerned about his readiness, and it behooves the conservative movement to seriously consider whether those apprehensions are well-founded.
Well, Walker would be my pick. Only because he has Executive experience as Governor. These are things that Cruz needs experience with .. and as VP, he could be under the radar (so to speak) and a tremendous asset with his great knowledge of the Constitution. I believe he would be invaluable in sheparding the Justice Dept back to where it belongs; by interviewing all the attorneys who work there.
This would definitely be a dream-team .. and Cruz would come out of 8 years as part of that team .. able to pick a running mate with the same (team) view for his Oval Office terms. Who that might be .. I don’t have a clue.
Gov. Walker will kneel to Reince Preibus when the time is right. He really isn’t ready for primetime, although he was right in the answers he gave the media, concerning Guiliani’s criticisms and Obama’s faith.
And how is any other candidate going to fare better with the left's PR machines? Oh Bush will in the beginning or at least look like he is. Like Romney, they'll let him get in then destroy him with some backroom 47% comment. What needs to happen is that we learn to run against these people not from them.
If "ready" means "ready to lose", then I suppose they have a point.
Of course they do. He hasn’t had his spine or balls removed yet.....
They do have a point but it is on the top of their smug stupid heads. Walker is the best candidate in the field by far.
Palin - Sec. of State.
It amazes me the Democrats can run any simpleton bastard (meant literally, Clinton and Obama), and the Republican party treats them like statesmen. But if there is a photograph of a Republican candidate with a few hairs out of place they have to be tossed aside. Nope, no way that person can win, and the Republicans have such a stellar track record of winning presidential contests.
The media want Jeb to lose to Hillary in 2016.
That’s what they’ll push for.
I think what we need is a Cruz/Walker or Walker/Cruz ticket. Both these guys have solid idea’s (namely returning to the Constitution) in how to correct America. The potential for 16 years of a conservative Presidency is there.
The mere THOUGHT of Walker winning the nomination has them shaking like sh**ing dogs.
The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarter's Expenses?
The power brokers want tax money to continue flowing into K Street and Wall Street. Walker will turn off the spigot.
No.
No.
The “power brokers” don’t have the power to get a Republican elected, just enough to ensure another democrat president and at this rate the last president. We don’t really have 28 choices when you consider we HAVE to WIN this time. We have ONE, possibly two, CRUZ and possibly Walker. Come on Newt, get on board, tell the truth, be a “Power Broker”.
I’m a Cruz guy (obviously) and will do what I can to get him nominated. That said, I could and would back Walker or Jindle if they win. But nobody else. Esp Jeb:(
Jeb:( <—new Jeb symbol thing like Hillary! symbol thing
We have, and we like what we see. Noah Rothman (Who the hell is Noah Rothman? What has he ever done?) should remove his face from Jeb Bush's rump, and clean the debris from his eyes ... and then he should become a conservative. This would perhaps begin to make him qualified to talk about what clear-eyed conservatives should do.
“If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the globe,” Walker said of ISIS.
“That is a terrible response,” Geraghty wrote.
Geraghty is full of feces. Who's "Jim Geraghty", and what worthwhile thing has he ever accomplished?
Seriously ... is he anything other than a paid blabbermouth?
Yeah! Cuz winning an election, surviving a recall election and being re-elected after your policies are shown to work is NEVER a good basis of experience for DC cronyism!
>> no fricking anchor babies.<<
So, no Walker unless he gets the Constitution amended first?
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.