The Case Against Scott Walker

Argued in the expected fashion at Daily Kos.

It strikes me that Republicans will only even possibly care about the claims under point two. If he's tied to significant local corruption, that's a problem. The other three points are not of interest except to his opponents, but even many of his supporters might be persuaded if there is truth to the corruption claims.


Texan99 said...

We had a visitor from WIsconsin a couple of years ago, a Madison academic type who manages a library. We very gingerly asked him what he thought of Walker's union policies; as far as I know he had little idea of our politics. He admitted that it was a lot easier to run the library now that employees knew they had to do their jobs or risk being fired. It clearly was an entirely new concept for him. He'd spent many years dealing with personnel issues without this leverage, which probably speaks well for his consensus-building skills. I also give him some credit for open-mindedness, as he was willing to open his eyes to the benefits of the change, even though he was obviously uneasy about it.

Grim said...

This article was sent to me by a liberal friend from the UK who is apoplectic about the guy. I myself have not made my mind up yet; I don't have strong reasons to reject him, and there are some arguments in his favor (as there are for many other candidates at this point). I read the article to see what his enemies have to say.

What struck me most was that almost nothing they have to say would convince Republican primary voters. They're mostly just disagreements his enemies have with his values and approach to politics. If you're on his side on the values, you're probably not going to be bothered by any of that.

The corruption thing will have to be watched. I don't trust Kos enough to take his word for it, or anyone writing at his site, but if it does prove to be true it's a problem.

Dad29 said...

Since I live in Wisconsin, I'd like to make a few comments.

By and large, all the allegations in that article are half-truths or less.

I am NOT a raving fan of Scott Walker. He is far more a Big Gummint kinda guy than I like. And he does have a very significant failing: he is constitutionally incapable of making good personnel decisions.

That--a major flaw--is the thread that runs through most of the allegations in that essay you highlight.

If you like, I'll take them apart one-by-one. Or you can just trust me.

E Hines said...

The massive protests against Walker in 2011 began with "Act 10," which stripped public employee unions of almost all of their rights and power.

Power, yes. Rights, no--only a privilege, heavily abused by the unions.

Point 1: ...draw rebuke from the New York Times editorial board.... Grim's right on the importance of this to Conservatives and Republicans. However, I think much hay could be made of this by Walker with Independents: put it on a decal on the left fender of his lead campaign vehicle.

Point 2: A variation on Point 1. No need to address these directly (in fact, Republicans generally have fallen into the trap of answering the Left's charges and surrendering the debate terms to them thereby), but oh-by-the-way asides to larger points would show up the fallaciousness of the Left's "accusations."

Point 3: Typical of his sources is the PuffHo link about O'Keefe. I got no worries there.

Point 4: Under Walker, Wisconsin has become a lawless state.... Of course it looks like that to the Left. We never have enough laws and regulations because, according to the Left, Americans are just too stupid to act on their own recognizance. It's the End of Days to rescind laws and regulations. That's textbook projection. Again, I got no worries.

With this being the best they can do, Walker's in pretty sound shape.

Eric Hines

Grim said...

I trust you. If he looks like he might get the nomination, though, I might want to hear more detail.

Eric Blair said...

A little too early to be talking nomination.