Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Ignorance Is Bliss

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who has hopes of becoming a Republican presidential nominee, had this to say in an interview on Fox News.

"I think there's a lot of Americans who have looked at some of the leaders we've had over the last few years who've come out of those Ivy League schools and said, 'Maybe it's time we got people who are in touch with people all across the rest of the America'".

You mean like George W. Bush? Oh...wait.


Brat Worst said...

You can mock Walker for many legitimate reasons, but you miss his point here. Walker is in fact running, at least rhetorically, against both the Bush and Clinton dynasties, both deeply part of the East Coast Ivy League power establishment. As was Obama (Harvard Law).

It's hard to argue that America's troubles of the past (pick a number of) years do not correlate with Ivy League educations, given that the powerful scions brag of degrees granted by these overly self-satisfied institutions. However, voters feel that the "smartest" mess up and the "dumbest" have to bail them out, again and again.

Democrats making an issue of Walker's (lack of) a college degree from a MidWestern Catholic university--or Jeb's University of Texas degree--choose the losing side of the elitism debate.

The simplest fact here for voters is that the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, (Wellesley, Yale, married to Georgetown, Oxford, and Harvard), has literally taken hundreds of millions of dollars in "speech fees," "foundation donations," "book purchases," and, of course, campaign donations, from these same self-interested, incompetent coastal elites.

All the Democrats have are the Kansas Kochs as a tool against Walker. Sorry, Walker is playing a winning hand here.

It's sad that Walker holds the University of Wisconsin hostage to his presidential ambitions, but, then again, it's no Hahvahd so who cares? Right Democrats? And if Wisconsin mattered to Democrats, why didn't Obama put on his "soft shoes" and march with striking workers there, as he promised in his 2008 campaign?

Democrats simply can't accept that a corrupt dumb-ass Midwesterner has repeatedly proven more politically astute than their own corrupt dumb-ass "Harvards" (as LBJ, Southwest Texas State Teachers College, used to say).

And here come the Harvards with their secret, elitist, corrupt, anti-democratic, anti-labor TPP, just in time for an election about income disparity.

Smart ain't it.

Yeah, you betcha.

50 States of Grey said...

I think the Democrats' continuing debacle isn't about elitism. They just don't believe in anything, and show it. That makes true believer performance artists like Walker look more decisive and attractive. At least you know what you'll get with Walker. After decades of center-stage drama and spotlight, what the hell does Hillary believe?

Democrats know some will vote for Clinton because she's a woman, and some will vote for her as the nominal Democrat. But nobody will vote for Hillary Clinton because she's Hillary Clinton. In the absence of either policy or personal integrity or charisma, how can she win? Only with a "worster" GOPer? Is Not Walker a sufficient rallying cry?

In 2014, Democrats ran as luke-warm Republicans and lost. Then, with both houses controlled by Republicans, the White House SOTU returned to winning themes from 2008. But why didn't Democrats pass community college support etc when they held Congress and the White House? Looks very cynical. Camoflage for the TPP, yes, the real Democratic goal, but one they share with Republicans. Same difference, deja vu all over again. Another plebiscite with options "yes" and "yes."

I halfway expect a maveric billionaire to run, given the lack of any heft or personality to either "party." Somebody from Silicon Valley who believes in global warming?

There's almost no voter excitement except perhaps for a formal election boycott movement to spank the powerful. How low can voter turnout go?

Boring Bertha said...

It's not what Hillary is for, it's whom. She HAS had a clear message for years now--bragging on her "hard work" for her paymasters, ie Wall Street benefiting from deregulation and corporations profiting from unprotected labor abroad.

You'll have a hard time finding a Silicon Valley exec who doesn't support TPP. They wrote it. You may be right about an independent elite candidate though. Whatevs.

Cynical or not, the SOTU raised the President's positives. Democrats are scrambling: the Fed is sitting on interest rates, suddenly there's immigration reform, maybe a Keystone veto, and Obama is beating the war drum in case nothing else sticks. I imagine we'll be on the ground in a dozen countries come September 2016. Notice AUMF still in place, with a proposed executive powers cherry on top.

Democratic elites do care that they are stuck in the electoral mud. They have some inkling that simply throwing money in the hole is not enough.

I agree with the implication that they are too confident on the turnout of identity voters. In 2008, they did identity right, as a spur to higher voter turnout, as ADDITIONAL votes from the base in a policy-driven campaign (however fraudulent the promises) and a charismatic candidate. (Though, whatever happened to the charisma?)

Lately though, Democrats seem more about turning off non-identity voters (to use an awkward term) than exciting all voters. They don't get that a vote is a vote. They want certain votes, and spurn others.

One example: The Democrats' anti-due process Title IX harassment procedures on campuses may not have registered with many older Americans (except maybe parents), but the policy is turning off a whole crucial generation of young male voters. The male victimhood theme plays right into the hands of campus Republicans, or, more likely, apathy. Senator Gillibrand did national Democrats no favors at the SOTU, though I suppose you could argue she was a bold Democrat for a change.

What Obama 2008 got right by offering an inclusion narrative about expanding opportunity is now increasingly about exclusion and a diminution of rights.

Voila: Enter Walker and his vilification of academia and elites. A message for the political moment and carefully targeted in terms of demographics.

Dirty Northeast said...

Gillibrand is bold in the same way Iggy Azelia is the authentic voice of Atlanta hiphop. Both are entertaining, but Iggy would probably make the better pol. Is she a citizen? Can Gillibrand rap? Trade?

I have the Senator prepping for a White House run eventually. She's not just Hillary's heir apparent, but has the same sense of scruples. Follow the money.


Gillibrand and Walker share one identity issue: both are post-Boomers. The Clintons, the boomiest boomers of all boom time carry that burden into the elections. Even boomers are tired of boomers. Obama won as a post-boomer than inexplicably went down the hypocrisy road. Here's a slogan: Move on.

WaPo tried to tabulate the Clinton buh-boomer-Billions today, btw, just the foundation. It's nice that at least SOMEONE got rich from WTO/NAFTA/bank deregulation...just think how much student loams that could have paid off. Well, at least Chelsie didn't lose HER "college fund."

OK, I concede a smidge of elitism may exist on their part...

Professor Shorthairs said...

I don't understand how the Clintons' speech fees can be legally different than Sheldon Silver's legal billing scam. (Silver is the New York State assembly speaker under indictment for corruption.) The Clintons took MILLIONS from corporations and individuals with business before the White House, Senate, and State Department in exchange for hour-long "speeches." Why the double standard of prosecution in the US attorney's office? Are the Clintons too big to fail?

Gris Gris said...

The Clintons are too big to jail.

Not just too big, but the scam is too blatant, gone on too long, involves payoffs to too many elite officials and media members, and, worst of all, would involve foreign nationals, including Saudis, the Chinese, and Keystone Canadians. You'd also have to re-delve into her 2008 campaign finances, which already resulted in one conviction.

It may be possible to shut down this seedy operation by going after their speech fee bag man, though. Would just take a local D.A. I'd think.

There's a similar idea afoot to charge some of the torturers and their lackeys, and possibly even Holder, for conspiracy, corruption, and accessory after the fact. Charge them and let the courts throw it out.

Of course, there is also the option of foreign prosecution, particularly for torture, but probably for the Clintons' activities as well. Lots of laws need to be looked at.

I'm amazed that Democrats are really going down this very treacherous path. Should be fun, though, since this election isn't really about anything else.

Jean Louis Finch said...

Speaking of Harvard Law, ignorance, and the Title IX campus quasi-judicial system--from a Harvard law professor:

"I recently assisted a young man who was subjected by administrators at his small liberal arts university in Oregon to a month-long investigation into all his campus relationships, seeking information about his possible sexual misconduct in them (an immense invasion of his and his friends’ privacy), and who was ordered to stay away from a fellow student (cutting him off from his housing, his campus job, and educational opportunity) — all because he reminded her of the man who had raped her months before and thousands of miles away. He was found to be completely innocent of any sexual misconduct and was informed of the basis of the complaint against him only by accident and off-hand. But the stay-away order remained in place, and was so broadly drawn up that he was at constant risk of violating it and coming under discipline for that."

So, will this young man still vote for the Democrats who brought about this policy?

Walker sounds wise and sane in comparison.

30 pieces of Silver said...

One dollar is a bribe.
One thousand is a campaign donation.
One million is a speech fee.
One billion is a foundation.
One trillion? The Clintons are pleased to meet you!

Anonymous said...

The Clown Car of the Republican Presidential hopefuls is filling fast. Can you imagine someone like Walker being our President. Walker is so bad he could even make Reagan look good.

Merica H. Christ said...

I can remember when no one would believe clowns like Reagan and W could win, let alone twice each. Isn't it rich? Democrats always misunderestimate.

30, as a former New Yorker, I doubt Silver will roll on the Clintons. But Cuomo obviously fears something. Maybe he should?

Gillibrand aka HRC Deux could use some executive experience, right?

The Clinton camp seems to be trying to line up primary challengers, HRC remember's that Biden's stalking horse bid helped Obama (and Biden). Biden from the right, and Warren from the left. Concede and throw support after Super Tuesday, scripted and paid. Without challengers, no public interest.

Title IX--big split between fed Dems and state/university Dems. Law schools in full rebellion. Look also at the Olympia Supremes who struck down
preponderance in the criminal ststutes. Colleges are trying to palm off the liability by putting students (and parents' homeowners?) in charge. Pros refuse the IC admin positions. The beancounters are furious at the payouts to the defamed. And the changes haven't laid a glove on rapey football culture--those guys just go get lawyers, allowed or not.

Meanwhile the Clintons "leaked" Hillary's experience defending a statutory rapist back in Arkansas through their in-house "conservatives": message, we believe in due process.

All in all, hard to tie up in a partisan package, about to collapse under it's own weight.

Nut Sac said...

Well, if this issue is national Democrats versus state party, someone forget to tell Sacramento Democrats. A law student friend of mine likes to say that California puts the "loco" in "in loco parentis."

I'm not sure how it will eventually play out here, but I'd say that the generational split seems to be growing larger than partisan or even gendered reactions. There is a real sense of invasive overreach by "nannies" or "Uncle Brown" by both men and women.

Some men feel that popular men are more likely targets. Which led to this gendered/generational/partisan observation: "basically, this is Hillary going after Bill, trying to nip young Bills in the bud before they meet Monica."

Progressives should listen to students--all students--and not politicians or campus administrators on this one. Common ground may come from a sense that campus women are not in fact better served in campus proceedings than they would be by going direct to the cops. Many students feel this way already.

Campus brass are not disinterested actors, and can be pretty creepy themselves. Why should they know the most intimate details of student lives? How will they use this information? How will they direct "investigations"?

Wait for the real scandals to come, I'd say. There are few safeguards here to protect students from their "protectors."

Ho Man Squared said...

Looks like Clinton Democrats may be beatable, at least in Chicago.

What would Jesus do?

Will he be different than corporate concubine Rahm?

Will he send protesters and people of color to Gitmo style black sites for torture, and even murder?

Will he be on the bribery gravy train?

With the Clintons and their henchmen setting such a low bar, could he possibly be any worse?

Progressives are considering an endorsement as a proxy battle for 2016.