It's amusingly similar to the Republican primaries, where some people love Santorum because he's more hardcore, and others want Romney, because you've got to win over the moderates, and they really don't much like the hardcore of your party.
Fanlund seems to spend a lot of time listening to Democratic State Senator Sen. Jon Erpenbach, who has decided to support Barrett:
While loath to criticize Falk... Erpenbach’s decision certainly implies he thinks someone not from Dane County would run strongest statewide: “For me personally, the goal is to get him (Walker) out of office before he does any more damage.”Ha ha. This is just like the way the Republican establishment tries to shush the Tea Party. After all the hard ground work is done by a passionate, ideologically committed group, the party insiders move in to claim a valuable political foothold that they never would have fought for personally, and the theory is they're doing everyone a favor because the protest kids just don't look right in mainstream politics.
Erpenbach says he has spoken with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people across the state and collective bargaining is only one of many issues on voters’ minds....
Erpenbach aside, my interviews with other Democrats elicit phrases like “labor leaders are blowing it” and are “being selfish.” One says, “What we don’t need is a circular firing squad” during the next month....
Kathleen Falk is getting Christine O'Donnelled! She's getting Sharron Angled!
पोस्ट्स
६९ टिप्पण्या:
It's just the war on women. Step aside, little lady. You are far too strident.
Maybe Falk and Sarah Palin should have a little get-together.
Just because an argument is wrong in one context doesn't mean the argument is wrong in another. Or something.
"Kathleen Falk is getting Christine O'Donnelled! She's getting Sharron Angled!"
If so, that implies that she will also be the nominee.
That's a nice Glass Ceiling you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.
Women may be combat eligible. Be our guest. But don't expect political leadership roles.
I thought that was only a Catholic Church doctrine.
Interesting that the Milwaukee police and fire unions are officially supporting Walker.
This is the thread where you can fake being concerned about the good old boys club and glass ceilings.
"I think it's just terrible what this poor woman from Madison has to go through. Sheesh!"
Erpenbach says he has spoken with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people across the state and collective bargaining is only one of many issues on voters’ minds....
One of many? Really?
Yeah, concern about women evaporates whenever it doesn't coincide with your political will to power.
Women are here to be exploited, one way or another.
You can say you're serving their interests, when you want them to serve your interests, and then push them back into the background when they become inconvenient or embarrassing.
Given that the recall is SOLELY due to Walker limiting union influence, let Falk be the nominee. Make the choice clear.
Interesting point. After all, dictator Zero doesn't like women - at least in speaking roles - so maybe it's spreading throughout the Democrat Party.
The one quibble (if that's a noun) I have with Ann's point is that Santorum is not in any way, shape, or form hard core, he's just not Romney and so the ABR crowd has turned the most Nelsonian of eyes to Santorum's record as a spender and statist while caring nothing about the Romster's record other than Romneycare (for good or ill).
Walker supporters fear Barrett beating Walker. They fear Falk less.
Cue fake concern for a woman.
It's all quite predictable.
Ann Althouse said...
Yeah, concern about women evaporates whenever it doesn't coincide with your political will to power
Yes.
Additionally,
concern about blacks evaporates whenever it doesn't coincide with your political will to power.
concern about blue collar workers evaporates whenever it doesn't coincide with your political will to power.
concern about "tax cuts for the rich" evaporates whenever it doesn't coincide with your political will to power.
concern about gay marriage evaporates whenever it doesn't coincide with your political will to power.
Notice a pattern, Ann?
Wait...didn't Barrett lose to Walker in the 2010 elections?
Hasn't he utilized the tools Walker provided through Act 10 to close Milwaukee's budget deficit?
The only hope that Walker's opponent have is that Barrett's wouldn't lose as badly as Falk.
edutcher said...
...the most Nelsonian of eyes...
Wonderful allusion, one I have not heard used in this way before. Admiral Nelson of Trafalgar fame held a spyglass to his blind eye at the battle of Copenhagen when his commander flew a signal to retreat, saying,"I really do not see the signal".
Tyrone Slothrop said...
...the most Nelsonian of eyes...
Wonderful allusion, one I have not heard used in this way before.
Don't know how old you may be, but the phrase, "turning a Nelsonian eye", was around when I was a kid (50s), but it wasn't all that commonly used. I guess it just stuck in my head.
Wisconsin Democratic, liberal, progressive women and many independent women, who are concerned about state government getting between them and their doctor will vote for ANY candidate that has the better chance of winning the recall election.
Similarly women who are concerned about schools now being allowed to teach abstinence ONLY sex ed will also vote for candidate that has the best chance of winning.
The candidate that can unseat this governor and put a halt to the extreme ALEC inspired legislation will get my vote and the vote if many Wisconsin women and men too.
On metafilter they're all exercised that Walker Hates Women. On the basis of a thinkprogress article.
*sigh*
Those same women that AllieOpp described voted for Tom Barrett in 2010, not Scott Walker.
The loudest people in this whole brohaha didn't vote for Walker in the first place.
Some original political analysis, please.
Similarly, women who are concerned about schools now being allowed to teach abstinence ONLY sex ed will also vote for candidate that has the best chance of winning.
Besides being a screed, it's gibberish. Are the schools being forced to teach only abstinence only, or is it in addition to the regular "here's how you use a dental dam while fisting your partner" perversion that government school sex ed classes have become? If the first, I'd be concerned, too. If not, what's the problem?
Oh, that's right. It always comes down to the poor, persecuted genitalia of the left. I note that "women who are concerned about the quality of their children's education" are strangely absent from your list.
If they abandon Falk then it would be the funniest thing I have seen in years. It would be awesome.
And women who are upset that its not illegal to teach abstinence are likely too hysterical to actually vote.
WI Progressive women would vote for a Democrat even if he were a convicted rapist.
Tosa Guy,
Those same women will vote for him again, even if they would've preferred a different candidate, that is the point. Any Democrat with a chance of winning.
Democrats aren't going to fight amongst themselves to the degree that any Democrat will stay home on election day because their candidate of choice isn't running.
Dami, abstinence ONLY.
Abstinence WAS being taught as part of a comprehensive sex ed course before this administration and this new law.
One aspect not yet really examined in this whole recall thing is the lack of interest in Milwaukee's sizeable African-American community in the whole thing.
Tom Barrett has never really engaged with this group as mayor. Also, Milwaukee's fashionable liberals on the East Side and in Bay View really don't care about them either.
The vast majority of them are not gov't employees who took a hit to their paycheck.
Their kids go to horrendous schools stuck with a teacher's union that sues for viagra coverage. Wisconsin's Democrats have never supported efforts to fix these schools.
Since most programs offered to the poor in those communities are largely unaffected in the budget, they continue to go along, get along -- no outrage from cuts.
While they probably won't vote for Scott Walker, they probably won't be motivated to go vote period (in numbers higher than your average off election). This community will turnout huge on Nov 5th, but not so much on June 5th.
"abstinence ONLY."
Do you have a corroborating link for that, Allie?
"Those same women will vote for him again, even if they would've preferred a different candidate, that is the point. Any Democrat with a chance of winning."
People as active as you say they are don't ever stay home -- they vote in special elections for dog catcher. Their numbers are already built in to every political analysis on both sides because the dynamic for how they vote has not chnanged.
Tell me how a prison guard who likes voter ID and conceal carry will vote then you can make some big bucks from both campaigns.
AllieOop said...
Dami, abstinence ONLY.
Please link us to that portion of the bill.
Thanks in advance.
Tell me how a prison guard who likes voter ID and conceal carry will vote
Well, since ya asked...here are a couple examples.
Personally, I am very much in favor of the new concealed carry law. But CCW ain't enough for me to vote Walker...
Are you still there, Allie? I'd heard a news report that abstinence was to be taught in addition to, not only, but I have no independent knowledge, so I was hoping for a link.
Well, now I'm really confused.
"leslyn said...
Maybe, but not surprising. The same unions supported Walker in his election. In return they were exempted from all restrictions and contribution increases that applied to other unions in 2011 Wisconsin Act 10."
So you have proof of this Quid Pro Quo?
Maybe, but not surprising. The same unions supported Walker in his election. In return they were exempted from all restrictions and contribution increases that applied to other unions in 2011 Wisconsin Act 10.
Could it be that those unions are city specific and not statewide like teachers unions? They have their contracts with the city of Milwaukee.
AB 337
Schools who choose to now teach abstinence ONLY can do so.
"Schools who choose to now teach abstinence ONLY can do so."
OK, thanks.
That's not the same as mandating abstinence only.
Were the schools required to teach abstinence under the old law?
They were, as part of a comprehensive course, it was called the Healthy Youth Act.
Reality Check
“What you’ve got to look at, and Ann Coulter has looked at this, is you have to break it down by married and unmarried. Once you make it down by married and unmarried, the differential disappears.” Link.
Awesome, Ann Coulter is inspiring Wisconsin laws.
AllieOop said...
AB 337
Schools who choose to now teach abstinence ONLY can do so.
Um, so that isn't what you inferred by stating "abstinence ONLY"
I'm shocked by this development.
Um, allie, from your link:
Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1
You want to try again?
Abstinence WAS being taught as part of a comprehensive sex ed course before this administration and this new law.
Clearly it wasn't.
Can you give me the track record of success of your preferred method.
Over, say, 40 years --- has pregnancy amongst high school age girls gone up or down?
Schools who now choose to teach abstinence ONLY can now do so.
And why this is a problem? Is choice now bad, unless it concerns your genitals? Does a school not get to choose what it wishes to teach in regard to certain subjects, with the proviso that it is meeting the state's educational standards? If the argument is "it's my tax money, I want them to teach sex ed my way," then you have to accept the converse; it's my tax money, too, and I don't want them to teach your way.
Shall we mandate that Hebrew schools teach the history of Christianity as well as the Torah? Shall we mandate that Islamic schools teach about the Stonewall riots?
And I must say, it both amuses and irritates me to see you use scare caps for abstinence ONLY. Whatever happened to mom and dad and the lecture about the birds and the bees? Why presume your children are such animals that absent condoms and "alternative lifestyle" presentations, the moment you turn your back on them, they'll rut like rabbits in heat?
I have yet to see any argument for teaching sex ed that didn't boil down to, "well, they're going to screw around no matter what we do, so we'd better make sure they know how to keep from getting knocked up". Perhaps you have a reason that doesn't end up there. It would be interesting to hear.
Jay, how do you know what I inferred are you are you a mind reader? The law was signed on Thursday, announced on Friday.
"Kathleen Falk is getting Christine O'Donnelled! She's getting Sharron Angled!"
Only if Falk wins the primary and then loses the election. The D's who fear Falk can't win might point to O'Donnell and Angle as examples of what happens to perceived extremes in general elections to avoid the same outcome they experienced. Of course, Angle had to beat the incumbent Senate Majority Leader and O'Donnell had to win in a blue state in an spot vacated by the sitting VP. Not easy tasks, but apparently those were jobs only a man could do.
Erpenbach thinks taking on Walker is a man's job. Pat Kathleen on the head and tell her that she can do the woman's job of stuffing envelopes for Barrett.
AllieOop said...
Jay, how do you know what I inferred are you are you a mind reader? The law was signed on Thursday, announced on Friday.
Um, the all caps and the continued usage of the phrase abstinence only for the last 3 days, maybe?
Face it, you've been duped.
You've been spreading propaganda.
".. where some people love Santorum because he's more hardcore, and others want Romney, because you've got to win over the moderates, and they really don't much like the hardcore of your party.." (and my italics too)
It's My Party ..
I'm just realising something.. can a Santorum holdout turn around and berate the professor when she votes for Obama.. again?
We may have handed the professor a bullet point on her, How Romney Lost Me, way out to vote democrat, again.
Act 215
Honestly Jay you do blather on.
What does any of this have to do with Falk being a woman?
leslyn - If you look at the time stamps, we posted at the same time. Your post wasn't their for me to read when I wrote mine, so get off your high horse.
Seesh.
labor leaders are blowing it” and are “being selfish.”
Maybe the Dems should nominate a Scott Walker. That's what we did.
But then, why the recall?
Althouse: Women are here to be exploited, one way or another.
You can say you're serving their interests, when you want them to serve your interests, and then push them back into the background when they become inconvenient or embarrassing.
Right there. There's your article. Run with it.
Kathleen Falk needs to be put into her place. She can marry a man who will support her while she raises his kids.
But what can poor Tom Barrett do if she takes away the man's job ? He cannot marry a woman and raise her kids, can he?
This is definitely Retrograde Day in a retrograde world.
On Wisconsin!
Schools who choose to now teach abstinence ONLY can do so.
That's a lot different than what you implied in your first post.
Is it your nature to be dishonest?
Why couldn't you have explained it clearly in your first post?
leslyn said...
@Curious George & Rusty, re: Milwaukee unions.
See Act 10.
Act 10 exempts "municipal" public safety workers from the restrictions and contributions required of state unions (except the State Patrol).
So it IS because their contracts are with their municipalities rather than the state.
70% of the fire departments in the United Staes are volunteer fire brigades
Rusty, jumping to conclusions is something we are all guilty of, if my post was confusing to you and didn't sound plausible, you know You can look up the law too.
I am a tax payer, I don't want my grandkid's public school to teach them an abstinence only sex ed course, which they now can do.
One of the reasons why many Wisconsin Democratic women will vote for anyone who will have a chance of winning and getting this regressive administration out of office.
Recap of three regressive bills signed by Walker recently
I am a tax payer, I don't want my grandkid's public school to teach them an abstinence only sex ed course, which they now can do.
Wow. Didn't know "Goddess of Wisconsin" posted comments on a blog. Can you also help kids avoid death and cure all diseases?
You know, since you're all-powerful and all.
Maybe some parents do want their kids to be taught abstinence. THEIR rights, however, are trumped by yours because you are so much better than they.
One of the reasons why many Wisconsin Democratic women will vote for anyone who will have a chance of winning and getting this regressive administration out of office.
Again, if a Democrat raped somebody you knew personally, you'd still vote for that same Democrat.
Dami, do you ever NOT post over the top dumb responses?
I've even read comments by conservatives here on this blog who have noticed the same hyperbolic crap comments coming from you.
You sound an awful like Alex, strange.
I am not sure I see the analogy of Barrett and Falk to Romney and Santorum. Both Romney and Santorum are opposed to Obama's policies, however much they differ and however much they appeal to different sectors of the party. Barrett and Falk are running in a special election that is defined and legitimated by a single issue, Act 10. Barrett is effectively supporting Act 10. (I really do not know what he actually says about Act 10 but he supports it by his actions). It is as if Romney were to endorse Obama's policies but still run against him. It is a higher order of incoherence here, in other words, if Barrett is the nominee. I do not see how he can campaign at all, frankly. Still, I hope Falk wins because she seems far more likely to lose to Walker
Allie when one deals with one as intellectually deficient as you, the idea that you don't get it is expected.
You are a fascist. Id say you are also a Progressive but why be redundant.
Pfffft, Dami, the Godess says be gone, at once!
Hysterical over the top comments don't exactly make you look like a genius. Oh yes, we would all vote for rapists and murderers and satanists if they would beat Walker!
You are on the Godess's list of who to ignore along with Alex, who does sound JUST like you, so strange.
If you are ignoring me, you are doing an amazingly piss poor job at it. Do you do all things in life this poorly?
Ignoring begins when I stop having fun poking fun at you.
"But what can poor Tom Barrett do if she takes away the man's job ? He cannot marry a woman and raise her kids, can he?'
Isn't that sort of what Meade did?
So, Barrett is going to intentionally run deficits? He fixed the deficit by using those provisions.
I am a taxpayer. I don't want my grandkid's public school to teach them an abstinence only sex course, which they now can do.
I am a taxpayer. I don't want my grandkid's public school to teach them the global warming cult, which they now can do. But if I say that, you'd shriek that I was a climate denier.
And apparently you really don't have any argument against an abstinence course other than kids are animals and they're going to fuck no matter what. I'd say "intellectually deficient" is pretty much on the nose
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा