Despite which, George W. Bush got elected twice, didn't he?  Democratic political consultants will find some stereotype to plug any Republican candidate into.  That's their job. The question is how well it works for them, and the "ignorant yokel" theme has a mixed record.

Bush managed to turn that stereotype into a down-to-earth charm.  Sarah Palin had that ability to perhaps even a greater degree, but she failed by making rookie mistakes on national TV.  Romney failed because he was unable to convey a positive version of the stereotype, and too often awkwardly reinforced it.

Walker wouldn''t make rookie mistakes.  He's down to earth, but not inarticulate.  He doesn't fit the wild-eyed ruthless reformer they tried to portray him as in Wisconsin either.

Whether his style will win I don't know: but it can win.

Ryan could be a better candidate, but it's not clear that he intends to run, whereas Walker is clearly interested.  My guess is we will see either one or the other -- not both.

The IRS strikes me as a bigger deal, on substance, because it's directed at a broad group of ordinary citizens.  This is just one individual example of the arrogance/abuse of power.  But I don't think you're exaggerating the potential, though whether it reaches that potential remains to be seen.

It's true that the media will cover for Obama, to a degree.  But they don't like being lied to.  (When it's a wink and a nod and they're really "in the know" that's one thing.  But they don't like being deliberately misled.)  And some of them are aware that if they let this administration break all the rules, a less-friendly Republican administration might try some of the same tricks.

It is kind of gloomy to realize that you could flip every state in the Midwest (except Illinois, and that's a bridge too far even for fantasy-land) without getting to 270.

The answer is to be strong against falsehood and gentle and caring towards people.  Republicans haven't managed this well lately -- they tend to get too close to the extremes of either completely PC or completely tone-deaf -- but it can be done.  That's how President Reagan pulled it off, isn't it?

I think Walker would be a great candidate -- if he could get the nomination.  If primary voters will look beyond the more inspiring rhetoric and flashier style of our new ambitious senators and look at accomplishment.   The advantage he has over Tim Pawlenty is his higher name recognition.  He won't need charisma in order to get a hearing; Republicans would give him a chance anyway, I think.  But how he'd fair in, say, South Carolina I don't know.  He could be everyone's second choice, which could work to his advantage -- or not.

The other question, of course, is whether he could balance running a campaign while remaining effective in his still-blue state.

Though nothing is predictable, that mild manner would be an advantage in a general election, I think: reassuring, calming, and not surprised by anything that would get thrown at him.  His approach to "resonating with ordinary voters" is to focus on how politics affects their everyday lives.

Oh, and he'd be a good President.  Milwaukee County and Madison are probably as good training as any we can come up with for a conservative executive in Washington.

There's a lot in that -- the Republican primary hurt Romney.

I think conservative/Republican overconfidence also hurt him.  A lot of people -- from Sarah Palin to Romney himself -- just underestimated Obama's abilities as a politician and the effectiveness of his message.  As much as we don't think it fits in America, note how many people around the world have voted for similar ideas, and take its appeal seriously.

That explains the mystery of why he didn't attack harder.  If you watched during the primaries, he went on the attack, hard -- when he was worried.  When he was in the lead, he mostly tried to float above the fray.   Especially after the first debate, he saw things moving in his direction and thought he'd wrapped it up, I think.  He started to operate like a frontrunner: don't do anything that might rock the boat too much.  That's a legitimate strategy -- when you're actually ahead.  Problem was, he wasn't.

Democratic Primary 2016: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton? 

That could actually be fun to watch.

Well, for one thing, watch how her presumably male Democratic opponents go about responding to it, and see how that works out.  And watch what Benghazi does to her. 

Hillary as the soft, nurturing type doesn't seem likely to stick, somehow.

Call the media and your congressman, of course.

Which is why no American politician would do it like that.  But if they had, they'd regret the "mistake", blame it somehow on an overzealous staff, turn it back over, and offer you something else to get you to shut up.

Moral: Don't walk into a thieves' house and show them your wealth.

I found this thread through my "People I'm Following" tab.  I found it in the following manner:

I'd just put together my salad, except for the eggs, which I'd started a little late and so weren't done yet.  I put the potato mix in the fridge, peeled the eggs, set them out to cool a little and sat down to read Ricochet for a few minutes.  Whereupon this comment, without context, met my eyes:

So now I'm going to go complete the abomination, by slicing them and sending them to join their companions in tastefulness.  You don't have to eat any.

Oh, and my eggs peeled beautifully.  Which is almost a pity, since I'm going to cut them up and bury them in mayonnaise, mustard, and potato.

More Shakespeare:

"Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em."

The sentiment, itself, is passable, but in context, it's sharply (and hilariously) ironic: the letter is a fake, suggesting to the absurdly arrogant Malvolio that he's about to have greatness "thrust" upon him by means of the countess Olivia, whom the letter claims loves him in secret.   Acting on the fake letter's advice Malvolio achieves greatness, if great absurdity qualifies.

Nailed it, I think.  But I don't see how the fact that you've figured out their little game makes you grumpy.

This guy Snowden seems to have too much of an ego to have been trusted with a leak like that.  If it were intentional, it would've been anonymous.

I agree that the key word is "moderation." No food will kill you, eaten in proportion (unless you happen to be allergic to it).  No food, eaten excessively, will miraculously save your life.

Of course, I think common sense and instinct should tell us that "moderation" has a different meaning for chocolate cheesecake than for fruit salad.

I'm not an obsessive label-reader, but I do also try to limit artificial stuff -- artificial sweeteners, margarine, etc.  Food won't kill you, but I'm less sure about chemicals.  Besides, they're often just a cover to allow us to splurge without feeling guilty. 

I'm generally in agreement, but that's not much help to a conscientious public school administrator or teacher trying to do  the best he can by his students. 

If I were on a public school board, I'd push for a pretty strict dress code.  Would I be wrong to do so?

It's something that 1) you believe government should be able to do on its facilities and 2) you believe a school should be able to do..  You object to the source of their funding and power, not to their existence, or to their school-related activities.