The Wisconsin Recall

Turned out to be democrats wasting government money on unproductive efforts, true to form.

That was a bit of trolling on my part and a commentary on the stupidity of outside interest groups thinking they could unass somebody and that the locals would just let it happen.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/201 ... 25389.html

If ever there was a political event to lay bare the partisan ideologies of the cable news media, the Wisconsin recall was it.

MSNBC was blatantly rooting for Tom Barrett to defeat Gov. Scott Walker, even sending union champion Ed Schultz to cover an event with no apologies for the dog he has in the fight. (Earlier tonight, Chris Matthews even told Schultz that if he wasn't an MSNBC host, he could be head of the AFL-CIO.) When it became clear that Barrett would lose, Schultz looked almost teary eyed. Not long after, the network's contributors immediately began suggesting that this was, in fact, good news for Obama — who, after all, hadn't even set foot in Wisconsin — and began attacking Mitt Romney.

Meanwhile, Fox News was blatantly rooting for Gov. Walker, and the moment it became clear that Walker might win, host Sean Hannity called it "a repudiation of big unions," which did "everything they could do to demonize Scott Walker." Guest Hugh Hewitt then predicted that, five months from now, Romney would follow Walker just "as Reagan followed Thatcher." Fox's Greta Van Susteren later hosted what amounted to a victory celebration for the Republicans.

The only problem I have with this is that I get to see Fox/MSNBC at the same time at the gym at night. MSNBC has been doing union astroturf cheer-leading rallies on the boot-walker side for months during primetime. This was a night like any other at MSNBC from the explanation.

It seems that as long as FoxNews carries its reputation, MSNBC is allowed to be over 4 times as bad without anyone mentioning it.

corplinx wrote:

That was a bit of trolling on my part and a commentary on the stupidity of outside interest groups thinking they could unass somebody and that the locals would just let it happen.

Just to be clear, there was plenty of outside money on both sides. More of it on Walker's side in fact.

Walker beat the recall the same reason he won in the first place.

Sure there was money on the side of the status quo. There always is. But Walker was also popular to begin with, and the recall forces never even tried to make a case for their point of view. All they had was outrage and smear tactics.

lost in the shuffle is this

Voters in California Appear to Approve Pension Cuts
By IAN LOVETT
Published: June 6, 2012
LOS ANGELES — As Wisconsin residents voted on Tuesday not to recall Gov. Scott Walker — who has become an enemy of labor unions nationwide — two California cities dealt blows of their own to organized labor.
Related

In both San Diego and San Jose, voters appeared to overwhelmingly approve ballot initiatives designed to help balance ailing municipal budgets by cutting retirement benefits for city workers.

Around 70 percent of San Jose voters favored the pension reform measure, with almost 80 percent of precincts reporting. In San Diego, 67 percent had supported a similar pension reform measure, with more than 65 percent of precincts reporting.

“This is really important to our taxpayers,” Chuck Reed, the mayor of San Jose, said Tuesday night. “We’ll get control over these skyrocketing retirement costs and be able to provide the services they are paying for.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/us/po ... ggest.html

Not news to make progressives smile overmuch.

The Dark Money Behind the Wisconsin Recall

I suppose the real dollar winners were the ad agencies and local television and radio stations.

grayman wrote:

The Dark Money Behind the Wisconsin Recall

You know that really m akes me torn on this. On the one hand, I am not a fan of the way modern politics is played where, as soon as one side loses an election it immediately starts calling for impeachment/recall of the guy that won, so I am glad to see it fail when it gets that far. The tactic cheapens the process and, IMO, makes recall/impeachment more difficult when it is actually warranted because it will always look like a political maneauver now.

On the other hand, if that graph is even semi-accurate, it doesn't exactly refute my idea that elections go to the highest bidder. Walker was at a disadvantage in every area but money, from what I understand. But in money he had a huge advantage and, surprise, he won. Makes me think that our electoral system would be more honest if instead of elections, we just had auctions for public office.

The spin on the Daily Kos is that the polls indicated that a majority of Wisconsin voters didn't approve of the recall, which is why Walker survived the vote. Also, the demographics of the exit poll showed that the younger vote didn't turn out.

Daily Kos was only "news" site that even fucking mentioned the Senate race - how bad is our news reporting today? This wasn't a total loss for the Democrats because they took back control of the State Senate.

With the recall election less than two days away, federal prosecutors are closing in on Governor Scott Walker, according to veteran political reporter David Shuster, former Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager, and former district attorney Bob Jambois.

In a conference call organized by state Democrats on Saturday evening, June 2, Shuster, Lautenschlager, and Jambois laid out evidence that Walker is a target of a federal investigation.

Wisconsin Democratic Party Communications Director Graeme Zielinski added that there is evidence of wrongdoing after Walker's time as Milwaukee County Executive, and that the investigation includes criminal activity during his time as governor.

http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/artic ... 1cbb8dcb78

I guess he needed to spend alot of money defending this, and that,

Bernadette Gillick was a college freshman in 1988 when she first met Scott Walker. It was spring semester, and she had just transferred to Marquette University. She was assigned a room in O’Donnell Hall (then a women’s dormitory), which she shared with her new roommate, Ruth (not her real name). Ruth was dating Scott Walker, who was 20 at the time, and, according to Bernadette, Ruth was deeply in love with him.

Midway through that spring semester, Bernadette alleges, Ruth found out she was pregnant. She informed her boyfriend, Scott, and initially he was supportive. That support changed to callous indifference for his girlfriend’s predicament after Scott informed his parents of the pregnancy.

Bernadette reports that at this point Scott began denying that he was the father of the baby, and when Ruth said she was considering an abortion, he claimed he didn’t care, as he wasn’t the father anyway

http://wcmcoop.com/members/integrity-th ... ft-behind/

And so on, very revealing of the democrat party.

I am generally of the opinion that a provider of pension reimbursement should refrain from making unsustainable commitments instead of breaking them after the fact. Is my understanding of the narrative correct that unions were willing to discuss cuts but Walker curtailed their bargaining power instead of trying to make a deal?

IMO Walker is a flat out union buster, and I don't consider that a good thing.

Too bad the anti-Walker forces concentrated on name calling and smear tactics rather than making the case for unions.

They didn't merely fail, they didn't even try to win people over.

“Governments and unions have an incestuous relationship in this country,” said Libertarian Party Chair Geoffrey J. Neale. “Politicians pass laws forcing millions of government employees to pay union dues while handing out lucrative government employee contracts. The unions pour money into the re-election campaigns of those politicians. Everyday taxpayers and workers are left holding the bag.”

A judge must recuse himself when adjudicating a case where he has a financial interest in one of the parties before him. Libertarians assert that, likewise, a lawmaker who takes campaign donations from contractors, unions or anyone else who profits from taxpayer money should not be allowed to vote for handing out government largesse. Nor should those who profit from government be allowed to donate to political campaigns.

But lawmakers routinely allow this conflict of interest, passing laws to mandate the terms of labor contracts and signing those contracts, rendering them invalid.

A valid contract is one where all interested parties agree to the terms of the contract. When elections can be bought by those who profit from Big Government, the taxpayers have, at best, weak representation. Yet they’re expected to foot the bill.

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/l ... first-step


Yup.

Anaxagoras wrote:

corplinx wrote:

That was a bit of trolling on my part and a commentary on the stupidity of outside interest groups thinking they could unass somebody and that the locals would just let it happen.

Just to be clear, there was plenty of outside money on both sides. More of it on Walker's side in fact.

Something like 10:1 outside money to Walker.

This is how Romney/Gingerich is going to be our next administration.

Abdul Alhazred wrote:

IMO Walker is a flat out union buster, and I don't consider that a good thing.

Too bad the anti-Walker forces concentrated on name calling and smear tactics rather than making the case for unions.

They didn't merely fail, they didn't even try to win people over.

No one ever tries to win people over anymore. You win elections these days by getting more of your tribe to the polls than the other guy gets of his tribe. That is accomplished more effectively by smearing the other guys (which, really, is more for the benefit of getting your own tribe pissed off over what those other guys are doing, than getting anyone to turn against the other guys. Because, realistically, people just don't do the latter) than by saying "Vote for us, here are some good reasons why?"

Not the wy it should be, but its the way it is.

Nyarlathotep wrote:

Abdul Alhazred wrote:

IMO Walker is a flat out union buster, and I don't consider that a good thing.

Too bad the anti-Walker forces concentrated on name calling and smear tactics rather than making the case for unions.

They didn't merely fail, they didn't even try to win people over.

No one ever tries to win people over anymore. You win elections these days by getting more of your tribe to the polls than the other guy gets of his tribe.

Welcome to US elections since forever.

Abdul Alhazred wrote:

IMO Walker is a flat out union buster

This is why the boot walker side failed. People saw Walker trying to make public sector workers pay a tiny fraction of their pension contributions and the reaction was as rational as people claiming to have been raped in elevators because they got asked over for coffee.

corplinx wrote:

People saw Walker trying to make public sector workers pay a tiny fraction of their pension contributions

Is that the new way to say "banning public-sector collective bargaining"?

Not even in WI. The next governor may go for that though.

It depends on whether you define collective bargaining as the duty for the other party to not be able to say "here's the deal, take it or collectively leave it".

THATS UNION BUSTING, YOU ARENT SUPPSOED TO SAY NO

corplinx wrote:

Turned out to be democrats wasting government money on unproductive efforts, true to form.

Pretty much, but I gotta say, the Republican government does the same all the time down here. Dumb hicks voted into office by even dumber hicks.

corplinx wrote:

It depends on whether you define collective bargaining as the duty for the other party to not be able to say "here's the deal, take it or collectively leave it".

THATS UNION BUSTING, YOU ARENT SUPPSOED TO SAY NO

Can you explain that further in the context of the collective bargaining rights that he wanted to take away? How did it specifically work?

So ...

What about those free voting machines with no paper record? Was this a trial run for the November election or what?

Nyarlathotep wrote:

Abdul Alhazred wrote:

IMO Walker is a flat out union buster, and I don't consider that a good thing.

Too bad the anti-Walker forces concentrated on name calling and smear tactics rather than making the case for unions.

They didn't merely fail, they didn't even try to win people over.

No one ever tries to win people over anymore. You win elections these days by getting more of your tribe to the polls than the other guy gets of his tribe. That is accomplished more effectively by smearing the other guys (which, really, is more for the benefit of getting your own tribe pissed off over what those other guys are doing, than getting anyone to turn against the other guys. Because, realistically, people just don't do the latter) than by saying "Vote for us, here are some good reasons why?"

Not the way it should be, but its the way it is.

The unions grew when they made a point of making a positive case for it, trash talk about the bosses notwithstanding.

If that were not true, there would be no unions in the first place

Abdul Alhazred wrote:

If that were not true, there would be no unions in the first place

Being able to assemble as a group and make demands as a group doesn't not create a duty that your demands will be met. The arbitration periods for government workers in Wisconsin were obscene.

You shouldn't be able to make the government go into a 9 month bargaining period to make you pay 5% of your own pension contributions. Fuck that. Nobody has _any_ sympathy for that and that is why the recall failed.

So that's what Walker did, reduced the 9 month bargaining period?

corplinx wrote:

Being able to assemble as a group

.. yadda ...

The issue of whether the unions in effect have a right to bargain is separable from whether the particular demands are reasonable in this case. I won't bother about trying to defend the latter, because the present case involves the former.

Governor: You demands are unreasonable SO WE WILL DESTROY YOU.
Unions: OH YEAH?

The Republican anti-union rhetoric is the same collection of half truths as always, and unions used to have a better answer to those than trying to dig up old sexual scandals etc.

Abdul Alhazred wrote:

corplinx wrote:

Being able to assemble as a group

.. yadda ...

The issue of whether the unions in effect have a right to bargain ...

How do you define bargain?

Your usage suggests:
Bargain: an negotiation between parties settling what each will give and take or perform and receive in a transaction.

If one party has a right to bargain, then the other must have the obligation. From a natural rights point of view, I do not see why that should be so. You could codify that obligation into law but once you remove or change that code, then so goes your purported 'right'.

It ain't a right.

If the recall had been successful, would it no longer have been

corplinx wrote:

democrats wasting government money on unproductive efforts, true to form

?

DrMatt wrote:

If the recall had been successful, would it no longer have been

corplinx wrote:

democrats wasting government money on unproductive efforts, true to form

?

Yes.

Rob Lister wrote:

DrMatt wrote:

If the recall had been successful, would it no longer have been

corplinx wrote:

democrats wasting government money on unproductive efforts, true to form

?

Yes.

So the sincerity of an effort is measured directly by its success, regardless of other circumstances. Got it. A new one for the books...

DrMatt wrote:

Rob Lister wrote:

DrMatt wrote:

If the recall had been successful, would it no longer have been

corplinx wrote:

democrats wasting government money on unproductive efforts, true to form

?

Yes.

So the sincerity of an effort is measured directly by its success, regardless of other circumstances. Got it. A new one for the books...

Who said it was measured by its success? Who said circumstances were notwithstanding?

Let's see, the dems spent money to further a dem agenda and ended up not only wasting the money, but--it would appear--furthering the hindrance of their agenda.

If they had won, would the public money expended-- $-4-$ --be to the benefit of the public? I don't think so, but opinions vary.

Rob Lister wrote:

DrMatt wrote:

Rob Lister wrote:

DrMatt wrote:

If the recall had been successful, would it no longer have been

corplinx wrote:

democrats wasting government money on unproductive efforts, true to form

?

Yes.

So the sincerity of an effort is measured directly by its success, regardless of other circumstances. Got it. A new one for the books...

Who said it was measured by its success? Who said circumstances were notwithstanding?

Let's see, the dems spent money to further a dem agenda and ended up not only wasting the money, but--it would appear--furthering the hindrance of their agenda.

If they had won, would the public money expended-- $-4-$ --be to the benefit of the public? I don't think so, but opinions vary.

But as quoted by you in directly above, if the effort had been successful, it would not have been democrats wasting public money etc. Which is it?

DrMatt wrote:

Rob Lister wrote:

DrMatt wrote:

Rob Lister wrote:

DrMatt wrote:

If the recall had been successful, would it no longer have been

corplinx wrote:

democrats wasting government money on unproductive efforts, true to form

?

Yes.

So the sincerity of an effort is measured directly by its success, regardless of other circumstances. Got it. A new one for the books...

Who said it was measured by its success? Who said circumstances were notwithstanding?

Let's see, the dems spent money to further a dem agenda and ended up not only wasting the money, but--it would appear--furthering the hindrance of their agenda.

If they had won, would the public money expended-- $-4-$ --be to the benefit of the public? I don't think so, but opinions vary.

But as quoted by you in directly above, if the effort had been successful, it would not have been democrats wasting public money etc. Which is it?

? Either you're misreading or I'm miswriting. Maybe it's the whole negating the negative thing. I'll be clear...

I think it was a waste of money either way. Had it been successful, I think it would still be a waste of money.

Rob Lister wrote:

Maybe it's the whole negating the negative thing.

Ah.

A hastily ignored "no longer", I reckon.

DrMatt wrote:

Rob Lister wrote:

Maybe it's the whole negating the negative thing.

Ah.

A hastily ignored "no longer", I reckon.

I still blame you. Unnecessary negation should be avoided. As should passive voice.

Abdul Alhazred wrote:

corplinx wrote:

Being able to assemble as a group

.. yadda ...

The issue of whether the unions in effect have a right to bargain is separable from whether the particular demands are reasonable in this case. I won't bother about trying to defend the latter, because the present case involves the former.

Governor: You demands are unreasonable SO WE WILL DESTROY YOU.
Unions: OH YEAH?

The Republican anti-union rhetoric is the same collection of half truths as always, and unions used to have a better answer to those than trying to dig up old sexual scandals etc.

Yet the Wisconsin unions still exist.

There is no final battle (or solution), corplinx.

Perhaps next time the unions will do a better job of defending their case.

ODS continues.

Abdul Alhazred wrote:

There is no final battle (or solution), corplinx.

Perhaps next time the unions will do a better job of defending their case.

Can we have a talk about it without you reverting to histrionics? It's difficult to talk when you do down the union-man line of banter.