Public employee unions had everything lined up.Read the whole grisly story of how the mayor of Milwaukee, Tom Barrett, who already lost to Scott Walker in 2010 (by a lot!) horned in on the Dane County lady's territory. The unions had all clustered around her, and now, Barrett has swept in. It seems like the lady is supposed to cede her ground and let the man take over. Talk about a war on women!
Their nemesis, Gov. Scott Walker, was facing an unprecedented recall election. Their hand-picked candidate, former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, came out of the blocks running. Their front group was set to spend millions to help push Falk over the top.
So what went wrong?
"No one can see a path for victory for Falk right now," said a veteran Democratic campaign insider not affiliated with either campaign. "Absent going in and tearing down Tom Barrett - which no one has expressed a desire to do, based on what I've heard - I don't know how Falk wins."Give up, lady! You've already lost. You'll only hurt the man if you continue. That's the message. And Scott Walker himself is helping the Dem men push the lady out of the race. On Mark Belling's radio show last Thursday, the famously demonic Wisconsin governor — asked "Do you acknowledge that, that Falk's the weaker opponent?" — said:
"Let me explain why I think she is.... Because she has clearly staked herself out as being in the pocket of the public employee unions. That has not clearly been attached to Tom Barrett....
"I think her weakness was coming out early and acknowledging that she - and doing, not just acknowledging - that she signed a pledge saying she'd veto any budget that did not include a full repeal of our reforms"...The very thing that makes her tough — that makes her the embodiment of the protest movement that produced the recall election — makes her easier for Scott Walker to attack, and that's supposed to be a reason for Democrats to turn to the man, the man who kept his distance from the movement — the movement he'd like to ride into power — until 2 weeks ago, when he announced his candidacy. Yes, in just 2 weeks he has elbowed the woman to the sidelines, and she's supposed to defer to that.
It's the war on women, right here in Wisconsin.
By the way, when Barrett lost the 2010 election to Walker — by a 5 point margin — he conceded saying:
The voters have spoken, and I respect the voters in the state of Wisconsin, and I honor their decision.Where's that honor now? Wisconsinites are supposed to drag ourselves back to the polls to try to defeat Walker again, with the same drab candidate who, back then, "didn't have a serious primary challenge and seemed to struggle to get widespread enthusiasm behind his campaign"? We're supposed to vote for him after he shunts the woman candidate to the side? The woman who's supposed to give up, after fighting for the nomination since January? Who pledged her heart to the unions — the unfaithful unions! — and who embodied the values of a protest movement without which there would be no new opportunity for Barrett?
Ironically, Barrett's 2010 opportunity came after he gained a reputation as a hero when "he was brutally beaten outside State Fair Park after trying to protect a 1-year old girl and her grandmother from an assailant." (That happened in 2009, so don't confuse it with the famous racial mob attacks at the State Fair in 2011.) He had one opportunity because he defended a woman from an attack, and now he attacks a woman to seize a second opportunity.
IN THE COMMENTS: Some people don't understand my writing, and — just like a woman — I kick "them" in the (metaphorical!) balls. But that's not what I want to front-page here. I want to front-page this set-up by Bruce Hayden:
It does make sense a bit. The problem with being closely tied to the unions is that the unions are a big part of why your fair state got into so much financial problems in the first place, and a lot of people have seemed to have sighed relief a bit as a result of non-safety workers having their collective bargaining rights curtailed.And here's what that sets up, from Michael:
So, tying the recall candidate too closely to the unions would tie the recall movement too tightly to the government unions. But, if the Dems get someone else running, they can go after the entirety of what Gov. Walker and the Republicans have done, instead of making the recall election a referendum on government union power.
In other words, the actual issue behind this invented election is kind of a loser, so we need to run on fake invented reasons with a boss-picked candidate. Then later we can do whatever we want.
I thought one of the complaints against Walker was that he did something he hadn't said (enough) that he was going to do. But that rule only applies to Walker, Bruce, is that it?