In his Friday Washington Post column, Dana Milbank accused Scott Walker of "cowardice" which "ought to disqualify him as a serious presidential contender."

Walker's alleged "cowardice" was his failure to disown the following remark made by New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani: “I do not believe that the president loves America.” Last time I checked, Rudy's entitled to his opinion, and Walker's entitled to opt out of psychoanalyzing the Oval Office's current occupant. This sent Milbank into a a blind fury (bolds and numbered tags are mine):



On Sunday, Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd did his best to continue the media’s obsession surrounding former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani questioning President Obama’s love of America. Despite Todd’s insistence that he has “hated this story in so many ways,” he made sure to declare “[t]his week’s week's race to the bottom, led by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, is proving why Americans are learning to hate politics and the media.”



Anyone who thinks the PBS NewsHour is a calm, rather nonpartisan forum on politics where no one does any trash-talking hasn’t seen Mark Shields on Fridays.

On Friday, Shields trashed Jeb Bush as a bumbler, and then just insulted governors Scott Walker and Chris Christie as “total novices” on foreign policy, like he’s a standup comedian. But eight years ago, Shields said only "serious candidates" were running.



Responding to a question on Facebook Tuesday about left-wing pundit Howard Dean attacking Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker as "unknowledgeable" for not graduating college, Mike Rowe, host of CNN's Somebody's Gotta Do It, dismantled Dean's assertion and wondered if America had "confused qualifications with competency."



The American Prospect’s Paul Waldman argues that “anti-intellectualism has often been an effective way for Republicans to stir up class resentment while distracting from economic issues. It says to voters…[d]on't aim your disgruntlement at Wall Street, or corporations that don't pay taxes, or the people who want to keep wages low and make unions a memory. Point it in a different direction, at college professors and intellectuals (and Hollywood, while you're at it).”



The safest bet you can possibly make at the beginning of a presidential election cycle is that the “objective” national media will savage the Republican contenders with “investigative” journalism. Not just one Republican contender, but all the Republican contenders.

It’s a bit amazing to look back at 2012 and remember that every Republican candidate was punched in the kisser by “journalism” if and when he or she inched into the lead. Sarah Palin never declared, but she was slimed in 2011 by NBC star Savannah Guthrie, who casually tossed out author Joe McGinniss’s claims that she was a bad mother, that she and her husband used cocaine, and she had sex with an NBA star. Proof? Who needs it?



Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a reformist conservative and Republican presidential hopeful for 2016, has become a media target, from making a stink of Walker evading an evolution question to obsessing over his college years. Next up: Ripping Walker's proposed cuts to the state university system's operating budget. New York Times reporter Julie Bosman took advantage of Tuesday's front page to portray Walker's university cuts as tarnishing the very ideal of the university in "2016 Ambitions Seen in Bid for Wisconsin Cuts."



It took well over 24 hours, but the New York Times finally corrected (HT Instapundit) op-ed columnist Gail Collins's ignorant Saturday contention about how Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker caused teacher layoff in 2010: "As well as the fact that those layoffs happened because Walker cut state aid to education." Collins was so sure of herself that she emphasized how Walker's 2010 state aid-caused layoffs were a "fact." Trouble is, Walker didn't become Badger State Governor until January 2011.

Instapundit's reaction: "So basically, it’s now an Emily Litella column. Never mind!" The Old Gray Lady's excision from Collins's cranky column hardly solves all of its problems.



In London, England earlier this week, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker delivered a speech about global trade at the Chatham House think tank. Given that the group's mission is "to help build a sustainably secure, prosperous and just world," and that it encourages "open debate and confidential discussion on the most significant developments in international affairs," it seemed a reasonable expectation that those present would ask questions relevant to those matters.

Instead, Scott Walker was asked several brazenly off-topic questions, including if he believed in evolution. He refused to answer them. In the case of evolution, he said, "I’m going to punt on that one ... That’s a question that a politician shouldn’t be involved in one way or another," while reminding the audience that "I'm here to talk about trade and not pontificate on other issues."



T. Becket Adams at The Washington Examiner drew up a list of people shocked, shocked, that Scott Walker punted on a “gotcha” evolution question at a London Q&A.

Adams noted that these same liberal journalists don’t blink when liberal politicians punt on gotcha abortion questions. Conservatives are "climate deniers" or Darwin deniers, but when liberals are baby deniers? The media can only laugh along with them when that hardly tricky matter of science comes up.



What an ironic title New York Times op-ed columnist and former editorial page editor Gail Collins used — "Scott Walker Needs an Eraser" — in her February 13 opinion piece blasting Wisconsin's Republican governor.

In her nitpicky, selective mind, Walker must already have an eraser, one that's so powerful that it could reach back to the year before he became Badger State chief executive and eliminate teachers' jobs (bolds are mine throughout this post):



Buttering up his February 12 guest Boris Johnson, Hardball host Chris Matthews told the London mayor that he's eligible to run for president, given that he was born on U.S. soil. But Matthews apparently forgot the residency stipulation in the Constitution, one criterion that Johnson doesn't meet.