Mainstreamers endorse Scott Walker — in their peculiar manner

Wall St. Journal’s James Taranto, reporting on Scott Walker’s very good early polls-showing, is properly cautious about his prospects, but adds this:

On the other hand, some conservatives and Republicans interpret the liberal media’s recent hazing of Walker as a sign that he is the candidate they fear. Lending support to this hypothesis is John Cassidy of the New Yorker, who weighed in yesterday with an essay titled “The Dangerous Candidacy of Scott Walker.”

Yes, yes, yes. Those bozos smell a threat and jump to it. Not incompetent but meaner than junk-yard dogs. That’s what a palace guard is for. (H/T Instapundit for useful term for media lemmings)

(As for Taranto and his Best of the Web, a longtime Internet denizen, the link is a tease of sorts if you are not a WSJ subscriber, but you can sign up for a good chunk of his columns by way of email.)

Wall Street funny guy

Where to start on something from James Taranto as Wry Observer with eye for headlines? Try this:

An Optimist Would Say Two-Thirds Still Consider It Fun
“Third of Berlin University Students Consider Sex Work”–headline, Reuters, May 18

I often try for a zinger myself, but here I desist.

Focus, people, focus!

Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth President of th...
He's so glad he wasn't a Democrat

First, Obama’s hard-core supporters offended by his scolding, as at Talking Points Memo, relayed by James Taranto:

“It’s just too damn bad he couldn’t have gotten mad at his enemies at any point since becoming President and instead saves his disdain and anger for his allies. It’s kind of the story of his Presidency.”

“If Obama is serious about closing the gap and convincing people who are so angered about administration policy that they’re thinking of simply not voting, he needs to take their frustration more seriously, take more responsibility for things that have gone wrong, and promise something different in the next two-to-six years. Instead we get this preemptive finger pointing.”

“He is, in essence, lecturing them for using their hearts rather than their heads in the face of looming catastrophe. . . . Does the President really think lecturing them will move them to do that? If so, he is as guilty as they are of letting his passions overwhelm his judgment.”

Second, Obama’s hard-core supporters defending the scolding, also at TPM, similarly relayed:

“Obama is not scolding anybody he is just pointing out the futility in venting your frustrations in a way that will certainly ensure all you value is destroyed. Don’t vote its your choice and it is the GOP’ers choice too. . . . Sit out the election and sit in on the GOP’s plans for you. It’s that simple and it’s that stupid.”

“Wow, the folks complaining about Obama’s comments strike me as really huffy and indignant.”

“I, however, think that scolding is necessary. . . . The idea that within eighteenth months Obama was going to transform thirty years of supply-side, values-voting American politics seems foolish. We should know better.”

And this five weeks before an election.  “One group resents being talked down to by the president, the other group identifies with the president and resents the first group,” comments Taranto. “It’s about as edifying as–though admittedly a lot more fun than–watching high school girls squabble over who is more conceited.”