1. The recall grew out of the protests — the vibrant, passionate protests — against Scott Walker's cutback of collective bargaining rights, and Tom Barrett, by campaigning on anything but union rights, has betrayed the original intent of the recall.
2. Don't reward the Democratic Party for appropriating the protest energy — which had that real, left-wing progressive spirit — and handing it to a bland moderate who stands for nothing much than not being Scott Walker. If this works for them, they'll keep trying to do it, and your movement will always be coopted. You're a protester: Register a protest vote.
3. Scott Walker has been a great foil for left-wing politics, a great arch-enemy. Tom Barrett won't do any of the things you really want, and you'll be stuck more or less supporting him. You'll become middle-of-the-road and deactivated.
4. If Scott Walker loses, it won't be by much, and the people who support him will be outraged and energized. Remember how you felt when he announced his reforms in February 2011? They'll feel something like that. It will be the Tea Party Summer, going into the fall elections.
5. Vote against recall politics generally. This is not a normal way for a democracy to work. You can show some sympathy with the ordinary Wisconsinites who don't like their lives disrupted this way.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४५ टिप्पण्या:
and your movement will always be coopted
I would hate to be coopted. No room to move around, laying eggs all the damned time, and every morning some hick puts his hand down your nethers.
(feel free to delete afterward :)
"Tom Barrett, by campaigning on anything but union rights, has betrayed the original intent of the recall."
-- The question is, will he not just do what they want when elected? He may not be running on it, but I think he would still work on undoing some of Walker's reforms, if for no other reason than once he's in power, he won't have to win an election for a while, so he can give in a bit more. Plus, he'll have ended a civil war, so, that's always good for some government unity.
Oh great:
Report: Recall election most expensive race in Wisconsin history
Thanks liberals!
6. Money and businesses will flee Wisconsin when it's clear no meaningful brakes may be put on the growing welfare state.
We will all lose.
Five statements that make very good common sense. But who among the protesters demonstrated that they are comfortable with common sense?
Write in Obama.
Is not Tom Barrett the very exemplar of a comfortable political machine hack?
I don't remember any conservatives opposing the California recall of Gray Davis a few years back. What was the rationale for his recall? It seems that Ann and others are engaged in selective outrage here.
Ann in spite of the fact you consider yourself a progressive few other people do.
If I was a democrat, I'd see this in the same light as when someone like James Carville gives the republicans advice on how to win elections. A big disingenuous.
1. The recall grew out of the protests — the vibrant, passionate protests — against Scott Walker's cutback of collective bargaining rights, and Tom Barrett, by campaigning on anything but union rights, has betrayed the original intent of the recall.
Good point, but that's not a case for voting for Walker; it's a case for not voting at all.
2. Don't reward the Democratic Party for appropriating the protest energy — which had that real, left-wing progressive spirit — and handing it to a bland moderate who stands for nothing much than not being Scott Walker. If this works for them, they'll keep trying to do it, and your movement will always be coopted. You're a protester: Register a protest vote.
I'm not part of a movement and I'm not a protester. I despise the "real, left-wing progressive spirit" so this sounds good to me. Co-opt away! I like the idea of a Democratic party that doesn't take the lunatic fringe seriously.
3. Scott Walker has been a great foil for left-wing politics, a great arch-enemy. Tom Barrett won't do any of the things you really want, and you'll be stuck more or less supporting him. You'll become middle-of-the-road and deactivated.
Again, sounds great to me. I don't know what you think I really want, but it's not radical left wing politics. I want a middle-of-the-road governor.
4. If Scott Walker loses, it won't be by much, and the people who support him will be outraged and energized. Remember how you felt when he announced his reforms in February 2011? They'll feel something like that. It will be the Tea Party Summer, going into the fall elections.
Seeing as how I didn't vote for Obama in '08 and I'm not going to vote for him in November, this sounds like a great outcome to me.
5. Vote against recall politics generally. This is not a normal way for a democracy to work. You can show some sympathy with the ordinary Wisconsinites who don't like their lives disrupted this way.
Another good point, but again, I don't see why I should vote for Walker instead of just not voting at all. The best vote against "recall politics" is to not participate.
The train has departed the station for Wisconsin. Barrett and his ilk are waving goodbye whether they win or lose. The DOW is down big as we slip back into recession for the rest of the year. There is no money for the unions and progressives gold-plated ill-gotten gains. Amazing how these folks have so little regard for the hardworking citizens of Wisconsin who pay the public sector union wages.
The drama has devolved from parody to tragedy. Let us hope that the good citizens of Wisconsin literally throw the bums out and take back their state from the parasites.
"What was the rationale for his recall?"
-- The government failed to keep the lights on in California, literally. That is a much more valid reason for a recall than "We lost!"
Don't I have a right to a middle-class income, even if my work isn't really worth that much?
Gov Walker says I don't. The unions say I do.
Which is to say, it's all about feelings. The Big Anger legitimizes the illegitimate recall.
In other words, stop being useful idiots for the unions and democratic party.
Trey
I don't remember any conservatives opposing the California recall of Gray Davis a few years back.
You say this out of the convenience it affords your meager point or you say this out of selective memory.
Either way, Garage would say you're in for an epic butthurt tomorrow.
We now know that California was having trouble keeping the lights on because Enron was illegally gaming the system. The recall of Davis now seems much more egregious than that of Scott Walker.
Jay Retread said...
We now know that California was having trouble keeping the lights on because Enron was illegally gaming the system
Hysterical.
Remember, it isn't a lie if you believe it.
Of course Jay you have no evidence to share to back up your point. "It is not a lie..." indeed.
1. The recall grew out of the protests — the vibrant, passionate protests — against Scott Walker's cutback of collective bargaining rights, and Tom Barrett, by campaigning on anything but union rights, has betrayed the original intent of the recall.
This recall grew out of union efforts to keep the ability to automatically deduct union dues.
Any other stated reason is a red herring.
This recall grew out of union efforts to keep the ability to automatically deduct union dues.
Any other stated reason is a red herring.
This, at least insofar as the unions were involved. And we see what happens when single-source medical and mandatory dues are removed from the equation. How anyone in the left's rank and file can stand behind either of those things, let alone the removal of secret balloting, boggles the mind.
Truly. It's boggled.
If a person hates a politician, they should really ask themselves why a disagreement in policies leads you to hating the person.
"We now know that California was having trouble keeping the lights on because Enron was illegally gaming the system."
If I recall, California could supply, somewhere around, 40 Whateverwatts of electricity. The state needed only, what, about 30 Whateverwatts? The problem was the government decided to try and play the markets, and, naturally, a combination of actual malice, profit seeking, and all the normal things in the economy conspired to make California fail. But, you know? The government's job is to not screw up. It did.
Scott Walker, on the other hand, has not caused a crisis due to mismanagement. The lights are still on. You can say that Davis' administration did not warrant a recall, some people might agree. However, the argument was far stronger when lives were actually at risk to rolling blackouts than when people were no longer forced to give special interests money against their will.
"This is not a normal way for a democracy to work."
Yeah, but that's the point of the recall protestors: To subvert the process and remove someone democratically elected in order to replace him with someone they like better.
What? Some suffered under the illusion that this was anything less than a power grab? Poor, poor naifs.
Jay Retread said...
Of course Jay you have no evidence to share to back up your point
Your assertion regarding Enron is false.
Note: you saying something doesn't make it true, clown.
"Plus, he'll have ended a civil war..."
How do you figure that? Especially in light of Point 4:
If Scott Walker loses, it won't be by much, and the people who support him will be outraged and energized.
It was the Dem Senators who tried to secede from Wisconsin (their own Fort Sumter) and go outside the political process which started the war. It will be the complete rejection of that attempt that will end it (Tuesday is Appomattox) and make the Wisconsin union whole again.
Walker = Grant
Falk = Stonewall Jackson
Barrett = Lee (which is actually disrespectful of Lee, he had skill)
Public Employee Unions = slaveowners
The carnage will have been great along the way, though.
KCom, that doesn't work. Jackson's own team killed him by accident; Falk was a ritualistic sacrifice.
My discription of Enron is absolutely true. The fact that such corporate malfeasance was used to recall the governor of California is one of the biggest scandals of the past twenty years.
But no big deal. It helped Corporate interests and their lackey Republican (and some Democrat, we at best have one and a half party system in this country) fixers.
"The fact that such corporate malfeasance was used to recall the governor of California is one of the biggest scandals of the past twenty years."
-- Sorry. No; no one died from Davis' recall. It doesn't even register. There's plenty of blame to go around, but the buck stops with the governor. They could've allowed more plants to be built, made it easier to send energy to the state to compete with people who didn't want to send money to them -- that's before even apparently being too incompetent to see this obvious market manipulation you speak of.
He dropped the ball, the power went out. That's much worse than what Walker did (also, note, that Davis actually had staff who did illegal things, like campaign kickbacks).
Jay Retread said...
"My discription of Enron is absolutely true." Well, if you say so.
My recollection is that Enron played by the rules California set-up. Rules which turned out to be, shortsighted at best.
Jay Retread said...
My discription of Enron is absolutely true.
No, no it is not.
But remember, it isn't a lie if you believe it!
I meant to write "political scandal."
Davis did try to alert the federal government that manipulation was going on. The Bush administration rebuffed him. Finally, Davis had been governor for a few years, he could not have started a program to build power plants in that short of time. BTW, that has not occurred since and the lights have not gone out.
I love that leftist lemonade.
"I meant to write "political scandal.""
-- Still applies. No one died. Fast and the Furious? That's a big scandal. An incompetent governor gets voted out because businesses may (or may not) have manipulated the markets? Medium, at best, if you can prove actual malice against the governor and not just a profit motive.
"6. Money and businesses will flee Wisconsin when it's clear no meaningful brakes may be put on the growing welfare state."
That doesn't belong on the list. The list is for the big lefties who hate Walker.
The "It's not over until we win" mentality says that they should vote against it because Barrett won't be able to fix it until Choom is out.
Recall Walker then.
And Davis was recalled because he was a do-nothing governor. This cannot be said of Walker.
Jay Retread said...
But no big deal. It helped Corporate interests and their lackey Republican
My God!
One of those great Commie fill-in-the-blanks screeds written around 1932 in the third sub-basement of the Kremlin.
(lackey)
Enron certainly did game the rules that Gray Davis put in place. The problem with Gray Davis is that he put those rules in place assuming that people would not set out to game them.
Fool.
--We now know that California was having trouble keeping the lights on because Enron was illegally gaming the system. The recall of Davis now seems much more egregious than that of Scott Walker.---
LOLOLOLOL No, they didn't de-regulate the market totally, they left the caps on residential electrical rates, why shouldn't Barbra StreiSAND pay her fair share of of electricity usage?
Apparently the people who wrote and approved the Wisconsin Constitution thought it was. Even for normal people.
So you think those that voted the 3/5ths thing into being were right because it got passed?
"But I think it's "wrong" to say people shouldn't use a constitutional right."
-- I think it matters. For example, people have freedom of speech. I think they should not use racial slurs. But, in a work of fiction, where a character is a racist, that seems an appropriate place to use it.
So, I think recalls are potentially a good, but they need to be used properly. Just because you CAN do something, does not mean you SHOULD.
"But I think it's "wrong" to say people shouldn't use a constitutional right."
Isn't expressing an opinion itself a constitutional right?
On recalls: In the late 1990s, a state senator, George Petak, was recalled over one issue: the 5 county half a cent sales tax for Miller Park. I thought the rationale for recall was stupid; just vote in the next election, which was (I think) the next year anyway. Then I met Petak, now count him as a friend, and am sad to think that people used the recall game to boot an honest man out of office.
The people who wrote the recall into the state constitution stated at the time that they didn't intend for the recall to be used for light and frivolous reasons. They didn't anticipate the vituperation in politics decades later.
I'd like to thank you for the efforts you have put in writing this site. I really hope to see the same high-grade blog posts by you in the future as well. In truth, your creative writing abilities has encouraged me to get my own, personal website now ;)
Feel free to surf my blog post
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा