Scott Walker Responds to Sinking Poll Numbers in Iowa
CNN’s Jake Tapper hits from the left.
Governor Scott Walker was interviewed by CNN’s Jake Tapper yesterday. The segment began with Walker’s dropping poll numbers in Iowa but went on to cover a wide range of topics.
Early on, Tapper refers to a column from National Review which charges the Walker campaign with being too lax in response to questions on big issues. That article can be read here.
Later, Tapper brings up an op-ed Walker wrote for Hot Air about Obama’s weak leadership in the face of violence against police officers. You can read that here.
Jake Tapper is widely considered one of the most objective journalists in the mainstream media but as you watch the video below, you’ll find him full of leftist talking points.
The Koch brothers come up more than once, Walker is forced to defend himself as a career politician as if Hillary and Sanders aren’t. Tapper also questions Walker about women’s rights, Planned Parenthood, the Syrian refugees and more.
The segment is eleven and a half minutes long but worth watching in full if you have the time:
According to the Real Clear Politics average of polls, Walker is currently at 5.7% in Iowa.
Wednesday night’s CNN debate should be interesting, that’s for sure.
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Funny how no one ever asks Trump about his high profile position in one of the biggest and most corrupt special interests around- the gaming industry. Every casino hotel deal out there reeks of payoffs to special interests, from the selection of the politically connected as the limited partners, to the decision to issue the gaming licenses, through the selection of contractors and subs, to the certification of unions for the hotel/casino employees.m Trump’s world is one of cronyism from top to bottom.
I thought this was about Walker and an interview with an allegedly “objective” journalist. But as you wish. That one cannot avoid bringing up Trump in relation to unsuccessful interviews of other candidates is interesting and perhaps an insight into why Republicans keep losing. Forget Trump’s positions on issues for a moment or his apparently horrible and hypocritical past. Why can’t WALKER handle interviews and interviewers like Trump does? That’s the issue. Walker could have eaten Tapper’s breakfast. Why didn’t he? That’s HIS problem, and more largely, the Republican’s problem. It’s not Trump’s problem. There is nothing Trump is doing that others cannot do, except that they can’t or won’t do it. Republicans keep waiting for the media to do their job (or, in this case, waiting for them to be “fair”) — it’s a Waiting for Godot futility, a loser’s game. Trump isn’t playing it. That’s one reason why he’s kicking their asses.
“There is nothing Trump is doing that others cannot do, except that they can’t or won’t do it.”
Careful, you’re pointing out the obvious.
You seem to be making two unsupported suppositions.
1. the Walker interview was somehow “bad”, and
2. T-rump is a killer interviewee.
There is no support for either, especially in the face of this…
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/donald-trump-sits-down-for-wide-ranging-interview-with-meet-the-press/
Whatever.
Great T-rumpian response…!!!
“I got nutin’, so I’ll vamp…”
Responding to you is exhausting. You don’t listen. I don’t think it’s because you can’t but because you choose not to.
You completely missed the larger point. But I think your response illustrates the denial and dying paradigm of the republican party.
1. I didn’t say Walker’s interview was “bad.” I said it was unsuccessful — and by implication of my larger point, wholly inadequate to the modern media culture. Walker COULD have eaten Tapper’s breakfast. Why didn’t he? Because he approaches interviews from a passive and precatory attitude — assuming some relationship of journalistic inquiry and fairness. This is dysfunctional at best.
Furthermore, even if I did assert his interview was “bad”, this wouldn’t be an “unsupported supposition” (pretentious blather) but a personal opinion.
2. I didn’t and would never say Trump was a perfect interviewee. My point was that he approaches interviews and the media, in the main, with the attitude of a warrior, while most Republicans approach with the attitude of a sucker. And this isn’t an “unsupported supposition.”
The world is changing. The old paradigm is dying and those Republicans who understand this have a world of opportunity in front of them. Try watching Trump from an openness to what is working and why he is exciting people. This is my interest.
I see this race boiling down to Trump, Carson and Cruz. They get it, or have somehow escaped or never experienced the conditioning of the political culture.
And this “T-rump” business is childish. Grow up. I’m a supporter of Trump’s presence in the race and I celebrate his contributions, and strongly urge all other candidates to learn from him. I’m afraid however that most simply cannot for whatever reason.
“You seem to be making two unsupported suppositions.”
No. It’s all in the eye of the beholder. I like Walker, admire him. But he is a poor interviewee. With Walker we go by his record only, interviews will not help.
Your suppositions are no better supported than anyone else’s.
Trump has no interview problems. It is obvious.
Walker is done. No hope of getting the nomination. Sorry to say, as I would prefer he and several (short list) others remain in play. He’ll be out shortly.
“Trump has no interview problems”.
Spoken like a true non-critical thinker.
I saw several.
When asked about his support for Planned Abortionhood, all he could do was talk about all his money and donations.
He could not say, “Nope. I know I never gave them money, because I’m opposed to the work they do.” Which he is NOT.
You see if you can find some other examples of what a pitiful interview that really was, in fact.
I’ll help if you find it too hard.
“Spoken like a true non-critical thinker.”
Spoken like a true head in the sand hater.
I can, and do, think as well or better than you. I do not ignore the obvious just because I don’t like someone.
I did not say trump never makes a comment or answers a question in a way you, or I, or anyone else will disagree with or not like. I said he is a good interviewee, which is obvious to any “critical thinker”.
As opposed to Walker, whom I like, more than Trump, but he is a poor interviewee and will continue to fall in the polls as a result.
Couldn’t stand up to the rational challenge, I see.
You went directly to name-calling instead.
Here’s another, just to be helpful to you…
On how he gets military advice
“Well, I watch the shows. I mean, I really see a lot of great– you know, when you watch your show and all of the other shows and you have the generals… Yeah, probably there are two or three. I mean, I like [former UN ambassador John Bolton]. I think he’s, you know, a tough cookie, knows what he’s talking about. [Colonel Jack Jacobs] is a good guy.”
That’s really NOT impressive. Unless you are just enthralled.
“You went directly to name-calling instead.”
My comment:
“Spoken like a true head in the sand hater”
Touchy. I find that no worse than calling someone a “non-critical” thinker. If you do not hate trump, no one would know it, tour protestations aside. And you do have your head in the sand if you cannot see that people, voters, R voters like the way trump handles interviews. You can dislike him and still acknowledge that.
I despise/hate Bernie Sanders, but he interviews well.
Walker does not. Plain to see.
Now you’re trying to change the subject.
Here, try this one…
On Saudi Arabia
“Saudi Arabia makes a billion dollars a day, okay? They make a billion dollars a day. Saudi Arabia, if it weren’t for us, they wouldn’t be there. They wouldn’t exist. They should pay us. It’s like Kuwait. When Kuwait had the problem with Saddam Hussein, like, the ultimate problem, they were taken over, we go in. We fight.”
On whether Ukraine should join NATO
“I would not care that much to be honest with you. Whether it goes in or doesn’t go in, I wouldn’t care.”
A semi-literate 13 year-old would have a more intelligent set of answer than that to two (or three) geopolitically important nations. He’s an air head.
“Now you’re trying to change the subject.”
Really? How so? I’m just responding to your assertions.
I’ve made no claim that Trumps positions are good, possible, or mature.
Only that he interviews well as compared to Walker. If you were being honest you would just admit that. Your dislike of Trump doesn’t allow you to do so.
Why else has Trump risen and Walker fallen? It’s clear as a bell.
Yet I’ve demonstrated that T-rump DOES NOT interview “well”.
In fact, he’s embarrassingly BAD.
You keep going back to his poll ratings, hoping that will support what you cannot support WRT his “quality” as an interviewee.
But perhaps you mean he’s “good” in the sense that Joan Rivers was a good interviewee?
Now, THAT I could agree with you on…!!!
“Yet I’ve demonstrated that T-rump DOES NOT interview “well”.
In fact, he’s embarrassingly BAD.”
Your opinion only, no demonstration of value. Doesn’t mean I disagree on those points, and of course, I have not.
“You keep going back to his poll ratings, hoping that will support what you cannot support WRT his “quality” as an interviewee.
But perhaps you mean he’s “good” in the sense that Joan Rivers was a good interviewee
Now, THAT I could agree with you on…!!!”
Finally, you understand it. The question was never your agreement with any particular Trump statement, plan, etc. It was always about who the better interviewee is, Trump Vs Walker. The answer was always clear.
So, the difference between Joan Rivers and someone I’d support as POTUS.
That makes no sense at all, whatsoever, even a little bit.
Jeeeeebus…
Look, the entire question has been does Trump interview well Vs Walker. Your opinion is that it is not true. My opinion, regardless of trumps opinions being good, bad, or indifferent, wither he is akin to Joan Rivers or not, is that he interviews well in the minds of the R voters. That conclusion is supported by the response to Trump in the polls. Nothing further to be gained from this. Ratings make the determination. You can conclude the raters (polled voters) are idiots. Doesn’t change the fact. He goes up with every interview and Walker goes down. It is clear.
Across the board, it’s the fear factor.
Fear of failure.
Fear of offending someone.
Fear of contradicting one’s prior PC position.
Fear of being wrong.
Bernie and Trump are not afraid – love or hate them and/or their respective messages.
Sincerity rules.
To closely paraphrase Milton Friedman, “Sincerity is the most over-rated of virtues”.
I’m very sure Mao was sincere.
“Mao was sincere”.
Don’t be too sure. Mao lived in an environment where you could die quickly. One expects that he shared a lot of characteristics with crime bosses and battle leaders.
I bet Mao could be duplicitous as all get out when he needed to be. And he could be extremely loyal to people whose help he needed.
And so on.
Indecision and insecurity bear the stench of failure.
Sincerity, passion, and commitment appeal.
I’ve made no value judgements about ‘sincerity’, per se.
Or the wisdom of the great unwashed, for that matter.
Adolf Hitler was sincere.
Peggy Noonan: Sincerity and competence is a strong combination. In politics, it is everything.
So you wanna talk Reagan.
Because you DAMN sure are not talking about T-rump. Not on either score.
In 1971 the author of “The American Idea of Success” shifted the domain of the expression from acting to the business domain of sales [ASRH]:
“In any case, the key principle in selling is honesty. Once you know how to fake that, you’ve got it made.”
NO, I don’t want to talk Reagan.
And honesty isn’t quite the same as sincerity.
Your words – earlier today – to another’s post:
“You don’t like it when someone tries to maintain a thread of thought you find uncomfortable, do you? Another attempt at changing the subject.”
(Take the last word. Please.)
Peggy Noonan: Sincerity and competence is a strong combination. In politics, it is everything.
___________________________________________
I responded to your inapposite quote. That’s not changing the subject, is it, dear?
A sincere person would be a lot more stable in his expressed beliefs and opinions than Trump has been.
What Trump is most sincere about is his belief in his own greatness.
It’s Trump fans who have a habit of bringing him into just about any political discussion.
To Trump fans, every problem in the country or the world is evidence that “we need Trump,” regardless of what his stated or practiced positions are on that particular issue.
“It’s Trump fans who have a habit of bringing him into just about any political discussion.”
You anti trumpettes are so full of spite and spittle you cannot read.
Read the first sentence of the first comment in this thread, written by another anti trumpette and then explain your untrue statement.
Nonsense. I’m just observing the general pattern of Trump fandom, which is characterized by:
* Indiscriminate anger at every “politician.”
* The absurd notion that any “nonpolitician” is necessarily more honest than any “politician.”
* The weird belief that a record of principled governance means less than sweeping (and inconsistent) promises.
* An adamant disregard for the shifting views and “principles” of Donald Trump.
* Anger at any mention of unpleasant facts about Trump.
* The mistaking of bluster and rudeness for principled truth-telling.
* Naive faith in the unique wisdom of Trump
Etc.
I just point out what I see. Trump fans can’t stand to see themselves in the mirror of truth and reason.
“It’s Trump fans who have a habit of bringing him into just about any political discussion.”
I demonstrated that is not the case. Quite easily in fact.
“I just point out what I see. Trump fans can’t stand to see themselves in the mirror of truth and reason.”
LOL, you need to go look in the mirror, right after you read the first sentence of the first comment in the thread, written by another with TDS.
You people are beginning to remind me of the typical lefty, you accuse others of being what you are.
I haven’t watched the interview yet, but a couple of points:
1) Walker is my top pick
2) People say he’s hired too many RINO consultants and that explains his poor showing. I worry that he is a squish on immigration which is probably my top issue
3) I don’t particularly like Trump but I absolutely value him for standing with Americans
4) Any Repub could get Trump’s votes if they were willing to stand up and fight on America’s side
5) So what if Tapper attacks from the left? All Walker has to do is what Palin, Newt or Trump would do: fight back against the agenda, show contempt for the framing and respond from the perspective of someone who doesn’t buy into the Left’s view of priorities. Jeez, Repubs should be lapping up leftie-oriented interviews: “You’re nothing but a Dem operative with a byline!!” they should thunder.
Absolutely correct. The problem with most of the R’s is they will not fight back against the left. Which means what? Either their pussies or they agree with the left. Either one is a disqualifier for me.
3) I don’t particularly like Trump but I absolutely value him for standing with Americans
Or could it be you value him because he reads people and tells them what they want to hear?
That is not a trait we have not seen before, is it?
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/14/hot-air-exclusive-walker-pledges-to-end-federal-public-employee-unions/
So, which do you find more credible?
Walker’s plan as state in that link?
Or T-rump’s “plan” to deport all illegal aliens in two years (or eighteen months…whatever)?
Either will be difficult. Intent counts however.
Walker had/has an R legislature on board with him. He gets all the credit and deserves much. But do not forget he did not make the changes on his own.
The current R congress will not do the same.
The current law in this country does not allow illegals to remain. No new legislation is required, just enforcement. No need to get a leftwing republican congress to do anything.
Now, explain which you think more likely.
“The current law in this country does not allow illegals to remain. No new legislation is required, just enforcement.”
You’re wrong.
But do you believe…with all the “intent” in the world…T-rumpian forces could deport 15,000+ people a day for two years?
And how many would make the return trip under his “touch-back” amnesty program? Maybe he’d have them making a back-haul on the same vehicles!
“You’re wrong.”
No, I’m not. Illegals can be deported. The process may be byzantine, but current law provides for deportation.
Do I think all illegals are going to be deported in two years? No. Do I think a lot of them will be? Yes. When a whole bunch get deported, and the workplace rules get enforced, a lot of others will make their way back on their own.
The “touch back” is nothing compared to the criminals crossing the border every day. It’s just your “talking point” and is meaningless.
Now, explain how Walker is going to get the current r congress to outlaw federal employee unions. Good luck!
Sorry, Barry, I don’t consider “hand-wave” anything like a serious argument.
Which is exactly my point about T-rump. His crap is just crap. He is not serious. He knows it, and he isn’t changing.
You don’t even really believe it, and you can’t defend it.
“You don’t even really believe it, and you can’t defend it.”
Clearly, you do not believe Walker has a chance in hell of eliminating federal employee unions either and can’t defend it.
Let’s be clear here. Trump is up in the polls for one reason only, he dared to say he will fight illegal immigration. Can he do everything he says? Likely not. He will not be an emperor. Will he try? Unlike every other candidate, he says he will. Is he lying? Could be. OTOH, he is the only one saying he will try, and that is the #1 issue for many R voters.
Oh, hand waving.
Perhaps. Nothing more than what you are doing.
You don’t like it when someone tries to maintain a thread of thought you find uncomfortable, do you? Another attempt at changing the subject.
The fact is you’ve admitted you doubt T-rump’s fantasy. But, hey…intent!
He’s NOT the only one addressing the immigration issue. He’s IN FACT late to the ball. He’s CERTAINLY making the most noise, but that counts for spit to most of us who have been thinking and writing about this issue for a LONG time.
“The “touch back” is nothing compared to the criminals crossing the border every day. It’s just your “talking point” and is meaningless.”
No, Barry. THAT was what is called in rhetoric “hand-wave”.
You can’t deal with “touch-back” amnesty, so you dismiss it as “meaningless”.
You don’t even know what it entails, do you? For instance, what percentage of illegal aliens would it consider?
How many of them would there be? How, without knowing the relative numbers of “criminal aliens” can you say it would be “nothing”?
See? You aren’t dealing with these arguments as a thinker.
Oh BS Rags. There’s nothing uncomfortable to me.
I’m not defending trump. It may be a fantasy, but he is the only one that has the fantasy.
Rags is not running for President, so your immigration views, previous writings, statements, etc. are of no value in this case.
Have there been others. Certainly. Tancredo for one. Didn’t go anywhere. Why? Money perhaps. Wrong words perhaps. I don’t know. Cruz, hints is what we get. He has no position discernible. It’s OK with me though, I prefer cruz.
You asked which of the two were more credible. I said “Either will be difficult.” And you have made no case that eliminating the federal unions is more likely than deporting illegal aliens.
Try making that case and perhaps I will agree. As I said, good luck.
Is your keyboard stuck on “changing the subject”?
Try to stay with a thought.
You’ve admitted you don’t rationally believe T-rump’s bloviation about deporting all illegals in two years.
You’ve demonstrated you don’t know what “touch-back” amnesty entails, but you’re willing to make wild claims about it and hand-wave it away as “meaningless”.
Now, I’ve started another thread to discuss the Walker initiative, if you want.
“Clearly, you do not believe Walker has a chance in hell of eliminating federal employee unions either and can’t defend it.”
That’s simply false. I think he has a very good chance, if elected.
Hand waving.
Umm….no.
You made a statement about what I think that wasn’t true. I can refute that by saying what I do think.
I’ll be happy to elaborate.
Getting it now?
“I’ll be happy to elaborate.”
Feel free.
I’d rather you elaborate on how Walker is going to get the current Republican led congress, led by Boehner and McConnell, to eliminate federal employee unions. My opinion, clearly made, that is about as possible as deporting all the illegals. Unless you think Walker is going to sweep in a bunch of new R’s when he is elected.
All pointless. Walker will be out shortly.
“Now, I’ve started another thread to discuss the Walker initiative, if you want.”
OK, I am interested in reading it. Where? I do not see it.
Well, I don’t accept the premise of current “leadership”, for one thing.
I do accept the probability that a lot of NEW conservatives may be brought into the new Congress, and a lot of the old nags retired. Though that is not essential.
Walker lays a good solid case for some months showing how Federal unions have made a terrible fortress out of the respective agencies, such that getting rid of even criminal workers is virtually impossible. We are reminded that even FDR would not allow Federal workers to collectively bargain.
I believe that Americans would support stripping Federal unions of collective bargaining power.
“I believe that Americans would support stripping Federal unions of collective bargaining power.”
I’ve made no case against it being a good idea. It would be #2 on my list after stopping illegal immigration. And a close #2 at that.
Do I think it’s possible. No. Not currently. I do not believe that the leadership of the R party will allow it. You do remember how much support Walker got from the R party (outside Wisconsin), right?
Where is the new thread? Later?
This is it, Berry.
I didn’t say “currently”. I said what I said, which is prospective.
“Now, I’ve started another thread to discuss the Walker initiative, if you want.”
Sorry, I took that as meaning it was a new thread somewhere else. I make no pretension of being able to read minds 🙂 or parse the English language as a lawyer might…
So, to sum up, you think it possible. And I don’t, not with the current R led legislature. So, nothing further to comment upon.
Check the bar on the right:
The irrelevancy of Scott Walker.
http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-irrelevancy-of-scott-walker.html
2. I didn’t and would never say Trump was a perfect interviewee. My point was that he approaches interviews and the media, in the main, with the attitude of a warrior, while most Republicans approach with the attitude of a sucker. And this isn’t an “unsupported supposition.”
_____________________________________________
Actually it is just that.
Let’s take this assertion: “…he approaches interviews and the media, in the main, with the attitude of a warrior…”
A “warrior” for WHAT? Not for conservative principles.
If anything, he’s a warrior for his own ego. That’s what his words are intended to burnish, and where his venom is expressed when he feels “attacked”. He wants and expects others to consider him “wonderful” and “YUUUUUUGH”.
He does love to be in the limelight. He loves it to a disturbing extent. Other candidates are using the media to illuminate their positions. Cruz is a good example. T-rump uses it for the reasons mentioned. He actually believes people find him profound. Which is one of the things that worry me about this cypher the most.
It was highly revealing when an interviewer asked Trump about some Middle Eastern leader — was it Qaddafi? — and the main substance of Trump’s response was how much money he made by renting a hotel room to the guy, who didn’t even use it.
For several years, people have been decrying the way Obama likes to make everything about himself. Many of those same people are more than accepting when Donald Trump does the same. They see his massive ego and braggadocio as virtues.
And of course they absolutely refuse to consider how the cult of Trump echoes the cult of Obama.
You really don’t get it?
Trump is the first Republican in my lifetime (with some sporadic and inconstant exceptions) who approaches the media with an adversarial assumption, i.e., with a warrior predisposition that something deeper is at stake in the interview worth fighting for, and that the interview itself — and the impressions that will be formed about it — are shaped by the media and may become in the end larger than the subject or issues discussed. It is a simple awareness of the media as a political player beyond the function of asking questions, i.e., as an aggressive agent of social influence, NOT as an objective third-party that deserves benefit of the doubt. This operative awareness ALONE (which I do not see in anybody else but, on occasion, Cruz and in a softer way, Carson) is a massive reason for Trump’s popularity.
That’s ALL I’ve ever been talking about, not Trump’s “conservative principles.”
“You really don’t get it?”
No, they don’t. They suffer TDS* and it obscures any discussion. You could dislike trump, but suggest he is good in an interview, and they go beserk. As seen.
Trump Derangement Syndrome
It’s a new syndrome, characterized by doing what you claim others are doing.
Walker has a proven record. He’s my guy and I couldn’t give two sh1ts how he answers (or doesn’t) gotcha questions.
Walker/Crux 2016
Walker is history. Love him or hate him, he’s going back to Wisconsin after NH primary or Iowa straw poll. He cannot hang in long enough to wait for Trump to possibly wither (which I don’t see happening anyway).
Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, appears to have no chance of dropping out.