One More Thing About The Journal Sentinel's Walker Endorsement
From the editorial:
Overzealous political associates sometimes get in trouble. The John Doe probe doesn't justify a vote against the governor.I wouldn't have written those lines without a super-secret thumbs-up in disappearing ink from prosecutor John Chisholm. Which, of course, isn't how it happens, so those lines were written on faith that the scandal goes no higher.
If "overzealous" gets extended to more senior aides, or the boss himself, people who stood with Walker will share the fallout, too.
People have gone to jail for much less...if it turns out that multiple aides were doing campaign work on the taxpayers' dime, I mean.
How much higher can you get? More senior aides? TN?
Maybe they asked Walker THE QUESTION and of course knowing Walker- he fooled them once again with his sociopathic lying.
Just stop it James! The conservative bloggers at the JS can't keep up. Then you do baseball analogies about Walker's AAA batting average. WTH- I can't believe we gave you this freedom in our paper. Just let our righty "bloggers" catch up will ya?
Oh my- just after our endorsement of our hero looks like the DWD has manipulated the numbers.
I don't know about that Haynes- perhaps Haynes was trying to say he really wasn't part of that absurd endorsement and highlighted Rowen's blog to make a point but to save his gluteus- maxiumus by suggesting that we read the wingnuts blogs also which by the way are slow in coming. Rowen on the other hand - well has this uncanny ability to hit them hard and often with incredible wit, facts,humor and a tad bit of sarcasm.
And overzealous aides sometimes take their lead from their leader. Remember Nixon? Recall John Dean's recent words: "Walker is more Nixonian than Nixon." At the very least, the JS editorial might have suggested that the John Doe investigation was one of a number of areas where a thoughtful voter might have reason to question Scott Walker's good judgement.
Post a Comment