In the run-up to election day for student president of Marquette University in February of 1988, the Marquette Tribune’s editorial board endorsed Walker’s opponent John Quigley, but said either candidate had the potential to serve effectively. However, the Tribune revised its editorial the following day, calling Walker “unfit for presidency.” This editorial ran on February 24, 1988 in the Marquette University Tribune.



One of the hardest things in the world is to make a public retraction. But there are times, thankfully the exception rather than the rule, when new facts require re-evaluation of a sincere and carefully thought out position. We find ourselves precisely in this situation. In our opinion, no one who responds to opposition by distorting and assassinating the character of his opponent and making pouty accusations deserves to be president of the student body."

Walker was so miffed that the paper didn't endorse him, that he wrote up and widely distributed a brochure filled with lies about his opponent.

He and his cronies also destroyed all the copies of the Tribune they could find.



In light of developments since Sunday evening, we now conclude John Quigley alone shows the qualifications necessary to successful leadership of ASMU. Because Walker's [mudslinging] brochure states -- contrary to the text of Tuesday's endorsement -- that "the editorial board might not want Scott's effective leadership and dedication to the students", some may assume this retraction as a desire on our part to "get back" at Walker. This is untrue, but it is a perception we will have to risk. We examined the brochure without its reference to the editorial board and asked ourselves, "If this was a part of the standard Walker campaign literature when we held the interviews, would we have written the endorsement differently?" Every one of us had to answer yes. We could not have written, in good conscience, that Walker would be a good president. We are also disappointed by reports of Walker campaign personnel picking up armfuls of Tuesday's Tribune [endorsing Walker's opponent] and throwing them away. We are disappointed not because the papers contained our endorsements, but because it is a serious shame to see hours of work and thousands of advertising dollars deliberately made useless. And mostly because a great number of Marquette students were deprived of a chance to see the paper -- coverage of the Maya Angelou presentation and the Marquette-Virginia Tech game, among other stories and the four-page health supplement.

Walker dismissed this, saying he had no knowledge of what his supporters did, according to a Tribune article from February 25, 1988.

He sure hasn't changed much. Still lying and denying. Video of Walker saying he was going to "divide and conquer" Wisconsin? Can't remember saying that. Kissing David Koch's fat ass, "I'm an Eagle Scout."

What a schmuck.

Here is the Tribune's editorial retraction in its entirety.

Also Walker lost. Big time. 57 to 43.

Based on some back-of-the-envelope calculations, he will lose on Tuesday. In the WI state senate recalls, each Dem candidate got an average of 22 percent more votes for than recall signatures. And these were pretty red districts. Barrett got 900,000 signatures, so he should get 1.1 million votes.

Walker beat Barrett 1.1 million votes to 1.0 million votes. So based on the signature to votes ratio, Barrett should have enough to beat Walker.

Also, consider that Obama beat McCain 1.7 million votes to 1.2 million votes. So in the last few years there's been a max of 1.2 million Republicans in Wisconsin, and a max of 1.7 million Dems. If Barrett gets more than 1.2 million votes, he should win.

We got this. Walker has lost before and he will lose again on Tuesday.

Walker will lose so big his only move will be to dye his hair blond and take a crappy job on fox news. Karma's a bitch, Scotty.

