Bowsite.com

""There’s perhaps no Republican operative from the establishment side of the party, however, who’s been more effective in eliminating conservatives nationwide throughout the movement in recent years—and Team Walker’s decision to bring Dayspring aboard just a few months after the similarly problematic Liz Mair was let go could backfire in a significant way. The 2016 GOP presidential primary is shaking out to mirror the larger fight inside the Republican Party—the conservative grassroots is hungry for a Washington outsider, while the establishment side of the party is more interested in attempting yet again to win a general election without the GOP base.

Brad Dayspring is well known as a despicable establishment operative who specializes in slander and character assassination against conservative candidates,” Mississippi state Sen. Chris McDaniel—one such conservative Dayspring personally frequently attacked—told Breitbart News exclusively on Wednesday. “He is the perfect example of why conservatives no longer trust the GOP. He’s little more than a paid attack dog, without principle and honor, the personification of everything wrong with our present political system. ""

“Scott Walker appears to be a good man with solid conservative instincts. But his hiring of the unstable Dayspring is an insult to honorable political discourse. If Dayspring is aligned with Walker, then conservatives should be warned to look elsewhere for leadership.”

Being a GOP establishment sort, it is odd that you would post an article which describes a GOP operative as a political attack dog who goes after Tea Party types. I thought the EGOP didn't do that kind of thing.

That said, it bears watching.

You can kiss my behind, you are starting to sound a lot like Spike, spreading your lies and unsubstantiated twaddle, all hat-no cattle. So unless you are going to back up your shallow drive by drivel (I am part of EGOP) keep off of my threads. Only ignorant petulant child dullards can not see the difference between sitting home, whining, complaining, doing nothing but empty jaw jacking and voting.

Still waiting for the so called effective plan of action the ball takers have besides cutting off their nose to despite their angry lashing out tin-foil nonsensical diatribe faces.

Thank God our Founding Fathers and The Greatest Generation where more than a bunch of harping, whinging blatherskites.

Now there's a truly adult response and a valuable, well thought out contribution to the conversation.

"you are starting to sound a lot like Spike"

Dang, man! You insult me and then pay me a nice compliment!? How's that?

"Only ignorant petulant child dullards can not see the difference between sitting home, whining, complaining, doing nothing but empty jaw jacking and voting."

The difference between "sitting home, whining, complaining, doing nothing but empty jaw jacking and voting"........ and what? That is incoherent and unreadable. But in fairness, you can't know what political activity I am involved in, nor what I have done, or not done, to back up my political beliefs.

Your posts heretofore have INDICATED that you support the establishment GOP leadership and the decisions they make in their efforts to put down real Conservatives. A GOP leadership which seeks to eliminate real Conservative candidates, and then denies doing so.

If I have mistaken your intent, I do apologize.

I simply pointed out the fact that you posted an article which clearly stated "There’s perhaps no Republican operative from the establishment side of the party, however, who’s been more effective in eliminating conservatives nationwide throughout the movement in recent years."

Must have hit a sensitive spot. Did not really intend to, but apparently did. No offense meant.....just looking for a back-and-forth mild debate with what I consider to be an intelligent fellow.

"Still waiting for the so called effective plan of action the ball takers have besides cutting off their nose"

slade, I don't want in the middle of this, but I urge you to honestly look at the last two presidential elections and tell me whether they look like any more of an effective plan than whatever the anti-establishment types decide to do going forward. Destroying your base isn't an effective plan.

Show me where I have supported Boehner,McConnell or their ilk! I support actually doing something like voting.

Yes, I am vehemently against ball taking. Too many lives were sacrificed to give and maintain that right for me, along with my grandfather who emigrated here by himself at the age of 17 from a country without these rights so I may have them. I will be dammed if I am going to sit idly by while the naysayers support giving it up so freely.

You will not find me among those who have decided not to vote. I share your appreciation for that right, and will keep voting as long as I still have the right.

Perhaps I have misinterpreted your words in regard to the Republican establishment. I will go back and try to determine your real intent.

Again, no offense intended. I really did not consider that you might be offended by being associated with today's Republican Party.

Talk about taking the low road.

The Rock

1. If he works for Walker, he won't be working for Bush or Christie,

2. Who better to advise Walker about he'll be likely be attacked than a guy who has done well at attacking conservatives? Remember, a lot of top companies have hired hackers in order to help them make their electronic data harder to hack.

Another possibility is that with so many candidates the availability of people able to do the job is pretty limited.

NOBODY running is always going to make decisions I like (or the right decision which may or may not be the same thing). Only one person ever walked the earth and made no mistakes - and they tortured and killed Him.

This fits with my thread about getting to know the candidates. It would be a mistake to discard any one of them too hastily for making one move that we think is a mistake.

Walker has done more to stop the leftist agenda than possibly the rest of the field combined. That doesn't mean that he is automatically the right candidate, but discarding him too soon just plays into the hands of the leftists who will intentionally spread any information (or disinformation) that will discourage the most adamant conservatives from supporting a candidate.

Sun Tzu in "The Art of War" stated that if you know yourself and your opponent you will not come to harm though you engage in thousands of battles." He also stated the obvious outcome of not knowing your opponent.

Absent any revelations of ill intent I'd tend to label this as a prudent, reasoned move.

My father dabbled a bit in local politics and from his reminisces I can tell you all that sometimes the campaign manager advises a hire or an audience to his or her candidate and the candidate may follow that recommendation, listen to the hire and if the fit isn't good dismiss them.

Scott Walker isn't a gutter politician; he could not have the resolve and moral backbone to have shouldered what he has in Wisconsin without having the core values and principles to support those actions. Wallowing in the mud would be completely inconsistent with what he has shown me to date.

WRT folks in that line of "business" always remember that one of the tops in that field, Carville, is MARRIED to Mary Matalin, his republican mirror image. They must have a "switch" they turn on and off at will. Sort of like a lawyer who has to defend a child molester or some slime. It's your job.

Otherwise I would expect some very interesting conversations around their dinner table at the end of the day..... as well as plates thrown...

The company you keep.....

You didn't read all the posts here, did you? You simply looked at the first post, then responded. Right?

If you can take the time, read Walkers book, "Unintimidated."

Then look at his record.

Then come back here and tell us why he's not a conservative!

"I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in."

That may be the case here.

Mike,

Have you or anyone at the time of voting knew your candidate was going to eventually " wallow in the mud" once they to got to Washington?

You can't go to the greatest mud hole on earth ( Washington) and not expect to get dirty. If he does not get dirty he never really went into the mud hole did he?

C'mon. This is a year in and year out event. Another politician with another pitch. Hiring 2 black hats only reveals his hidden uncanny grasp of the devious mind.

The Rock

Yep, I sure did, and I have followed Scott Walker's career with interest over the years. However, just because you are eager to bat away anything that would call into question how you feel about him doesn't mean that I will. You have a well documented history in this forum of shouting down anyone who dares to question one of your chosen candidates (see Romney, Mitt).

I don't question Walker's fiscal or pro-business bonafides (except on the illegal immigration issue). However, I do have some uneasiness about his positions and his resolve on social issues. From your warm embrace of Romney in 2012, it was plainly obvious that you were much more focused on the fiscal issues, considering that Romney's time as Governor in Mass. was a showcase of what a disaster he was on social issues.

You can learn an awful lot about people from the company they keep. I'm not going to give Walker the benefit of the doubt for hiring Liz Mair, but at least he got rid of her quickly after the uproar. We'll see what he does with Dayspring, but I will say that even if he gets rid of him, that's twice now in the span of a few months that he has hired someone for his Presidential campaign who has a history of being hostile to genuine Conservatism. There's starting to be some smoke in the air, and where there is smoke....

My fear is he hired Dayspring to keep the conservative/tea party at bay when he jumps to the middle to get the Chamber of Commerce support and $. The only alternative is he/his campaign have a serious lack of judgement.

Obama wrote a couple of books and lied throughout them.

Yeah, the same Santorum who went off the cliff fiscally and went pro-union every election year!

The same Santorum who lost his Senate re-election bid by 17 points!

Yeah, that Santorum, the Clown Candidate!

A)You assume the candidate gets to Washington, B)you assume they will by default "wallow in the mud" and C)if your predictive powers were anywhere near what you seem to intimate I'd wonder why I haven't seen your smiling face holding up a winning PowerBall ticket yet.

Wallowing in the mud would be completely inconsistent with what he has shown me to date.

Now if you have a bone to pick with that statement and can lay those facts out on the table then by all means do so and dispense with the Madame Ouija board tripe.

You can't go to the greatest mud hole on earth ( Washington) and not expect to get dirty. If he does not get dirty he never really went into the mud hole did he?

If you are intimating that not a single soul in the history of our representative republic has not fallen prey to this phenomenon than again, by all means please lay the facts on the table for each and every case.

Absent that please try to restrain that hyperbolic express train you're riding. I've no interest in dealing with hypothetics; facts only please.

I see revisionist history is not just the playground of the left.

To equate Kyle's acceptance of Romney as an alternative to another 4 years of Barack Obama as "a warm embrace" makes Baghdad Bob seem like the answer to Diogenes' quest.....

Slade, I think both possibilities you mentioned above may be true, and that makes me doubly sick to my stomach at the thought.

I acknowledged on more than one occasion that Santorum wasn't a perfect candidate, but I felt he was the best option left standing. Kyle, despite being presented with reams of evidence over and over and over again of Romney's full-frontal Conservative heresies, both fiscal and social, would hardly acknowledge them at all, he would just shout his insults at Santorum even louder, trying to drown out the facts of Romney's record as a Liberal and a Liar.

Kyle voted for Romney when he could have voted for Santorum or Gingrich, both of which were imperfect candidates but either of which were more Conservative options than Romney, and Nevada wasn't going to decide the nomination. If you want to make the argument that Romney was better than Obama, have at it, but don't try to pretend he was the most Conservative option in the GOP field. Yet Kyle defended him as though he were practically the second coming of Reagan. That is the "warm embrace" I'm referring to. If you don't recall, feel free to go back and read through some of the threads during the 2012 primary season. I have. Multiple times. Kyle's failure to acknowledge, recognize and admit Romney's Conservative heresies was intellectually dishonest.

I did....did you miss it? By the way I find it mildly amusing and consistently ironic (where you're concerned) that you again try to insert your argument into someone else's mouth to avoid admitting you've put your foot in your mouth.....again.

All that reading and re-reading you've cited and I'll lay every dollar I'll evey earn you'll find not one mention from me about Romney being the most conservative candidate in the field. Knock yourself out looking; just be sure to be man enough to post that you can't.

You have to be jokin me here. What the hell has everyone here been complaining about on a daily basis? Unless I am very wrong Washington. If you aspire to get to Washington I can give you 535 reasons why a good man or woman does not reside there. Now once again this guy is single handidly going to break the mold? You can't believe and not believe yourself at the same time. These people think they can. Everyone of them. Once again these wonderlings that come along like a shinny penny self implode. Who did he hire Mike and what do they stand for? My God this is just not possible. I'm speechless. Another bridge....SOLD.

The Rock

The Rock

Ironic, yes, considering that I never mentioned Obama before your post. I was talking about the 2012 primaries. Kyle knew that (apparently you did not), otherwise he wouldn't have started hurling insults at Santorum (again). You're the one who tried to insert your argument into someone else's mouth.

And yes, considering Kyle's consistent defense of Romney (all evidence to the contrary) and consistent insults hurled at every other candidate during the primaries, it does very much constitute a "warm embrace".

Try to keep up Sparky; the purpose of the primaries is to select the representative of the party; as the inevitability of that selectee facing Obama was always there one could not, absent prudence discount that matchup.

Kyle knew that (apparently you did not), otherwise he wouldn't have started hurling insults at Santorum (again).

Kyle can speak for himself but his position on Santorum was consistent from day 1; a sitting Senator getting soundly thumped in his re-election bid was hardly the foundation for a successful Presidential run. There were reasons for that thumping which Kyle laid out (calling them insults does not invalidate the fact, nor the outcome those facts resulted in.)

You're the one who tried to insert your argument into someone else's mouth.

Your the one still running away from the fact that all that copious re-reading of past posts can't point you to any where I labeled Mitt Romney as the most conservative candidate.

Of course, you spent about 3 dozen rather amusing posts chasing your tail trying to create an argument I never advanced about Linda McMahon, didn't you Sparky?

Why don't you give your backside a "warm embrace"? Methinks your head could use the fresh air......

You don't say? Throw out as much volume of words as you want to, doesn't change the fact that I was talking about the primaries, not the General election. Just because you assumed I was talking about one thing instead of another doesn't make you correct.

"Kyle can speak for himself"

Interesting supposition, considering that you are here arguing on his behalf and he is not. And throwing insults at one candidate all the while ignoring valid and documented negative arguments against another is hardly making one's case.

"a sitting Senator getting soundly thumped in his re-election bid was hardly the foundation for a successful Presidential run"

And a Northeastern Liberal Country Club Mass. Republican RINO apparently was? Right. I never thought Romney would beat Obama. What's your (and Kyle's) excuse? The Dole's, McCain's and Romney's of the political world give you their sincere thanks for believing their lies despite evidence of their truths being right in front of your face. You obviously thought Romney would beat Obama, and yet you were wrong. And now you're implying that Santorum would have been a losing candidate? Well, if he had, then congratulations, very same result as with Romney, but at least I voted for the guy who most closely represented my beliefs and didn't sell out to vote for the "(UN)electable" candidate who was for some of the most important things I'm against. I don't know what your beliefs are, maybe Romney represented you and Kyle most closely, but he lost anyway. Great strategy. What would have happened if Santorum or Gingrich had gotten the nomination? If you know that, can you please look into the future and tell us which of the current candidates will get the GOP nomination and how they will do against Hillary/O'Malley/Sanders/Biden? Amaze us with your brilliant foresight and political smarts.

"There were reasons for that thumping which Kyle laid out (calling them insults does not invalidate the fact, nor the outcome those facts resulted in.)"

Yep, one of the big reasons (reluctantly supporting Specter for reelection) is one of the reasons I had no interest in Santorum very early in the process. I also seem to recall on more than one occasion seeing Kyle use words like kook, clown, nutjob, etc., to describe Santorum. Do those qualify as intelligent "reasons" to you? If he was all those things, then I guess the people of Pennsylvania were pretty stupid to have elected him to statewide office not once, but twice. Not to mention all the Republican primary voters who voted for him, huh? Kyle's go-to tactic when he can't argue ideas (about ANYthing) is to employ use of the Ad Hominem attack with extreme liberality. Are you going to endorse those actions as well? He said (shouted) all those things about Santorum over and over again to try and drown out the volumes of documentation of Romney's even worse record. The truth of the matter is that Santorum's strong, devout Catholic Social Conservatism just made Kyle too uncomfortable. He's just not man enough to come straight out and admit it.

I acknowledged many times that Santorum was an imperfect candidate. Kyle largely completely ignored the evidences myself and many others posted that his favored candidate was much worse of an imperfect candidate. Sorry, but if he wants to play hardball, then he better not be a coward and take his ball and go home when it's my turn to throw.

"Your(sic) the one still running away from the fact that all that copious re-reading of past posts can't point you to any where I labeled Mitt Romney as the most conservative candidate."

I never said that you did. We're talking about Kyle. Remember?

Amazing the lengths you'll go to try and disprove my supposition that Kyle gave Romney a warm embrace, relative to the other primary candidates. I'm perfectly content to let the past record of his and my posts from the 2012 primary season prove my point for me, to anyone who doubts and wants to go and re-read them.

How about if I just throw out your words since you seem to be in need of reminding; "You have a well documented history in this forum of shouting down anyone who dares to question one of your chosen candidates (see Romney, Mitt)."

Nowhere in that statement do you reference primaries versus the general election; nowhere. You do though when I challenged the point in a subsequent post.

"Kyle voted for Romney when he could have voted for Santorum or Gingrich, both of which were imperfect candidates but either of which were more Conservative options than Romney, and Nevada wasn't going to decide the nomination."

Now you can quit pretending that my response to you ignored the fact that you were speaking about the primaries, particularly the Nevada primary.

You obviously thought Romney would beat Obama, and yet you were wrong.

Wrong supposition; I felt Romney had a better likelihood of beating Obama. Proper handling of his campaign after the first debate and that likelihood would have been even higher.

And now you're implying that Santorum would have been a losing candidate?

I thought I was being very clear that I was categorically stating that as a fact, a fact borne out by his aforementioned thumping. Do try to keep up please.

can you please look into the future and tell us which of the current candidates will get the GOP nomination and how they will do against Hillary/O'Malley/Sanders/Biden? Amaze us with your brilliant foresight and political smarts.

My "powers of divination" seem to be overestimated; perhaps it is directly related to my consistent nailing of you as a misrepresenting type who will twist himself into a pretzel when cornered. Now you can amaze me with some reticince before you chow down on your next bit of shoe leather.

Yep, one of the big reasons (reluctantly supporting Specter for reelection) is one of the reasons I had no interest in Santorum very early in the process.

So you discarded Santorum early on in the process yet take umbrage at Kyle's following a similar tact? Hypocrite much?

I also seem to recall on more than one occasion seeing Kyle use words like kook, clown, nutjob, etc., to describe Santorum. Do those qualify as intelligent "reasons" to you?

Unnecessary sobriquets to be sure; which do nothing to invalidate the intelligent reasons he gave, some of which you seemed equally convinced of. Like I said, hypocrite much?

"Your(sic) the one still running away from the fact that all that copious re-reading of past posts can't point you to any where I labeled Mitt Romney as the most conservative candidate."

I never said that you did. We're talking about Kyle. Remember?

Allow me to refresh your memory again; "If you want to make the argument that Romney was better than Obama, have at it, but don't try to pretend he was the most Conservative option in the GOP field."

Since you are responding to my post I would again ask you to cite any time I ever stated Mitt Romney was the most conservative candidate in the field. Your inference is clear; to support Romney I would have to have beleved that. Go ahead, lay out the proof-anytime I ever posted anything even remotely like that statement.

Amazing the lengths you'll go to try and disprove my supposition that Kyle gave Romney a warm embrace, relative to the other primary candidates. I'm perfectly content to let the past record of his and my posts from the 2012 primary season prove my point for me, to anyone who doubts and wants to go and re-read them.

I'm perfectly content to let your past postings label you as a hypocrite and at best someone not above trying to revise history when they paint themselves into a corner as you have done here.

Your words, not my volume of them is what's hanging you out to dry.

I guess Kyle is a little more perceptive than you, because he picked up on it immediately when his ears started burning, otherwise he wouldn't have started hurling insults at Santorum right away, and even though you didn't butt in to the conversation until after he made that post, you still insist you thought I was referencing the General election. Perhaps you should make sure you know what someone is saying before blurting out an ill-informed response to a comment that wasn't even addressed to you. You're making a good point that you should have just stayed out of a conversation that wasn't about you. Try to keep up.

"Now you can quit pretending that my response to you...."

I'm not pretending and if there was a point in this sentence I missed it, sorry, don't follow.

"I felt Romney had a better likelihood of beating Obama"

Nice qualifier, after the fact:) So you never once thought Romney actually would beat Obama? Be honest now.

"I thought I was being very clear that I was categorically stating that as a fact"

Didn't see you categorically state it anywhere. Maybe I missed it amongst the flowering fields of your "why use 10 words when 150 will look more impressive" prose.

"My "powers of divination" seem to be overestimated"

You can say that again:)

"reticince"

Your intelligence so far exceeds mine that you're using words I've never even seen.

"So you discarded Santorum early on in the process yet take umbrage at Kyle's following a similar tact? Hypocrite much?"

Nope, not at all. I didn't even start supporting Santorum until it was obvious that the other candidates I thought were more Conservative than he were out of the running. The difference between Kyle and me (and many others here) is that when those other guys were no longer in the running, he made a conscious decision to vote for the least Conservative candidate still standing, while I made a conscious decision to do the exact opposite, to vote for the most Conservative candidate left standing, warts and all. I never tried to hide the fact that Santorum had some things in his record that I disagreed with. Unlike Kyle, who vehemently refused to acknowledge all of Romney's Conservative heresies. My argument was never that some of the things Kyle said about Santorum were untrue (the issue based items, not the Ad Hominem epithets), just that he was still vastly more Conservative than Romney, whose "so-called" Severe Conservatism was so obviously untrue it wasn't even a mirage, it was just a flat-out lie.

"Unnecessary sobriquets to be sure"

You say sobriquet, I say Ad Hominem for what Kyle's intent obviously was. Come on, it won't hurt that bad for you to admit that Kyle is a very frequent user of the Ad Hominem fallacy when he has nowhere else to go with his argument.

"the intelligent reasons he gave"

And so if Kyle's reasons were "intelligent", were the reasons so many of us on here gave about Romney "UNintelligent"? I'm talking about the reams of data regarding his record as Governor of Mass. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Kyle was the first one in line to say something negative about Santorum, but, as usual, took his ball and went home when anyone pointed to something about Romney's record that wasn't good. I don't seem to recall you offering much in the way of intelligent response to those reasons, either, come to think of it, though I could be mistaken.

"Since you are responding to my post I would again ask you to cite any time I ever stated Mitt Romney was the most conservative candidate in the field"

I never said you did say that in the past. But silly me, why on earth would I assume that a "conservative" voted for a guy he thought wasn't the most Conservative guy in the race? Of course, that's a totally ill-advised leap of logic! For that matter, I guess at this point I might also need to fess up and admit I assumed for some reason you were a Conservative. The brilliant defense you're offering here of the best way to get the most Conservative candidate into the Winner's circle isn't exactly inspiring. I vote based on principles while you apparently vote on pragmatism.

"Your inference is clear; to support Romney I would have to have beleved that."

I never said you did say that in the past. But most reasonable people could be forgiven for thinking that your quite impassioned defense of Romney in this thread was just exactly that, an attempt to show that Romney was the more Conservative candidate. Why a so-called conservative would advocate for the least Conservative candidate in the race is a stretch of logic that is so great it is in another place of understanding, apparently. In the end, not only did you vote for the worst candidate (I'm assuming you voted for Romney, but you probably actually voted for Ron Paul and are just trying to be sneaky about all this?) in the race, but your stated reason for him being the preferred candidate (best chance to beat Obama) also bombed. Good job. Overall, I'd say you might not want to quit your day job and go all in on the Political Prognostication job search. Romney not only lost the race, he got fairly "thumped", to use one of your favorite words.

Not surprising given the bulk of back-and-forths between you two. Nonetheless that does not invalidate the fact that your initial statement was nonspecific.

I'm not pretending

You most cetainly are; concede that your reference was inferred and you've got half a leg to stand on, absent that you're simply denying the fact.

Nice qualifier, after the fact:)

Past tense always occurs after the fact. Perhaps if you were less focused on which middle finger I used you'd have realized that painfully obvious reality.

So you never once thought Romney actually would beat Obama? Be honest now.

I thought he had a good likelihood of beating him and the part of my response you left off expanded on this:

"Proper handling of his campaign after the first debate and that likelihood would have been even higher."

Come on, it won't hurt that bad for you to admit that Kyle is a very frequent user of the Ad Hominem fallacy when he has nowhere else to go with his argument.

How would you rank that with your reluctance to concede lack of clarity in yours? Just curious....

But most reasonable people could be forgiven for thinking that your quite impassioned defense of Romney in this thread was just exactly that, an attempt to show that Romney was the more Conservative candidate.

post hoc, ergo propter hoc

The defense was of Kyle; Romney was merely the topic of conversation; his credentials were irrelevant to the central point. Nice try at projecting though; I guess shoe leather doesn't suit your palate....

In the end, not only did you vote for the worst candidate (I'm assuming you voted for Romney, but you probably actually voted for Ron Paul and are just trying to be sneaky about all this?)

No, the worst candidate was Obama; as the CT primary offered no candidate I was enthusiastic about I abstained from voting. If your so inclined to do further searching I did list candidates I could have enthusiastically supported had they jumped in the race.

""On Monday 58 Wisconsin grassroots leaders signed onto an open letter to Scott Walker, asserting to the Republican governor and likely presidential candidate they want “no more games on Common Core.”

At issue is the fact that while Walker proposed defunding the Common Core-aligned Smarter Balanced exam in his budget, the new “Badger Exam” that replaces it will also be aligned with the controversial standards, making it unlikely that many local school districts would opt for non-Common Core standards.

In a statement to Breitbart News, parent and anti-Common Core grassroots activist Jeffrey Horn states the grassroots leaders represent “groups from across the political spectrum: liberal, conservative, and libertarian…all united in their opposition to the games Governor Walker is playing with Common Core in his biennial budget.” ""

This nonsense about common core is just that - nonsense! Pick a real issue to judge your candidate.

Romney raised a lot of money, looked good and sounded good. Not perfect, but he did look electable. Then he ran a campaign notable for absolutely nothing. I thought he could win, up until the weekend before the election. I was in Hays, Kansas at a local café, and heard a waiter say that he couldn't vote for Romney because he sent all those jobs overseas. And at that moment, I knew that the Obama campaign got their message out, whereas the tepid Romney campaign had not.

Yes, Henry, Hays. My son had graduated from college in Springfield, MO, and I was headed back on the Sunday before the election.

Whomever the Republicans nominate, they had better not run some cojones-less campaign.

I have posted the link to the common core site on here multiple times, but I bet that nobody on here who opposes it has taken even a minute to educate themselves. One of the big problems with common core is that it is returning teaching to a higher level of understanding that was formerly required of students. Students struggle to actually learn at those levels, so parents get up in arms because they do not want Johnny and Janie to be held responsible to actually learn.

NONE of the rot currently being put into textbooks and classrooms and called common core are required by common core or included in common core as it is written.

I see common core as just a distraction that people are using for one reason or another to keep the real issues off of the table.

There are many things wrong with education in America, but if I made a list common core probably would not make the top 50.

There are many things wrong in America, but if I made a list, common core would not make the top 500. Spend your time and energy solving real problems rather than this imagined one.

I was not coming down on CC, the point is Walker seems to be taking both sides and thus "playing games".

I agree with what you have said and linked to CC, mainly because I am not a teacher nor do I play the role of one on the internet My fear is what the socialist on the Werst coast will pass off as CC.

School texts and curriculum materials have long been leaning socialist and anti-morality. It is not just coming from the "Werst coast."

I do not know for sure, but my suspicion is that textbook publishers have been taken over by left-leaning people just like most other forms of media. It has been going on for a long time.

Publishing school texts is a very competitive business. The number of publishers has diminished from over a dozen viable options to maybe two during my teaching career. If both of them are producing left-leaning materials, schools have little choice. Very few states have enough purchasing power to influence what the publishers put in the texts. What are students, parents, and teachers to do if the texts and the tests are not aligned?

Producing texts is expensive and schools do not replace them as often as in the past. When I started teaching in 1979, most textbooks were replaced on about a 4-5 year rotation. Now it is not uncommon for texts to be well over 10 years old.

The electronic age is also impacting curriculum materials. Schools are rapidly moving away from purchasing any texts except possible electronic licenses for materials students access on computers or over the Internet. This trend could possible reduce the power of the few text publishing companies. It could also impact the quality of instruction - either positively or negatively.

I do not know the specific situation in WI, but most states test kids. One reason is that federal funds are tied to that testing. They test based on the adopted state standards.

Some legislatures have looked into banning common core and found that well over 90% of what is in common core is what they have already been testing in the state. Again, the solution is to do away with federal interference in education and the problem of common core will go away.

So this move is opposed by "groups from across the political spectrum" What was the beginning premise of this thread? Walker was not being selective enough in who he hires. Apparently he is both too selective and not selective enough, depending on the situation and who you ask.

I think leftists fear him because he has a track record of taking them on and winning. Make sure his nay-sayers are not leftists in sheep's clothing.

Conservative Revolt Brewing Against Scott Walker Over Staffer Hired By His PAC Jul, 2015 by John Hawkins

Last week, Right Wing News did an article about Scott Walker’s PAC hiring Brad Dayspring. If you don’t know who Brad Dayspring is, here’s an introduction from one of the conservative candidates he slimed during the GOP primaries .

“Brad Dayspring is well known as a despicable establishment operative who specializes in slander and character assassination against conservative candidates,” Mississippi state Sen. Chris McDaniel—one such conservative Dayspring personally frequently attacked—told Breitbart News exclusively on Wednesday. “He is the perfect example of why conservatives no longer trust the GOP. He’s little more than a paid attack dog, without principle and honor, the personification of everything wrong with our present political system.”

McDaniel added:

“Scott Walker appears to be a good man with solid conservative instincts. But his hiring of the unstable Dayspring is an insult to honorable political discourse. If Dayspring is aligned with Walker, then conservatives should be warned to look elsewhere for leadership.”

Right Wing News has contacts with Scott Walker’s campaign and with his PAC. We reached out to both and asked for them to go on the record about Brad Dayspring. Unfortunately, nobody was willing to go on the record defending him — which should tell you a lot.

If Brad Dayspring is indefensible, why did Scott Walker’s team hire him? Well, you hire a guy like this either to stab conservatives in the back or to let your backers in the establishment know that you intend to do exactly that despite the rhetoric you’re using to trick the “bubbas” into voting for you.

Why else would they go to the mat for a new staffer after the reaction Dayspring received?

Breitbart has written a negative article about the hire and so has the Daily Caller (Where it was noted Dayspring had been telling people he was going to work for Jeb Bush).

Over at Redstate, where Walker wrote a July 4th guest diary, the Wisconsin governor has been compared to Thad Cochran over this. Brent Bozell, the head of the Media Research Center, wants Dayspring gone.

Mark Levin, who has roughly 7 million listeners, has been smeared by Dayspring before and retweeted the Right Wing News article we put out about him.

Since the article came out, we spoke to another one of the grassroots conservative candidates that Dayspring vilified, Dr. Milton Wolf, who primaried Republican Senator Pat Roberts in Kansas. Here’s what he had to say about Scott Walker’s team hiring Brad Dayspring.

“It’s baffling that a principled conservative like Scott Walker would hire Brad Dayspring. Dayspring is an attack dog for hire who specializes in slandering and maligning conservatives in order to protect the failed insiders who have abandoned conservative principles and are destroying our Republican Party.”

Here are just a few of the tweets from dismayed conservatives that flooded Twitter since the Right Wing News article came out.

"Gov. Scott Walker's office was involved in drafting dramatic changes to the state's open records law that would have made it harder for the public to monitor how its government works, a spokeswoman confirmed Tuesday.."

In the link the writing is blocked, can you do a cut and past?

Gov. Scott Walker's office was involved in drafting dramatic changes to the state's open records law that would have made it harder for the public to monitor how its government works, a spokeswoman confirmed Tuesday.

Spokeswoman Laurel Patrick's statement came after numerous inquiries from the State Journal in recent days and after Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said Tuesday that Walker's office collaborated with Assembly and Senate leaders to draft the changes. Minutes after Patrick's statement, the Senate voted 32-0 to remove the open records changes from the 2015-17 budget.

"Our intent with these changes was to encourage a deliberative process with state agencies in developing policy and legislation," Patrick said. "This allows for robust debate with state agencies and public employees over the merit of policies and proposed initiatives as they are being formed, while ensuring materials related to final proposals, as well as information related to external stakeholders seeking to influence public policy, would remain fully transparent."

Patrick's statement said Walker's office provided input after legislative leaders initiated the discussions.

"Our focus remains on ensuring open and accountable government, and we encourage public debate and discussion of any potential future changes to the state's open records law," she said.

Earlier Tuesday, Fitzgerald told reporters at WISC-TV, The Capital Times and WKOW-TV that Walker's office was involved.

"We had talked to them about open records issues and the amount of requests the governor gets," Fitzgerald said, according to WISC. "The Assembly obviously was involved as well."

Senators, including those on the Joint Finance Committee who initially voted to pass the changes, voted unanimously during a floor session Tuesday to undo them.

Since the committee members backed the changes Thursday, Walker's office had not answered State Journal questions about the governor's involvement in crafting them.

Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council president Bill Lueders said Tuesday he was glad Walker's office was taking ownership.

"I think that’s the right thing to do," Lueders said. "I think people do have a right to know where initiatives start, and that’s one of the lessons of this. That should be a baseline expectation."

The changes would have blocked from release nearly all communications and records that help the public understand how lawmakers do their jobs. They generated backlash from the public, conservative and liberal advocacy groups, newspaper editorial boards, open government advocates and lawmakers from both parties.

The controversy erupted as the Fourth of July holiday loomed, and barely a week before Walker was scheduled to announce a bid for the 2016 presidential nomination.

"Clearly those changes would have been a huge blow to transparency. It would have removed information that is public, and it would have, in my opinion, inevitably led to abuse," Lueders said. "It was pretty much all around a terrible idea."

Walker, Fitzgerald and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, announced Saturday that the records language would be removed from the budget and that a legislative committee would study possible changes. Attorney General Brad Schimel has scheduled for late July a summit to discuss open records issues.

Lueders said the state shouldn't restrict public access to information.

Lawmaker apologizes

The undoing of the open records changes came just after a key Republican lawmaker apologized to voters for his part in passing them in committee.

Rep. Dale Kooyenga, R-Brookfield, said in a Monday email posted on the conservative website RightWisconsin that "after inquiries my understanding was" the changes would have made Wisconsin's open records law similar to those in other states and that of the U.S. Congress "in order to facilitate more honest dialogue."

"Since the vote this has been found to be inaccurate," he wrote. "I apologize for not recognizing the scope of these changes."

Kooyenga, the Joint Finance vice chairman, said in the email that he offered the explanation "not as an excuse, but as background information relevant to why the budget process should be improved to increase transparency."

He said he is working on legislation that would require all budget motions to be posted 24 hours in advance of a committee's vote to ensure lawmakers have time to read them, according to RightWisconsin.

Kooyenga's apology stands in stark contrast to statements from Vos and JFC co-chairman Rep. John Nygren, R-Marinette, who defended the changes Monday. Nygren told the State Journal that news outlets have misrepresented the aim of the changes, which he said was to protect the privacy of constituents who communicate with lawmakers.

When asked how much Joint Finance members knew about the proposals ahead of the vote, Nygren spokeswoman Caroline Krause said Tuesday: "It’s up to each individual member to read the motion to know what they voting on, because Representative Nygren certainly knew what was in it."

The other 10 Republicans on the committee did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment about their knowledge of the scope of the proposals ahead of the vote.

Rep. Gordon Hintz, D-Oshkosh, said Tuesday that the scope of the changes was apparent as soon as Democratic committee members read the motion.

"It certainly hasn't been a partisan criticism," Hintz said of the reaction to the changes.

UW finalists exemption remains

Another exemption to the state's open records law contained in Walker's original budget will remain, however. That provision would keep private finalists' names for top positions at University of Wisconsin System campuses. Only the top candidate's name would be released under the exemption.

The proposed changes to the open records law were included in a last-minute motion to amend the state budget and were released to the public and many lawmakers toward the end of the finance committee's last meeting on Thursday -- just before the committee's members were set to vote.

They would have: •Barred from public disclosure communications and records made by lawmakers and given them authority to keep staff communications private. •Blocked access to files kept by the nonpartisan lawyers who write legislation; now those files are made public once a bill is introduced. •Kept private “deliberative materials,” defined as “communications and other materials, including opinions, analyses, briefings, background information, recommendations, suggestions, drafts, correspondence about drafts, and notes, created or prepared in the process of reaching a decision concerning a policy or course of action or in the process of drafting a document or formulating an official communication."

""The, in 2006, during his first run at the Governor’s mansion, Walker backed a proposal from McCain and Kennedy which would have turned immigration policy on its head.""

""Walker lost that election, but as we all saw he went on to win in 2010. His position on immigration didn’t seem to change, though, and he was still singing pretty much the same tune as recently as 2013. At that time he was still pushing a pathway to citizenship""

3/1/15 ""Then, in just the last year (and well after it became clear that he was seriously looking at a presidential bid) the Governor seemed to have his Come to Jesus moment, as he described it to Fox News’ Chris Wallace. (Reported in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentina""

3/25/15 “Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker told a private dinner of New Hampshire Republicans this month that he backed the idea of allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the country and to eventually become eligible for citizenship, a position at odds with his previous public statements on the matter.”

But by April he was back on the hard line, secure the borders and enforce the law track.

So it's OK for Walker to change his views(often) and still be rallied around, yet Trump changes his views and gets ostracized ?

Another hmmmm moment...

You watch your tongue Mister when it comes to Scott Walker. Another instigator trying to derail the only man that can split the Red Sea. ;-) These little symbols are so cool...weeeeee)

10, keep watching. Burn the midnight oil because you are disrupting the single filed minds of a few here. Here I am all along thinking we were on equal ground. Clicks are like mold. They grow anywhere. Watch this ;-) ...my new best friend.

The Rock