Sep 4, 2015

Scott Walker—Unintimidated Veers into Uninformed and Unprepared

Questions abound if Scott Walker is actually smart enough to run for president

Katie Glueck in The Politico reports from the campaign trail, citing Republicans speaking on background, ripping Scott Walker as a lightweight.

Glueck's sources offer ugly comments from Republicans for Governor Meltdown.

Writes Glueck:

'[Walker] can't seem to find his way on any given issue with a handheld GPS,' an Iowa Republican said of Walker. "He's been on all three sides of every two-sided issue. For the last two months hasn't made a single policy pronouncement that he or his staff hasn't had to clarify or clear up within two hours. When you're reduced to saying 'yeah' doesn't mean 'yes,' you're in trouble. 'Unintimidated' has given way to 'uninformed' and 'unprepared.'" ...

The GOP insiders' criticism of Walker was rooted in the sense that his positions on a number of policy issues, from immigration to abortion, have shifted repeatedly, and that he has recently attempted to pander to Donald Trump voters.

'[That] plunge [in the polls] has come as a result of his inability to articulate where he stands on a single issue,' an Iowa Republican said. 'Authenticity matters in Iowa. Big time. In fact, it's the only thing that matters. Scott Walker advocated building a wall between the U.S. and Canada. How do you NOT lose the summer with a statement like that?' ...

Walker [also] left Granite Staters unimpressed.

'He's lost his lead in the make or break Iowa caucuses. He has alienated donors with his pandering to the base of the party. He is woefully unprepared in interviews. He has cemented his reputation as a shameless flip-flopper, and worst of all he has raised questions about if he is actually smart enough to run for president,' said a New Hampshire Republican.
Running for home on rightwing radio, Walker answered the question if he were actually smart enough to run for president. He's not.

Writes Trip Gabriel in the New York Times:

Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin appeared less clear on his position [on a Kentucky clerk defying the U.S. Supreme Court and a federal judge on marriage equity]. Asked by the radio host Laura Ingraham on Thursday if Ms. Davis should be compelled to issue marriage licenses, Mr. Walker said:

'It’s a balance that you’ve got to have in America between the laws that are out there, but ultimately ensuring the Constitution is upheld. I read that the Constitution is very clear, that people have the freedom of religion. That means you have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs out there.' 

In Walker's jurisprudence, any public official can practice his or her religious beliefs in refusing performance of civic duties—denying due process and equal protection to individuals because, for example, a county clerk's religion does not allow for blacks and whites to marry, same-sex couples to marry, Jews and Gentiles—Walker reads in the Unites States Constitution.

That the United States Supreme Court has ruled definitively in June "that no longer may this liberty [to marry] be denied" in direct opposition to Davis and Walker's position is of no consequence "out there."

For Scott Walker's edification, Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court:

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

No comments:

Post a Comment