Scott Walker: Establishment candidate

[Perd Hapley]

At a political function this morning, one of the speakers kept referring to Bush and Walker as the "establishment" candidates. I had never thought of Walker that way. What do you lot think? Is he someone the "establishment" favors?

[Ben]

Interesting. I don't at all think of him that way.

On a tangent (since you mentioned Bush), I'm very proud of the APS denizens. In Ron's poll, not a single person has chosen Bush (yet). As much as we may disagree on some of the other candidates, we're at least united there. :)

[Jocassee]

For me, at least...at this point in the continuum "Establishment" has less to do with positions than with attitude. Walker likes to fight, and he likes to win. That sets him apart.

[bedlamite]

I think the person calling him the establishment candidate wants someone else to win and is trying to paint him unfavorably.

[AJ Dual]

It's weird, but I sort of do see Walker as an "establishment candidate". Reince Priebus was his campaign manager in WI for his election and the recall elections, and his big wins there are what propelled him to the head of the party. So by that alone, Walker is very closely tied to "the establishment". His manager and closest political confidant is now head of the GOP. How more "establishment" does it get than that?

And also, Walker has been in politics his whole life, right out of college. Staffer, State Assemblyman, Milwaukee County Executive, Governor... that's his resume. So admittedly the moniker "career politician" does fit. That's another signifier of being "establishment".

At the same time, from his time battling to maintain balanced budgets in Milwaukee County with a liberal dominated board, then as Governor with the union fight, and the hippie sit-in protests at the WI Capitol going on for YEARS, and enduring the years malicious John Doe investigations (WI's crappy version of a Grand Jury) Walker's been kicking butts and taking names, and is a darling of the Tea Party/grassroots types. So he is in this odd gray area where he's both of the GOP "establishment" and a Tea-Party'ish "outsider" at the same time.

On paper, other than Jeb being the "establishment choice", and presumably Priebus needing to be "neutral" on that, it should make Walker a shoo-in, but he has a somewhat milquetoast persona and delivery, his voice is a little high and nasal, and he has a lazy eye... Unfortunately, 15 seconds of Trump is more interesting to watch and listen to, than an hour of Walker. It is what it is...

And despite the incredible political turnabout in WI that he's spearheaded, he's not actually that aggressive, he hasn't really gone picking any of these fights that he's so famous for. His strength is more in not ever giving in and seeing it through when the fight comes to him. He's more reactive than proactive in this way. And without the very strong hard-charging WI legislature behind him, and instead the weaker moderate GOP House and Senate in D.C... legislatively at least, I think a lot of people might find him a disappointment after four years.

For instance, had the WI .gov and teachers unions made some very modest concessions to their healthcare and pension contributions, maybe 10%, just enough for Walker to balance the WI state budget, they'd still have their unions, and 90% of their tax-funded gravy-train intact. And the entire shitstorm that put him on the national political stage in the first place would never have happened. Also, he was completely disinterested in passing right-to-work in WI. The state Legislature and various conservative outlets had to drag him into it. He was also rather weak on a Indian Casino deal, that I've gone into detail on in other threads.

That said, I think he'd be a "good" president, especially if he managed to pick brilliant people for his cabinet, but I don't think he'll be able to deliver a "Wisconsin Miracle" for the rest of the United States. Especially not with this spineless GOP Congress.

[Perd Hapley]

Come to think of it, this was a very social-conservative gathering, so if Walker is the least bit soft on the various social issues, or Common Core, that would probably be enough to make him "establishment."

It just surprised me, as I would have thought "Bush or Christie," before "Bush or Walker."

Oh well.

[AJ Dual]

Come to think of it, this was a very social-conservative gathering, so if Walker is the least bit soft on the various social issues, or Common Core, that would probably be enough to make him "establishment."

It just surprised me, as I would have thought "Bush or Christie," before "Bush or Walker."

Oh well.

He's 100% pro-life AFAIK, and WI just passed a law banning abortion after 20 weeks and he signed that. He doesn't hammer on it, but he's pretty socially conservative.

I don't know about common core. Seems like he's against it, but it's not a big priority to him, in his "go along to get along" default way. However, I can see how certain groups would glom onto anything as one of their hot-button litmus tests. I can recall when he was in the pre-campaign for governor, and he was wishy-washy on shall-issue CCW. It was simply because he didn't know. Once it was clear it was a hot-button issue to the Right, he was on board.

Walker hasn't explicitly advocated the Common Core education standards, but his position has varied.

During most of his first term, the governor showed tacit support. By mid-2013, he was hitting the pause button on further implementation of the standards. In mid-2014, Walker called for an outright repeal. But by January 2015, he was saying only that he didn’t want school districts required to use Common Core.

For a partial change of position and inconsistent statements, our rating is a Half Flip.

Seems to me that it really lies more with the WI legislature. They get him a bill removing Common Core, he's probably going to sign it. But that's a problem a lot of the Executive branch in any level has, the public perception they can just "do stuff", when it's really just their job to sign or veto bills. Obama's overreach notwithstanding.

[MechAg94]

Every time I think certain political designations have fixed/common meanings, I meet or hear of someone who has a wildly different definition.  I think it gets that way more often when the voter's critical issues contain a lot of emotion.

[Scout26]

Walker hasn't explicitly advocated the Common Core education standards, but his position has varied.

During most of his first term, the governor showed tacit support. By mid-2013, he was hitting the pause button on further implementation of the standards. In mid-2014, Walker called for an outright repeal. But by January 2015, he was saying only that he didn’t want school districts required to use Common Core.

For a partial change of position and inconsistent statements, our rating is a Half Flip.

I'm not sure where you got that from (I'm suspecting from some "factchecker" site), but given the fact that Illinois wholeheartedly embraced Common Core and jumped in with both feet, it wasn't until the last 2 years (2013 and 2014) that the CC curriculum and standards have been phased in.   So showing "tacit support" for something untried and then after seeing the results being against it, is not, in my mind a "half flip", but observing the results and making changes when something is obviously not working. 

I guess that's another difference between liberals and conservatives.   When something fails or doesn't work, the liberal response is to do it harder and throw more money at it.  The conservative response to implement Plan B* (or C, or D etc.) and/or go back to drawing board and start over.



*- Plan B could very well be going back and doing it the old way...

[AJ Dual]

I'm not sure where you got that from (I'm suspecting from some "factchecker" site), but given the fact that Illinois wholeheartedly embraced Common Core and jumped in with both feet, it wasn't until the last 2 years (2013 and 2014) that the CC curriculum and standards have been phased in.   So showing "tacit support" for something untried and then after seeing the results being against it, is not, in my mind a "half flip", but observing the results and making changes when something is obviously not working. 

I guess that's another difference between liberals and conservatives.   When something fails or doesn't work, the liberal response is to do it harder and throw more money at it.  The conservative response to implement Plan B* (or C, or D etc.) and/or go back to drawing board and start over.



*- Plan B could very well be going back and doing it the old way...

I agree that the analysis is given an inch, and takes a mile there. My overall take is that Walker's vaguely against common core, but only insomuch as the population makes him aware of it, or the legislature gets busy with repealing/removing it. He's pretty laser focused on fiscal responsibility above all else, and he prioritizes pretty aggressively. For a similar situation, I go back to his disinterest in Right-to-Work here in WI. Partly because of promises he made during the fights with the Democrats over the .gov unions to try and weaken private union support. 

However, when the legislature got busy with Right-to-Work, he signed it, and did not throw them any roadblocks.

I think he sees Common Core, and weighs the damage it might be doing, perhaps taking a grain of salt with the complaints and hand-wringing over it, and then weighs that against the expense/difficulty of ripping it all out, which is probably why he was in support of not mandating it, and letting individual school districts/school boards do as they saw fit.

There is sort of an attitude of "We're conservative, you're conservative... now do and ram through every last thing we want" most everywhere in America, (I guess the Left gets that from Obama and his Constitutional overreaches?) meanwhile they're not making a big enough stink to get the issue on the stage, or doing the more diffuse and harder work of getting the issue taken up by the legislature.

OTOH, he's got the bully pulpit in WI, and it couldn't hurt for him, or take much time to say something more decisive about it, and then stick with it. But that goes back to him not being exactly the kind of fighter people across the country think he is. He's got tenacity and immense strength, once dragged into the fight. He doesn't go looking for fights, or poking bears for the hell of it.