Games Prosecutors Play

Andrew McCarthy explains what Mueller's Little Helpers were up to:

The special counsel’s staff wrote a 448-page tome, overflowing with details about a traitorous collusion plot that never happened and the obstruction of an investigation that was never actually impeded in the slightest. Even though the regulations call for a confidential report from the special counsel to the attorney general, the Mueller report was patently written with the intention that it would be transmitted to Congress and the public. (Indeed, even before the report was submitted to the Justice Department, various industrious publishers planned to make it available for sale.) Moreover, when AG Barr undertook to announce only the special counsel’s bottom-line conclusions, Mueller’s staff threw a fit, grousing to the media that Barr was wrongly withholding the report and denying the public the condemnatory narrative in which they had couched these benign conclusions.

It's been done before. Remember what happened to Scott Walker in Wisconsin? After the corrupt John Doe investigation was scuppered, the rogue prosecutors found a way to get their theories into the press, leaking to the British newspaper The Guardian, a media outlet last seen informing the world about Danielle Stella, the Ilhan Omar opponent from Bizarro World central casting. A summation of the Wisconsin prosecutor's tactics:

Prosecutors treated conservative organizations as if they were dangerous drug cartels or mob operations. As the Wisconsin Supreme Court said, they executed search warrants against the personal homes and families of the leaders of these nonprofits in “pre-dawn, armed, paramilitary-style raids in which bright floodlights were used to illuminate the targets’ homes.”

Here is the meritless theory behind the investigations: Any support for issues important to Gov. Scott Walker, such as the bill reducing union power over state government employees, was illegal “coordination.”

As the state Supreme Court said, however, our democracy is supposed to assure the “unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.” Instead, the prosecutors’ theories “would assure that such political speech will be investigated with paramilitary-style home invasions conducted in the pre-dawn hours and then prosecuted and punished.”

Also known as the Roger Stone treatment.

You don't have to like Donald Trump, or Scott Walker, or any Republican. You can certainly argue they are scoundrels; Trump certainly has had his scoundrel-like moments. But if we give prosecutors unfettered power, we are risking something far more dangerous than impolite Tweets.

Bye, Acosta

Alexander Acosta is gone:

Labor Secretary Alex Acosta has resigned amid controversy over his role in a 2008 plea deal with accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

President Donald Trump said Friday that it was Acosta's decision and not his as he spoke to reporters as he left the White House for a trip to Wisconsin.

Acosta was standing next to Trump as the president called him "a great labor secretary, not a good one."

So Trump is going to Wisconsin today? Wonder who might be there?

Tanned, rested and ready

Man, I hope I'm right about this.

Wisconsin politics, yet again

The Wisconsin legislature and outgoing governor Scott Walker are busy at the moment and his successor doesn't like it one bit:

The new legislation tries to protect some of the GOP's achievements in recent years, including a work requirement for some people receiving state health care and the state's role in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act. The bill could also make it harder for Gov.-elect Tony Evers to renegotiate a $3 billion subsidy for a Foxconn electronics manufacturing facility, a deal spearheaded by Walker.

"Wisconsin has never seen anything like this," Evers said in a statement. "Power-hungry politicians rushed through sweeping changes to our laws to expand their own power and override the will of the people of Wisconsin who asked for change on November 6th."

 In other words, the moment the election results were posted, Evers should immediately have power. That's not how it works. Evers knows that, of course.

Evers also knows he's going to be governor because he ran up incredibly lopsided vote totals in Milwaukee and Madison, while in other parts of the state he and his party have significantly less popular support. There's a reason why the Republicans will still control the legislature in 2019 and, contrary to the bleatings of the left, it's not because of gerrymandering. You can't simply import the votes of Milwaukeeans and apply them to a Fond du Lac district.

We don't have a pure democracy and it's a good thing. Walker did not demand that his predecessor, Jim Doyle, immediately cease and desist when he was elected in 2010. Walker had to wait until he was actually in the office before he set out to change things. We all remember how that went. I don't know how it's going to go for Evers once he's in office, although I suspect he's going to be a very weak governor regardless of what Walker and the current legislature do. Voters in Wisconsin might have been tired of Walker, but there's little evidence the voters want public employee union hegemony to return, either, to say nothing of untrammeled bureaucracy. And when Evers attempts to raise taxes next year, he'll find that out.

A modest proposal/prediction/grenade in the ol’ foxhole

Since it is customary for presidents to make cabinet changes at mid-term (e.g., Jeff Sessions), I make the following modest proposal:

You may not have heard of him, but the current Secretary of Labor is a fellow named Alexander Acosta. He is no relation to Jim Acosta, but he is also dead weight and has done almost nothing to roll back the egregious work of his Obama-era predecessors. So Trump needs a new Labor Secretary. I have just the guy.

….

….

….  (wait for it)

…..

Scott Walker

The confirmation hearings alone would be well worth the price of admission.

Where are we?

No facts presented in this feature -- let's face it, in 2018 politics, facts are difficult to get. Opinions are everywhere, though. Here are mine:

• I suspect the long knives will be out for Keith Ellison after this election. I've never thought he could win statewide office and his campaign for attorney general has demonstrated that nicely. The larger question is whether or not he'll hurt the other DFL candidates. Doug Wardlow could be a very useful fellow in the AG's office.
• While it would be wonderful if Jeff Johnson could pull of the upset and win the governor's race, my guess is he falls short. Tim Walz is not a particularly strong candidate and nothing about him suggests he'll be any good at being a governor, but the DFL machine in the metro will likely be enough to get him elected. 
• You know what would give us a better Minnesota? The demise of Alliance for a Better Minnesota, that's what. Their latest attack ad, in which they exploit a handicapped young man, is beyond the pale. Every ad they run is filled with lies and yet somehow KSTP's "Truth Test" and WCCO's "Reality Check" never get around to vetting them. Wonder why that is? No, you don't, because you know the reason why already.
• Lately some Wisconsin ads have been airing here. The Dem candidate for governor, Tony Evers, has the personality of lint and is frankly creepy, but he's running neck and neck with two-term Scott Walker, one of the most consequential politicians of his generation. I know that people get fatigued with politicians over time, but it's astonishing to me that Evers is even close.
• Amy Klobuchar, Tina Smith, and Tammy Baldwin are all up for election. They are all dismal, but all are likely to return to Washington. There's a chance that Karin Housley might beat Smith, who has never won a statewide election, but I'm not confident that Housley will get there.
• We may flip four Congressional seats in Minnesota. It's almost certain that Pete Stauber is going to Washington in the 8th, and it's quite possible that Jim Hagedorn is finally going to get elected in the 1st. But it's also looking likely that Erik Paulsen is going down in the 3rd, and Jason Lewis will be fortunate if he is reelected in the 2nd. I knew Paulsen a little bit when we worked together at Target and he's a good guy, but he's run a poor campaign against Dean Phillips, who has more money than King Canute and came up with a good shtick. Lewis went to Washington and actually did some useful things, but his district is turning left and the odious Angie Craig has an excellent chance to beat Lewis. If Lewis loses, we'll miss him more than most people realize.

What do you think?

Meanwhile, in Wisconsin

The rogue prosecutors get shut down, yet again:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by three Democratic district attorneys seeking to revive a criminal investigation into Gov. Scott Walker’s recall campaign — effectively ending the legal wrangling over the four-year-old probe.

The decision marks a major victory for Walker and his Republican allies, who mounted a vigorous challenge to the secretive, so-called John Doe II investigation that involved investigators issuing dozens of subpoenas and seizing equipment and millions of documents from those under investigation.

In a statement Monday, Walker said the U.S. Supreme Court, Wisconsin Supreme Court and other judges have all reached the same conclusion — “that this investigation by prosecutors was without merit and thus must be ended.”

“I applaud the individuals and organizations who fought for and successfully defended their First Amendment rights against political opponents who wanted to silence them,” Walker said.

Needless to say, the secret policemen are disappointed:

In a joint statement, the three district attorneys who appealed the case — [Milwakee County Prosecutor John] Chisholm, Dane County’s Ismael Ozanne and Iowa County’s Larry Nelson — said they were disappointed by the decision.

“The state Supreme Court decision, left intact by today’s order, prohibits Wisconsin citizens from enacting laws requiring the full disclosure of disguised contributions to a candidate, i.e., monies expended by third parties at the direction of a candidate for the benefit of that candidate’s election,” they said.

“We are proud to have taken this fight as far as the law would allow and we look forward to the day when Wisconsin adopts a more enlightened view of the need for transparency in campaign finance.”

Not to put too fine a point on it, but they are proud that they have gotten their asses handed to them at every level of jurisdiction. In a better world, all three of these individuals would be disbarred. They won't be. They are now required to turn over all the materials they seized within 30 days. I am willing to wager that Chisholm and his partners in sleaze will turn the materials over via the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

What has happened to Walker and his political allies in Wisconsin is similar to the lawfare tactics used in Texas against Tom DeLay and Rick Perry. In the end, it all gets thrown out, but the process itself is the punishment. It's a disgrace.

Family Feud

I usually go to my local health club in the evening, generally arriving a little bit after 8. I'll spend time on the treadmill and I usually watch television while I'm there. Most nights, the easiest thing to watch is old episodes of "Family Feud" on the Game Show Network, which seems to run in a continuous loop most nights.

On Wednesday nights, GSN runs a different show that I don't particularly enjoy, so last night I left the television on the station where it was. And so I got to see Ted Cruz's speech at the Republican National Convention.

Cruz rolled the dice last night. Endorsing The Donald would have been the easy thing to do -- Scott Walker and Marco Rubio, two prominent rivals of Cruz, did so, although without evident enthusiasm. Cruz didn't endorse. Instead, he spoke for 22 minutes about freedom, and conscience. A taste:

America is more than just a land mass between two oceans, America is an ideal. A simple, yet powerful ideal. Freedom matters.

For much of human history government power has been the unavoidable constant in life. Government decrees and the people obey, but not here. We have no king or queen, we have no dictator, we the people constrain government.

Our nation is exceptional because it was built on the five most beautiful and powerful words in the English language, "I want to be free."

Never has that message been more needed than today. We stand here tonight a nation divided. Partisan rancor, anger, even hatred are tearing America apart. And citizens are furious, rightly furious, at a political establishment that cynically breaks its promises, and that ignores the will of the people.

We have to do better. We owe our fallen heroes more than that.

By the end of the speech, it became clear to the delegates in the hall that "better" didn't necessarily mean Donald Trump:

We deserve leaders who stand for principle, who unite us all behind shared values, who cast aside anger for love. That is the standard we should expect from everybody. And, to those listening, please don't stay home in November.

If you love our country, and love our children as much as you do, stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom, and to be faithful to the constitution.  

Is Donald Trump such a candidate? While Cruz didn't say so explicitly, the speech suggests he doesn't believe the GOP standard-bearer lives up to the standard.

Ted Cruz, in his own way and own style, is perhaps even more of a polarizing figure than Donald Trump. The GOP establishment may grumble about Trump's various apostasies, but they do believe they can do business with him. The Mitch McConnells of the world are, at bottom, transactional politicians and Trump made his bones as a dealmaker, so it's understandable that McConnell and his ilk can make common cause with The Donald.

The paradox of Ted Cruz is that while he speaks the language of conservatism, he is an apostate in the party that ostensibly carries the conservative banner in this country. The further paradox of Ted Cruz is that his ambition and his beliefs are at variance with one another. I suspect a lot of people can't get with him because of this second paradox. Cruz is either the real thing, or he's even a larger charlatan than Trump, who doesn't much bother to pretend he believes in much of anything other than himself. If you support Cruz, it's also a roll of the dice.

Donald Trump will either win or lose this election regardless of what Ted Cruz says, or doesn't say. If Trump wins, Cruz will be in the outer darkness. If Trump loses, Cruz will be in the mix in 2020. The interesting question for the GOP electorate would be this -- do you admire Cruz more, or do you admire the approach of Scott Walker, who did endorse Trump? Are you more loyal to principle, or to process? Or do you have to value both? The question may become relevant on or about November 9.

Scott Walker is gone

Too bad. He had potential and Walker made mistakes, but I think Trump killed his campaign, especially by loudly retailing the, and I'm going to use a clinical term here, bullshit claims of a previous Walker opponent, Mary Burke. Trump did the same thing in the last debate, and Walker objected to it, but after that moment CNN assured that Walker was barely on the screen any more. And that was the end. Trump is pretty much dead to me anyway, but his performance in re Walker was particularly egregious. You can highlight policy differences, but to outright lie is beyond the pale. And that's what Trump did in this matter. Go ahead and support Trump if you like his attitude and his swagger, but understand what you're getting is a man without any fixed principles other than his own self-regard. Trump will be a conservative champion until he gets bored with it. When that's over, he'll wipe his butt with all of his acolytes and not think twice about it. Again, if that's your thing, feel free to get on his bandwagon.

I don't have a favorite candidate at this point. If I had to pick today, I'd rank them as follows:

Rubio -- a compromise, but at least plausible
Fiorina -- not sure she's really the right person, but worth a listen
Cruz -- like him, but I don't think he's electable
Carson -- a very nice man and brilliant at what he does, but he'll not last
Trump -- look in my eyes, what do you see? Cult of personality
Bush -- go home, "Jeb!" Seriously, go home

I don't think anyone else has a chance. Do you see any sign of, say,  Bobby Jindal fever? I sure don't.

The second debate

Saw it -- didn't write about it yesterday because I was indisposed -- more on that in another post, probably tomorrow. Impressions:

• The format was terrible. It was all about goading the candidates to trash talk one another. And we might have finally found the way to silence Hugh Hewitt, who might as well have been on a milk carton.
• The Donald had a rough evening, but it may not matter, since many of his supporters aren't looking for wonkery. At some point Trump is going to need to offer specifics. I'm not sure his specifics will comport to the base as well as his attitude does.
• Carly Fiorina was impressive. Not surprising, because you don't get to the C-Suite in Corporate America unless you have presence and polish. She gets dinged for losing to Barbara Boxer, but I would suggest the California electorate is hardly representative of the rest of the country. I'm not sure how her skill set translates to political leadership, but she's going to rise in the polls for sure.
• I'm pretty sure Scott Walker was at the debate, but he was on camera about as much as Hugh Hewitt. I'm afraid Walker isn't going to make it, which is unfortunate because I think he has demonstrated the proper skill set in Wisconsin.
• There's a lot to like about Ben Carson, but he's not going to be president. It's evident that he thinks before he speaks and while we could use a thoughtful individual in the White House, that's not the prototype.
• John Kasich is running for president. Not sure why, though.
• Jeb Bush is going to stick around because he has a lot of money and even more institutional support from the old guard, but I'm pretty sure his moment has passed.
• I'm starting to think Marco Rubio is the guy to watch. He's made enemies with his unfortunate and unsuccessful alliance with Chuck Schumer, but I doubt that allegiance will be fatal.
• Mike Huckabee can go home now.
• Chris Christie was forceful, but he's not going to make it, either. We haven't elected a fat guy to be president since William Howard Taft.
• I like Ted Cruz, but there's something about his manner that's always seemed a little off. He almost comes off as Robert Mitchum in "Night of the Hunter." If he has "LOVE" and "HATE" tattooed on his fingers, we'll have confirmation.
• I also like Rand Paul, but he's got no chance.

Lemme know your thoughts in the comments.

Walker ups the ante

Seeing his campaign imploding in the face of The Donald, Scott Walker is going big:

Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker on Monday will call for sweeping restrictions on organized labor in the U.S., seeking to replicate nationwide his successful effort as Wisconsin's governor to curb the power of unions.

At a town hall meeting in Las Vegas, Walker will propose eliminating unions for employees of the federal government, making all workplaces right-to-work unless individual states vote otherwise, scrapping the federal agency that oversees unfair labor practices and making it more difficult for unions to organize.

Many of Walker's proposals are focused on unions for workers at all levels of government, while others would also affect private-sector unions. Labor law experts said such an effort, if successful, would substantially reduce the power of organized labor in America.

A few thoughts:

• The idea of having states vote to reject right-to-work is audacious. It's probably a nonstarter as well, but it's worth getting the proposal out there.
• Public sector unions are the real problem, because they make it possible to have union supporters on both sides of the table in any negotiations. If you try a scheme like that in the private sector, you go to prison.
• Unions hate Walker anyway, so he might as well go after them hammer and tong.

The key for Walker, and all the other Republican candidates, is to get specific and force The Donald to start getting specific as well. Trump wins if he gets to use the force of his personality to drive the debate. As long as the debate is about personalities and borscht belt insults, Trump the Insult Comic Dog will continue to dominate. He's turned the campaign into a Friar's Club roast (vid is NSFW, of course):

Look for other candidates to start making like Walker and rolling out larger proposals. It's their only chance.

As seen on the internet.

The ever helpful Wisconsin AFL-CIO shares this breaking news about Scott Walker:

The ribbon is a nice touch

Okay, so you might have noticed that this is a relic from the 2014 campaign, but it showed up on my Facebook feed this morning. You might have also noticed that the statistics all are retrospective and catalog rankings that reflect the economic performance of the administration of Scott Walker's predecessor, Jim Doyle. But see, you need to understand the motivations of the person who posted this lovely image:

 ..whatever it takes for him NOT to be president..just my thought..

So, it's fair. And remember this: Scott Walker was born in 1967, so any adverse economic results in the state dating back to the Warren Knowles administration are clearly Scott Walker's gift to all of us. I remain particularly bitter about that damn Walker's malign influence in the time of Martin Schreiber.

The first debate

Saw a good chunk of it, but not all. First thing to note -- how much time did each candidate get to speak?

Classy and huge

I saw this and found it interesting on two levels -- first, it goes to show why you need to double-check your impressions. As I was watching, it seemed to me that Ben Carson and Ted Cruz got less airtime than some of the other candidates, but that was actually not true. Second, I do suspect Rand Paul's lack of airtime is both purposeful and problematic. He is the contrarian of the bunch and we needed to hear more of his political philosophy. I know the reason because I've studied libertarian thinkers and thinking, but I would imagine much of the audience doesn't. As for Scott Walker's lack of airtime, I think that's more a function of his style than anything else. He makes his point and moves on. He could have easily had an extra minute of time if he'd chosen to take it, but he didn't.

General impressions, in the order of airtime:

• Trump is Trump, a force of nature. He talks in generalities and it's clear that he's only renting conservative principles, but his acolytes love him for the same reason why the dudes in the mullets came out for Jesse Ventura in 1998: people perceive him as speaking truth to power. He'll be in this for a while.
• I'm not convinced that Jeb Bush really wants to be president, but it's his time now, or so he's been told. He actually has a pretty good record in Florida, but he's made a habit of sticking his finger in the eye of the base. I don't see him making it.
• John Kasich had a home field advantage, since the debate took place in Cleveland, and he used it -- it was clear that the hall had a lot of Kasich acolytes in attendance. Kasich might have the best record of any candidate, but he seems, I don't know, cranky. He spits out his talking points in good fashion but he doesn't seem particularly compelling.
• Marco Rubio is a talented dude. He also seems callow to me. I really would like him to run for governor of Florida and come back in eight years.
• Ben Carson is interesting to watch. It takes him a while to rev up, but once he gets going he's pretty good. He's done some remarkable things in his life that are completely unrelated to the job he is seeking. In the end, that disconnect will doom his candidacy. Still, I would like to hear more.
• Ted Cruz is brilliant, the smartest guy in just about any room. He knows it, too. I think he really belongs on the Supreme Court. 
• I have never liked Mike Huckabee, because I think he's a charlatan. He's very good behind a podium, though. His "trust but vilify" line concerning the Leader of the Free World was a good one. I still don't trust him.
• Chris Christie is fun to watch -- his dustup with Rand Paul was the most interesting exchange of the night. He would never admit it publicly, but I think he will regret his embrace of Barack Obama for the rest of his days. He'll never have the trust of the Republican base.
• As I said, Scott Walker hit his marks and moved on. The interesting comparison for him is Kasich, who is also a Midwestern governor but a generation older and with extensive Washington experience. I suspect Kasich is going to start taking shots at Walker and it will be interesting to see how Walker responds.
• I like Rand Paul for many reasons. He's the only libertarian in the race and I personally think he got the better of his exchange with Christie. He doesn't come across as forceful on the television screen, however. His voice is adenoidal, which really hurts him.
• I didn't see any of the matinee event, but the consensus is that Carly Fiorina won going away. I would very much like to see more of her; she's tough-minded and she stays on message better than any of the candidates I've seen. I suspect she'll be in the next debate.

Finally, a word on the Fox News panel asking the questions. From what I can tell, the conservative blogosphere was mightily displeased with the questions and tone of the panel, with particular scorn for Chris Wallace. I didn't mind the tough questions -- when the general election debates take place next year, those are the sorts of questions that will be asked, so it's better that the candidates get used to it.

The end of the Chisholm Trail

The Wisconsin Supreme Court swats down the John Doe investigation. Big time.

Dealing Gov. Scott Walker a victory just as his presidential campaign gets underway, the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a sweeping decision Thursday ruled the governor's campaign and conservative groups had not violated campaign finance laws.

The ruling means the end of the investigation, which has been stalled for 18 months after a lower court judge determined no laws were violated even if Walker's campaign and the groups had worked together as prosecutors believe.

The victory isn't Walker's, actually. It's a victory for free speech and against some truly awful behavior on the part of John Chisholm, the Milwaukee County prosecutor behind the act, and his bobo special prosecutor Francis Schmitz. Writing for the majority, Justice Michael Gableman was categorical in his assertions about the case:

"It is utterly clear that the special prosecutor has employed theories of law that do not exist in order to investigate citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing," Gableman wrote.

Calling the challengers brave, Gableman wrote that their litigation gave the court "an opportunity to re-endorse its commitment to upholding the fundamental right of each and every citizen to engage in lawful political activity and to do so free from the fear of the tyrannical retribution of arbitrary or capricious governmental prosecution. Let one point be clear: our conclusion today ends this unconstitutional John Doe investigation."

It's about time. The case has stunk on ice from the outset. It's bad enough that the investigators were conducting nighttime raids on people who had done nothing wrong, but the prosecutors were regularly leaking results of their "investigation" to willing henchmen in the media. The process itself was the punishment, as Gableman noted in his opinion (via Ann Althouse):

 "The breadth of the documents gathered pursuant to subpoenas and seized pursuant to search warrants is amazing.  Millions of documents, both in digital and paper copy, were subpoenaed and/or seized.  Deputies seized business papers, computer equipment, phones, and other devices, while their targets were restrained under police supervision and denied the ability to contact their attorneys.  The special prosecutor obtained virtually every document possessed by the Unnamed Movants relating to every aspect of their lives, both personal and professional, over a five-year span (from 2009 to 2013).  Such documents were subpoenaed and/or seized without regard to content or relevance to the alleged violations of Ch. 11.  As part of this dragnet, the special prosecutor also had seized wholly irrelevant information, such as retirement income statements, personal financial account information, personal letters, and family photos."

Sweet stuff, that. I don't know whether Chisholm or Schmitz will be looking at any repercussions for their actions, but they should really get the full Nifong. The entire investigation was an abuse of power and their conduct was reprehensible.

Walker

I like Scott Walker. We need to watch how he approaches politics on the national scale, but he's made most of the correct choices in Wisconsin. This longish piece from Stephen Miller does a nice job of explaining why:

These are the rules that the far left of the Democrat party has set for anyone who dares step onto their playing turf, where most of legacy network media admittedly play the refs for them. No one is more equipped to make them play by their own rules than Scott Walker. Furthermore, there is this narrative developing from GOP Corporate that in order to move the country beyond the divisive class vitriol that has dominated Obama’s policies (rhetoric that, by the way, won’t end once he leaves office) the proper role of a candidate is to bring people together in Washington and heal the country. This was a prevailing theme of Mitt Romney’s campaign and is now taking shape with Jeb Bush.

On Curb Your Enthusiasm, Larry David, invoking the spirit of Henry Clay, quipped “a good compromise leaves everybody dissatisfied.” Compromise is the sort of talking point constantly pushed by moderates that pleases absolutely no one beyond the Beltway journalists feeding it to them. Conservatives–not even just the true-red hardcore ones, but the moderates as well who are tired of losing–don’t want a President who will reach across the aisle and work with Democrats. They want someone who will steamroll them like Obama did during his first two years, damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead. And Scott Walker? He’s certainly not going to be touting his record of working with Democrats in Wisconsin, not after signing Act 10, concealed carry, and Right-To-Work legislation into law…and that’s exactly why he’s enormously popular. Conservatives dream of someone who will break what’s left of the tired and aged Democratic minority in Congress, and leave them on an ash heap, barely able to comprehend how old and outdated their party faces have become while wallowing in the mess left for them to clean up as their own demi-god strolls out of office singing “Amazing Grace” to himself. There can be no compromise this election.

Emphasis mine. Scott Walker has put skins up on the wall. He's beaten a particularly rabid strain of Democrats in Wisconsin three times since 2010. And he's been successful because he doesn't take the bait. He doesn't play the identity politics game. In Wisconsin, he has let the Democrats emote, stage their protests in the Capitol building, hang out in Rockford rather than voting on a bill. He's waited them out and he has stayed on message. If he can continue to stay on message, he'll have a chance.