Unions invested heavily in this battle in order to make an example of Walker. The goal was to show that Republican governors who attempt to roll back organizing rights will pay the ultimate political price. That effort failed, and the failure will have major repercussions for labor groups as they gear up for future fights over bargaining rights in states.Okay so far, but then he descends into the kind of writing that is why I don't normally link:
But Walker’s win also has major implications for Democratic elected officials across the country. It shows with crystal clarity that Republicans may very well be able to successfully use the new, post-Citizens United landscape to weaken the opposition in a structural way, and to eliminate major sources of support for that opposition....Thanks for the "crystal clarity," Greg. Think you could say the words "Citizens United" a few more times? Actually, there was another one that I didn't quote, a first-paragraph reference to "the true nature of the new, post-Citizens United political landscape." I wish some reliable pollster would take a reading of the level of understanding of what the Citizens United case actually stands for.
Indeed, one way of thinking about tonight’s results is that they say at least as much about Citizens United, and the ways it has empowered opponents of organized labor, as they do about the very real decline of union power. An analysis by the Center for Public Integrity found that Walker outraised his vanquished opponent Tom Barrett by nearly eight to one, and that outside groups supporting Walker vastly outspent unions, thanks to Citizens United....
[I]t seems unlikely that tonight’s outcome says anything too predictive about this fall.
But the outcome does say something important about the developing post-Citizens United landscape, and should prompt a major reckoning over how Dems, the labor and the left should deal with this new reality going forward.
I mean, here we have Sargent writing "outside groups supporting Walker vastly outspent unions, thanks to Citizens United," but Citizens United was about the free speech violation in restricting unions — along with corporations — as they spend their own money getting out whatever it is they'd like to say about politics. If unions were outspent, it wasn't because of Citizens United. It was because they had less money to spend or chose to spend less money.
Sargent is getting his column very widely distributed, because it's in the Washington Post. Would he welcome a government regulation that restricted the distribution of the Washington Post to create greater equality among opinion-writers? Or would the concept of free speech acquire some substance for him at that point?
पोस्ट्स
१५८ टिप्पण्या:
"The goal was to show that Republican governors..."
-- Not governors, not mayors -- not politicians. Solely Republican governors. Because Sargent is well aware this was all politics and not policy.
Citizens United, or a similar event, was bound to happen once a major presidential candidate refused public financing to wet his or her beak in the deep, deep available monied interests.
Oops.
Liberal writers (and some Conservatives too) only see what they want to see and ignore the rest. Hence, the myopia about Citizens United
Sorry, dude, but Unions are corporations too. They are just even less responsible to their "shareholders"
Sucks to you.
When Obama out spent McCain, there was a lot of hand wringing about money in politics, right?
So, Greg is cool with a small group being told it is illegal to air a movie on television at a certain time of the year?
Citizens United is the approved Journolist talking point.
A minor variation on the Democrats' familiar theme: When we win, The People Have Spoken. When we lose, The People Have Been Manipulated.
I wonder why Sargent thinks messages should only be sent to Republican governors...
Land. Titles. WaPo. Greg Sargent. Nothing.
"If your stock broker lied to you about Enron, would you still use him? And yet, people still rely on information brokers like CNN and the NYTs."
For actual analysis, via AnArmyOfDavids (ie Insty) is Walter Russel Meade:
"The American left as we have come to know it suffered a devastating blow in Wisconsin last night.
The public sector unions are critical to what remains of the American left. The power of the public service unions in Democratic politics pulls the entire party to the left and gives ideas that are important to the left an access to power that they would otherwise lack. But more important than that, they provide a kind of center to a movement that otherwise threatens to fragment into antagonistic cliques
."
"The threat to the public unions isn’t just a threat to a powerful source of funding for left-liberal candidates and to strong organizations with political experience and muscle; it’s a threat to the heart of the left coalition and to the structures that give the left much of its power in Democratic and therefore in national politics."
Pollsters can't measure the understanding of Citizens United because those who actually understand it would fall inside their confidence interval.
Greg Sargent: "Nothing to see here, move along. Look! Squirrel!"
Like I said in an earlier thread today about the left-wing pundits needing a reverse Sally Field moment of clarity- some folks on the left don't want to admit to themselves that the majority of voters are rejecting them. So they find anything to back their tired, "they're not getting our message "excuse. Some people can't handle the truth.
You know... I don't think I mind so much if someone bleats "Citizen's United" over and over again. Yes, it refers to a *thing* but the words have meaning and power, too, all by themselves.
Just like the phrase "bargaining rights" to refer to those elements of labor negotiations where dictatorial power is ceded, beforehand, to the labor union.
People look at the real meaning of the words and think... bargaining = good, and rights = good.
Well... Citizens = good, and United = very good.
So carry on!
When we win, The People Have Spoken. When we lose, The People Have Been Manipulated.
I think even MSNBC is starting to get tired of that alibi. Are the Koch brothers so mesmerizing that they can inspire record-breaking turnout numbers?
In a close race between two blah candidates, money makes all the difference. This was not that.
The constant evocation of Citizens United will become like Proposition 13, which is still being blamed, 35 years later, for all California's fiscal woes, and which too many good government types trying to figure out how to fix California, always start with. "First, we need to change Proposition 13." I piss these people off when I tell them, I don't care how liberal California gets, you will never get the voters to overturn Proposition 13...so think of something else. So, for the next 20 years, get ready. Every time a non-approved result happens like last night, you'll hear talk of "the need to get rid of Citizens United."
Didn't Citizens United beat Arsenal last year?
Everyone seems to forget, the union bosses played their members like fools. They sold them out early on in this debacle. The members still have jobs and good benefits. The executives are fucked.
I also read this piece and reacted exactly the same way to the Citizens United mantra. It is it seems the mantra of most of the liberal spin on Walker's win. What is pathetic is that they are all only shooting themselves in the foot for the cheap thrill of blaming it all on the Kochs and the corporate order. Because this should be a moment for them to do some serious thinking about what they themselves did wrong and what is flawed in their own analysis of America that could lead them over this cliff so decisively. As long as they console themselves it was all money, all Citizens United, they let themselves off the hook only to ensure they will be no clearly or wiser in going into the next battle.
It's not the amount of money that corrupts, it's the corrupted money that corrupts.
It is very simple... money earned honestly providing a product or service, money earned building homes or feeding people or building technology or providing energy to keep people warm and move products and people over the whole world... that's dirty money. This is why Citizen's United money is corrupting.
Virtuous money is the money earned by manipulating the system to direct tax dollars to your causes, your community organizing, your public unions with mandatory membership and mandatory, state-collected, dues. Because that money is not touched with the corrupting influence of profit, but resides in close harmony with democracy and government, that money is pure. That money cares about people.
public sector unions screwed themselves. they were slightly below the radar and should have accepted Act 10 and enjoyed their overcompensation. but they wanted a fight and they got one. and it isn't over.
The Lefties loved it when they were pouring money into local elections.
They aren't so happy when it's done to them.
And, yes, this has the potential to turn off a huge source of money to the Left, not just the Demos.
Dear Greg Sargent,
Re Citizens United - what is the monetary value of having the Washington Post work directly for White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer?
blaming it all on the Kochs and the corporate order
They also don't understand that when most of us hear of "Koch Brothers" we think of NPR and PBS
OT- but a con law question:
Does the Supreme Court's ruling Monday in Armour v. Indianapolis effect the federal district court's decision that part of the Walker's union reform bill violated the Equal Protection Clause because it exempted public safety employees?
@Fen
You mean the monetary value to the Obama Campaign, or the monetary value to WaPo, which no longer has to pay reporters now that it just publishes DNC press releases instead of real articles?
We should ask Soros.
They also don't understand that when most of us hear of "Koch Brothers" we think of NPR and PBS
The only regular programming I watch on PBS is NOVA.
Thank you David Koch.
If I'd had a drink every time he used the cliche "post-Citizens United landscape", I'd be drunk right now.
What a whiner. Even his caricature looks whiny.
It's annoying that everybody keep talking about "Organized Labor" or "Big Labor." To me these terms refer to the "blue-collar" unions of the past that amounted to 35%+/- of the labor force in the early 1950's, their heyday.
Today these unions amount to only about 5% of the labor force, depending on who is counting. The other 10-12% of today's "unionized labor" consists of AFSCME, NEA, and AFT, and SEIU, which is where Trumka and Stern came from, and possibly the United Farmworkers.
The old-style unions were never "left" in the current sense, and probably still are not.
It is NEA/AFT and AFSCME that drags the present AFL-CIO "left" as in "loony left," and the SEIU seems to be more like Johnny Friendly's chapter of the ILWU than a regular union.
Attica! Attica!
* * *
Did Citizens United actually apply to this election? My understanding was that state elections were largely run on state law.
That 8:1 figure is being debunked. Apparently (maybe it's already been talked about here today) that's the ratio of the two campaigns, but when you include money spent by outside groups on behalf of the candidates, it contracts to 2:1.
From a previous thread, amidst a lot of Progressive screaming about how this means civil war and the combined might of organized labor, OWS progressives, and angry black mobs taking to the street in Blue Cities and forcing the rest of America to "capitulate to social justice":
Simon said...
Alex said...
"Tell me how it's good for the body politic to have highly divided states where a county is either red or blue. This is a toxic culture we're living in and it can't end well. This seems like a prelude to another bloody civil war."
It will be the shortest civil war in history, if it comes to that. On our side will be the military and most of the people with weapons. On their side will be WholeFoods, byciclists, and people with anti-gun bumper stickers. I hope it never comes to that, but let's not be under any illusions about what happens if it does, and let's not be under any illusions that we are, today, one nation. We are two nations living under one tent, with wildly different cultures and mutually irreconcilable beliefs about where this country came from, what it stands for, and where it should go
I believe Simon is correct. Speculative books have even been written about it. I look to a map and see all the food, energy is from red areas on the map. Most military bases are in Red States and red areas of blue States - and most of the military comes from those areas. All Blue areas are essentially surrounded in red areas.
If the black racist and lefty progressive "Civil War" starts...there is little they can do. The people of the Red States and red areas of blue states just surround the cities. They don't go in and try urban warfare. And other than stay surrounded and burn their blue cities...what will the starving and freezing Blues do?
"The only regular programming I watch on PBS is NOVA.
Thank you David Koch."
At our house, NOVA is called "The David Koch Hour". I always end the program with a rousing "Thank you David Koch."
Alot of them will wander out into the rural zones and starve/freeze to death.
In a blue-red civil war, some Progressives maintain that working democrat suburbs, purple, and red area citizens in their suburbs would capitulate to angry violent mobs of students and "aggrieved black people" invading their areas - rather than "act like Hitler or George Zimmerman".
They would be in for a real surprise if they tried marching out of Blue cities.
A Civil War is also a means to fix yet more flaws in the US Constitution that simply cannot be fixed in a divided nation and with a broken Amending process.
The Aftermath of the 1st Civil War was that the South was no longer viable in blocking significant political change. The Union simply threw Southerners out of office and replaced them with blacks and carpetbaggers that would vote as ordered.
So a 2nd Civil War, assuming a Red State victory, would be the end of affirmative action, birthright citizenship. It would see a balanced budget Amendment enacted. It might strip the voting rights away from "lifetime parasites" that exist only on the wealth created by the work of others. It would rip away much of the entrenched bureaucracy and glacial red tape now ensconced in "Constitutional Rights" that has made America uncompetitive. End lifetime judicial appointments and sort out the Congress being run by "senior people" never elected by most Americans from their "Committees" that alone have the power to create new laws and regs, or get rid of them.
A 2nd Civil War would not necessarily be a bad thing. The terrible first one is thought to have been historically necessary to fix an unworkable US Constitution. A 2nd Civil War would be less bloody.
Geez. I need to take Zombie Apocalypse movies more seriously. They are a Warning Order.
Need to start making a deck of cards too. Begala, Dowd, Streisand, Fonda...
Ann Althouse wrote in a previous post “... explaining the meaning of things that are not real ..” Though her context was CNN's use of exit polls, she succinctly summarized the work of liberal journospinpundits embracing the occult, inspired by Haloed Hussein (readers offended by the President's middle name may use the substitute 'Obtuse Obama')
That acrimonious smell!
He campaigned on the audacity of hope
Led the nation down a slippery slope
People voted for a thinker
Who turned out to be a tinker
Though not a Tinker Bell!
Oh, Sharpton and Jackson too. Diversity!
The left really hates free speech. Guess the left realizes that the more people understand what the left wants to do, the more people disagree with it. Gotta keep those mouths shut.
Walker's win had nothing to do with Citizens United.
Citizens United.. the new drinking game.
For LOL hilarity see the 'Hitler Finds Out Scott Walker Won the Election' on Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC_ult6-Tb4
t-man,
I'll try.
Armour said that it don't have to be fair if it's rational.
The WS District Court said that two aspects of Act 10 (limiting the automatic dues collection and annual certification provisions to non-public safety unions only) were not rational.
So the answer is sorta, maybe.
He needs to distinguish between private and public sector unions. The nature of each is substantially different that they cannot be reasonably assessed with a single standard.
On the other hand some union leader somewhere might realize that a little give in lean times might mean union survival until things improve down the road....no?....you're right, never gonna happen.
In 2010 IRA Glasser, former Executive Director of the ACLU, wrote a very good column on why Citizens United was correctly decided.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-glasser/understanding-the-emcitiz_b_447342.html
Maybe one day the Left will wake up and realize that their precious single-payer health insurance would be a *lot* more practical absent the huge costs of public sector unions. So would a lot of other government services. Resentment would go way down too. For years I wouldn't buy an American car because I knew the Autoworkers made more than double what I made at the time and yet their pitch was that it was my *duty* to buy their cars.
C4 - I'm in agreement on the need of a 2nd civil war.
Walker wins, stocks up 2.37%.
Coincidence?
Maybe not. Getting budgets under control is a long game but this was an important moment.
I know there was a time when Americans needed some power as workers to counter some overreaching by early industrialists, but that was a short period, after which unions proceeded to damage a great nation, and public sector unions never should have been. It was a bad idea on day one with no wrongs to right.
Now I simply hate unions. They are now 100% unnecessary and unfair.
This video of Ukrainian folk dancing exactly captures my mood:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luMUzLidqgc
H/T smalldeadanimals.com
""act like Hitler or George Zimmerman".
The lefties behave like Trayvon "sippin lean" and acting weird so it stand to reason that any normal person would be suspicious of them. Hitler was a vegetarian and hated smoking. Sounds like their side.
Civil War? No, not hardly. Rioting yes, looting yes, arson yes. But Dear Leader doesn't want a civil war. That would mean he has less power. Now enough discord for him to declare Martial Law? The negation of the 2nd amendment? The 1st, elections...all those pesky rights dictators don't have to fool with. That I can see.
Ps.
Don't count on the Army saving your ass during martial law...look at what happened in NOLA post Katrina. Cops and soldiers only want one thing. To go home at night.
The "Hitler finds out Walker Won video" is hilarious.
See Lars @ 3:32
Citizens United.. its new Dingell/Norwood bill.
What about the Dingell/Norwood bill?
What about Citizens United?
Der slush fund is kaput!
...there was a time when Americans needed some power as workers to counter some overreaching by early industrialists.
Don't blame you for believing that because it has been the story taught to almost all of us. The most liberating statistic I ever read (and I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember it word for word) was that in the period 1840 - 1890 in the United States the real income (inflation adjusted) of skilled workers doubled. That's why millions streamed into the United States in that period before there was any such thing as a safety net. There was work and a steady genuine improvement in the standard of living of workers. It gives the lie to the whole leftist line, a line that has never been seriously contested, that the history of labor is a struggle against exploiters.
Walker wins and the stockmarket surges 286+ points...whooyaaa
@Bagoh20 ...
Even as an early union supporter, though mostly skilled trades, I have evolved to near total distrust of any union. Damn few, in any, "leaders" in any union today have calloused hands or ever endured vocational risks. So I trust none of them.
Once the National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) took over the AFL-CIO, unionism no longer represented "labor" per se, nor trade skills, or anything remotely Lockean.
The "service" unions produce nothing tangible in commerce, thus there are no proceeds in which laborers are entitled to a share by Lockean standards. Therefore, the obvious track for these service unions is to demand increasing shares of taxpayer money. And demand it without recourse. Odd how they even consider that "bargaining."
I'm amused, as a former "fed" and military person (with some private sector experience as well) that all this hoopla was over STATE & LOCAL unions losing collective bargaining for wages and benefits, as well as mandatory dues pre-collection. Well Boo Hoo. The Feds (and their union AFGE-AFL/CIO)have never had that privilege and shouldn't have it, even per FDR.
I'm so happy with the outcome in Wisconsin, I'm gonna go buy some Brats for old times sake.
On to November.
Oh civil war, my ass. Conservatives and liberals are partying here together in Waukesha County, WI. If WE in Wisconsin, in the reddest county in the state can get along, the rest of America can too.
"... Now enough discord for him to declare Martial Law? The negation of the 2nd amendment? The 1st, elections...all those pesky rights dictators don't have to fool with. That I can see."
I dunno. The left said the same thing about Bush; that he was going to suspend elections, declare Martial Law, yada yada. A bunch of crazy talk. (google "bush will declare martial law")
But I will give you this- the tell of the creepy "liberal" zombie (and no- I don't think all zombies are liberals- just the creepy ones) is that they project their motives, drives and intentions onto their opponents- to know them, you just need to listen to what they accuse their opponents of. It's why they see so many things in terms of race- at heart they're racists. It why they think conservatives are evil haters- because they are so full of hatred towards Republicans.
So I won't rule out entirely the things you said. But I won't subscribe to them, either.
Will anyone here be honest and acknowledge the obvious fact that campaign cash plays a huge role in U.S. elections and that Republicans are increasingly getting a larger percentage due to structural changes in our political system like Citizen United?
I know that Ann won't be honest and say a peep about this, but will anyone else?
The spin is dizzying. From my e-mailbox today courtesy of Michael Sargeant, Exec. Dir. of the DLCC:
"Last night, Wisconsinites voted to break the Republican stranglehold on their state and restore peace and sanity in their government.
That’s not the story Republicans want you to hear this morning, but it’s true – Wisconsinites may have kept Scott Walker, but over two rounds of recalls they voted for a Democratic state Senate majority by electing Democrats John Lehman, Jen Shilling, and Jessica King.
Ever since Walker launched his first attacks on working families, voters saw that Wisconsin Senate Democrats never back down from doing what's right. That’s why Democrats have been entrusted with this majority – to ensure that from now on, no matter what Scott Walker does, Wisconsin’s government will respect all voices and the rights of all its citizens.
That, ultimately, is what the millions of recall petitions, millions more volunteer-hours, and the most awe-inspiring grassroots mobilization in recent American history was all about: making sure all voices are heard in our Democracy.
From Maine to Wisconsin and from Oregon to North Carolina, Americans have had enough of Scott Walker’s brand of radical politics, and they’re turning to Democrats to curb those abuses.
That’s why it’s crucial to elect Democratic leaders this November who will stand up for working families, fight for equal rights for their citizens, and stop the attacks on women's health care choices.
Walker and other Republicans can always choose not to listen to the millions of voters who cried out last night for moderation. But with a Democratic state Senate, they cannot help but hear us now."
One would think that the ass whooping that took place in the birthplace of the American progressive movement would be the Come to Jesus moment of those who think that unions, both public and private can somehow stand athwart the economic realities of the 21st century.
Perhaps enough liberal leaning voters in Wisconsin have been mugged by reality to resist the idea that public employee union members should somehow keep and attain financial benefits that every other wage earner cannot imagine. Perhaps that is why there is a tidal wave of resentment against lavish public pensions that are simply unsustainable.
I cannot say if Walker's resounding victory will be echoed in November in favor of Romney although I suspect Wisconsinites might be smart enough to realize that if the State of Wisconsin cannot sustain such financial burdens, neither can the nation.
Democrats, the party that holds that corporate power needs to be checked, undermined their position when they try to compete for large contributors. Republicans, the party of big business, on the other hand are not bending their party out of shape funding themselves with large corporate contributions.
We are increasingly becoming a one party state. There is a price to be paid for that.
Yes Jay Retread. But it appears that they have won, we are screwed and so many here in WI just don't give a damn anymore.
The rest of the nation's liberals can take up the fight now, have at it, good luck, but the monied are just too powerful now. We are vanquished, some of us know it, some think that these powerful folks out there will be Daddy Warbicks to them and they too will get a piece of the pie. Fools paradise.
Warbucks that is. Big bucks, that they will not reinvest in American jobs, because they don't want to see a middle class anymore.
Jay Retread said...
Will anyone here be honest and acknowledge the obvious fact that campaign cash plays a huge role in U.S. elections and that Republicans are increasingly getting a larger percentage due to structural changes in our political system like Citizen United?
No.
You have not the foggiest clue what the Supreme Court said in the Citizen United case.
Remember how outraged you were when Obama outspent McCain by such a large margin?
*GIGGLE*
Citizens United should not be overturned, it affords some freedoms to unions too. So there is that at least.
What does this loss mean for organized labor? It is a power shift from unions to local communities and local taxing authorities
By limiting public service union power, Walker increased the power of local communities and their tax authorities with the result that they balanced their budgets without severe layoffs or deep cuts in social services - unlike Greece. The 3 R's of budget reform are: Rebalance, Rebid, Rearrange. Rebalance the budget by increasing contribution to health care and pensions; Rebid all contracts such as health insurance, school buses and school lunches; Rearrange schedules and work arrangements so that the job gets done without severe tax increases or layoffs. But public service union contracts would prevent rebalancing, rebidding and rearranging at the local level which Walker knew from his tenure as leader of Milwaukee County. And so he began by returning power from the unions to the local communities by limiting collective bargaining and also by eliminating 400 state regulations that fostered featherbedding and prevented the third R - Rearranging. But it's because the local communities then balanced their budgets by a very varied mix of the 3R's that Walker won. The deficit disappeared without huge layoffs and social service cuts when power went back to local communities as Walker predicted. No amount of drumming, chanting,occupying, Om-the-Doming, screaming, robo-calling etc. could prevent people from seeing that under Walker things are going in the right direction in Wisconsin in their community. On Wisconsin!! but understand that power to the local community and its taxing authority is what Walker and what Wisconsin is about.
Jay, Obama is on the the wealthiest's payroll as well. That is the point. Both parties are creatures of Wall Street and do the bidding of concentrated wealth.
Allie, yes, they have won and now fully own our electoral system. I think a lot of progressives like myself are no longer going to pretend that we have an honest and open system of elections and are going to direct our actions elsewhere.
The left are pissed off that conservatives have access to money and free speech.
The left want a monopoly on money and free speech. The left demand no dissention from their anti-math religion.
The democrat/left take all sorts of money and perks from big corporations. The left want the right barred from doing the same. The left get tax payer money funneled to them through dues that are paid by union members, and they don't see the problem.
That is a problem, but not to the corrupt left. They see private money as the problem.
The left love Soros and his money, yet yammer on endlessly about the Koch brothers.
Exactly Jay Retread. This nation is so screwed, some just don't know it yet.
Can we please stop talking about public employee union members as "have nots"? If at 55 years old a person wanted to retire on an income of $40k/yr from an annuity they'd have to pony up a million bucks. Having assets of $1 million puts you in the wealthiest 3% of Americans.
April wrote "The democrat/left take all sorts of money and perks from big corporations."
Once again, that is the point. Corporations and concentrated money has bought off both parties.
Let me use an analogy here. The Republicans are the Harlem Globetrotters (though obviously not mostly black, LOL) while the Democrats are the Washington Generals. The game is fixed for your entertainment.
But I am refusing to play along and root for the Generals. Because it is a shame.
I hate it when politicians with big corporate backers just walk in and buy an election!
Advertising Money: McCain vs. Obama
Posted on November 3, 2008
Q: Who spent more money on advertising, McCain or Obama?
A: Overall, Obama has outspent McCain by nearly 3-to-1, but in the closing week it’s been closer to 5-to-1.
http://factcheck.org/2008/11/advertising-money-mccain-vs-obama/
"Both parties are creatures of Wall Street and do the bidding of concentrated wealth."
And the TEA party is the only group that wants this to stop. The left has its hobby horses and the ruling class Republicans are along for the ride. The Republican Congress after 1998 or so, proved that they couldn't be trusted. Newt was as bad as any of them. Now, we see real people, not Trent Lott clones, moving into politics.
Democrats do not understand the spending crisis. They think it is a perpetual motion machine.
There were two candidates in the 2008 election with track records of opposing corporate influence in the formation of public policy. Their names were McCain and Palin.
Obama was a strong believer in funneling government money to corporations. That is how he made his living as a lawyer. Biden's biggest campaign contributor was Simmons LLC, a corporate law firm. Biden worked to remove limits on the number of mesothelioma lawsuits. Simmons LLC specializes in these lawsuits.
I do want to know in which reality Republicans have more money than Democrats.
No matter where it comes from.
Warbucks that is. Big bucks, that they will not reinvest in American jobs, because they don't want to see a middle class anymore.
What utter bollocks.
Where progressives have absolute power, as in California, they attack the Middle Class, small businessmen, and small farmers with punishing regulations and higher taxes. The Middle Class is fleeing the Worker's Paradise for a reason.
Funny how Democrats hate the comparison between how California and Texas are performing in a side by side comparison.
As something of an understatement, my number-knowing is not sufficient, so could we not find someone with number-knowledge to showcase their wisdom by comparing:
Barrett/Walker 2010 to Barrett/Walker 2012?
Sure, there are many variables that are not fixed, yet two important ones are, and I should hope that has some value beyond Twainian Stats we all regard and dis shabbily.
We are increasingly becoming a one party state. There is a price to be paid for that.
Baloney. Your legislature is about evenly divided
One Party State: Just look at California. A one party state that is bankrupt and listed THE worst state to do business in. Wisconsin has climbed up to being the 20th worst state. Businesses are going to be coming to your state and guess what they bring. Money, tax revenues increased, jobs, lower taxes, growth.
You might want to thank Walker since he is instrumental in all of this.
If you could get your head out of your ideological ass that is
@Synova ...it is a "virtual" reality, silly. You are not paying attention. Now go sit in the corner.
We are doomed, doomed I tell you. Progressives, individually, did not get their way, and it is just not righteous. Oh, wail and shriek. Now it's time for them to cannibalize their own and hate their opposites even more.
//sarc off now [as if necessary]
I don't buy the argument that money always buys elections. If you don't have the right message, it can't usually help.
I don't think any amount of money could have won this recall for the Dems. I also doubt that many Walker votes were won through money. How would that work exactly? I don't see how people who would have voted to recall him somehow got got turned around by money spent by the GOP. Walker votes were there mostly because of the facts that were widely known without advertizing, combined with the behavior of the left over the last year. If anything, the money the left spent in Madison all year bought Walker votes.
The Democratic Party has never been in favor of limiting corporate power ( unless the corporation supports Republicans.) They haven't suddenly "sold out". Stop kidding yourself. The Dems still have access to deep pockets as always. Citizens United doesn't change that. Acting as if it does is just silly.
And if a big evil corporation is found to be supporting the campaign of a big evil Republican, liberals can boycott their big evil products and try to run them out of business. That is what democracy looks like.
That was not true of labor unions. Even if people disagreed with the candidates backed by their unions, they still had to contribute dues. That is starting to change and that is what all this bitching in WI has been about. Be honest; at least with yourself if not with others.
@bagoh20 ... Agreed. Once again. Walker did have one "money" advantage .... the reduction in property taxes, IIRC. And the budget surplus. And no tax increases.
Go figure .... why would sensible people would like any of that?
Next, I am waiting for the Dems to assert that the Wisconsin public union members who decided to drop out, not pay dues, etc., as DINO'S!
Jay, Obama is on the the wealthiest's payroll as well. That is the point. Both parties are creatures of Wall Street and do the bidding of concentrated wealth.
Allie, yes, they have won and now fully own our electoral system. I think a lot of progressives like myself are no longer going to pretend that we have an honest and open system of elections and are going to direct our actions elsewhere.
6/6/12 5:44 PM
That's funny. Sarah Palin was telling you this in 2008! She repeated the same assertions in 2009 and again last year in Indianola.
Yet the lot of you on the Left could only scream "Chillbilly!", "Quitter!" and of course, that all purpose battle cry that the left uses whenever Palin enters the room, "cunt!".
Your Dear Leader, Barack Obama, got where he was because he sold his soul to the greatest collection of economic war criminals since Hitler commissioned the Organization Todt to rape European Russia and Western Europe of their economic wealth. And now these Gangster Banksters staff his Administration.
Don't say you weren't warned. You were. Palin warned you. You refused to listen.
The difference between you people and a Movement Conservative like me is that, like Palin, I know that Mitt Romney is a front man for the Banksters. You were suckered by Barack Obama all along.
You on the Left deserve every humiliation that is coming to you.
To expand on my point above: Palin believes in markets. Romney and Obama are two peas in the State Capitalist pod, and serve their bankster masters.
I think Obama believed that he could turn the tables on the Banks and become their master, as FDR did with Glass-Stegall, the Pecora Hearings, and the Securities and Exchange Act.
But FDR actually was to the manor born and knew his banksters; he knew the Ruling Class in his bones, and could outwit them. Obama is a babe in the woods. Once he took his first million from Soros, the old kapo owned Obama heart and soul.
I see money more as a leading indicator. People tend to back people they think will win, especially when it comes to real dollars.
Section -- You and are tend to be on the same page politically, but what exactly makes you think Palin wouldn't be equally overwhelmed by events? A babe in the woods?
Face it. Palin was plucked from obscurity. She was a governor (with limited experience) of a state that is the biggest federal welfare recipient of all.
Palin is the Republican Obama. And she isn't relevant -- certainly not today.
Section9, I have recognized that Obama is the puppet of the same Capitalist masters as Romney for quite sometime now.
Same, same, maybe Crack has a point, except he gets confused and hones in on the religious cult angle. Maybe the real cult is the cult of big money.
Maybe the real cult is the cult of big money.
Poor Allie. Every day of her life a day of a tool.
Oh fuck you Nachos, go play with your tool if you can find it.
Where were you when Obama and the Democrats were massively overspending the Democrats in 2008, Allie? Did you care about money then, and think it was bad?
Also, what was the total cost of all the goofball protesting throughout Wisconsin the last year? Does that count in the money spent? Why? Why not?
Do you know? Do you know who counts the money spent? Do you know how they count it?
Have you ever had anything approaching an original thought in your small cranium?
And are you enjoying being part of a total, massive loser effort today?
Both parties are creatures of Wall Street and do the bidding of concentrated wealth.
This is something libertarians keep trying to explain to you people:
You cannot give government control over every aspect of the economy and then act surprised when the movers and shakers within the economy end up running the government! Either the rich and powerful buy off the regulators in government, or the regulators in government become the rich and powerful. It happens one hundred percent of the time.
Every time you feel the urge to say something like "we need more government oversight of X", "we need more regulation of X', or "we need more government intervention in X", just remember -- what you're REALLY saying is "we need the rich and powerful to be in control of X".
The technical term for what you describe is "regulatory capture", Revenant.
The best recent example of this is Elizabeth Warren's CFPB. Complete power over consumer lending, according to rules written by the D's and the big banks, beyond the oversight of congress.
Actually Nachos I've been partying with my very sweet conservative neighbors and friends since last night. Hell, I I woke up with my conservative plumber neighbor in my bed this morning.
These conservatives drink way too much. They are a bad influence on me.
So Nachos, kiss my ass, I've been having more fun than you ever had wrestling gay Mexican men.
AllieOop said... Oh civil war, my ass. Conservatives and liberals are partying here together in Waukesha County, WI. If WE in Wisconsin, in the reddest county in the state can get along, the rest of America can too.
So Allie, I assume you agree with Governor Walker's speech last night?
Allie is way too old to be having strange conservative men in her bed.
Well Phil, I'll give him credit for shushing the crowd at one point during his speech. The rest of the speech I may have to rewatch.
If you ever have one of those doughnuts that are coated with powdered sugar you must remember to hold your breath and not inhale when you lift it to your mouth or else you risk coating your lungs with sugar powder. That happened to me a couple of times and both times I thought what a dummkopf.
Alex, oh no Allie isn't. He was older than me, old folks need love too. Ask Meade and Ann.
And the plumber is neither strange nor a stranger.
Chip, some people do that on purpose, talk about a sugar high.
Well I approve of inter-partisan mixing, in or out of bed, so good for you, Allie, glad you had fun last night.
The conservatives here may be a bad influence on you yet.
Yashu, he was very comforting, from what I remember. He held me as I wept in his arms, now isn't that romantic?
Aw, yes it is romantic.
Assuming he was pro-Walker, now that's what I call a gracious winner.
Actually, Allie, the CCTV images show that you have been hanging out with a group of feral cats and a possum and a raccoon for the last 36 hours--gesticulating wildly and laughing maniacally, your hair wild and your dress torn and soiled. It's time to make that call for help.
JL nails it:
"And if a big evil corporation is found to be supporting the campaign of a big evil Republican, liberals can boycott their big evil products and try to run them out of business. That is what democracy looks like.
That was not true of labor unions. Even if people disagreed with the candidates backed by their unions, they still had to contribute dues. That is starting to change and that is what all this bitching in WI has been about. Be honest; at least with yourself if not with others."
I would rephrase that as "not true of public worker labor unions" but agree with the sentiment. There were no checks and balances imposed on them. That was the HUGE problem. They bought politicians who gave them more money which they used to buy more politicians to give them even more money. In a private business if the management holds out too much there will be a strike. And if the unions hold out too long they'll ruin their employer and put their jobs at risk. Customers can go elsewhere. But PEUs are unfettered by that calculus. And what opportunity do the taxpayers have to take their business elsewhere? It wasn't collective bargaining, it was extortion, plain and simple.
So Nachos, kiss my ass, I've been having more fun than you ever had wrestling gay Mexican men.
Thread winner.
Darrell! How dare you call my neighbors, who are Walker supporters and staunch conservatives feral cats, possums and raccoons!
"I've been partying with my very sweet conservative neighbors and friends"
I'm curious if you drove any of them to the polls.
Also, I hope you saw the nice comments people made about you yesterday.
No, kcom, I was too busy driving all the Chicagoans back home after they voted.
It's simple.
I don't believe a word you write.
I wouldn't hang out with someone who is depressed because the bad guys lost. Let your imaginary friends read your words and see if they want to hang with you then. If you aren't just another sockpuppet of one of the dudes that beclowned himself so bad that he "re-invented" himself. That "bathtub swabbie" maybe? [As per Shouting Thomas] The guy who the highlight of his life was crossing the International Date Line?
Darrell, you don't know me, I don't know you, so I will simply have to take your word for it that you are human. NOTHING depresses me Darrell, at least not for more than a few hours, except for the death of my husband, so you too can kiss my ass. Any more takers?
Now follow that up with some of your sockpuppets awarding you another thread winner. You need that ersatz validation.
I take it he drank it, huh?
And Darrell, you are a dumbass, don't you know smoking can give you lung cancer, esophageal cancer and wrinkly skin?
Perhaps you are really one of those conservative raccoons you mentioned a few comments back.
Blue@9 is my SockPuppet?! LMAO, oh you are a silly little raccoon.
Now follow that up with some of your sockpuppets awarding you another thread winner. You need that ersatz validation.
Dude, seriously. You think I'm Allie's sockpuppet? HAHAHAHA.
You need to stop getting so personal in here.
Allie,
I appreciate your good humor. I have many liberal friends, living in Vermont, and I enjoy their company greatly. Sometimes they get partisan, but sometimes, so do I. We all do our best to let it pass.
GAWD, you conservatives are fun!
"... So Nachos, kiss my ass, I've been having more fun than you ever had wrestling gay Mexican men..."
Ever notice how the so called tolerant liberals like to use homosexuality as a slur against folks they disagree with?
I would think a tolerant liberal like Oops would celebrate gay Mexican wrestling. But then again Oops is a standard leftist hypocrite.
Why thankyou Tim, you aren't my SockPuppet are you?
And Darrell, you are a dumbass, don't you know smoking can give you lung cancer, esophageal cancer and wrinkly skin?
You don't say! Still, it's like drinking your poisoned tea: I won't have to deal with you anymore.
No Hoosier, not a damn thing wrong with being gay, but a gay Mexican who would wrestle Nachos, ew, Nachos, not the gay guy.
Speaking of Mexican wrestling, that's some damn good entertainment. There's a show based out of LA called Lucha VaVoom, which is crazy fantastic and well worth the ticket price. Midgets, chicken costumes, burlesque dancers. Great stuff.
Now Darrell, dontcha have a sense of humor? Come on little raccoon, smile, let's see those pretty yellow fangs.
Is one of the wrestlers called Seven Machos?! And he claims he's a lawyer, ha!
Sure, shiloh.
Or whoever you were.
The good guys triumphed over the fatassed lazy overpaid and underworked public employees/taxeaters who had corrupt duplicitous Democrats rubberstamping their outrageous demands for decades. Rejoice.
LMAO again! Damn, I haven't laughed so hard, since i dont know when. Shiloh, the guy who posts naked pictures of women on his blog!? HAHAHA, oh Lordy!
Damn we liberals should lose more often, I've had a great night and day after boo hooing for an hour. Thanks conservatives this has been a blast, but I should go, the plumber is knocking at my door.
Sockpuppet. Assmonkey. Not a whole lot of difference. When Althouse's clever little lefties stop changing their "names" nobody will bring that up ever again. But they do and we do.
Gawd Darrell, the plumber just asked me why the hell I was laughing so hard, damn after four kids a woman's bladder isn't what it used to be ya know, now I must run!
Damn we liberals should lose more often...
Almost right. Insert an "always" in there and you will have come to your senses. Don't let me keep you from giving your plumber a golden shower, though. I hope he's union.
Brilliant Darrel! LMAO!!
No Hoosier, not a damn thing wrong with being gay, but a gay Mexican who would wrestle Nachos, ew, Nachos, not the gay guy.
Nice try Oops. Like most liberals, you like to play the tolerant type but have no problem using gays as your foil when it suits your needs.
Don't think Seven is gay so the only reason for you to bring it up is to use it as a slur. As I said, hypocrite.
"Face it. Palin was plucked from obscurity. She was a governor (with limited experience) of a state that is the biggest federal welfare recipient of all."
In my opinion, I'll start caring about that when the federal government hands over, what... the 80% of Alaska that they control, and Alaska is able to sell leases on the icy barren coast of ANWAR.
Until then it's RENT.
"You cannot give government control over every aspect of the economy and then act surprised when the movers and shakers within the economy end up running the government!"
This should be tattooed on the forehead of every citizen.
"Actually, Allie, the CCTV images show that you have been hanging out with a group of feral cats and a possum and a raccoon for the last 36 hours"
Them other possums gots all the fun.
"Actually, Allie, the CCTV images show that you have been hanging out with a group of feral cats and a possum and a raccoon for the last 36 hours"
Them other possums gots all the fun.
bagoh20 [6:32PM] said: If anything, the money the left spent in Madison all year bought Walker votes.
This is the real thread winner. Actually, several threads today.
It's all fun, Pogo, until Allie throws a feral cat at you. Best stick with the other Marsupials.
A gay city councilman, a fiscal conservative/libertarian, in San Diego pushed an initiative cutting back pensions there. Won in a landslide.
I can see November from my house!
Why is there so much love for unions on the left? The history of unions was to raise wage rates, through collective bargaining and legislation (like the Davis-Bacon Act), high enough to keep women and blacks from competing with white men.
If the left is all about supporting women and blacks (well non-whites anyway), shouldn't the left be against unions?
...probably too late for anyone to notice, but here goes:
Money is important to elections, yes.
Elections are about information.
If you don't have money, it doesn't matter how good your ideas are, it doesn't matter how good your information is: you won't make it anywhere.
But after a certain point, more money doesn't make any difference. Once you start repeating information, you've reached the limit that money can help.
So Walker spent $30m and Barrett spent $4m. Maybe Walker was wasting his dollars, because there was already enough information on both. The extra money made zero difference, because the voters already had the information they needed and wanted to make a decision.
So in my opinion, more money from more groups equals more information for voters. Even if used in negative attacks, it gives the voters the information that the attacker has nothing positive about themselves to run on.
The only problem with money is if the politician feels beholden to the contributor. But that goes back to the politician's integrity, and no laws can ever control that.
Some corruption is unavoidable. More information can help clarify who is corrupt, and get them out of office before they can do too much damage.
The problem with liberals is they don't care about corruption as long as the corrupt politician supports abortion, Affirmative Action, and gay marriage.
@ Nathan Alexander ... heh heh, at least one "anybody" read your comment. I agree in most aspects, but I am also very sure the money spent disparity floated recnetly are hogwash. It was more like dead even, if you count all the Union funds spent without Barrett's control (the unions supported his primary opponent) but that money still counts as anti-Walker expenditure.
I for one am delighted that Walker won, as well as Kleefisch but I don't understand the point of a Senate recall for a Senate not in session until November, when elections are again held.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा