I'm beginning to be convinced that maybe he will be. Let me first start by saying that I think that those who advocate Jeb Bush are underestimating just how unpopular the Bush brand has become after his big brother.
For his part, Jeb wants the world to know that he's real proud of Ole Dubyah. On a personal level you can't blame him-though you can't help recall that W did everything he could to distance himself from his dad.
However, W remains a real political liability. I mean say what you will about Jimmy Carter but at least the Dems are willing to be seen in public with him which is more than you can say of the GOP and W.
What's in a name? In the case of the Bushes, maybe two much. Maybe Barbara Bush has changed her royal mind and thinks 'The more Bushes the better' but American doesn't follow her, to say the least.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/barbara-bush-changes-her-mind-about-enough-bushes-in-the-white-house/
Meanwhile, we have Walker rising precipitously in the polls.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/02/13/yes-scott-walker-is-for-real/
What he seems to have is the ability to both appeal to the Tea Party base and yet he also has a lot of support among the GOP donor class. His recent refusal to say whether or not the President loves his country or is a Christian may well succeed in allowing him to please both the GOP establishment and the base.
"This entire situation is so comical that it’s hard to imagine it’s doing anything but hurting Walker’s chances. Yet there is actually a method to his madness. While Democratic-leaning voters can be driven to distraction by politicians who refuse to take a side on contentious issues like this, the dodge-and-weave actually plays right into the hands of Republican voters, both of the Tea Party variety and the people who don’t care for all that culture war nonsense and just want lower taxes on rich people."
For his part, Jeb wants the world to know that he's real proud of Ole Dubyah. On a personal level you can't blame him-though you can't help recall that W did everything he could to distance himself from his dad.
However, W remains a real political liability. I mean say what you will about Jimmy Carter but at least the Dems are willing to be seen in public with him which is more than you can say of the GOP and W.
What's in a name? In the case of the Bushes, maybe two much. Maybe Barbara Bush has changed her royal mind and thinks 'The more Bushes the better' but American doesn't follow her, to say the least.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/barbara-bush-changes-her-mind-about-enough-bushes-in-the-white-house/
Meanwhile, we have Walker rising precipitously in the polls.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/02/13/yes-scott-walker-is-for-real/
What he seems to have is the ability to both appeal to the Tea Party base and yet he also has a lot of support among the GOP donor class. His recent refusal to say whether or not the President loves his country or is a Christian may well succeed in allowing him to please both the GOP establishment and the base.
"This entire situation is so comical that it’s hard to imagine it’s doing anything but hurting Walker’s chances. Yet there is actually a method to his madness. While Democratic-leaning voters can be driven to distraction by politicians who refuse to take a side on contentious issues like this, the dodge-and-weave actually plays right into the hands of Republican voters, both of the Tea Party variety and the people who don’t care for all that culture war nonsense and just want lower taxes on rich people."
"Both stripes of Republican voters will likely take Walker’s shruggie act as an indication that he secretly views things the way they do. For the rightwing ideologues, hearing Walker punt on issues like ISIS or whether or not Obama is a secret Muslim feeds right into their paranoid narratives about how the evil liberal media is suppressing rightwing truths. “He secretly agrees with us,” the narrative goes, “but he can’t say so out loud without being crucified by the liberal media.”
"For those Republicans who don’t actually buy the birther narratives about Obama or who don’t reject the theory of evolution, however, the signal sent by Walker’s dunno posturing is a little different. To them, it’s: “He’s not an imbecile, but he has to play to the rubes in order to win Iowa.”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/scott-walker-may-shrug-his-way-into-the-white-house
As TPM says this also gives him deniablity with the general electorate: after all he didn't say Obama isn't a Christian, doesn't love his country, or is a Communist born in Kenya, in fact, he hasn't said anything.
So maybe he's crazy as a fox. His image is interesting. He's held up as a Republican able to win in a bluish or purple state. His nasty crushing of the unions can be seen both ways but again it associates him more with the 'sensible, business wing' of the GOP than suggesting he's a Tea Party crazy. Yet, he has a resume that if you look at, will certainly please a Tea Partier as well. He has the ability to appeal both to the lunatic Tea Partying wing and the sensible, business wing:
"Many knowledgeable people thought Scott Walker had great potential as a presidential candidate even before he began his recent rise in the polls. Perhaps more than any of the GOP contenders, he looked like a person who could bridge the party's key divide, between the pragmatic establishment that supplies the money and the decidedly less reasonable grassroots that supplies the troops. Walker is both an enemy of labor unions and an evangelical Christian himself (if he becomes president, Walker will be the first evangelical in the office since Jimmy Carter; contrary to popular belief, George W. Bush is not an evangelical). While he's still unfamiliar to most of the country, Walker is the the kind of candidate that the Koch brothers and the Tea Party protester with a sign accusing Obama of being a communist can all get excited about."
http://prospect.org/article/scott-walker-panders-republican-partys-lunatic-wing
Ok, I find this narrative plausible but it's early to say the least. For a corrective some argue that libs are getting way too worked up over Walker at this point.
http://prospect.org/article/why-progressives-shouldn%E2%80%99t-overreact-scott-walker%E2%80%99s-rise-polls
Prospect is certainly right here that Walker has ruled Wisconsin like a thug-but if that's true why does he keep getting elected?
"There's no denying Walker has ruled Wisconsin like a thug, bullying unions, public employees, protesters, pro-abortion and gun-control, and winning a special recall election against a lackluster Democrat and re-election last fall. This makes him especially scary to progressives who have watched him consolidate power."
As they point out though, Walker himself said in the past that candidates who lead this early often don't get the nomination.
"One week after Scott Walker was re-elected as Wisconsin’s Republican governor last fall, he told Fox News something he surely doesn’t want to hear now: that in “the past four or five” presidential elections, “people who poll high at the beginning are not the people who end up being the nominees.”
"It's easy to forget this. Take Iowa, for example. Rick Santorum won its GOP caucuses in 2012 and Mike Huckabee won in 2008. Or New Hampshire, where John McCain won the GOP primary in 2000 and Pat Buchanan won in 1996. Or South Carolina, the third major contest state in 2012, where Newt Gingrich won. All of these candidates won a handful of states in those years, but not the Republican nomination or even the vice-presidential nomination."
"Their campaigns fizzled for a mix of reasons. They were too ideological as they moved to more populous urban states. Or they were not embraced by the GOP establishment. Or they ran out of money and weren't organized in the next state as the race continued. Or they stumbled, or their protest vote vanished, or doubts among the public crept in. For different reasons, voters did not think these Republican rebels were ready for prime time—other than returning to their pundit roles or lower elected office."
I know, but again his apparent virtue is that he might be able to please both the base and the establishment. According to Jennifer Rubin who I linked to above, he is holding his own against both Christie and Jeb among the big GOP donors in NY right now.
What might well hurt him-though maybe not until the general election-is that he's one of those candidates who has some high negatives.
"What might make Walker attractive in these early contests could easily work against him as the primaries progress. His negatives are substantial. He is best known for his union-bashing victories and mockery of thousands of protesters, his anti-abortion and anti-gun control stances. He’s a college dropout and targeted in an active state-level corruption probe, in which several of his top aides have already pleaded guilty to charges. "
Indeed, it shouldn't be too hard to accentuate what makes him unlikable-if worse comes to worst just have a reporter call him again pretending to be David Koch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBnSv3a6Nh4
Or maybe send a female billionaire to speak to him again. Turns out his strategy is to 'divide and conquer.' I don't know about you but I find it humbling to realize what better people Evangelicals like Scott Walker are than the rest of us.
For more on why liberals may be overstating Walker's reach see this Washington Post piece.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/walkers-sudden-jump-to-top-tier-contender-means-exposure-comes-with-an-exaggerated-impact/2015/02/21/9df4f3a6-ba19-11e4-bc30-a4e75503948a_story.html
P.S. I guess the bottom line is that
1. Walker may have the ability to appeal to both the base and the establishment donor class.
2. Is really not a nice guy.
For the GOP this may if anything be a selling point. I mean the party loves bullies-recall how the National Review used to coo when Chrisite would have one of his henchman be sure to get him trashing a female teacher on camera.
However,I think there's good reason to hope it won't play in the general.
P.S. I guess the bottom line is that
1. Walker may have the ability to appeal to both the base and the establishment donor class.
2. Is really not a nice guy.
For the GOP this may if anything be a selling point. I mean the party loves bullies-recall how the National Review used to coo when Chrisite would have one of his henchman be sure to get him trashing a female teacher on camera.
However,I think there's good reason to hope it won't play in the general.
No comments:
Post a Comment