The New York Times recently declined to run an Op Ed column submitted by Scott Walker, so instead he's posted it on the official governor's web site (and the URL is below, in case you want to wade through the entire piece). And now we can see why the Times didn't waste space on Governator Lite.
It's rhetoric like the following choice passage that should remind voters that Walker still doesn't get it:
In Wisconsin, we are doing something progressive in the best sense of the word. We are implementing reforms to protect middle class jobs and middle class taxpayers. While our idea may be a bold political move it is a very modest request of our employees.
Ah! Walker's proposals are, he himself proclaims, progressive! Well, that certainly should calm the upset of true progressives who, um, don't quite see it that way, right? The Walker administration is glad it can clear that up for uncountable legions and spartans of protesters, who surely will now stop holding their signs and instead kneel in rapt supplication. Not. Robert M. La Follette Sr. is probably turning in his grave right now.
And then there's that personal bug-a-boo of mine, the use by politicians of many persuasions of the word "bold" to describe their own approach to policy. Sure, "bold" is a bold word, but it's also pretty self-congratulatory when you apply it to your own, future deeds rather than the deeds of others.
Worse, Walker tries to sound as if it's someone else claiming that his moves to de-frock public employee unions are bold, when in fact it is his own administration and his campaign before that insisting his strategy is "to be bold." That usage sounds like it's right out of an episode of "Star Trek," or maybe from a clothes-detergent commercial.
Bold-sounding rhetoric isn't the same thing as actually boldness, especially when it turns out your prime tactic is to mislead voters, rush legislation and play around with the state constitution's meaning of what "is" is.
Bold? More like reckless and dead-of-night sneaky, like a jackal.