Scott Walker Hires Brad Dayspring, Assailer of Chris McDaniel

As reported by Red State, Streiff (Diary):

Scott Walker just dropped off my list of acceptable candidates. I like a lot about Governor Walker but people are policy. And his decision to hire Brad Dayspring, an unprincipled political operative who combines viciousness and incompetence in equal measures tells us a lot.

As we have documented here on RedState, Brad Dayspring was on of the loudest lying voices in the dishonest, dishonorable, and disreputable campaign the NRSC waged on behalf of the mildly profoundly senile, corrupt, and adulterous Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS). In this campaign Dayspring was front and center in lying about challenger Chris McDaniel. In fact, the scorched earth campaign waged by Dayspring against McDaniel exceeded any campaign the NRSC has ever run against a Democrat.

[Remember this infamous tweet?]

He was also instrumental in launching attacks on the challenger to Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) 70%, Dr. Milton Wolf.  In Arkansas, he attacked the GOP nominee, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) 85% for attacking Democrat Mark Pryor.

Though there is no monetary teat, or other appendage, Dayspring won’t pull to extract cash, he routinely accuses conservatives, like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 100%, and conservative organizations like the Family Research Council of putting fund raising ahead of principle– which to Dayspring equates with whatever Establishment corruptocrat he’s being paid to support. At a time when the best man for his wedding was under arrest for child pornography (and favoriting pornographic tweets) he accused Mark Levin and the Senate Conservative Fund of pay-to-play purchases of Levin’s book. This is simply another of the lies Dayspring has told, knowing them to be lies. And then he moves along to yet another lie.

If you want to read Dayspring’s sordid history in GOP politics, we have it here.

We need to move away from this revolving door of GOP establishment apparatchiks affixing themselves like barnacles to candidates. Walker is not the only candidate with this problem. The equally odious Austin Barbour is working on Rick Perry’s campaign.

There is no way I will support Governor Walker so long as Dayspring is affiliated in any way, no matter how tangential, with his campaign. This hiring of a casual liar, of a man who sets about to destroy the reputations of anyone he is told to attack speaks ill of Governor Walker. If he keeps Dayspring it also tells you that Governor Walker is no conservative. He has now become the designated establishment candidate. If Dayspring stays with the campaign, conservatives must oppose him no matter the cost.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Scott Walker was never on my list. I am pro life, but when he introduced a bill in his state legislature. which would allow doctors to lie to women about their health, this was going too far for me.

  2. Floyd Pink says:

    I’ve been a fan of Walker since following the “Wisconsin Story” over the last several years. But this is a deal breaker for me. The same goes for Rick Perry after I read of his hiring Barbour. I will not support anyone who affiliated with this people, under any circumstances.

  3. Douglas says:

    Thank you for posting this info and please keep it coming.

  4. So the work Governor Walker has done means nothing. He simply is not a conservative now because of someone he hired to help run a campaign? Thanks, but I think I will stick to choosing my candidate based on what the candidates says and not by who is helping out on his campaign.

    • Martin – why don’t you try voting for a persons record and results instead of what they ‘say’? Walker never campaigned on any of the things that he has done to the citizens of WI. Instead he pandered to the low intelligence voters, the ones that also believe time-share pitches, and then ‘dropped the bombs’ right after the elections. If you support this man you can expect that your own morals and ethics would be questioned. Pretty sure you can’t stand up to that scrutiny.

  5. MichaelW says:

    I have put Gov. Walker as one of my best of the lot that is running for president candidates along with 2 or 3 others. I am not surprised that he would hire a guy of this nature. In todays politics, these people don’t have the morals of the common working conservative Christian person, who has to live with his personal decisions of morality. They believe the end justifies the meaning for the greater good. Even if you have to drag up a hired gunslinger with no morals to help you get to the finish line. However, Gov. Walker must also realize that when you do hire some of these overpaid , lack of morality, dirty politic playing personnel, who will take the campaign down into the gutter full of crap, that he will get a little smell on him from that experience. So it is up to Gov. Walker to ultimately be in charge of his campaign to be sure that by trying to lure in new voters and groups into his campaign that he doesn’t sacrifice at the other end.

  6. Bill Smith says:

    James Baker worked for both Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. Both primary seasons were bruising. Reagan was particularly ticked by the “vodoo economics” remark Bush made. However, after things cooled down he got to know Baker. He ended up making hiim Chief of Staff and then Secretary fo the Treasury. He served Reagan well and was responsible for many of Reagan’s legislative triumphs. He then did a great job under Bish as Secretary of State, partly because of his political skills.

    Politicians hiire consulatans for their knowledge, skills, and experience.

  7. David Frazier says:

    I suspect that you will be hard-pressed to find any political consultants who engage at the national level who function via “the morals of the common working conservative Christian person” (whatever that means) as Michael W laments. These are kingdom of the world types who believe that the end justifies the means–so long as no laws are being broken. Then there are guys like Tony Perkins’ crew at the Family Research Council and Brent Bozell. Brent’s father use to fire-bomb abortion clinics. Brent uses verbal incendiaries to destroy anyone whom he contends is not a “true” Conservative. Political anarchists like these guys make folks like Dayspring seem like innocent little children. Guys like Perkins and Bozell do their damage and attempt to distort the facts “all in the name of the Lord”. If the truth were known, the reason that some of the McGOPer types object to Dayspring is the fact that he is so effective at what he does, and they wish that they had him working for them. Love him, or hate him, Dayspring must be effective on behalf of his candidates. Who knows, if he had been running Chris McDaniel’s campaign against Thad, instead of Melanie Sojourner, we might be deferring to Chris, as U.S. Senator.

    • MichaelW says:

      Yes, but again some people have morals and some don’t, but those that don’t like to talk about and attack those that do. As far as what a working conservative Christian is, well I believe that covers the majority of Mississippians, but maybe I guess you have to be a working conservative Christian to understand the meaning of that term and how it reflects on our values and beliefs. I guess majority rule doesn’t apply in Mississippi anymore, only being politically correct does. However as we continue to get more and more politically correct then the good folks in Washington D.C. will quit sending so much money to Mississippi to help correct our political incorrectness.

      • David Frazier says:

        But Michael, what makes you think that you’re a “conservative” in the true sense of the word? To someone like Charles and David Koch you are just another type of Progressive-Collectivist since you advocate having the State serve as the Lord Protector overseeing the personal lives of the citizens. Also, majority rule certainly applies in Mississippi and in America so long as the majority does not deny the minority equal protection under the law of basic fundamental rights. The right to marry whom you choose is a basic fundamental and natural right. How would you feel if the legislature passed a law that denied the right to vote to anyone whose financial net worth is less than one million dollars? “But for” the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, legislatures would be able to come up with all types of inequalities on those activities in life that we in the majority take for granted. It has nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do with liberty and freedom. Is this a great country, or what! 🙂

  8. Brad Patano says:

    David, It has been discussed plenty, even here at MCD, but believing Obergefell V Hodges is win for any group of people is dangerously short sighted. Anytime 5 judges usurp authority of the overwhelming majority of the citizens of this country it can’t be a good thing. You may view this case as a win, but now that the precedent has been set for these 9 people to define “basic human needs” and what is “essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations”, you are likely not to be on the winning side of the next decision.

    Had the decision been that marriage is a legal contract between two individuals and a covenant with their God, and that the government has no business regulating such activity. That could be viewed as a win for liberty and freedom.

    • Bill Smith says:

      David, here is what I think happened. The Majority imposed a morality on the rest of us. They had the view that it was the right/moral thing for homosexuals to be able to marry. It conflicted with their morality that in any state homosexuals should not have the right to marry. But the Minoirty followed the law. They rightly understood that marriage is a matter for the is for the states to regulate. They did not try to impose morality on the law. As Scalia said, he didn’t care what mariages the states chose to sanction – that could do whatever they wanted – but he did care that the states retained their historic and Constutional right to decide. I think you miss who imposed morality on whom. And a lot of Christian conservatives are missing what the Minority really intended.

      Now, what is happening in my own little corner of Anglicanism, is that our clergy are advised to have no role at all in civil marriage, that is neither to require nor to sign marriage licenses. If a couple want civil marriage in addition to ecclesiastical marriage, then let them get a license and have civil authority sign it. Our clergy are advised to stay out of the civil business altogether. Not to care whether the state does or does not saction the marriage. I would guess this might please you – detaching the kingdoom of God from the secularist humanist state.

  9. David Frazier says:

    Respectfully, from the way that you guys are writing your posts, it appears to me that you have not read the majority opinion in Obergefell. I suggest that all of you guys read the case, and then set out in bullet points you questions, objections, and points of concerns. Then I will be glad to respond.

    However, if you want to complain about judicial engineering and abuse, look no further than Chief Justice Roberts’ majority decision in the case of King v. Burwell. That is the most egregious example of judicial tyranny since Bush v. Gore. It’s devoid of judicial logic, and worse, it is intellectually dishonest. Every American should be concerned with how the Court tailored its decision for purely political reasons. The Supreme Court is now a wounded institution.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: