Tag Archive: Scott Walker


“I’m someone who went to college, had the opportunity in my senior year to go and take a job full-time … and I took it, thinking someday, maybe, I’d go back,” – Wisconsin Governor Scott Walkerwalker

“As people do better, they start voting like Republicans – unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing,” – Republican presidential campaign strategist Karl Rove.

Nearly 70 percent of Americans have never marched up to the podium in a graduation gown, sporting a mortar board and fluttering tassel to receive a bachelor’s degree, let alone an advanced degree.

Does this automatically mean that two-out-of-every-three Americans are automatically disqualified from serving in the Oval Office? That seems to be the implication as the Washington Post weighed the fact Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker went to college, but didn’t finish. Sounds like a familiar story for way too many people.

As the 2014 mid-term elections are growing more distant in the nation’s rear-view mirror, the assembled political proctologists (e.g., talking-head pundits) are starting to probe and analyze the contenders and pretenders for the first open seat for the White House in nearly eight years.

Some have already questioned New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie’s girth and temperament, reflecting on the fact that Howard Taft was the last rotund American president. Taft ran and won (1908) and then lost (1912) in a pre-digital-video era. That was then; this is now as evidenced by Time Magazine’s November 2013 “Elephant in the Room” cover focusing on Christie with a not-so-subtle reminder of his weight.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 35.7 percent of Americans are obese including 78 million adults and 12.5 million children. For men in particular, this trend is heading in the wrong direction with 27.5 percent registering as obese in 2000, escalating to 35.5 percent 10 years later. The number of obese women also increased from 33.4 percent in 2000 to 35.8 percent in 2010.

Translated: The majority of Americans are not obese, albeit far too many are overweight, a distinction with a difference. Weight is clearly a problem for Governor Christie both politically and physically. A presidential debate involving Christie may not be a pretty sight.christie

Harvardheads, Yaleheads, Princetonheads etc.

Not having a college degree may not be a big deal for the folks on Main Street, who probably don’t have the hallowed degree either, but it is a huge deal for the Harvardheads, attending the cocktail parties in Washington, D.C. and in Midtown Manhattan.

For the Harvardheads, Yaleheads, Princetonheads etc., a bachelor’s degree or better from an Ivy League school is a minimum qualification to occupy the Oval Office. Consider the academic pedigree of the last four presidents:

  • Barack Obama received his undergraduate degree from Columbia and his J.D. from the Harvard Law School.
  • George W. Bush received his bachelor’s degree from Yale and his MBA from the Harvard Business School.
  • Bill Clinton received his undergraduate degree from Georgetown, earned a Rhodes Scholarhsip and his law degree from Yale.
  • George H.W. Walker received a bachelor’s degree from Yale.

Ronald Reagan received his bachelor’s degree from Eureka College (Illinois) in economics and sociology in 1932. Tiny Eureka College with its 785 students (Go Red Devils) will never be confused with a Big Ten School, let alone an Ivy League university. And yet, Reagan is regarded as one of our best presidents.

The same applies and more to Harry S. Truman, who never attended college. Despite this “handicap,” history called on Truman to make some of the toughest calls in the nation’s history (e.g., use of the atomic bombs, firing Douglas MacArthur) in the period beginning at the end of World War II and the early years of the Cold War and its first-ever nuclear threat.

Can a Governor Without a Degree Become a President Without a Degree?

“I’ve got a master’s degree in taking on the big-government special interests, and I think that is worth more than anything else that anybody can point to.” – Governor Scott Walker 

There are many during the past four years who wrote off Walker, particularly after he invoked the eternal wrath of Wisconsin’s public employee unions. As it turns out, he survived a recall and was twice elected governor of the Dairy State; his re-election was last November.

Is the fact that Walker not having a degree, game, set and match for any presidential aspirations, particularly for the Washington cocktail circuit? Most likely this crowd will have influence, particularly during the before-the-primaries shadow campaign when it comes to raising the estimated $88 million or so that it will take to win a party nomination.

Major contributors are not looking to make a donation, but an investment in a candidate that has a chance to win. There is no doubt that Walker is both bright and smart, but that will not stop the know-it-all Pharisees from pointing to the governor’s lack of a degree and thus question whether he has the “gravitas” to do the job.Truman1

Our constitution precludes those who were born overseas or just over the border from running for the presidency. There is not a similar stipulation in the same document when it comes to having a college degree (e.g., Truman and Grover Cleveland were degreeless), but for all intents and purposes it could be a game-ender for Governor Walker and presumably any others that aspire to the highest office without a diploma on the wall.

Almost DailyBrett hopes this indeed is not the case, believing in the romantic notion that anyone with fortitude and perseverance — and not just those with diplomas — can aspire for the highest office in the land.

Almost DailyBrett Note: Credit for the clever term, “Harvardheads” or the Ivy League types that populate Washington, D.C. and Wall Street in particular must be directed to former presidential speech writer Peggy Noonan. She references these creatures several times in her book, “What I Saw At The Revolution.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/08/scott-walker-has-no-college-degree-thats-normal-for-an-american-but-not-a-president/?wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/life-in-your-years/

http://www.rove.com/articles/564

 

 

 

“Don’t cry. Don’t raise your eye. It’s only teenage wasteland…” – Who Guitarist and Songwriter, Pete Townshend, “Baba O’Riley.”

Is the monumental political and philosophical divide in America more than the separation between mere blue states and red states, liberals and conservatives, 99 percent vs. one percent etc.?

Shouldn’t we be equally concerned by the growing number of Americans (e.g., 47 million on Food Stamps) becoming even-more dependent on Washington, D.C in the face of the shrinking number of workers that are left to pay the tax bill?

Is there a growing separation between the dwindling “makers” and the ever-growing “takers?”

And aren’t those fighting words anyway?

Sorry for the string of interrogatives, but this is really not a new subject. At the same time, it is also a topic that is not going away anytime soon.

Pulitzer Prize-winning author and reporter Theodore H. White wrote passionately about this subject three decades ago in his book, “America in Search of Itself.” Is public largesse and those who promote it, ensnaring literally millions of Americans into wasted lifetimes of dependency on the federal government?

white

And with it do the takers then become beholden to their pimping masters every two-or-four years (whatever applies)? Will there ever be enough money from the makers to be redistributed to the takers?

Writing in 1982, White said that every addictive program was passed through Congress in the “name of virtue.” He said that “all entitlement programs tend not only to grow in cost but, more important, to create their own constituencies (the takers?).” He added that with the growth of the federal government comes a “legacy of bureaucracy.”

“…Those dependent on federal money grouped together, while communities organized to demand federal funds,” White wrote. That was about $15 trillion ago.

Defeated GOP standard-bearer Mitt Romney is getting rhetorically beaten up and becoming persona non grata for suggesting that President Barack Obama and his campaign consistently and persistently cherry picked Entitlement Society constituencies and systematically distributed the federal goodies. Romney called them “gifts.”

That top-down, command-and-control approach sounds like great (patronage) politics as evidenced by the electoral result, but is it sound and sustainable public policy?

Those who dare to even raise the subject (could that include little ole me?) may be the recipient of a swift poke with a sharp stick in addition to being branded as cruel, insensitive and callous. Romney is being co-signed to the ash heap of history (the usual resting spot for losing presidential candidates…Whatever happened to Michael Dukakis and Bob Dole?). In the meantime, Republican hopefuls, such as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, are running for the exits. They are contending the GOP needs to stand for 100 percent of the public and by extension, not just the “makers.”

But isn’t addiction still addiction? When do we as a society cross the line between offering a helping hand and slapping on the golden hand cuffs?  One must wonder whether federal constituencies will ever rebel against the notion of being labeled as “takers.”

Literally millions who worked all their lives for their Social Security and Medicare benefits would take umbrage against this designation, and for good reason. Ditto for military veterans, who earned their pensions under fire. But what about the oodles and oodles of the rest?

There is no argument about the need of a safety net for the disadvantaged and unfortunate, but what about those who can be productive and can hold down a career-path job. Isn’t a well-paying job with full benefits the best anti-poverty program that Darwin ever created?

google1

How can we stimulate the entrepreneurs, the innovators, the creators who made America an exceptional nation to continue to do great things and employ millions in the process? Shouldn’t the federal, state and local governments be seen as helpful partners as opposed to regulators and check writers?

Wouldn’t it be great if there was no such divide between the makers and takers? Instead there would be a robust entrepreneurial sector coming up with the breakthrough innovations of tomorrow and a public sector providing the all-important defense and a safety net. That sounds like a balanced approach.

We would have all the government that we need. We can pay down the deficit. We could once again be strong economically. One can only dream.

Right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-obamas-gift-giving-led-to-loss/2012/11/14/c8d7e744-2eb7-11e2-89d4-040c9330702a_story.html?wpisrc=nl_politics

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/15/republicans-to-mitt-romney-exit-stage-left/

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/06/26/federal-government-spends-3m-on-ads-promoting-food-stamps/

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-republicans-abandoning-romney-gifts-20121118,0,7640109.story

%d bloggers like this: