Gov. Walker starts tamping down expectations created by his own job creation promise

During an appearance on “UpFront with Mike Gousha” over the weekend, Republican Gov. Scott Walker started to tamp down expectations regarding his job creation efforts in Wisconsin, expectations that were sky-high after he promised during his gubernatorial campaign in 2010 that he’d create 250,000 job during his term in office.

Gousha: Do you have to revise your expectations for what you can do in Wisconsin? You promised 250,000 new jobs, 10,000 new businesses, do you have to look at those numbers and say maybe that’s just not realistic?

Walker: Well, there are certainly some who may look at the numbers and suggest that may be the case. My goal is to still get there — my goal is to actually exceed that amount. We’re still going to keep pushing.

Gousha: Is it going to be tough to reach that?

Walker: Oh, I think without a doubt.

I think without a doubt that Scott Walker will fail to create 250,000 jobs in Wisconsin during his time in office, whether he’s in office for a year or a full term.


Related Articles

23 thoughts on “Gov. Walker starts tamping down expectations created by his own job creation promise

    1. Jeez, Mark. He’s just another politician trying to have it both ways.

      He knows his policies are a failure, but he doesn’t want to admit it outright.

      If he did, he MIGHT even lose the support of doe-eyed boobs like you.

      What is it with Walker apologists like you?!

      He shows you a pile of sh*t, and you jump into it, and start digging around, looking for the pony.

      1. Zuma, I’m far from a Walker supporter or apologist. I contributed generously to the the Obama campaign and devoted many hours to lit drops and GOTV for all the Democrats in the 2010 midterms. Anonymous zingermeisters like yourself do make me question the worth of such efforts. Still, the point remains: Nothing that Walker said constitutes a “tamping down” of job creation expectations. Gousha gave him that opportunity, but he didn’t bite. Therefore, this post is misleading.

        1. What’s it like living inside your head with the Easter Bunny?

          Of course, he’s tamping down expectations.

          Dude, it’s like you’ve never met a politician.

          “Is it going to be tough to reach that?”

          “Oh, without a doubt, [but we’re going to keep on trying].”

          A politician who KNOWS he has a winning policy position DOES NOT talk like that. One that is trying to waffle his way away from a position previously taken, but who doesn’t want to admit it, DOES.

          I’m glad that your politics are what they are, different as they are from what your “analysis” above would suggest that they are, but, Mark, in all honesty, what’s going on here is just basic political psychology.

          Walker hasn’t achieved the pie-in-the-sky, suck in the wingnut rubes/dupes and “say whatever it takes to get elected” gains that he promised, and he knows that he won’t be able to. Ergo the new “realism” framed by the disingenuous “of course, it’s STILL my goal” BS.

          I don’t suppose that you’re in the market for some swampland in Florida, are you, Mark? (*wink*)


          Oh, AND the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy aren’t real, either, Mark.

    1. Mark believes in you, Jeff. So hang in there.

      What’s that, Mark?

      Jeff, Mark wants me to tell you to stay by the phone. He says that the Brewers will be calling any minute now.

      Huh? Oh, and leave the front door unlocked. The Easter Bunny wants to drop some chocolate eggs off.

  1. He spent his first months demolishing unions which he finally had to admit did NOT save money in his budget. He was DC and under oath during testimony to congress.

  2. Zuma, take off the tinfoil hat and get out of moonbat nation,and you would recognize everything your saying defines Obama the soon to be x president

    1. (*laughing*)

      “Ray The Incoherent” returns.

      Do you understand the “tinfoil hat” metaphor at all, Ray Ray? Or understand how anytime you post anything, everyone else here pictures you wearing one?

      “Moonbat nation”. (*laughing*) Just doesn’t have the same ring as WINGNUT NATION, does it, little homey.

      Look, Ray, you’re out of your depth in any exchange that you have with me. You just don’t have the requisite intelligence, creativity or sense of humor.

      As usual, what you always end up doing is ripping off something that I’ve said to you or someone else [like WINGNUT NATION], and then trying [unsuccessfully] to riff on it, without ever addressing my substantive points.

      What’s next? Calling me, little homey, because it’s what I’ve called you? (*laughing*)

      Wouldn’t be the first time, would it?

      I’m a lawyer, Ray, an educated and successful man with a sense of humor. You’re an anti-intellectual wingnut loser with some kind of axe that you constantly need to grind.

      Time to let it go, at least when it comes to me.

      I’m happy to dispassionately address any substantive points that you want to make. Otherwise, just go back to your sandbox, and let the adults talk amongst themselves.

  3. It always depends on how you count. Just fire everyone, rehire some people, profit. We will end with less jobs and a higher unemployment, but the staunch conservatives will eat it up.

    I think with that type of math, he will get it.

  4. Why must these comment threads degenerate into name calling and insults?

    I really do get tired of having to remind grown people that I’d like to see more dialogue and debate and less name calling and insults.

    1. With rare exceptions, erudite and thoughtful conservatives like William F. Buckley, Jr. with whom a progressive can have intelligent interaction are few and far between. Unless a rational and reasonably intelligent commenter with conservative views like Locke or Super Id participates, progressives are often left to deal with childish, anti-intellectual wingnuts like Notalib and Ray with whom you can’t have such an interaction.

      While I respect your laudable wish for “. . .more dialogue and debate and less name calling and insults”, I think that you’re going to have to wait for the ever-rightward and antagonistic lurch of the conservative movement to complete its death spiral into infamy and irrelevance, and for people like Notalib and Ray to either grow up or fade away, for that to happen.

      In the meantime, short of your giving Ray and his ilk the boot, I and other progressives will, I imagine, take the time to playfully, tongue-in-cheek, set people like Notalib and Ray back on their heels, while continuing to intelligently articulate the progressive point of view on any given issue.

      There’s nothing wrong with showing a little spine when the wingnuts act up, Zach, even if it means fighting fire with fire. Short of banning someone like Notalib or Ray, how else do you deal with them, how else can you neutralize them, other than by responding in kind and mocking them?

      Didn’t the whole Notalib experience make that abundantly clear?

      1. Who hasn’t shown spine? Are you referring to me?

        I sure hope not, because I’ve shown spine aplenty, both publicly and in dealing with the emails I get as a result of this blog. I get the “fight fire with fire” point of view….I really do, and I’m unafraid to call folks out for their stupidity; I just don’t feel the need to result to insults to get my point across.

        Ultimately someone has to be the bigger man when it comes to the insults, stupidity, and personal attacks, and I had hoped that person would be you, but I suppose I was mistaken.

        1. Ray is like Notalib, but with half the IQ points, and less maturity. Why is he still around?

          The whole “bigger man” thing might resonate more if you stopped calling me into the “principal’s office”, and started taking sterner measures with commenters like Ray.

          Until then, if he comes after me, and if the “tinfoil hat” fits, I’m going to tell Ray to wear it.

          Honestly, I’m glad that you’re starting to show some emotion around here, but tonight it was misdirected.

          Much as I enjoy being called on the carpet with respect to how I deal with people like the now-banned Notalib and Ray, I have a suggestion. Why not direct some of your irritation regarding incivility toward people like Ray, people who wouldn’t know a substantive comment if it bit them on the ass, and haven’t EVER contributed one, instead?

          That Notalib remained as long as he did was a reflection of you expecting everyone else to be the “bigger man” around him. Don’t repeat the same mistakes that you made with respect to Notalib here.

          People like Notalib and Ray just don’t respect the concept of the “bigger man”. It means nothing to them. In the absence of a “meet fire with fire” response to their unique brand of aggressive stupidity, they are only encouraged to re-engage in it time and time again, to the chagrin of intelligent commenters.

          I respect you, Zach, but you just aren’t militant enough with the likes of Ray, and you are way to disposed to expecting everyone else to tolerate their childish behavior, to be the “bigger man”.

          That approach just doesn’t work with people like Ray and Notalib.

          You finally realized that about Notalib. You need to realize it about Ray.

          If Ray wants to mix it up with me. So be it. I’m going to mix it up with him. Unless and until you give him the boot, and I don’t have to deal with his bullsh*t, don’t expect me not to.

          To the extent that you’re going to continue to tolerate the presence of emotional infants like Ray, you need to “tolerate” the reactions of people like me to their bullsh*t without calling them on the carpet.

        2. “Who hasn’t shown spine? Are you referring to me?”

          No, Zach.

          It was a self-reference. With a clearer head at the moment that you wrote that, you probably would have seen that.

          I said, “There’s nothing wrong with showing a little spine when the wingnuts act up, Zach, even if it means fighting fire with fire. ”

          And I said that in defense of the tact that I had taken with Ray with which you found fault.

          Hate to say it, Zach, but your response, the one I cited, smacked of untoward and uncharacteristic defensiveness.

          I was sorry to see that.

          Look, I think that you’re beginning to fray a bit around the edges as you try to maintain your diplomatic, Midwestern “nice guy” approach to running Blogging Blue. It’s apparently time for you to revisit that approach.

          Start by ruthlessly clearing out the childish, Notalib-esque commenters, like Ray.

          Then, start “policing” things around here by removing, as you see fit (it’s your blog, after all), comments that violate your sense of civility, morality, [fill-in-the-blank].

          As a part of that, but not a necessary part of that (again, it’s your blog – no need to explain or justify what you do), consider articulating a set of clearly defined, unambiguous Commenting Rules, the violation of which will lead to the removal of comments and/or being banned.

          Whatever you choose to do around here in the future, Zach, just be dispassionate, objective (“one size/standards fits all”) and militantly proactive in implementing your vision for the site.

          I may not stick around if you can’t appreciate the value in satirizing or otherwise making fun of the resident or visiting wingnuts and teabaggers here, or if you can’t appreciate the need to respond in kind as appropriate.

          But whether I stick around or not, Zach, at a minimum, you need to jettison the double standard of holding people like Ray to a lower standard, and of holding others, like me, to a higher, “bigger man” standard.

          You need to “police” your site in a different way.

          As you know, I have some fairly serious things to deal with at my end. So, I’m going to go on hiatus here for awhile, and focus on dealing with them.

          Good luck with everything here.

          1. Leave or don’t leave….it doesn’t much matter to me. I’d like to believe I’ve been pretty fair in how I’ve dealt with commenters here (both liberal and conservative), and I’m tired of being lectured about what I should or could do in regards to certain commenters here.

            1. You’re tired of being lectured, Zach? (*laughing*)


              Pot calling the kettle black.

              You know what else is ironic, Zach?

              The fact that you copped the very same attitude when I “lectured” you over time about the need to get rid of Ray’s mentor, Notalib, something which you resisted for the longest time in the interest of being “evenhanded” UNTIL you finally realized that I was right about the need to ban him, and banned him.

              You’ve arrogantly overreacted here, your self-serving protestations to the contrary notwithstanding .

              I’m truly sorry that you “don’t much care” if I leave or not. I don’t really believe that, but it’s academic now. You’ve turned a hiatus into a permanent vacation with this new/odd dalliance with defensiveness. Nice job.

              Have fun with Ray. He’ll definitely continue to elevate the discourse around here. (*laughing*)

              So, in my final comment here, let me leave you with Ray’s last “bon mot” to savor:

              “Zuma, take off the tinfoil hat and get out of moonbat nation,and you would recognize everything your [sic] saying defines Obama the soon to be x [sic] president [sic]”

              Ray, heir apparent to Notalib and “cause celebre” for one Zachary Wisniewski.


              Take care of yourself, Zachary.

  5. Zach, as hard as I try—I find it impossible to argue with right-wingers without calling them wingnuts and idiots. They are wingnuts and idiots. There isn’t any type of fact that will be admitted into their heads. You cannot reason with them. They do not accept reality, but cling to notions that conform to their belief systems. They are brainwashed beyond all therapy. If you don’t want insults being hurled, then I suggest you ban all right-wingers from your blog. You have to notice that the liberals here do not attack one another, even when they disagree on something. I may not agree with you at one point or another, but I do not even entertain the idea of insulting you because I know you are amenable to reason and logic and you have the ability to readjust your thinking based on being presented with new evidence. That doesn’t happen with conservatives—particularly the breed active in today’s world. All you have to do is look at the so-called GOP debate and see people cheering the hypothetical death of someone who is uninsured to understand that we are dealing with a type of people who are soulless, unhappy, twisted, and evil.

Comments are closed.