Editor’s Note: We, the writers of Sconnie Sports Talk, are elated to hear the Bucks are only a few steps away from officially staying in Milwaukee. This op-ed’s goal is to talk about the politics of Scott Walker, and we are by no way aiming to take away from the wonderful success of the Milwaukee Bucks building a new stadium in order to stay. Again, we couldn’t be happier about the Bucks arena developments in terms of keeping the team. Thank you for reading.
Today’s flip-flopping case study is Scott Walker, presidential candidate and Governor of Wisconsin. Between Walker and fellow flip-flopper DeAndre Jordan, these two men have rocked the NBA’s offseason by backtracking on their initial plans.
Within the next few minutes, you will learn the secret to successful flip-flopping by understanding how Scott Walker is DeAndre Jordan.
—
Both public figures dropped out of college and became incredibly successful, yet each is terrible at shooting free throws. Each of these men immediately impacted their NBA teams and brought them one step closer to ensuring a successful future for their franchise. The summer of flip-flopping began with DeAndre’s decision to return to Los Angeles after verbally committing to Dallas, and ends today with Governor Walker’s decision to sign the Bucks’ arena bill.
At their essence, Walker and Jordan are unified by a single unique skill: the ability to ignite entire communities with collective anger. There’s only a small, negligible difference: In DeAndre’s case, the furious people are from Dallas; while in Scott’s case, the furious people are Democrats.
When Scott Walker officially completes his anti-fiscally conservative approval, by signing the current arena proposal at State Fair Grounds, he will instantaneously become the next Deandre Jordan. The Jordan flip-flop is obvious: man tells team he’s playing for them, man signs with different team and acts childish about it. Walker’s flip-flop has been virtually unreported though.
The entire evolution of the Bucks arena legislation has been nothing short of a political circus. After senators took my advice to (partially) fund the arena with tourist taxes, I wrote a second article that explained the absurd stances that Wisconsin’s politicians were taking. Here’s an excerpt from a portion of the article called Scott Walker is a Liberal? Democrats Want to Tax the Poor?:
To the Republicans: Borrowing money from Wisconsinites (as proposed) is the opposite of fiscally conservative!
To the Democrats: Blocking public financing for a project that will help the state’s economy is the opposite of fiscally liberal!
Today, Governor Scott Walker will sign the Bucks’ arena bill, forgoing his option to veto the legislation. From there, the Milwaukee City Council will have the opportunity to make slight changes to the bill. Yet, just a few short months ago, Governor Walker was pushing a starkly different plan. He had hoped to subsidize the entire portion of the public’s funds with money from the state with a jock tax. Now, the public portion of funding is being raised by tax revenue not only from the State of Wisconsin, but also from Milwaukee County, the City of Milwaukee, and the Wisconsin Center District.
Essentially, Walker had spent his time on his presidential campaign after the state budget was passed, ignored the fact that the arena’s financing plan is absolutely the opposite of his fiscal political beliefs, and will now sign the new Bucks arena bill, largely considered a Democratic victory, to save the team. He will be approving a deal that gives the wealthy owners of the Milwaukee Bucks $250 million through these taxes, that will eventually turn into over $400 million with interest, which is the antithesis of strict conservative fiscal policy. There’s no way he won’t get attacked for this move at GOP debates in the following months. But, it’s all good in the end for Walker; major Bucks shareholder Jon Hammes has donated $150,000 to Walker’s presidential PAC and Hammes is now his national finance co-chairman.
—
Like some notable politicians from the left, such as Hilary Clinton who opposed gay marriage just eleven years ago, Walker’s history of flip-flopping isn’t isolated. He’s successfully flip-flopped on the question of banning the confederate flag, immigration reform, and rights-to-work legislation. We can safely add the Bucks’ arena deal to this list.
You may be wondering why these 180 degree turns in policy are going underreported by media outlets. It may partially be a result of Walker’s clever use of wording. The following article explains how Scott has primarily danced around criticism of his flip-flopping ways. Asked by Fox News’ Bret Baier about his “flip-flop” on immigration reform, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker responded by unilaterally redefining the term: “A flip would be someone who voted on something — and did something different.”
Perhaps I have misjudged Walker’s craftiness. This is almost a Clinton-esque ability to spin. If Walker and Clinton go head-to-head next year, this phrase will likely become Donald Trump’s slogan for his 2016 independent presidential bid. If Walker truly becomes DeAndre, say by following Jordan’s cue of ignoring billionaire Mark Cuban’s big mouth, it will be the first time that Scott Walker isn’t the puppet for a billionaire.
Let the truth ring from the Internet browser to Internet browser: Scott Walker is just another DeAndre Jordan in politics.