Scott Walker vs. The New York Times

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by vrDrew, Jul 15, 2015.

  1. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #1
    Columnist Frank Bruni has a column in today's New York Times that pretty much excoriates newly-announced Republican candidate Scott Walker.

    Nothing particularly surprising there. But what was striking to me was to read through the comments. Almost 260 posted comments by 8.00 am. And not one, not one, that was in any meaningful way supportive of Walker as a candidate, as a politician, or as a human being.

    I don't kid myself that the readership of the New York Times is representative of the US electorate as a whole. And I don't necessarily think that the sort of people who write and read the pages of the Old Gray Lady have any sort of monopoly on political, economic, or social wisdom.

    But there is something quite jarring in the fact that a man believed to have at least a credible shot at gaining the Presidential nomination of one of our two major political parties should have (apparently) zero appeal in the particular slice of American society that creates and consumes what was once thought of our national Newspaper of Record. I don't know if this says more about the decline of the Republican party in general, or the dilution of great national newspapers in our Balkanized media universe.

    Who needs to convince the Times op-ed board you'd be a decent choice for President, if all you've got to do is show up on Hannity or O'Reilly with flag lapel pin and mouth-breathe platitudes?
     
  2. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #2
    The whole thing goes back to 1992 and Buchanan's (then) shocking "take back America" speech in Houston at the GOP convention. After that the right figured no holds barred in shock radio if a pol could talk like that on national television. The race to the bottom was on. We should not be surprised that its effects have shown up in the quality of candidates for Congressi as well the presidential contests.

    It's not that candidates of good character and track record don't exist or don't ever win; they do run and they have sometimes won. I'm impressed by some of the wanna-be nonpartisan younger men and women who have won House seats in the past few years. It's also getting harder for candidates with hateful views to pitch them in primaries and ditch them in the general campaign later on.

    But the primary seasons' jockeying for the top slot now seems permanently beset by unsuitable candidates banking on shock tactics and ideological obsessions to help draw fringe money, fringe votes and lowest-common-denominator infotainment value just to keep them in the picture.

    I still cite the 1992 GOP convention as a seminal cause of that, even though there are members of both parties who now routinely ride shockwaves to office. I could be wrong but I might be too old (or, ornery) to change my mind about it now.
     
  3. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #3
    Scott Walker is not a notable 50 state candidate and probably isn't known much at all within 10 miles of the Hudson River.

    I only know him because of the 24 hour coverage MSNBC put on him a couple of years back when you was fighting with Labor. Beyond that I have no idea what the man has done or what his specific politics are.

    And that is probably the case for most of the mouth breathers posting comments on the Times piece. All they need to know is it's a GOP hit piece. Facts and particulars are a secondary consideration.
     
  4. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #4
    Scott Walker sure has liberals wringing their hands.
     
  5. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #5
    Not just liberals!

    Wisconsin’s Republican attorney general, plus conservative AND liberal groups recently hammered on Walker and pals over an effort to water down open records laws via language put into a budget bill. The effort was withdrawn... temporarily.

    http://www.progressive.org/news/2015/07/188206/walker’s-attack-open-records-‘more-coincidence’

     
  6. xmichaelp macrumors 68000

    xmichaelp

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    #6
    As a Minnesota resident, Scott Walker is a clown. How exactly does Walker or Jindal think they could win the presidency? They are both bad Governors and aren't particularly popular in their states.
     
  7. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #7
    They think they can ride the anti-Obama wave.
     
  8. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #8
    There are many ways to characterize Scott Walker, but I wouldn't start with "clown." And he’s the governor of Wisconsin, not Minnesota.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0713/Scott-Walker-2016-rock-star-or-villain-video

    Excerpt:

    Walker is a rock star to many national Republicans for pushing an aggressively conservative agenda and for winning statewide election three times in four years in a battleground state with a rich progressive history. In 2012, he became the only governor in US history to survive a recall election, spurred by his successful drive to limit the collective bargaining rights of most state public workers. In short, as far as conservative voters are concerned, Walker has a proven track record both on policy and in electoral politics.

    The piece does go on to outline some of his drawbacks as a national candidate, and they’re not surprising, since even in Wisconsin he’s a polarizing figure.
     
  9. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #9
    And yet Walker has managed to win a statewide election and defeat a recall attempt. Not bad for someone who isn't particularly popular.:rolleyes:
     
  10. vrDrew thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #10


    Wisconsin has quite a history of producing Governors who went on to fall utterly flat when trying to further their ambitions nationally. Tommy Thompson, anyone?

    Maybe its the accent.

    Actually, I'm only slightly kidding about that. Because there really is something about the south eastern Wisconsin accent that has a certain "uncanny valley" quality about it. Its very similar to the standard midwestern speech we've loved from Johnny Carson to David Letterman. But its also just a little bit off.

    It quite literally doesn't play well in Peoria (where Wisconsinites are detested as Cheeseheads or Packer fans) . But I certainly don't see it playing any better in Bakersfield or Key Biscayne.
     
  11. smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #11
    Yeah he's somebody we definitely don't need to worry about being president. Thankfully.
     
  12. Praxis91 macrumors regular

    Praxis91

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #12
    The NYT embarrassed themselves with their screwup regarding Ted Cruz so now they are just going down the list. I can't wait for the Hillary hit pieces... LOL
     
  13. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #13
    Not so fast. In politics it matters not only what stance is taken on an issue, but how it’s delivered. That’s particularly true when it comes to how the GOP’s base hears things.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...itical-consequences-iran-nuclear-deal/398513/

    Tough Is Back

    The Republican candidates for president don’t disagree much on policy, but they diverge greatly in tone. Jeb Bush is conciliatory, Marco Rubio is inspirational, and Scott Walker is tough. “Tough" is about to become the most important quality for a Republican nominee.

    Now that assertion about “toughness” pertained to the topic of the piece which was reaction to conclusion of negotiations with Iran. But, at least in the primaries, I would not be so quick to dismiss Walker’s chances anyway. Walker has several things going for him: executive experience as a governor, tenacity in having defeated a recall effort and a confrontational attitude. The first two would serve him well in any campaign.

    But being confrontational in a general election on any ideologically polarizing issue means that his rating drops to 10% max among Democrats, and not much better among independents to whom some issue may matter more if they disagree with Walker’s position and he’s aggressive about it.

    In the USA now, one needs to be able to draw swing voters. Walker’s tone can be a liability there for sure. Whoever runs for the GOP better be practicing some Reagan-era sunny optimism in the general election. Why? Because swing voters are not usually johnny-one-noters. They have opinions on most issues but will tolerate differences between what they think and what the candidate says, unless the candidate does the equivalent of stepping up to the voter and pushing a finger into his chest repeatedly while asserting something the voter happens to disagree with.

    The Democrats often have a somewhat easier transition to general elections, as they’ve usually had to be more respectful of quite diverse viewpoints in their base, even during a primary. Some Republicans call that political correctness. Others, including some center right Republicans, call respect for diverse opinion a way to win in polarized times. Whatever you want to call it, Scott Walker has less of it than any of Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich. It may be obvious enough to deter big donors from backing Walker’s run. But Walker's track record looks more conservative, which is important if the GOP is to draw out its base. Time will tell!
     
  14. Praxis91 macrumors regular

    Praxis91

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #14
    You don't necessarily need swing voters. You need white voters. Romney got about the same Hispanic vote as Reagan so that demo is a nonissue. He didn't get whitey.
     
  15. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #15
    You're partisanship is showing...

    Keep in mind that conservatives have been trying to game bestseller lists for more than a decade by using bulk-purchases to gin up a particular title. Of course, they didn't invent the practice, instead, there are repeated instances through the 80's and 90's by different authors and marketing companies attempting to create the illusion that a book is selling well.

    There are even companies, the most well-known is ResultSource, that actually try to game bestseller lists for a fee.

    That's why the NY Times list started using the 'dagger' symbol to indicate reports of bulk purchases in 2011.

    Back when I ran a bookstore, we had a local conservative group order and purchase nearly 1,000 titles and then three weeks later, return those books. Those books were reported as sales during that week, but shouldn't have been counted by Bookscan or the NYT.

    I also know that other conservative foundations were publishing books and then including them as giveaways for donations, again creating the feel of a readership where none existed.

    Of course, the NYT Bestseller list is not a numerical tally, but rather works on a secret formula that includes Bookscan numbers, as well as other sources. Some have complained that the list doesn't properly sample book sales at places like CostCo and Walmart, and over-samples small bookstores.

    Also, keep in mind that the Times has shifted the list over time, as new genres overtake the old—for instance, two decades ago there wasn't a separate children's list, and today, the Times' doesn't track classics.

    Lastly, there's a separation between the guys running the Bestseller list and the editorial board of the paper, so Bruni didn't write this piece to protect the Times, he wrote the piece because he doesn't seem to like Yet Another GOP Candidate for President, Scott Walker.

    Personally, I don't like him because he doesn't seem to understand the difference between hair cut and haircut.
     
  16. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #16
    I love the Wisconsin accent. It is only slightly off from middle-American, and yet, very difficult to mimic correctly. That doesn't help me with Scott Walker, though.

    Where is that Studs Terkel thing-- Working? The one where the person (cab driver?) says "We're number one!" Asked if he was number one, he replies that he is "number nothing". Scott Walker is following the standard playbook since Barry Goldwater: support the super-rich, and, they will support you, plus, manipulate threatened voters. It worked for Ronald Reagan, and, it could certainly get Scott Walker nominated from a large field of weak Republican candidates.
     
  17. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #17
    I'll just leave this here...


    And this...

     
  18. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #18
    ^^ :D Yep, that flat A can drive you nuts. It's prevalent up in Rochester (NY) for some reason too. The word "back" almost sounds like "beee-ack". Some people in the deep south also make near-diphthongs out of one-syllable words but they're not the SAME words (e.g., south makes "pen" sound almost like "pin" or "payn" or even "pee-in"). I've always thought if someone from Rochester and someone from rural Louisiana ended up alone in the same room, they'd have to use Google's translation functions just to have a "nice weather today" type of conversation.

    OK but Walker can pick up some immersion course in standard national US TV anchor dialect... the question remains whether the big donors will take a flyer on him based on his right wing domestic chops and ignore his weaknesses on foreign policy. Even if "it's the economy, stupid" in 2016, or the more probable "it's the wealth gap, stupid" no one should forget that Clinton was Secretary of State. The GOP segment that encourages chants of "Benghazi Benghazi" does so at its own peril if they run Walker against Clinton in the fall.

    Sure, he's probably picked up some pointers since last spring when he compared his fight with labor in Wisconsin to a potential contest with ISIS (!)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...b347b0-c286-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html

    but his bellicose attitudes towards Iran, Russia and China, in particular, would invite Clinton to test his knowledge of how our global alliances work. He seems to have that scary "you're with us or you're against us" mentality. We've been down the road with someone like that in the White House already and ended up in a situation in Iraq that makes you wonder if we're inadvertently like the French in Algeria all over again, in which case we're looking at year 12 of a 130-year effort to get out of what took a day and a half to get into. I mean the French wanted to exploit the place, not necessarily own it. But they bought it and they (and Algerians, and the world) are still paying a price even now, half a century after Algerian independence.

    The thing is, no one should confuse Iran with Iraq, regardless of what any neocons might suggest. There can be no walking into Iran figuring anyone will strew flowers in our path. I'm not sure Walker's grasp of the region's history or its relationships with the West has any nuances at all.

    On that score even Jeb Bush's alarming brag that his brother is his foreign policy guru is actually somewhat comforting. Surely W. has confided a few "in hindsight..." observations to Jeb. I don't know who's confiding what to Walker. But some of the tutors doubtless have liberate-Iran agendas in mind. So to me, Walker is a liability in being pretty much a blank slate on global affairs.
     
  19. Praxis91 macrumors regular

    Praxis91

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #19
    The NYT got caught in a lie and your response was not to say "yea they screwed up and were called out on it" but more excuses. Talk about partisanship showing! Are you still sad about Hillary's book failure?
     
  20. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #20
    Why shouldn't the Times or any other constructor of a best seller list try to make a list that's free of bulk purchases that don't reflect individual consumer interest in a particular book? If I know the author of a cookbook about South Asian food and I have a huge extended family of South Asian relatives, I could drive into some upstate town around here this afternoon and jack up their local paper's best seller list by buying as few as 25 copies of that cookbook.
     
  21. vrDrew thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #21
    I don't think you really understand the purpose of the New York Times Bestseller lists:

    They aren't there for the convenience of political campaigns. They are there as a means of informing Times readers what other people are reading. And its a well-known fact that authors, publishing houses, and - yes - political campaigns attempt to "game" the system through bulk purchases. Sarah Palin book sales

    as did Ben Carson:

    A truckload of books that sits, shrink-wrapped in a warehouse someplace doesn't really count as something people are reading.

    You are accusing the Times of doing precisely what (mostly Republican) Presidential Candidates do: Game the system to create a false impression.

    There is a name for that sort behavior: Psychological Projection.

    One interesting tidbit from this weeks Times best-seller list: Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's Hitlers Last Days comes in at #3 in the "Children's Middle Grade" category. Which struck me as particularly interesting. Firstly, because if the Times really was involved in some sort of nefarious plot to squelch the influence of conservative thought in this country - why do (legitimate) best-sellers like O'Reilly's keep showing up there?

    But more interestingly, I'm not sure I'd really count the horrific events in the last days of the Fuhrerbunker as really being appropriate reading matter for 10-14 year olds. But then I haven't read the book.
     
  22. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #22
    More like Cruz and Co. got caught trying to brew a tempest in a teacup. "Look how they hate us! Look how the liberal media tries to silence us" he screamed, while ignoring the fact that not only has their Bestseller list played host to many a conservative book in the past, but has one of Ann Coulter's book currently sitting at No.# 11.

    I've come to the conclusion that if there's one thing the far, far right is incredibly good at, it's making themselves out to be victims to play to their persecution complex suffering fanbase.
     
  23. Praxis91 macrumors regular

    Praxis91

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #23
    I'm not talking about anyone except best-selling author Ted Cruz. The butthurt NYT made up some ******** about his booksales and even Amazon told NYT they were full of ****. It's hilarious!!!!!!!!!
     
  24. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #24
    If you can't come up with a good rebuttal, then repeat yourself. If reality doesn't conform to your opinions, then deny reality!

    Really, let's think about this logically for a second. What does the NYT gain from gaming their own list for political purposes? Nothing. If it truly deserves a spot on their list, then it's already sell well. Word of mouth is spreading. People will be reading it regardless, so it's not like they're accomplishing anything but spite for the sake of spite by doing so.

    Have they ever done this previously? No. They've hosted many conservative authors on their list before.

    What do they risk losing by doing this? Their reputation.

    So with absolutely nothing to gain, but a lot to lose, why would they do it?

    ...because they're LIBERALS?
     
  25. Praxis91 macrumors regular

    Praxis91

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #25
    Why do I need any kind of rebuttal? The NYT will do anything to try to discredit an author with which they disagree, especially if it means having to advertise the opposition less on their best seller's list. I am calling out their LIES. That's the reality. NYT lied. They lied because they hate the idea of Ted Cruz being a successful author.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/media...e-of-bulk-sales-for-ted-cruz-book-210374.html

    NYT are partisan **** heads.

    I'm done with you, kid.
     

Share This Page