Trump Turns Attack on Walker

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Sunday turned his attack on rival Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, in his soaring and often unpredictable campaign that has largely targeted frontrunners but spared essentially nobody.

“His state has not performed well,” Trump, the billionaire businessman who now leads in most polls, told ABC’s “This Week.” “We need someone who’s going to make it perform well, this country perform well. … I’m the one to do it.”

Like many political candidates, Trump is spending the early part of the election cycle trying to downgrade the early favorites -- in this case Republican Jeb Bush, a former Florida governor, and Democrat Hillary Clinton, a former secretary of state.

Still, Walker, another early favorite who remains a top-tier contender, was more than willing to block and tackle, telling ABC later in the morning that Trump sounds like a Democrat when attack his record as a two-term governor.

>> As I recall Steele was hurting the party with stupid comments and was regarded as doing a poor job fundraising and GOTVing, which is the chairman’s job, not mugging for the camera. <<

Stupid comments, yep, he suffered from foot-in-mouth disease and made numerous embarrassing gaffes. I think the timing of his election made the GOP look bad too, it was pretty obviously the GOP was playing me-too-ism after the election of Obama and going "Look, we got a black guy TOO!". Ken Blackwell should have been Chairman long before Obama's election, and this wouldn't have been an issue.

Poor job fundraising and GOTVing, absolutely disagree. I remember his tenure and Steele did a terrific job in 2010 to fight the Dems on their own turf and actively appear throughout the country on behalf of candidates. I remember his 50-state bus tour well, and I met the guy when he stopped in Matteson, IL to do a rally for Issac Hayes' bid against scumbag Jesse Jackson Jr. The district had been RAT-held for decades. Steele really fired up the crowd and was happy to take pictures with us afterwards (other pit stops he made in Illinois included Bobby Schilling in IL-17 and a third majority RAT district I can't recall). No other GOP chairman, before or since him, has engaged in that level of grassroots activity. Its unthinkable that Reince Prebius, Mel Martinez, Mike Duncan, etc., would have visited Chicago's south suburbs to personally appear for a GOP candidate running in Jesse Jr.'s district.

>> 2010 could have been bigger. He’d not have had such strong opposition if he was doing well. <<

Again, disagree. 2010 as a whole was very successful. Individual candidates ran poor campaigns and prevented us from doing better, but there was no pattern that you could point to the party chairman and say he lost so-and-so state because he did so-and-so at the national level.

Hypocritically, Steele was blamed for 2010 "not being big enough", while Prebius was given a complete pass for 2012 being a disastrous failure. No one in the GOP leadership stepped up to hold Prebius accountable for the GOP failing at all levels in 2012, and losing several important races that we had taken back under Steele.

I saw the same mentality at the state level when Gary MacDougal was kicked out at IL GOP Chairman, allegedly for "not doing good enough" when Jim Ryan lost to Rod Blagojevich for Governor. Incredibly, his successors in the role, Andrew McKenna and Pat Brady, did FAR worse and presided over the IL GOP losing EVERY major office, across the board, but NOBODY stepped forward to challenge them after the disastrous elections.

The GOP leadership seems to "hold the chairman accountable" for the election outcome when it suits their purposes.

>> doesn’t see what the big deal is. So I have to regard him as inferior to Rince. <<

Again, have to disagree. Steele was a disappointment but I can point to a handful of positive things he did while Chairman. I can't point to a single positive thing that was accomplished with "Reince Prebius" in the role. I doubt Joe 6-Pack has been swayed to consider the GOP because they heard from Reince. And what conservative wants to give $$$ to the GOP now that "Reince Prebius" is sending out fundraising letters? Pretty much every major victory we've had during his tenure has been IN SPITE of him, not because of him. Overall, I'd give Steele a C+ as Chairman, and Prebius a D.

>> It’s a pity he was elected in the first place, Dawson or Blackwell should have won. <<

Absolutely yes, Dawson or Blackwell would have been far superior to Steele, but they weren't an option in 2011. We had to deal with the cards we were dealt. Steele was the "least bad" option from that set of choices, and I remain convinced of that in hindsight. Prebius only positives came from his tenure at the state level, and he has done nothing good since holding the post nationally. The only area where I was admittedly wrong is that the mainstream media never played the "Republicans must be racist for firing a black guy" card. I was really surprised they missed the boat on that one. They are usually quick to play the GOP=racist card no matter how unrelated the circumstance is.

Thank you. Both were well received. Maybe you’d like an autographed copy?
A little perspective: you use cheap clip art and gifs.....I use words from history that have stood the test of time. Just speaks to “relative credibility” and expertise I’d say.

On a serious note here, all humor and mockery aside now?

You have some solid conservative accomplishments. As a matter of fact I AM familiar with your books, they made Karl Rove's sphincter go into spasms, and that isn't a bad thing, nice job.

Good observations in your writings. It is a shame that you were unable to influence GHWB in '92 when you were working for him, to stay the course of true conservatism and actually manifest 'Reagan's Third Term' as so many conservatives (myself included) hoped he would, but it was not to be. I'm sure you did your best.

For all of your lofty rhetoric however, you sadly tend to look down your accomplished nose at others who in your view, do not measure up to your high standards, you are quick to call them 'idiots', 'morons' and all those epithets that you appear to relish using. You fail to understand that such tactics are *exactly* what LIBERALS use, which does not behoove you. I think you're better than that, IF you choose to be.

You assume way too much. You assume that others that you may clash with for whatever reasons, are clowns, oafs and fools. That assumption is never a sure fire thing, in fact I would wager that you will ultimately encounter someone who is going to clean your rhetorical clock and leave you a whimpering mass of 'WTF hit me?' because your impatient and intolerant ego is going to bring that down on you, not a question of if, but when.

You may want to reconsider your approach, because all of those people that you are quick to trample upon and denigrate in your lust to prove yourself 'right' are the same people you will be joining on the day that you yourself, are trampled.

Enjoy the rest of your week.

you sadly tend to look down your accomplished nose at others who in your view, do not measure up to your high standards, you are quick to call them 'idiots'

Thank you for all your comments, including that criticism above. I'd like to address it - because it is somewhat true - but I must add a caveat. I only do that...ONLY do that when someone has called me an establishment hack or responded intentionally out of context or use a purely emotional response and avoided any hard commentary on the issue at hand. So yes, guilty as charged - I shouldn't do it - but I never start it.....but fair point FWIW.

As for 92, that's when I saw this thing called "the Republican establishment" first hand. I didn't call it that then - but on the campaign there was a clear chasm between those of us who were "true believers" in Reagan's America - and those who were hangers on - wanting Bush to win the WH chiefly for their own personal career ladder climbing. It took about 30 seconds to figure out who was who. That is almost exactly the base/estab split.

We did run a more conservative focused campaign in NC than HW Bush ran nationally - which is probably why we were the only state in Carville's Targeted 20 State strategy that Bush won. Carville was 19-1 out of that 20 - and of course they won a whole lot of the other 30 states as well. I take lessons from that experience, and start my WTF history in 1992....for a number of reasons. You'll probably recognize that not only was 92 the official end of Reagan's hold on the party, it was a new chapter on the Democrat side with the Clinton Carville Stephanopolous machinery. Things changed in 92, on both sides.

Axelrod-Jarrett Obama took the Clinton paradigm up three levels...while McConnell and Boehner have taken the GOP E another three levels too. It's getting worse.

I'll also PM you something that will probably blow your mind...or at least pique your interest....

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.