Why? Because they're lamenting his disinclination to go RINO:
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's break to the right in Iowa may be a short-sighted strategy that in the long run could be detrimental to his presidential campaign, according to the New York Times.
As though (1) the New York Times gives a rat's ass about Scott Walker's nomination chances, other than to sabotage them (which would happen if he followed their malpractical advice) and (2) he isn't, just can't be, espousing his actual platform, which they can't imagine any "serious" candidate standing on and for. So of course, they conclude, he's not REALLY "crazy" but just pandering to us "far righters" to bilk us out of our votes that ought to be going to Jeb Bush in unanimity.
The Republican governor, who is anticipated to formally announce his candidacy later this month, has presented himself in Iowa, which holds the nation's first caucuses, as a hardcore social conservative stringently opposed to same-sex "marriage," immigration and the Common Core national education standards.
"Has presented himself," not "is". Because obviously the Times doesn't want Walk to gain any more broad-based traction than he already has.
His positions have led some in his party to question, publicly, whether Walker "is too willing to modify his views to aid his ambitions," according to the Times. Party leaders worry his move to the right opens the door for critics to question his authenticity and "may be jeopardizing his prospects in States where voters' sensibilities are more moderate," the newspaper says.
What a logic pretzel. He's "modifying views" he's always held, his holding of "ambitions" is somehow sinister whereas it's just "the way of things" in Hillary Clinton's case, he's "moving to the Right" in which he has always resided, and he's "inauthentic" to conservatives yet moderates are supposedly dumb enough to buy his "rightwing tack". Because, naturally, the Times is only concerned with helping the two-term Wisconsin governor in any way they can.
And yet....
His stances and stump performances have catapulted Walker to the top of the polls in Iowa and put him in the top three nationally, but could end up being a situation where he cuts off his nose to spite his face. His "far-right" positions might help him win the primary, but lose the general election, according to the Times.
Translation: "How can Scott Walker be leading? He's a rightwing extremist! Nobody I know would vote for him."
And at the New York Times, I'm sure that's true. But in America as a whole? That's a vastly different story. And that's what has them pissing themselves in terror.
But I'll give 'em this much: It's a better try at media ankle-biting than accusing him of being a dog-hater and using a Sears card. Not much better, but MSUing is pretty much all they've got.
No comments:
Post a Comment