Wisconsin State Journal Slams Walker, But It's Not As It Seems

Tweet

As noted by several blogs including the Democurmudgeon, the conservative Wisconsin State Journal newspaper ripped into Gov. Scott Walker for his poor judgment and participation in campaign work on the taxpayer's dime. But I took their editorial criticism as sort of a tongue-in-cheek statement. They did not point to Walker directly for being the chief executive (doesn't the buck stop on his desk?) or kingpin of an illegal covert office operation. Instead, they slapped his hand for being sloppy.

WSJ Excerpt:
But at a minimum, the governor is guilty of being sloppy with his staff in disturbing ways that should have been avoided.

Guilty of being merely sloppy? Yeah, he left too many prints behind.

As chief executive of the Milwaukee county office, Walker had two choices to make when he sent out that email acknowledging he was in the loop to Tim Russell on May 14, 2010. He either had to fire them all and expose the entire operation as a sudden new discovery OR protect himself by becoming a witness to their trial and let the chips fall where they may. Perhaps even be "thee" John Doe. So far, we only know that he is protecting himself with a defense fund.

WSJ Excerpt:
Remember the caucus scandal? Clearly the lessons of that tumultuous time in state history haven’t been learned.

Sure, there’s some gray area. But Walker should have done a much better job of separating the duties of his private and public employees to avoid any suspicion or inquiry.

The John Doe investigation into Walker’s former staff is terribly disappointing and distracting. It’s history repeating itself with so many of the same dumb and offensive mistakes.

Walker was the chief executive. He's the head honcho. I'm sorry, but there's way too many wishy-washy words and misdirection to consider this editorial sincere. This isn't history repeating itself from the caucus scandal but just another chapter in the ongoing disaster we know as Scott Walker.

They imply that he should have done a better job covering up the potential criminality (suspicion or inquiry) resulting from mixing campaign politics with taxpayer paid public office - particularly in light of the previous caucus scandal. That's all they're saying.

It's almost an apology.