Scott Walker was gone. Dropped out. And in the spring of his senior year.
In 1990, that news stunned his friends at Marquette University. Walker, the campus’s suit-wearing, Reagan-loving politico — who enjoyed the place so much that he had run for student body president — had left without graduating.
To most of the Class of 1990 — and, later, to Wisconsin’s political establishment — Walker’s decision to quit college has been a lingering mystery.
Not even his friends at Marquette were entirely sure why he never finished. Some had heard that a parent had fallen ill, or maybe there was some financial strain. Others thought he had simply had enough of school.
Get that? There’s something wrong about Scott Walker: he quit school, he wasn’t a good student, he was politically ambitious, and –my favorite– he may be religious:
Walker lost, 1,245 votes to 927. His friends say he handled it with grace, telling them the loss just meant that God had another plan.
What you see there is a liberal “dog whistle, meant to signal like-minded progressives that Walker’s “not one of us.” He’s one of “those people” — the religious. Who knows what other frightening and primitive things he might believe? OMG!! RUN FOR THE HILLS! VOTE DEMOCRATIC OR WE’LL ALL HAVE TO GO TO BINGO NIGHT!!! AAIIEE!!!!!
Does anyone else besides me see nothing noteworthy in the son of a Baptist minister dealing with his electoral defeat in a Christian manner? The. Horror.
Read the whole Post article, then read Walsh for its deconstruction. He’s spot on when he writes:
To the Kredentialed Klass, a college degree — preferably from an Ivy League school — is the sine qua non of life itself. Sure, a couple of very prominent media personalities lack one themselves, including the recently defenestrated Brian Williams; the current host of Meet the Press, Chuck Todd, didn’t graduate from college, either. But no matter: this is the presidency we’re talking about!
The effrontery of this rube, thinking he can rise from Flyover Country to join Our Betters on the East Coast!
Walsh brings up the example of Mitt Romney and how the MSM had to dig into his high school days to find anything bad about him, but I think there’s a better example: Sarah Palin. Remember the reaction from when John McCain introduced her as his running mate to her amazing speech at the Republican convention? The Democrats and the media elites (but I repeat myself) were beside themselves with fear and, once they had stopped wetting themselves, they set out to do everything they could to destroy her: mock her intelligence, her middle class origins, and even the way she speaks; set hundreds of reporters dumpster-diving through her records, looking for anything little thing that could be spun against her; get Alaska allies to file bogus ethics charges one after the other; and even question whether her Down-syndrome child was really hers. They were scared to death she could beat them, and so they set out to find anything they could to destroy her. And while they didn’t find anything, the constant drumbeat of accusation and innuendo itself did its work: she was forever tarred as a future candidate. (1)
Then there’s the “curious incident of the dog in the night-time,” the one that didn’t bark. For all that digging into Palin, Romney, and now Walker’s distant past —looking for anything!— let’s recall how closely the media in 2008 and 2012 looked into Barack Obama’s background.
Oh, you’re back already. Yep. The dog did nothing in the night-time. Almost no one in the MSM looked more than superficially into Obama’s family, his boyhood in Hawaii, his time at Occidental and Columbia, his law school years at Harvard, his years as a community organizer or his record as a state senator. Not into his actions or the people he associated with. Nothing. (2)
Good doggie. You just lie there and stay asleep. You’ll know what to do when a Republican shows up.
Walsh (and before him Rush Limbaugh) is right: the Democrats and their allies in the media will always tell you whom they fear most. Right now, Governor Scott Walker scares the tar out of them.
With good reason.
(1) Yes, I know: “She resigned!” And that stained her image, too. No doubt. But, without going into a long explanation, I think a whole lot of people have no idea what they’re talking about in this case.
(2) There are good books about Obama’s background, but they came out either too late for the 2008 election (and were overwhelmed by the financial panic) or years later and were mostly read by a specialized audience. Three I’ll recommend are The Case Against Barack Obama, The Communist, and Radical in Chief. I reviewed the latter two here and here.