Bruce Murphy
Back in the News

Walker Gets Backed by Koch Brothers?

David Koch says he prefers Walker to other Republicans, NYT and New York Observer report.

By - Apr 21st, 2015 12:23 pm
Sign-up for the Urban Milwaukee daily email
Gov. Scott Walker. Photo from the State of Wisconsin.

Gov. Scott Walker. Photo from the State of Wisconsin.

The Koch Brothers, it appears, are huge fans of Gov. Scott Walker. Take it from the New York Times:

“On Monday, at a fund-raising event in Manhattan for the New York State Republican Party, David Koch told donors that he and his brother, who oversee one of the biggest private political organizations in the country, believed that Mr. Walker would be the Republican nominee,” the Times reported.

“‘When the primaries are over and Scott Walker gets the nomination,” Mr. Koch told the crowd, the billionaire brothers would support him, according to a spokeswoman,” Times reporter Nicholas Confessore writes. Koch’s remark “drew laughter and applause from the audience of fellow donors and Republican activists, who had come to hear Mr. Walker speak earlier at the event, held at the Union League Club….Two people who attended the event said they heard Mr. Koch go even further, indicating that Mr. Walker should be the Republican nominee.”

Talk about a quick-rising candidate. Back in 2011, fresh-faced Gov. Walker had never met either of the Koch Brothers, and was humiliated by a prank caller pretending to be David Koch, who famously recorded the conversation. And as recently as last fall, Walker barely registered in any polls of potential Republican presidential candidates.

But Walker’s bill to all but eliminate collective bargaining rights made him a hero to conservative Republicans, and he checks every issue box the Koch Brothers care about. Walker, after all, has also signed a right to work law which will make it far harder to organize private sector unions, has opposed Obamacare and any rail projects, and has made policy decisions that are hostile to wind and solar companies in Wisconsin, assuring that Wisconsin continues and even increases its importation of fossil fuels. Koch Industries Inc. is heavily involved in the petroleum industry.

Koch told the New York Observer that Walker would easily beat Hillary Clinton in a general election. “No question about it,” he answered. “You know, if enough Republicans have a thing to say, why, he’ll defeat her by a major margin.”

The Observer reported that Koch “effusively” praised Mr. Walker’s performance, saying: “I thought he had a great message. Scott Walker is terrific and I really wish him all the best. He’s a tremendous candidate to be the nominee in my opinion.”

Koch told the Observer he was most impressed by Mr. Walker’s answer to a “major question” he asked on how to improve the public education system? “Why, he spent about 15 minutes answering the question, and he did that brilliantly.’”

I have long argued that Walker would make a very strong candidate in the Republican presidential primary, most recently in this column.  Walker has proven to be a strong campaigner with a steely ability to stay on message and a knack for shading his views depending on the audience he’s addressing. He checks all the boxes for conservatives, yet he has a way of sounding far less extreme than firebrands like Ted Cruz. The polls so far suggest GOP moderates are comfortable with Walker.

Walker’s biggest problem has been his huge disadvantage in fundraising compared to presumed GOP front-runner Jeb Bush, but the Koch Brothers could solve that issue in a right-wing minute. As Confessore notes in the Times, Koch’s favoritism toward Walker “could effectively end one of the most closely watched contests in the ‘invisible primary,’ a period where candidates crisscross the country seeking not the support of voters but the blessing of their party’s biggest donors and fund-raisers.”

David Koch made it clear that he and his brother are not endorsing any GOP candidate and that probably means the many advocacy groups they fund will stay neutral in the GOP primary, Confessore writes. But “according to the two attendees… Mr. Koch suggested that the Koch family might personally offer financial support to Mr. Walker.”

And that’s a family with an awful lot of money. Not to mention that even a quiet endorsement from Koch could open more doors to individual donors for Walker.

Since the Times story ran, Politico waded in with a counter-story suggesting the invisible primary isn’t over and that the Kochs may audition Jeb Bush as to whether he deserves the nearly one billion dollars the right-wing industrialists promise to spend on the 2016 campaign.

But this story also noted that the Kochs weren’t happy with Mitt Romney as the 2012 nominee and as a result, “are most likely to make a selection after the field has been winnowed to a few plausible candidates, perhaps giving their pick a boost against the establishment favorite.” That actually verifies that  the Kochs won’t sit out the primary, will make a pick among the Republicans and it probably won’t be the establishment favorite, meaning Jeb Bush. And right now, Walker is clearly the leading alternative to Jeb.

 

52 thoughts on “Back in the News: Walker Gets Backed by Koch Brothers?”

  1. Allison says:

    I think Walker could be the nominee, but there is no way he would defeat Hillary Clinton by a “major margin” as Koch says. She is not going to have to go through a tough primary, Walker will have to do that if he is to be the nominee. The Democrats have already decided on Clinton as their nominee.

    And the way the Electoral College works and the demographic advantages the Democrats have, if Walker is elected President it will be very narrowly. The Democrats basically start with 240 of the necessary 270 electoral votes to win, they only need a couple swing states.

    Also, Hillary Clinton will likely raise $2.5 Billion dollars for her campaign, she has very strong allies on Wall Street. She will have $2.5 billion to tear down the Republican nominee and not waste it on a primary defending her votes for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

  2. PMD says:

    Walker definitely appeals to Iowa voters, but then again so did Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann. But what about the rest of GOP primary voters? Do you think he appeals to them more than say Jeb Bush and John Kasich? It seems Walker’s poll numbers are already slipping, and I think his moment is all but over. Soon he’ll be just one of many in the pack of GOP presidential contestants.

  3. Will says:

    Walker is currently leading the polls in the first 4 state primaries, so yes, he does appeal to the rest of GOP primary voters.

    I do also agree with Koch that Hillary doesn’t stand a chance against Walker, but she would win against any other GOP candidate, especially Bush. At this point, a vote for Bush is, ironically, a vote for Clinton. But then again, let’s be honest, Bush and Clinton are cut from the same clothe. It’s gonna be tough to be the champion of the middle class when you consider yourself to be “dead broke” as you give 1 hour speeches for $300k while flying private around the country with Wall St. CEO’s.

  4. Will says:

    I don’t agree with “She is not going to have to go through a tough primary.” Clinton is going to be on an island all by herself with no challenger which will place her directly under the microscope. People will ask, “Why has HC been anointed with the nomination?” The obvious answer being she has strong armed her party using corporate money and other connections she acquired leveraging (perhaps illegally) her positions of power. With no real achievements to point to and a list of sketchy activity and general policy failures she will have nowhere to hide. All the while she will be shouting from the rooftops for the middle class which is actually laughable coming from her.

  5. PMD says:

    Hillary doesn’t stand a chance against Walker? Seriously? And yes Walker has never taken a dime in corporate money and refuses to even speak to wealthy people or private businesses.

  6. Observer says:

    “With no real achievements to point to and a list of sketchy activity and general policy failures she will have nowhere to hide.” That’s hilarious.

  7. George C says:

    RE: Allison, Why wouldn’t she have to defend her votes on Iraq/Afghanistan? She certainly voted in favour of both…

  8. Margaret says:

    Some are now saying that Walker may have lost Koch support by surging far right and coming out against legal immigration.

  9. Will says:

    @Observer Prove me wrong. List her accomplishments that should grant her the nomination uncontested

  10. Will says:

    “And yes Walker has never taken a dime in corporate money and refuses to even speak to wealthy people or private businesses.”

    Ya but comparing the “1%ers” influence on Walker to Clinton is like comparing an 8th grade pot head to Tony Montana. Whats bizarre is even though the Dems are fielding the most “connected” candidate to big biz and banks in recent history they STILL are so naive that they criticize Walker et al for being “corporate stooges.” They are embarrassing themselves with their hypocrisy. This is an irrefutable fact

  11. Will says:

    My previous post is the reason I think Walker would beat Hillary. Maybe I’m an optimist, but I force myself to believe that not enough Dems will be so blind to the fact that their candidate stands against all of their supposed principals. Typically Dems run on a middle class platform, with less hawkish foreign policy views. AKA the antithesis of all things HC… Unless you believe in trickle down economics.Then HC can use her friendships with banking CEO’s to help the poor.

  12. PMD says:

    Isn’t Walker a proponent of trickle down economics? Walker is good buddies with and gets support from WMC, the Koch Brothers and the groups they fund, Diane Hendricks, etc. But yes he’s a real friend of the 99% and the common man. Sure thing Will.

  13. Will says:

    Did I ever say Walker was a friend of the 99%? Saying that a lion eats more than a squirrel doesnt mean squirrels dont eat 🙂

    I realize you think Im a Walker supporter, but Im not. If I had to guess I am probably way to the left of you. I like to follow politics and I believe Walker will be our next President, just my opinion. With HC, I just dont like it when people try to sell my cow dung but call it diamonds. That is what (I feel) Clinton is doing. Just my opinion. But again, if someone can show me all of her achievements I would be happy to change my mind.

  14. PMD says:

    I am not disagreeing with your contention that Clinton is cozy with Wall St. and the 1%. I just don’t think there’s much difference between her coziness with those groups and Walker’s. That claim strikes me as pretty crazy.

    So who are you a backer of then? Elizabeth Warren?

  15. Allison says:

    @George C,

    My point was that with no primary challenger she will not have to defend her votes for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan like she did last time versus Obama. So who on the left will ask her again why she gave a long speech in the Senate in favor of invading Iraq? Does Barack Obama agree with her description that the US economy has been a disappointment? Will there even be any debates among Democratic candidates? Good for her campaign but bad for democracy.

    So the Democrats have basically already decided Clinton will be their nominee and she will raise billions from corporate america. I do agree with Will that it will be hypocritical for Democrats to criticize Walker for connections to business and then go vote for Clinton who is far more connected to Wall Street and the fat cat bankers.

  16. PMD says:

    But even if they stand little chance against her, she will face some opposition and have to debate right? Jim Webb and Martin O’Malley are running aren’t they?

    There is plenty of selective partisan outrage to go around.

  17. Will says:

    “So who on the left will ask her again why she gave a long speech in the Senate in favor of invading Iraq?”

    In today’s media environment she doesn’t need a challenger to be asked these questions. Just because Martin O Malley or whoever else isn’t grilling her doesn’t mean the media won’t be grilling her incessantly. If anything it will be worse for her, because she is the sole candidate the media will have to vet on the left. On the right, one day its Cruz, one day its Walker, Rubio, Bush, Paul, etc. The heat is less on them because it is spread out among all of them. With Clinton, it is just her. Every leaf will be turned.

    “So the Democrats have basically already decided Clinton will be their nominee and she will raise billions from corporate america.”

    I think this will end up being a bad thing for HC, though. Americans like people that earn their success. Clinton is being given the nomination. Contrast the Dem side with Repub side where the Repub candidates will be grinding and shouting from the rooftops to win, and here is Clinton, being given the nomination while pretending she is not entitled. Additionally, “look at the billions I raised from corporate america” is hardly a strong call to make to Democratic voters, especially as she champions herself as the voice of the middle class. The reason I think HC is going to lose is because their will be apathy on the left and a lot of people just wont vote. On the right, the base will be energized to defeat Clinton at all costs.

  18. Will says:

    “I just don’t think there’s much difference between her coziness with those groups and Walker’s.”

    Its my opinion that Clinton is way more cozy than Walker. She’s been in the game for decades. She was on the board at Wal Mart for Gods sake. 😉 Her son in law is now running a 9 figure hedge fund, just a coincidence I am sure…

    I don’t back any of these candidates tbh. Not to digress too much, but my opinion is this country is run by corporations. I dont think any of these people will do jack to limit there power.

  19. Allison says:

    “The reason I think HC is going to lose is because their will be apathy on the left and a lot of people just wont vote. On the right, the base will be energized to defeat Clinton at all costs”

    Will-I agree with much of what you said but disagree with the statement above. This is where the $2.5 billion she will raise comes in. I’m sure the Clinton campaign knows she will need large turnout to win and the base is not as thrilled with her due to her war votes, ties with Wall Street, etc. So what does she do? Trash the other guy. You say I’m not the best, but think what happens if the other guy wins. Basically you scare people. You write ads about the other guy cutting Medicare, cutting Social Security, outlawing abortion, throwing Granny off the cliff, etc. Her message will not be Hope and Change, but it likely works too
    .

  20. PMD says:

    Hillary being in the game longer doesn’t mean she is any cozier than Walker.

    Fearmongering doesn’t discriminate based on party affiliation. There will be plenty coming from both sides. I’m sure the GOP will contend that Democrats want to give Iran a free nuclear weapon for Christmas so they can wipe us off the face of the Earth.

  21. AG says:

    PMD, the nuke is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth… DUH! Don’t you listen to Iran’s rhetoric?

  22. PMD says:

    I was taking it to an extreme, the likes of which you’d encounter during some good ol’ fearmongering.

  23. Observer says:

    For Will. (mind you I’m not a Hillary Clinton supporter. I plan on voting for whoever will best appoint SCOTUS Justices I agree with. So I will vote) I’m feeling lazy so I’m going to cut ‘n paste but that doesn’t mean they aren’t all true-“First ever student commencement speaker at Wellesley College. Distinguished graduate of Yale Law School. Former Director of the Arkansas Legal Aid Clinic. Former civil litigation attorney. Former Law Professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law. Former First Lady of Arkansas. Former First Lady of the United States, and the first FLOTUS in US History to hold a postgraduate degree. First ex-FLOTUS in US History to be elected to the United States Senate. Elected by the… State of New York to serve two terms in the United States Senate. Former US Secretary of State. GRAMMY Award Winner. Author.
    ◾Even though her major initiative, the Clinton healthcare plan, failed (due to Republican obstruction), you cannot deny that it laid ground for what we have today, the Affordable Healthcare Act, something Clinton supports and would continue.
    ◾She played a leading role in the development of State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides the much-needed state support for children whose parents cannot afford nor provide them with adequate healthcare coverage.
    ◾She was also instrumental in the creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act.
    ◾Successfully fought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and asthma at the National Institute of Health (NIH).
    ◾She spearheaded investigations into mental illness plaguing veterans of the Gulf War; we now have a term for it – Gulf War Syndrome.
    ◾At the Department of Justice, she helped create the office on Violence Against Women.
    ◾She was instrumental in securing over $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center redevelopment.
    ◾Took a leading role in the investigation of health consequences of first responders and drafted the first bill to compensate and offer the health services our first responders deserve (Clinton’s successor in the Senate, Kirsten Gillibrand, passed the bill).
    ◾Was instrumental in working out a bi-partisan compromise to address civil liberty abuses for the renewal of the U.S. Patriot Act.
    ◾ Proposed a revival of the New Deal-era Home Owners’ Loan Corporation to help homeowners refinance their mortgages in the wake of the 2008 financial disaster.
    ◾Was a major proponent of sensible diplomacy which brought about a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, and brokered human rights with Burma.
    ◾Oversaw free trade agreements with our allies such as Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.
    ◾Was the most traveled Secretary of State to date.
    ◾The Clinton Foundation, founded by her and her husband, has improved the living conditions for nearly 400 million people in over 180 countries through its Initiative program.
    These are not all of her accomplishments. Her activism on behalf of women a children across the world is renowned. Her activism for raising the minimum wage and combating climate change is stellar. You do not have to support what she does or stands for. But do not say she doesn’t have any accomplishments. The conservatives who say this are the ones who are pushing for Ted Cruz – who brought on a $24 billion shut down. That, to them, is an accomplishment?

  24. Will says:

    “Her activism on behalf of women a children across the world is renowned. Her activism for raising the minimum wage and combating climate change is stellar.”

    I 100% agree with you. HC has certainly achieved a lot and helped tons of people both politically and thru her foundation. I applaud her for that. Still though, in my opinion, none of those things are significant enough to qualify her to get a free pass in the primary, let alone be president. As first lady and as SoS she has been in a position to make an impact, which she has done. However, I could point to things that have her fingerprints all over them (Iraq, Libya and Russia for instance) which in my opinion greater forecast her ability to be the President. I appreciate the efforts she made to help “ordinary” people, but if that were the qualifier Bill and Melinda Gates would be the front runners.

    My main problem with Clinton isn’t so much her achievements but rather those people that are behind the scenes with her. I think we can all agree that special interests are too embedded into Washington politics, and the Clintons to me are the most leveraged politicians there are. I just wont believe that you take donations of millions of dollars from foreign countries and the .01%ers and expect to give nothing back. It’s just one sketchy thing after another with them , I mean, deleting these emails…Maybe she was being honest or whatever but we will never know…Once again in the dark….As a concerned citizen I am offended by the “Oh this is just partisan attacks”, I want to know why the hell she deleted those emails and I am as independent as they come.

  25. PMD says:

    @Will… Even if they don’t have much a chance to secure the nomination, don’t you think the likes of Jim Webb or Martin O’Malley or Lincoln Chafee or whomever will bring the issues you mention up in a debate?

  26. Will says:

    @PMD, short answer, yes I do. But am I 100% certain they will? I cant say that. Clinton is most likely winning this nomination. O’Malley would be risking a lot to be going after Clinton in a manner that threatens her. He doesnt have much to gain by doing so and he has tons to lose. My point is that even if no one runs against HC the media is going to grill her on these same issues.

  27. Observer says:

    I’m suffering election overload already. Jon Stewart had a brilliant bit with some anchor asking all the GOP candidates if they would attend a gay friends wedding. god what horse sh!t. The election is some distance off and Hillary was a shoe in until Barack entered the race. It would not surprise me if the election would not feature Bush and Clinton as predicted here. I’m sure only that Walker will not be the GOP candidate. I’d put his chances right there with Dr. Ben.

  28. PMD says:

    @Will… So when you feel like both sides are poisoned by special interests and mega-donors and Wall St., how do you decide whom to vote for? Or do you not vote at all?

  29. Labitokov says:

    Walker may be in the running for the Republican nomination but he most likely would do worse than Romney in the general against any Democratic challenger, including Hillary, baring a major economic meltdown.

    The reason is demographics-they need to get votes from somewhere other than whites. In a general election the Republicans need to be competitive in Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia. Walker has only appealed to the most reactionary faction of his party and wears his “conservative” bona fides like a Webelo badge, just yesterday he agreed with Glenn Beck on restricting LEGAL immigration.

    The electoral math does not work for this type of message. It’s not 1984 anymore Koch Brothers.

  30. Gerald J. Braden says:

    Here we go again with the “Koch Envy”, trying to make a specious point. The truth is better serves if you would cover, for once, the greater $’s being poured into the Hillary Clinton campaign by George Soros. But, yet again the crickets have the floor. Please stop the redundant false attack mode on Gov. Walker via the Koch Brothers. It’s boring, untrue, and like Harry Reid, who overtly used this attack ad, it could lead to your own retirement. Inquiring minds are throwing up reading this garbage.

  31. Rich says:

    @Will: However, I could point to things that have her fingerprints all over them (Iraq, Libya and Russia for instance) which in my opinion greater forecast her ability to be the President.

    So, in hindsight did all of those things you loosely cite turn out the way everyone would’ve hoped? What are the appropriate limits for American engagement in all of those situations? Was something learned from those events? Experience and the learning from it is probably far more important…

    Not committing my vote, but I’d take someone who’d been there and seen what worked and what didn’t over a joke like Walker or Cruz or Christie or Tom Cotton (not actually running, but up there with the fools) who think they can wade right into the foreign policy approach of an entire country with nothing but ideology and five minutes on the national stage.

  32. PMD says:

    What exactly is untrue Gerald? The Kochs have supported Walker in the past and identified him as one of five GOP contenders they like. Yes I’m sure Soros is going to back Hillary. Rich people support both parties. No argument here. But how is it untrue to suggest that the Kochs support Walker?

  33. Will says:

    “how do you decide whom to vote for? Or do you not vote at all?”

    Well..I’ll probably not vote. If Obama ran, Id vote for him

    “Walker has only appealed to the most reactionary faction of his party”

    Actually, if you look at the polling Walker tests across all spectrum’s of the Republican base better than any other candidate. I think there is a mistake on the left with equating Christian=Tea Party/far right.

    “Republicans need to be competitive in Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia.”

    All of those states have been veering/voting right as of late. Another mistake on the left is that of relying on demographic shifts to win elections. There are more and more minorities in the Republican party and voting for the Republican party now. Compared to 20 years ago both the Rep and dem parties are far more diverse.

    “the greater $’s being poured into the Hillary Clinton campaign by George Soros”

    I am with you on this George. Soros is way worse than the Kochs but never mentioned….

    “So, in hindsight did all of those things you loosely cite turn out the way everyone would’ve hoped? ”

    Dear God, no. They are way, way worse than anyone could have imagined. Libya is a failed state, Iraq is Iraq, Yemen is a soon to be failed state, and relations with Russia are worse than ever.

    “Experience and the learning from it is probably far more important…”

    So I guess your argument is even if HC bungled foreign policy, because she learned from it (allegedly) she is more qualified than someone with no experience. I disagree.

    ” who think they can wade right into the foreign policy approach of an entire country with nothing but ideology and five minutes on the national stage.”

    Did you vote for Obama?

  34. PMD says:

    Don’t forget Will that the voters in a presidential election are often very different from the voters in midterm elections. And trends do favor Democrats at the moment.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/06/the-gops-2016-problem-in-3-maps/

  35. Will says:

    I do think demographic trends as measured today favor dems, but voting blocs are fluid and subject to change. MLK was a Republican and the KKK were democrats

  36. Will says:

    My point is that relying on demographics at all is unwise. You hear arguments of “In 2050 whites will be xxx% and minorities will be xxx.” So they are essentially relying on the votes of minorities who haven’t even been conceived yet.

  37. PMD says:

    MLK was a Republican? Are you sure?

    “the preponderance of the evidence shows that a claim that Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican is simply False.”

    http://www.politifact.com/tennessee/statements/2012/jan/23/charlotte-bergmann/another-republican-claims-martin-luther-king-jr-wa/

    But yes voting blocs are fluid and do change. I’m not sure they’ll change dramatically between now and the 2016 presidential election though.

  38. Observer says:

    @Will. You piqued my ear when you said that George Soros was “much worse” than the Koch brothers. Now I am aware of the French insider trading thing but what are you referring to? Like George Carlin and before George, Andy Rooney, have been linked to many quotes that just weren’t true. What is it about Soros that upset(s) you?

  39. Will says:

    I would never defend the Kocks, as I despise them, but unlike the Koch brothers, Soros actively tries to influence American foreign policy abroad, often using our military as his pawn. Look at his recent columns with Bernard Levi trying to increase American military support towards the Ukraine as an example. To me it seems Soros knows no global boundaries where as the Kochs try to influence american domestic policy for the most part, albeit on a massive level.

  40. Will says:

    Maybe I shouldnt have said “way worse” what I meant was more ingrained and with more tentacles into the system. When I think “dark money” I think Soros. But dont take my comment as defending the Koch brothers

  41. PMD says:

    Why is attempting to influence foreign policy significantly worse than trying to influence, on a massive level, domestic policy?

  42. Labitokov says:

    Will,

    “My” argument is twofold and better described here by Chait:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/why-hillary-clinton-is-probably-going-to-win.html

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/negative-partisanship-has-transformed-politics.html

    It involves history, demographics and the change in US politics that is neatly described as negative partisan ship.

    It rests on the idea that without expanding out from their base of white voters Republicans will find it very difficult to win swing states in presidential elections as mentioned above. Both parties have changed substantially in the last 30 years from very diverse coalitions (big tents) to more monolithic camps that are unified in what they are against, the other party, as opposed to what they are for.

    You can say “there are more and more minorities in the Republican party and voting for the Republican party now. Compared to 20 years ago both the Rep and dem parties are far more diverse,” but when it comes to presidential elections minorities have reacted very negatively to the Republican message and have voted accordingly.

    The problem for the Republicans is that if they start to be more friendly to minorities they will lose support from the base-old white people.

  43. Terry Ott says:

    Doubt many would agree, but I speculate that the Democratic Party and its allies may have done more to advance Walker’s standing as a viable candidate than the Kochs could. The ways:
    (1) Running lackluster candidates against him 3 times, including betting on the same losing horse twice.
    (2) Attempting a recall election which brings to mind the old saw, “that which doesn’t kill me only makes me stronger”. How many recall advocates envisioned Tom Barrett being the opponent again?
    (3) Supporting a lame “John Doe” investigation for an interminable time, and in the process “leaking” what was supposed to be under wraps until the investigation concluded.
    (4) Running to Illinois, which made the elected Democrats look like sore-loser-whiners/wimps (sore losers) and Walker like the grown up. And got him big-time national media attention.
    (5) Physically trashing part Madison and screaming/shouting at whatever and whomever they didn’t like.

    Without these elements, Walker might have remained more of a sideshow nationally versus becoming a main stage celebrity. The Democrats made him appear as “stronger than dirt”, as heroically advancing the GOP flag up the hill during live fire, as unwavering under pressure, and more. They even gave him a platform to fine-tune his campaigning skills.

    Maybe it was a Democratic Party strategy to help Walker get closer to the nomination, thinking he would be a poor, easily beaten, candidate in the General Election. But I suspect that would be giving them too much credit.

  44. rnprn says:

    How come no one talks about all of Walker’s corruption. I can’t wait until the MSM starts chipping away at this

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/three-charged-in-john-doe-investigation-of-walker-aides-o63mivs-136748913.html

  45. David says:

    Trying to pick the best Republican candidate is like selecting what would be the best sexually transmitted disease for me. The Koch brothers billion dollar expenditure on a Republican candidate comes with all the strings attached for their investment in their stooge and con-artist. And corporate media loves feeding at this same funding trough filling their coffers from all the nasty meaningless lying ads that pollute the air-waves

    Walker is an intellectually stunted fool and idiot that excels as the stooge. As a lazy person, he has figured out his path to success with the least amount of effort as a slick snake oil salesman that will say and do anything with a dull conniving sneer on his face at all times.

    We deserve so much better as the taxpaying and voting herd, but this is what we get with our corrupted bought off system. There are good and decent people that serve in politics but that seems to be the exception in today’s world and we are stuck with fools, idiots, and stooges managing and further corrupting the political system for their own and their benefactors enrichment at the sacrifice of all of us.

  46. David says:

    Walker leads the charge in WI as we lead the nation in drop in annual family income and loss of middle class. Walker is an utter failure as a leader and is not fit for any role in public service. It is disgraceful and dangerous that corrupt scum like Walker are even mentioned for Presidential office.

    http://www.wpr.org/wisconsin-has-seen-largest-middle-class-decline-any-state-study-finds

  47. Will says:

    @mprn Believe it or not, I believe the John Doe investigation will be a net positive for Walker in the end. Check out this piece by Limbaugh from yesterday. (this is not me endorsing Limbaugh)

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/04/21/how_innocent_scott_walker_supporters_were_persecuted_in_wisconsin

  48. Will says:

    @David That may be true, but Clinton could teach Walker a lesson on how to milk your government position for whatever its worth. See the article in the nytimes today about Russia and the Clintons. With that in mind, if you really do feel that way about Walker, I can only imagine how much you despise the Clintons. This is the reason I think HC is going to lose. People like David will recognize that HC is more corrupt and become apathetic and sit this one out.

  49. PMD says:

    Will for someone who claims to dislike both parties and not be cheer-leading for anyone here, you sure do defend Walker a whole lot. And Limbaugh? Is he even remotely influential when it comes to presidential politics? All he does is rail against the GOP establishment, and the eventual nominee is always part of the establishment.

  50. David says:

    Sitting out elections is wishful thinking.

    I am skeptical of most political leaders and the choices throughout my life time have been generally for the lesser of two poor quality options. The difference between Republicans and Democrats in accepting money from wealth is that Republicans prostrate themselves before billionaires. Democrats will make flimsy approaches to improving life for working citizens. Republicans work for the 1% only.

    Walker has chosen the corrupt path in WI by implementing ALEC laws written by corporate attorneys as a stooge for Kochs, and corporate benefit. This is a form of 21st Century fascism.

    The results are in for WI and the largest loss of middle class and annual income in the country and the downward spiral will continue. This is after an economic crash created by Republican policies of spending on war with a credit card and unfettered deregulation, and lack of oversight.

  51. Wisconsin Conservative Digest says:

    Koch brothers, great Americans happy to have them aboard.

  52. PMD says:

    I love how when you talk about the Bucks all you do is bash the rich owners and billionaires and talk about what a hard sell the new arena is “out state” because of said rich owners, but of course the Koch Brothers are American heroes. Hilarious.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *