Monday Open Thread [2.23.15]

Dana Milbank explains why last week Scott Walker disqualified himself from the presidency:

What Rudy Giuliani did this week was stupid. What Scott Walker did ought to disqualify him as a serious presidential contender. As the world now knows, Giuliani, the former New York mayor, said at a dinner featuring Walker, the Wisconsin governor, that “I do not believe that the president loves America.” …

And Walker, just a few seats away, said . . . nothing. Asked the next morning on CNBC about Giuliani’s words, the Republican presidential aspirant was spineless: “The mayor can speak for himself. I’m not going to comment on what the president thinks or not. He can speak for himself as well. I’ll tell you, I love America, and I think there are plenty of people — Democrat, Republican, independent, everyone in between — who love this country.” …

But did he agree with Giuliani? “I’m in New York,” Walker demurred. “I’m used to people saying things that are aggressive out there.”

This is what’s alarming about the Giuliani affair. There will always be people on the fringe who say outrageous things (and Giuliani, once a respected public servant, has sadly joined the nutters as he questioned the president’s patriotism even while claiming he was doing no such thing). But to have a civilized debate, it’s necessary for public officials to disown such beyond-the-pale rhetoric. And Walker failed that fundamental test of leadership. […]

That dinner Wednesday, at New York’s 21 Club, is where Giuliani challenged Obama’s love of country. Even the former mayor preceded his outrageous allegation by saying, “I know this is a horrible thing to say . . . ” Walker surely knew it was horrible, too, but he refused to say so — and in this failure he displayed a cowardice unworthy of a man who would be president.

Ross Douthat finds the GOP candidates for President lacking.

[T]he Republicans pondering a run for president in 2016 all seem to sense that they need do to things a little, well, differently if they expect to ultimately win. Maybe that means talking more about inequality — even putting it right in the heart of your economic pitch, as Jeb Bush seems intent on doing. Maybe it means trying to reach constituencies (young, black, Hispanic) that the Romney campaign mostly wrote off, which is what Rand Paul thinks his libertarian message can accomplish. Maybe it means projecting the most Middle American, Kohl’s-shopping, non-Bain Capital image possible — which is why the recent media fascination with Scott Walker’s lack of a college diploma was probably a boon to the Wisconsin governor. …

One reason issues like immigration and education are appealing to Republican politicians looking to change their party’s image is that policy change in these areas seems relatively cheap — more green cards here, new curricular standards there, and nothing that requires donors and interest groups to part with their favorite subsidies and tax breaks. But you can’t reform the tax code or health care that easily, which is why those issues offer better, tougher tests of whether a would-be conservative reformer should be taken seriously.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the “fledgling GOP-controlled Congress returns to the Capitol [this week] just days before its first major fiscal deadline as a battle over President Obama’s immigration policies has set up a showdown on whether to fund the Department of Homeland Security,”

“Set to expire Friday, the agency’s funding has been tied up by Republican leaders angered over President Obama’s executive actions that shielded millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation. GOP leaders haven’t yet signaled how they plan to resolve the weekslong impasse, which already has spotlighted divisions between House and Senate Republicans that could intensify and escalate in the next few days.”

“I don’t question his motives. And I try not to question the president’s motives as being a good American or a bad American.” — Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), on whether President Obama loves America.

Which is it? Either you try not to question the motives, or you don’t question his motives. Do or do not. There is no try.