consultants are sandburs

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

What is the value if Walker declines to name names?

MSM on the Walker withdrawal; CNN and WaPo. Quoting from the CNN coverage:

"Today, I believe that I am being called to lead by helping to clear the field in this race so that a positive, conservative message can rise to the top of the field. With this in mind, I will suspend my campaign immediately," Walker said at a news conference in Madison, Wisconsin.

He encouraged other trailing Republican candidates to follow his path.

"I encourage other Republican presidential candidates to consider doing the same so that the voters can focus on a limited number of candidates who can offer a positive, conservative alternative to the current front-runner," said Walker, referencing businessman Donald Trump. "This is fundamentally important to the future of our party, and, more important, the future of the country."

[italics added] Precisely who is he saying should get out of whose way? That kind of indirection likely is a factor in his slipping from contender to one taking up space on a stage.

Sore over Trump stealing thunder, okay, but who should also fall on a sword, again, for whose sake? Rubio should step aside for Mr. Bush, in honor of the Bush family and what they've done?

Fiorina should soften her ambitions and go back to consulting?

He is unclear, as if saying by implication, "You guys know who I mean," but the ineffectiveness problem is voters really do not know who he means. Lindsey Graham, okay that one is easy, but who else?

Not favoring either of the Floridians, it nonetheless seems to me it would be best for the party's chances if Mr. Bush were to step aside for Mr. Rubio; but I doubt that is what Mr. Walker has in mind.

Also, Rubio comes across as more genuine than Fiorina, so Carly, please give it up. Or is that not what Mr. Walker meant?

Name names, Scotty.

Also Scotty, what is wrong with the frontrunner besides he rained on your parade? Your exit statements do not go there. Shouldn't they? If the statements are to be taken seriously?

I bet Santorum believes he should stay. Others may not agree with Santorum on Santorum staying, but Scotty, was it Rick you had in mind, and if so, what about Huckabee?

Or Cruz?

May we hope that Kurt Daudt, Walker's man in Minnesota, might now help us by naming names. It would be refreshing for a politician such as Daudt to do precisely that. And wow, he might even tell us things wrong with Mr. Trump; if he and Walker agree that it is more than Trump popularity raining on the Walker run. For now, it looks to only be that. Stolen thunder.

_________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Less superficial than the WaPo and CNN items, more reflective and analytical, given distance, Guardian, source of the image:

conservative message

_________FURTHER UPDATE__________
I had written earlier - a few days ago - but decided not to post about Carly Fiorina, in the context of an online item about Scott Walker, because I did not want it to appear to be obsessing over the lady's candidacy. However, with Walker saying some should step aside with those who should going unnamed, that earlier item about Walker might be helpful in explaining his days-later exit comments.

Start this UPDATE segment with a headline and excerpt from a few days ago, before the Walker exit, saying what he did without his naming names. It apparently adds a context suggesting that perhaps problematic to Walker besides a tourist billionaire "front-runner" presence, he might also have concerns on exiting about a driven multimillionaire's intent, will, hubris, and media recognition; see, here:

Walker: Media would have declared Fiorina winner 'no matter what'
By Al Weaver (@alweaver22) • 9/17/15 7:23 PM

During an interview with conservative radio host Glenn Beck Thursday, the Wisconsin governor panned the media for pushing a "narrative" that the former Hewlett-Packard CEO was going to have a big night "no matter what." Indeed, Fiorina and Florida senator [sic, item omitted: Marco Rubio] received high marks for their performance at the Republican presidential debate in Simi Valley, Calif.

"I think going in, we knew the narrative no matter what was going to happen was that they were going to say Carly had a big night, no matter what, and obviously they said that," Walker, who fell to 10th in the latest Washington Examiner power rankings, argued.

"I think the other impression was — the feedback I got from folks, not just the press but from across the country we talked to, was a frustration that there wasn't more talk … about issues," he told the host.

With that assessment, which seems to have captured the mainstream media's post-event mood, consider a Salon contrarian opinion well worth the time it takes to read.

If Trump is going to get the bum of the month treatment Romney got with his string of opponents, Ben Carson might have been first with pundits saying he "underperformed" at the second "debate" and then he did that Muslim-President thing; while Fiorina got the collective MSM tout for the Trump-her-face / no-her-persona interchange nonsense.

My take on the Fiorina persona
Davos, not main street. Those she enjoys mixing with are the Davos crowd, movers and shakers where she believes she gets validation. The rest is purposed acting.

She was, 2004 and 2005, the lone panel woman in a pair of Davos presentations, one a year before the Fiorina sacking as CEO at HP, and the other right around the time of her 2005 HP departure - being at Davos instead of on the job.

In those Davos panels she acquitted herself well enough, and showed she clearly is less an ideologue or anti-abortion demagogue -&- Planned Parenthood hater then as currently posed.

Indeed, at Davos she sat and talked at length while clearly seeming a wholly reasonable secular humanist - corporatist; as well as a really-want-to-rub-elbows-with-central-bankers type A ambition-driven personality.

See it, for yourselves:

Davos 2004 video:  Not the time or place for any "secretary to CEO" schmaltz; starts first at about minute 10,  again at minute 26, and scan the remainder of that panel presentation video for a context and flavor. (More Carly does Davos; 2004 another panel, at about min 11 or so for context.)

Davos 2005 video:  Preening within weeks or months away from the HP board making a management management change felt to be in the best interest of the firm; at, e.g., about minute 15 and again at minute 27, then at minute 54, then minute 1:10

The woman dresses well too.

Compare that secular shining persona, in her element at Davos, with the arguably over-played mix-with-hicks - I can channel Micnele Bachmann anti-Planned Parenthood Iowa video also online - here - showing actress Fiorina playing a role and seemingly less than the genuine one; blue jeans, folksy and all; the Planned Parenthood dump at about minute 18 followed by, really, a "Lady Liberty" and "Lady Justice" wrap-up.

Iowa in jeans would not have played at Davos; and, gee, notice that it was absent there.

What do you make of that? Play to the audience, not to the heart?

Of the two Carleys, which do you trust? If either.

Which of the two Carleys might be the persona Trump found galling - the Davos Carley, i.e., the secular humanist par excellence among peers; or per this red-meat to the base video (staged with a comfortable array of props)?

That is the Carly that has me scratching the blackboard. Davos Carly, who is not as studied an offensive poseur, focused on different stuff, that real persona is not that bad.

But that last video --- Does it (as Trump said), give you a headache after listening to it a bit?

NOW - Bonus video time: Carly doing the CPAC shuffle. Davos, so far, far away.

Older CPAC, a 2013 panel, paying dues, ticket punching at minute 30. Bonus online analysis, Miami Herald, (Jeb-land; Marco-land) here.

__________FURTHER UPDATE____________
What's wrap-up time without a fitting wrap-up?

Carly Fiorina calls herself pro-life because, she says, she has a long ingrained respect for living human beings subject to trauma at the hands of other insensitive persons.

See, e.g., the website

__________FURTHER UPDATE____________
From this Politico item dated July 27. 2015, perhaps the "serious" names to remain, in Walker's view, might be Bush. Cruz and Rubio (per the headline, "Koch brothers summon Bush, Cruz, Walker, Rubio to SoCal confab"), and possibly Fiorina (per the item's second paragraph which also notes a Rand Paul exclusion from Koch blessings). Big money - buyers and sellers mingling per that Politico item - excludes Trump, as Walker's exit statements did, and Trump is the one consistently saying he is not for sale.

Indeed, Trump seems intent to draw the distinction at every turn that he does not need money from the Koch clan or affiliates, and that lobbyist money carries with it obligations that would not impede him. It is one of his better points of argument.

Last, per this update, Politico is not in anyone's view a left-wing media/web outlet, so weigh that in guessing at who Walker is implying should leave the contest to allow "real" players to contest things. Perhaps only the name "Bush" makes Walker's short list. We do not know.

_____________FURTHER UPDATE____________
Yeah. Another. This TPM item, hat tip to Eric Ferguson's posting the link. It fits with the Politico item, mentioned above.

Still, Scottie, who should step aside for the benefit of who; or should we just bypass you and directly ask the Koch brothers? What have they against Trump? That he is not owned and really can't be bought?

That seems an unintended blowback endorsement.

Of Trump. Not any of the others.


ADDED NOTE: That Politico item did not mention Rick Perry as a Koch invitee, and lo, he's gone.

No comments: