text:
'Recall' Reality
Recalls in American politics are a rarity. In fact, just getting an elected officials' name on a recall ballot is as about as unlikely as the Phillies' chances of only winning twenty games for this upcoming 2011 season.
Thus, it must follow then, that if history and logic are juxtaposed, the angry partisan crowds in Wisconsin, hell-bent on recalling their most despised state senators, need to realize that minus divine intervention and odds as bleak as those offered on the back of a PowerBall ticket, must heretofore zero-in on recent political history.
These contemptuous, yet righteous souls, should read the following statistics on successful recalls that occurred throughout U.S. history.
Click here for the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal online article.
Getting the signatures is the hardest part. I have heard but don't know as fact that Wisconsin's requirements are fairly lenient. When the signature process has been successful, thirteen recalls out of twenty attempts is pretty good.
If petitions for six of sixteen were filled statistics say 4 of 6 would be recalled.
It is not that impossible, especially in a state like Wisconsin.Posted by: jlw at March 14, 2011 2:36 AM
With all due respect, this is not a random event, dictated purely by statistical outcomes. Gov. Walker and his friends in the State legislature stepped on a lot of toes, offended a lot of people, people who are going to look to strike back.
Willpower and intent drive these political events, and you can't write an equation that will predict the outcome of that.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 14, 2011 10:21 AM
How many of the people protesting are from out-of-state and cannot vote?
I'm betting the majority of the 100,000 + - live in Wisconsin….just sayin'Posted by: steve miller at March 14, 2011 2:24 PM
Weary Willie-
Probably not enough to back the fantasy you're entertaining.
In another sign that the Wisconsin GOP's quick passage of the bill to roll back bargaining rights is only causing the fight to escalate, Dems have now collected over 45 percent of the signatures necessary to hold recall elections for eight GOP state senators, the Wisconsin Democratic Party tells me. […] According to Wisconsin Dem spokesman Zielinski, Dems are ahead of pace in signature gathering in every single one of the eight districts being targteted, and in three of the districts, Dems have well over 50 percent of the number required.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 14, 2011 3:10 PM
What fantasy?Posted by: Weary Willie at March 14, 2011 3:50 PM
Weary Willie-
Breibart, eh?
I watched the video, and here's what I'd say: it's anecdotal, and the poll numbers on Rasmussen have him underwater.
So really, what you and Breitbart are saying is that because a few folks in a bowling alley in a likely conservative county registered their approval, that he should be safe from recall.
Let's just ignore the polling that shows this man's approvals underwater, even in Rasmussen. Let's ignore the fact that Democrats nearly all despise him, and only high approvals from Republicans keep his numbers from plummeting. Let's ignore what I posted above on recall petitions requirements being well on their way to being fulfilled.
You cannot legislate with such brutal disregard for people's opinions and not make enemies of them. Yes, a great number of Republicans think he's the best thing since sliced bread. That doesn't change the fact that for your previous comment to have any true effect or meaning for the petition effort, the numbers among Democrats and union members would have to reflect a lack of enthusiasm against him.
His approvals in the state among likely voters is terrible.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Wisconsin Voters finds that just 34% Strongly Approve of the job he is doing, while 48% Strongly Disapprove. Overall, including those who somewhat approve or disapprove, the new Republican governor earns positive reviews from 43% and negative reviews from 57% of voters statewide.
It gets worse.
It's also interesting to note that among households with children in the public school system, only 32% approve of the governor's performance. Sixty-seven percent (67%) disapprove, including 54% who Strongly Disapprove.
You're trying to spin things by claiming that Wisconsinites were not so hot about things, but it seems like to breakdowns on partisan numbers don't help things much, not as they're stated in the news report at the end. The news report is not scientific enough, polling wise, to be anything but, in Breitbart's hands, a means to get you to believe that everything's wine and roses with Walker's political future. It's an exercise in wishful thinking, a propaganda exercise similar to what Republicans did with Bush to cover up the damage that came from political victories bought at too high a price.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 14, 2011 4:37 PM
Let's say the same things about the health care laws that were passed without approval of the American People. O.K?Posted by: Weary Willie at March 14, 2011 4:45 PM
Weary Willie-
Poll people on the actual provisions. What Republicans pulled was a marvellous reverse marketing scheme, but it could only go so far as to tarnish the brand, not the products. Ask people about virtually every real provision in the bill, and they support them.
Meanwhile, relating to that woman's comment, the Democrats didn't conspire to change the technical status of the provision in the bill that they said regarded fiscal matters, so they could pass it in the absence of a quorum. When she says we passed healthcare reform without the Republicans, she neglects to mention that the Republicans were there, and got their chance to vote.
You can talk about approval, but if you do so, remember that most Wisconsinites and most American opposed Walker on that matter, and supported the unions. So, you're criticizing our support of a measure that was turned unpopular from the standpoint of supporting your own unpopular measure.
Is it just that special Conservative je nais se quoi that makes it alright? Just admit you support the use of government power and procedures when they benefit you, and oppose them when they counter what you want. Don't pretend to have special principles in that area.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 14, 2011 4:56 PM
I have to side with Willie on that one. Yes, it was just like passing health care. The legislation would have passed if every Democrat was in the chamber and voting no.
Both parties are promoting the corporate agenda, with the Democrats version containing fewer calories, and it really doesn't matter what the voters think about that as long as the parties can keep the voters divided and there are not alternatives to the two parties.Posted by: jlw at March 14, 2011 5:50 PM
"Just admit you support the use of government power and procedures when they benefit you, and oppose them when they counter what you want."
I have seen you post repeatedly that very same attitude many times over.
So St. Stephen remember when you go to confession this week some of those things.
The so-called health care reform which is really JR 1 "Congressional Power Grab 2010" is a classic example of the dimocrats doing what you are sobbing about.Posted by: tom humes at March 14, 2011 6:36 PM
"..remember that most Wisconsinites and most American opposed Walker on that matter, and supported the unions."
Please state that as your opinion and not fact. It would be easier for you and eliminate one area that people will tell you that you are full of dung.Posted by: tom humes at March 14, 2011 6:40 PM
"Please state that as your [Stephen Daugherty] opinion and not fact. It would be easier for you and eliminate one area that people will tell you that you are full of dung"
Tom Humes,
Apparently, you failed to read SD's post on that issue (#320130). It was full of actual poll results from a traditionally conservative polling agency (Rasmussen) supporting his comments.Posted by: Rich at March 14, 2011 8:10 PM
Rich, post http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/007451.html#320130 is discounting the facts portrayed in the video.
Why are people in bowling allies discounted in favor of polls being spewed about by people who aren't anywhere near that bowling ally?
Stephen Daugherty has the arrogant tendency to
Weary Willie-shoot the messenger.
Breibart, eh?
Our environment facilitates this murder. Stephen Daugherty admits to this conspiracy in the education of our children when he says:
My first year in college, I had two classes that were fairly germane to this subject.
which taught me a strong respect for what journalists do to get the story the right way. Nothing of what I learned in either class gives me cause to respect what Andrew Breitbart, James O'Keefe, or Lila Rose do..
Posted by: Weary Willie at March 14, 2011 10:33 PM
Could someone please help me with a question? I have read in Stephen's posts (repeatedly) of his disregard for Rasmussen polls, and yet now he posts a Rasmussen poll? Does Mr. Daugherty only use Rasmussen polls when they are to his benefit? I noticed that Mr. Daugherty didn't post his usual essays about what questions were asked in the polls.
Since we are talking about Rasmussen polls and about Obamacare, how about this Rasmussen poll:
"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that 62% favor repeal of the health care law, including 51% who Strongly Favor it. Only 33% of voters oppose repeal, with 24% who are Strongly Opposed."
Or how about this Rasmussen poll:
"New Rasmussen Reports telephone polling finds that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters nationwide say they would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate, while 37% would choose the Democrat instead. The gap is three points larger than it has been for the past two weeks."
Or perhaps this one:
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20. That matches the president's lowest ratings of 2011"
Or this:
"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 21% of Likely U.S. Voters think the prison at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba should be closed, down 15 points from last June and the lowest level of support ever. Fifty-eight percent (58%) say the prison camp should not be closed, while another 21% are not sure what should be done about it."
Or this:
"Just 27% of Likely U.S. Voters now think the government bailouts of banks, auto companies and insurance companies were good for the United States. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% regard the bailouts as bad for the country, identical to findings last month. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure."
Unless Stephen is willing to accept all the polls of Rasmussen, it is embarrassing for him to quote any as proof…Stephen dismisses a Breitbart video as not representing the truth and yet quotes a Poll he does not believe.
I believe Kevin L's post is accurate and the link he provided makes sense. Stephen needs to go back to the liberal column or to the dailykos, or where ever he peddles his liberal crap, because it appears he is nothing more than a partisan hack. I'm sure his talents are needed in other places.
Now to the situation in WI: when all the bussed in union thugs go back to their own states and homes, it will end.
Our country is about to go bankrupt. The US dollar will soon be replaced as the international reserve currency which will send interest rates and inflation sky high. Thank God for visionaries like Gov. Walker who are willing to take a state debt headon. And shame on the democrat senators who have disgraced themselves like a bunch of whiny children by running to the protection of a liberal bastion like IL. And then trying to convince the rest of the world they were doing it for Wisconsin.
Like I said in a previous post; the WI situation is the liberal talk of the day. Tomorrow the left will more on to another talking point.
Posted by: 1776 at March 14, 2011 11:53 PM
It wasn't easy, the Koch brothers had to sacrifice two hundred members of the tea party to get Walker here.
Speaking of polls, the governor that Ohioans love is at 40% in the latest poll. That's 40% if you count the Republicans to.
Approve of Kasich performance 30%
Disapprove 58%Posted by: jlw at March 15, 2011 1:45 AM
I have edited and removed some comments that were offensive in nature. Please remember to be civil towards each other and to refrain from hate speech. It is not welcome here at WatchBlog and you will be asked to leave if it continues. Thank you.Posted by: WatchBlog Publisher at March 15, 2011 12:27 PM
I disregard Rasmussen under normal circumstances because it's biased in a conservative direction. I cite them here to more or less say that if a Rasmussen poll is that bad for Republicans in the state, the reality of public opinon there is probably even worse.
My reason for normally doubting a Rasmussen poll holds. What
I'm saying is that Rasmussen is as good a pollster as you could get in your favor, and they're not showing you that Walker's policy didn't go over well at all with the majority of Wisconsinites.
1) Rasmussen is greater in its bias for Republicans than most other polls.
2) Rasmussen has Walker and his policies underwater.
3) Therefore, Walker and his policies will do worse under other polls that aren't so biased in his favor, and his real unpopularity must be very high.
Weary Willie-
If we follow your logic, we should just go down to the local bowling alley and survey the folks, instead of going through all the trouble to mount a randomized sampling poll of the general public. The question is not whether their opinions are a valid reflection of some opinion in the state, but whether it's a valid reflection of ALL opinion in the state. You want Wisconsin to be a macrocosm of the bowling alley, but wishful thinking of this kind rarely translates into actual popularity.
As for participating in such a conspiracy, permit me a moment to slap my forehead or knock it on the table.
Okay, there, that's done. And yes, I did immediately discount Breitbart. In that article of mine you quote, I offer good evidence that he and his associates at the Big Government site have consistently misled their readers and viewers. So, why does he post a local news story with the usual victimology about national news not pick it up?
To imply that they are the real Wisconsinites. You don't want me to spoil that nice neat little theory, do you? But the poll numbers, however skewed by Rasmussen's model and questioning, reflect a more generalized picture of Wisconsin public opinion, one that is more appropriately scaled up to represent the state as a whole.
Your attempt to elevate that bowling alley to universal significance could either be termed an inappropriate generalization (like saying all apples are red because these apples are red) or a fallacy of composition (Generalizing the opinion of Wisconsinites interviewed for that report in that bowling alley to represent the opinion of the whole state, which it would not necessarily represent.)
I don't need to pay heed to a logically invalid argument, especially when the facts of my own are better founded.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 15, 2011 1:11 PM
It all remains to be seen, Stephen Daugherty. I don't expect to see the constant day to day coverage of the success of these laws passed in WI. Only a failure will make the evening news because it supports the Democratic party position.Posted by: Weary Willie at March 15, 2011 2:11 PM
Weary Willie-
So, you're preparing an "argument from ignorance" in advance? You're basically saying that the policy will succeed at its aim, but the unfair lamestream media won't let people know about it. Right.
The numbers we're talking about, in regards to the fiscal situation, are pretty large, and pretty public. The costs of employing all those government workers is a matter of public record, too.
Just as Obama recently defended himself on Gas prices by citing the facts on increased production, increased gulf production in particular, and his own administration's policies, Walker could just as easily defend himself on the Union busting by demonstrating at some later date that the deficit has been closed up significantly, without costs of making it happen backfiring on him.
All it takes is math and public primary sources.
But you're going to argue in advance in such a way as to hedge against the likelihood that Walker's policy won't produce much public evidence of working.
Sort of a Heads I win, Tails you lose way of arguing, and by that token, it makes your logic difficult to disprove. But it's not as if the means of proving yourself right are going to be state secrets. You just have to get off the couch and look it up.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 15, 2011 3:57 PM
Republicans were rallying to recall the Democrats who were AWOL. Democrats want to recall Republicans. Probably neither will work. There is no reason to believe that the votes will be different in a new election.
We have seen the battling polls. My family is from Wisconsin and the recent trouble has divided my cousins, but really changed minds. Those who supported Walker, support him more now. Those who were against him are madder than ever. A recall would be a waste of time, although the Walker reelection would shut the left up … probably not. The left's definition of "the people" tends not to include the majority unless they vote Democrat.Posted by: C&J at March 15, 2011 6:59 PM
You may be correct that the Walker anti-union bill will only serve to harden the two partisan sides. However, the independents are another question. Any recall effort will succeed or fail on their vote.Posted by: Rich at March 15, 2011 8:13 PM
I don't know about "independents". All my relatives call themselves independents, but they tend to vote consistently conservative or liberal.
Wisconsin used to be liberal. My cousins were all union members and used to vote Democrat. Most migrated in the 1980s and became independents who generally vote conservative.
The only consistently Democratic groups left in Wisconsin are the black populations in the SE part of the State, who vote like people in Chicago, and the students at UW. Neither of these groups is highly mobilized to vote in a recall.
This whole recall thing is a lot of sound and fury. Liberals are really angry about this, mad as hell. Most people are not liberals.Posted by: C&J at March 15, 2011 8:34 PM
Since Stephen likes to quote Rasmussen polls, when they benefit him, and since Stephen failed to respond the any of the other Rasmussen polls I presented, then I don't suppose he would want to respond to another drop today, in Obama's approval index to -22 points?
When the liberals don't get the results they want in WI, the news will fade from the MSM. The whole event in WI had nothing to do with bargaining rights, or jobs, or pay and benefits. It was all about trying to fire up the base. Having a half black/half Muslim president isn't exciting anymore and the "hopey-changey " thing just isn't producing enough excitement from the left. One poll I read, said if Walker was running right now in WI, he wouldn't get elected. Maybe; but I wonder how Obama and his idiot, Biden, would do if they were running right now. Hmm, kind of makes you think, don't it?
The next big liberal talking point will be nuclear power plants. We already have liberal/socialist democrats calling for a halt to building nuke plants. I thought we were already halted? Oil is out of the question, natural gas is unheard of, coal is a bad idea, so the only thing left is wind and solar. Since we only get 1% of our electric from wind, I guess we are in for a hot summer; since A/C takes electricity. It's a shame we can't pipe liberals up to wind turbines; I'm sure they blow enough hot air to charge a few batteries.
1776, Stephen told you why he quoted a Rasmussen poll, because Rasmussen has consistently been more favorable to conservatives and conservative causes than the average of polls?
Now, you might say that just proves that Rasmussen is more in tune with the pulse of the nation than other polls as demonstrated by your posting of those other Rasmussen polls. Most conservatives do.
All the more reason to quote that poll because if Rasmussen is showing negative results for Walker that is significant.
As to the Obama -22, if that is Rasmussen, then he need not respond. Rasmussen polls are only significant when they show conservatives or conservative causes in a negative light.
How about Kasich? Lowest initial approval rating in the last 28 years. Great start for a governor so beloved by the people of Ohio.Posted by: jlw at March 15, 2011 10:49 PM
http://www.waow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14231018Posted by: Weary Willie at March 16, 2011 12:52 AM
Thanks for the links Weary. I bet we don't hear about it on the MSM. Sad, isn't it? Who are the violent ones?
jlw, is it your's and jane doe's job to defend SD? I'm sure an educated man like Stephen has more important things to do.Posted by: 1776 at March 16, 2011 2:11 AM
Weary Willie-
Emotions run high, and some people do stupid things, and those people, and anybody who prompted them to pull such bull**** should bear the blame for that.
But if you accuse other people, who are not doing those things of being thugs, anti-democratic, and all that other junk, then you are the one who is wrong.
I tell you what, though. If you are in a district that wants unions, you represent the people of that district, and that is the job that those Democratic Senators did: they represented the interests of their constituents, and I bet you they will be rewarded for doing that. I cannot say the same, though, for those who took a rather ambiguous mandate, most likely just for getting down to business, and tried to push deep-red red-state politics on the rather Purple state of Wisconsin. I know you don't think it's possible, but the supply of right wing orthodoxy can in fact outstrip the demand.
The left's definition of "the people" tends not to include the majority unless they vote Democrat.
Let me see if I have your opinion right here: you're complaining that Democrats are not respecting the majority that elected those Republicans to power, right? And that not respecting the majority's wishes is a bad thing.
I seem to recall your making an exception for events of moral consequence when your Party was facing down Obama and the Democrats.
Me, I think a little bit of obstruction every now and then is a good thing. In fact, Filibusters might actually be rarer if speech and quorum requirements were reintroduced. We'd know who stood for what and why, and in the meantime, the people's business would eventually get done. People wouldn't have to lose hope that their government would do anything, while four years of Republican Obstruction undermined the passage of legislation.
As for party identification, I think that's a rather misleading way to address politics nowadays. Listen to what people actually say and support, and you'll find that most people don't say or support what Republicans do. Of course, if you ask the right questions and say the right things, anybody can be stampeded into second guessing the labelled politics.
The Republican Party is once again assuming that it can head as far right as it wants to, and not leave people behind. I think they're going to find that this is wishful thinking, and worse yet, a path back to the loss of power.
I like to quote Rasmussen polls when even their generosity towards Republicans cannot get a politican from their favored party above the waterline.
As for the approval index? Sigh. Really man, it's just a way to ignore otherwise relatively good results for Obama, and since you Republicans do little else these days but drum up hatred for him, you can get a lot of people to Strongly disapprove of him. Whereas, we Democrats have a more nuanced approach to the President.
The whole event in WI had nothing to do with bargaining rights, or jobs, or pay and benefits.
Just keep telling yourself that. Maybe if you click the heels of those ruby slippers three times, the sixty percent of people who supported public unions will go away.
Having a half black/half Muslim president isn't exciting anymore and the "hopey-changey " thing just isn't producing enough excitement from the left.
Well, don't stop with that comment above. Just peddle every conspiracy theory and nutty accusation you've got. I mean, come on, it won't do you any harm, the reputation of your arguments, based on claims as unfounded as the President being a Muslim, is already too low for it to do much damage. As for the hopey-changey thing? Well, the woman who said that is stuck in reality TV hell, and the hopey-changey guy managed to bring the economy back to growth. If he had a more cooperative congress, he probably could have gotten us much further back from the brink.
As for Nuclear Plants? The view is nuanced. Many believe that while safety reviews certainly are a concern in the wake of the nuclear disaster ongoing in Japan, that the worldwide effects of global warming may mean that nuclear is the lesser of two evils.
As for Wind power? Here in texas, we get about eight percent of our power from wind, and we probably can do better. Solar power should do well here, as we get plenty of sun, sometimes for a long time. The same silicon technology that makes are chips go fast is helping to make our solar panels cheaper and more efficient than ever.
The real issue is that you don't even want to try. You're essentially saying, oh, solar and wind are dwarfed by other power sources, too bad, lets stick with our current sources.
I think we can and will do better. The question is, how much will we profit from it.
Republicans are chasing the markets of yesteryear. Let's chase the market of the future.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 16, 2011 2:21 AM
But if you accuse other people, who are not doing those things of being thugs, anti-democratic, and all that other junk, then you are the one who is wrong.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 16, 2011 02:21 AM
Oh, the hypocracy coming from you, Stephen Daugherty! After all your posts that begin and end with "Republicans", you come up with that statement trying to deflect.
This is just another example of how the Democratics can't see themselves in the same light as their opponents. Do as I say, not as I do, eh, Stephen Daugherty?
If you are in a district that wants unions, you represent the people of that district, and that is the job that those Democratic Senators did: they represented the interests of their constituents, and I bet you they will be rewarded for doing that.
By running away, Stephen Daugherty? Is that how Democratics are supposed to represent their constituents?
Truly amazing!Posted by: Weary Willie at March 16, 2011 10:36 AM
Now here we go again with the double standards; Stephen said:
"I tell you what, though. If you are in a district that wants unions, you represent the people of that district, and that is the job that those Democratic Senators did: they represented the interests of their constituents, and I bet you they will be rewarded for doing that."
So now it is about representing the constituents; but I bet many on here can remember when the left was crying that politicians should do what is "Right" and not be concerned about representing their constituents. We can go back to the days of reversing obamacare and the left was upset that Conservative politicians would even consider representing the people in their districts.
I might also say; Stephen is blowing smoke when he says WI is a purple state; WI has historically, always been a blue state. Stephen is using the game of trying to lessen the impact against liberals in the state.
If you look at the approval index polls of Rasmussen, they were always a precursor to Obama's overall approval ratings, which remain to be seen. His polls can only go down, due to his lack of leadership, foreign and domestic.
Perhaps Mr. Daugherty can tell us what percent of America believes Obama is a Muslim? His anti-Israeli and pro-Muslim stand certainly doesn't help.
"Hope and Change" were part of Obama's campaign promise, and were word's first heard from his lips.
"Drill baby drill", may have come from Palin, but "Hope and Change" came from Obama, and I am sure the hope and change he promised has been a failure, just ask the 40+% who are on federal assistance.
"As for Nuclear Plants? The view is nuanced. Many believe that while safety reviews certainly are a concern in the wake of the nuclear disaster ongoing in Japan, that the worldwide effects of global warming may mean that nuclear is the lesser of two evils."
My point being; the message from the left is now a moratorium on Nuke plants or shutting down old plants. Listen to the MSM; this story is all the rage. The message of the left in WI has been lost in the new crisis. Remember, the left believes, "never waste a crisis". The point being, the left moves from one crisis to another for the purpose of enraging the left base. Example; the events linked to about the tearing up of recall petitions and intimidating conservatives is exactly what the left wants to do. You may voice your protest about these tactics, but you represent a party whose goal is to do these very things. Numerous liberal politicians and union leader thugs have called for violence.
Lastly, the attempted recall of Gov. Walker is not going to happen. He was elected 4 months ago and sworn in back in January. According to WI law, a Gov cannot be recalled in the first year he is in office. So all the recall petitions will have to go to the garbage can, and will have to be collected all new after he is in office a year. By then, the outsiders will have moved on to another crisis, and by then the WI people will have seen an improvement in their debt, and by then the WI people will know the truth about restrictions on union bargaining…
You might want to read the laws pertaining to recall and see just how hard it will be to accomplish it:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Laws_governing_recall_in_WisconsinPosted by: 1776 at March 16, 2011 11:10 AM
Weary Willie-
That "Democratics" Horse**** again?
Are you going to start calling women Beautifuls? Are you going to start calling the current economic news disappointings? When somebody makes a mistake, are you going to call it a foolish?
Use proper English.
As for Republicans, I often qualify my gripes against Republicans by referring to Washington Republicans. Honestly I don't feel that harshly against the voters out there. I think they're probably to the left of their Representatives, most of the time, but that the system of accountability has broken down, and they may feel, especially with the constant fear-mongering, that they don't have much of a choice.
Similar to some Democrats and union members, I guess.
But I would say that in the case of those union members, that I really do resent those who take it too far, because their people and my people get flack for that. If I could shake it off as many Republicans in Washington do, I might not mind. But I do feel that there has to be a certain level of recognition of what is common, dignified, ethical, moral behavior.
As for calling it running away? Let me ask: If you're a Democrat, and you see this bill that does great harm to your constituents coming down the pike, what do you do? Defer, or fight? As I understand it, they got a boost in the polls for their actions. People appreciated that it was an urge to protect union rights, and not fear of the vote that motivated the walk-out.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 16, 2011 11:17 AM
My complaint over the past few years is that the Republicans haven't just obstructed in isolated incidents, they've completely blanketed the agenda, killing about four fifths of all legislation, and holding up appointments, especially to the bench. Republican judges are writing letters urging that this obstruction ends.
It's one thing to represent your constituents, and to occasionally prevent the majority from winning a fight, or winning it easily as the case may be. It's quite another to deny the majority of people in this country the agenda, right or wrong, that they voted for.
I mean, you act like Healthcare wasn't a popular issue for Democrats, but it was a priority back in 2008. Republicans made it unpopular by blanketing the airwaves with a non-stop wave of negativity, and then claimed that it had been unpopular all along.
Despite that, the measure that came closest to being an actual government takeover both polled well, and were resisted by Republicans. In your effort to rhetorically flatten the picture of what was going on, you more or less neglect all the little details that tell you that people weren't simply taking up the Right's position. Rather, the right poisoned a general brand without much affecting the positive opinion most people had about the provisions of healthcare reform.
Most people liked the provisions that made insurance easier to get and harder to lose, that let children remain longer on parent's insurance, and made it illegal to refuse kids on account of pre-existing conditions. In fact, of all the provisions, the only one that was truly unpopular was the Mandate. However, with all the rules preventing people from being turned away, the mandate was necessary to prevent the free-rider problem from becoming an issue.
But hey, we got to squash everything down to generalities. I mean, it's not like need to see the whole picture, rather than just the oversimplified thumbnail of blandly general headings.
As for the Approval index, it's bull. It's what Rasmussen employed with a President running at 78% approval, in order to make him look bad. Since the National GOP has made a concerted effort to make Obama look like the worst person ever, and all their energies are focused on trying to equate the problems of the Obama administration with the catastrophes of the Bush administration, it's only natural that the strong dislikes would be greater than the strong likes.
Still, it distracts from an overall point, that even in Rasmussen, Obama's still running relatively strong, despite everything you've thrown at him. You say his poll numbers can only go down, I beg to differ. They've already gone up.
As for Hope and Change? Well, all I've seen from the RNC and its candidates is fear and the protective guarding of the status quo. And the real ***** of it is, you're trying to get people to accept a hideous unfair situation, and let linger a festering economic problem that will put a greater hole in the deficit, and leave a greater hole in American opportunity. And why? Because they don't want anything done our way, right or wrong.
As for not wasting a crisis? Mitch McConnell's not doing that, threatening to hold hostage legislation preventing this nation's default on its debts, unless he gets what he wants? Scott Walker's not doing that, busting unions in a way unlikely to do any real immediate help to the state's budget problems? The Republicans aren't going after NPR or PBS's federal funding on that account, even though we can measure their line items in the millions?
The Republicans in Congress right now are pushing changes in the rules which will strip funding from Planned Parenthood, that will undermine HeadStart and other such programs, that will take back money from the stimulus that is going out to creat jobs.
And it all isn't going to do one bit of good in reducing the deficit, especially since Republicans forced Democrats to keep the Tax Cuts or the Rich, effectively adding double to the defict what they plan to cut.
You want to chide me over my party exploiting a crisis?
You know, here's my attitude: there's nothing wrong with using concern about a crisis to push a policy, if the policy will do actual benefit.
For example: If a party's fiscal policies, despite the marketing, actually make economic problems worse, actually increases the deficit, and seems only to attack vulnerable partisan budget items, then I would conclude that they're ****ing around when they should be coming up with real solutions and actual, passable compromises.
If, though, a Congress gets people moving again, gets them actual jobs, instead of the promise of those jobs if all the emergent effects go as predicted, then they deserve for their politics to benefit. That's the point of Democracy: reward those whose politics bring benefit to the people, punish those whose use of power brings harm.
Until people see actual results from Gov. Walker's plan, they are right to resent all the contention he brought about, the controversy and embarassment, the unexpected dose of partisan politics.
Maybe it happens. But it has to happen first, we can't just go on your starry-eyed predictions. They are counterfactuals until developing events render them otherwise.
One thing for sure, Walkers enemies are now very motivated.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 16, 2011 11:45 AM
I'm going to proper English just to please you.
"Honestly I don't feel that harshly against the voters out there. I think they're probably to the left of their Representatives, most of the time, but that the system of accountability has broken down, and they may feel, especially with the constant fear-mongering, that they don't have much of a choice."
Posted by: tom humes at March 16, 2011 12:07 PM
"Let me ask: If you're a Democrat, and you see this bill that does great harm to your constituents coming down the pike, what do you do? Defer, or fight?"
Computer (me) messed up.
The ending line left out was my proper English says that is mis-guided
As for Republicans, I often qualify my gripes against Republicans by referring to Washington Republicans.
Stephen Daugherty, you never qualify your remarks by referring to Washington Republicans. Stop rewriting history.
Republicans made it unpopular by blanketing the airwaves with a non-stop wave of negativity, and then claimed that it had been unpopular all along.
There you go again, Stephen Daugherty! Republicans made it unpopular? …then claimed that it had been unpopular all along? What kind of revisionist blather is that? Are you forgetting about HillaryCare and the colossal failure that was? It was unpopular then, it's unpopular now. The only difference is this time Democratics refused to listen to the American People and forced it thru without remorse. And by the way Stephen Daugherty, the Republicans didn't run and hide in Mexico or Canada when it happened. They stayed and did their job, the job their constituents insisted they do.
Posted by: Weary Willie at March 16, 2011 3:31 PM
Stephen, let me use proper Kentucky English, your comments are full of shit.
In fact you are so full of it; I don't know where to begin.
First, you never answer a query; you simply throw the blame on a Republican and say "they did it too". I know for a fact; I have said on WB on numerous occasions, and I might add to you Stephen personally that the Republicans we elected were doing exactly what we wanted them to do. You call it "obstructionism" or "saying no" to everything Obama and the left wanted, but we call it listening to the constituents. So, your ignorant response is that the Democrats were representing their constituents in WI by running to IL, which by your standards was the right thing to do, and when the Republicans blocked a socialist agenda by Obama and the democrats; it was the wrong thing to do because the Republicans should have been thinking of the good of all America and not their constituents.
You say, "It's one thing to represent your constituents, and to occasionally prevent the majority from winning a fight, or winning it easily as the case may be. It's quite another to deny the majority of people in this country the agenda, right or wrong, that they voted for."
Tell me Stephen, do my Senator and Congressman represent me, or do they represent the "majority of people in this country".
Let's take your statement a little further; you said, "It's quite another to deny the majority of people in this country the agenda, right or wrong, that they voted for."
You are saying the majority of the people of this country had an agenda of HC and that is why they put Democrats in office in 2008. Well, explain the agenda of the people of this country in 2010?
NHC was not popular in 2008 and it wasn't popular when Hillary tried to pass it. It may have been popular among liberal Democrats, but liberals only make up 20% of the American voters. So once again your statements are full of shit.
Stephen, why don't you stick to the subject? You go on and on and on about a litany of subjects; RNC, Mitch McConnell, Planned Parenthood, Tax Cuts, etc, etc, etc.
Weary Willie-
Google "Stephen Daugherty" "Republicans in Washington" and you get 74 results.
Make such absolute statements without checking the facts, and guess what? You'll regret it. It's a common rhetorical device of mine, which I use to separate the people in Washington, who seem to be more and more just the same breed of hardliner, and the people in the rest of America, so I can talk to them as distinct from the idiots at the Capitol.
As for healthcare, revisionist? Well, when they asked, people strongly opposed getting rid of the key reforms.
Kaiser Family Foundation Health Tracking Poll. Feb. 8-13, 2011
"The law provides tax credits to small businesses that offer coverage to their employees"
Results: 83% for keeping, 14% for repeal.
"The law gradually closes the Medicare prescription drug 'doughnut hole' or coverage gap so seniors will no longer be required to pay the full cost of their medications when they reach the gap"
75% for keeping, 20% for repeal.
"The law establishes a national, voluntary insurance program in which working adults can purchase insurance to help pay for long-term care services they might need in the future"
74% for keeping, 20% for repeal.
"The law will provide financial help to low and moderate income Americans who don't get insurance through their jobs to help them purchase coverage"
74% for keeping, 22% for repeal.
"The law will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person's medical history or health condition"
72% for keeping, 25% for repeal.
"The law will increase the Medicare payroll tax on earnings for upper income Americans"
60% for keeping, 34% for repeal.
"The law will require nearly all Americans to have health insurance or else pay a fine"
28% for keeping, 67% for repeal. In other words, unsurprisingly, the mandate's unpopular. Without it, though, all the rest becomes economically unfeasible, as people would wait until they got sick.
So, really the essential building blocks of the Healthcare reform bill are popular- not just that, in many cases, extraordinarily popular.
61% would oppose attempts to defund healthcare reform. 30% say expand it, 20% say keep it the way it is. And, Democrats are better trusted to take care of healthcare issues and medicare.
Go ahead and keep following the polls through that link, and subsequent pages, and you'll find that the key transition point is at about June or July of '09, where Obama's numbers on healthcare policy approval went down, and when opposition to Obama's plan ramped up. Some of the polls don't go back that far, but those that do show the same result.
So what am I arguing here? Well, Republican flooded the zone with negativity, and did their best, and succeeded in galvanizing people against the overall plan. But if we break down the composition, both then and now, we find people support many of the provisions. We also find that people supported a Public Option, and Medicare Buy-In as well.
If they're taking your point of view, then they shouldn't be doing that. It should be roundly negative all around.
Instead, people just seem to be confused on the topic, opposing Healthcare reform generally, but being much more pliable when you get into actual policies.
If that's the case, what is the opposition to this actually a response to?
An emotional sense of things, a whole bunch of fear-mongering rhetoric about dead grannies, choice taken from you, and all that other BS. That's what the Republicans are about on this.
As for whether the Republicans did their job? They could have done a much better job of modifying the bill if they were not simply stonewalling it. They put themselves in a position where what ideas they got in their, only got in there because some Democrat got them in there. Otherwise, they were screwed. There was no way, when the end came, for them to seriously affect the shape of the policy. The Conservative Democrats became more important, and they of course did not go party line like the Republicans did.
Your purist's vision of the battle kept you from appreciating just how pliable Democrats were, if Republicans just extended their hands. They could have gotten much more done by simply playing on the Democrat's thirst to be seen as bipartisan.
What gives? It's pretty simple: this was about political opposition, about beating Obama and the Democrats. The Democrats won. They'll keep on winning, too, as long as they have the Senate or the Presidency, and if you lose the House, that will blunt any success.
Your people are probably about to provoke a government shutdown, and I think it will be interesting to see how many of those who engage in that kind of idiocy, or try to hold America hostage over the Debt ceiling will see re-election. Once again, Republicans in Washington are underestimating how badly they can **** people off.
Let me tell you a little story. The one time my membership here was ever in danger was when I used curse words openly, without censoring them. So, in my best Texan English, quite your ****ing cursing or you'll be up **** creek without a ****ing paddle.
The Democrats in Wisconsin did not make obstruction their policy, openly defying the mandate of the people. They blocked one bill, made one stand on it, and it seems by the crowds that surrounded the capitol, and the ones that didn't, that they had plenty of support.
Your people in Washington basically practiced a scorch earthed policy, killing up to eighty percent of the bills that the Democrats came up with. Now whatever you believe about buyer's remorse in this case, can you really argue that Americans put the Democrats in such power with the expectation that four fifths of all major Democratic Party Legislation would be arbitrarily blocked?
No, they did not. The fact that people were mostly ignorant of what was going on was the only reason the anger did not further turn on the Republicans.
But it highlights something else. You remember that brief springtime of popularity that Congress enjoyed at the beginning of the year? It's over now. If you thought the Republicans would make people happier, they didn't. What's more likely was seeing Democrats and Republicans actually do their jobs was more crucial to the rise in popularity.
In these difficult times, People don't want to see their government ****ing around on politics. They thought we were doing that, because they heard so little about our process, and the whole healthcare thing became such a bloody pain, a loud obnoxious process. Now the Republicans have reintroduced that loud obnoxious process. Is Congress's job rating going up or down? Down.
So perhaps what's really unpopular is inaction in a time of need. But since your party is fundamentally opposed to Democrats having any success whatsoever, you find it difficult to actually get things done. In fact, you find it politically threatening to compromise with Democrats, because you've poisoned the well on their policies so much. How can you compromise with those you represent as evil?
You want to portray my side as narrow, but you forget something: most Democrats are ideologically moderate, for all that label's worth. Most of those people, I imagine, you would probably see as liberal, despite their not embracing that label. Hell, you folks don't like Liberal or Moderate Republicans nowadays, and you drive them away as RINOs and traitors.
You're really not registering where the tensions of your party are pulling, and where it might be pulling it away from.
Lastly, let me remark about what the voters did: in most state-wide elections, when presented with people of your politics, folks shot down the high-profile Tea Partiers. Meanwhile, many of your people won by slim margins, and their numbers aren't going up. What people wanted wasn't a shift to Republican policies. I think if you look at the polling, what they want is moderation on both sides.
Which is to say that while you imagine a Red wave sweeping the nation, it's not that terribly thick, and it more likely reflected an attempt to bring Democrats back to the center, than it did an attempt to shift everything to the right.
So here's what I would tell you: start making deals. Stop trying to push partisan purges and partisan surges at the expense of civility and the power of major Democratic groups. You have no idea how thin people's patience is with that kind of politics.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 16, 2011 5:43 PM
I have not criticized the Democrats running away and hiding in Illinois. I think it is silly, but it is their choice. I assume they did it to defend their principles, as Republicans did in the Senate, something you evidently now support, if belatedly.
My criticism is that you somehow think that these guys represent "the people". They do not. The majority (i.e. Republicans) represent the people. If Wisconsin does a recall, there is a good chance that Republicans will will again. Some Democrats could also be recalled.
It is true that Republicans could overreach and go too far right. The Democrats clearly went too far left for the American people 2006-8, which is why the American people spanked the Democrats so bad last election.Posted by: C&J at March 16, 2011 6:39 PM
Stephen, I don't know about where you come from, but in Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, and western Virginia, the word sh** is not a cuss word. In fact it is no different than using the word crap. You made the statement, "and the whole healthcare thing became such a bloody pain, a loud obnoxious process." I'm surprised you would use the word "Bloody" considering it is a curse word in England. In fact, my grandmother, who was English, once slapped me across the face for using the word "Bloody". As educated as you are (DUH), I'm surprised you didn't know this. It only goes to prove a truth; a common word in one area could be considered a curse word in another, and vice versa.
So, the Republicans practiced a scorched earth policy? And pray tell Stephen, who was upset about this policy; was it the Democrats or was it the Republicans? Since your side is the only one complaining, I guess the Republicans had not problems.
"You want to portray my side as narrow, but you forget something: most Democrats are ideologically moderate, for all that label's worth. Most of those people, I imagine, you would probably see as liberal, despite their not embracing that label. Hell, you folks don't like Liberal or Moderate Republicans nowadays, and you drive them away as RINOs and traitors."
Actually Stephen, the moderate white democrats have become independents.
Independents have turned against the Democrats:
And independents have become conservatives:
"You're really not registering where the tensions of your party are pulling, and where it might be pulling it away from."
I don't think the problem is in the Republican Party, these polls provided and many more show it is the Democratic Party that is in trouble. Hence, the need to give them a common enemy.
"Lastly, let me remark about what the voters did: in most state-wide elections, when presented with people of your politics, folks shot down the high-profile Tea Partiers. Meanwhile, many of your people won by slim margins, and their numbers aren't going up. What people wanted wasn't a shift to Republican policies. I think if you look at the polling, what they want is moderation on both sides."
Lastly, let me tell you what the voters did: they booted liberals and RINO's out. You fail to give the Tea Partiers their proper due. They effected the elections and they are affecting policy now. Who do you think is pushing for the cuts in spending?
So, here we go again; Mr. Daugherty is once again telling Republicans what to do if we want to win. We should work with the Democrats; that'll never happen. May I suggest Stephen go back to the dailykos where the brain-dead liberals will believe and cling to every liberal socialist word that comes from his lips. It won't work in the red column; your words are nothing more than liberal talking points and nothing more than caca. Portuguese for BS.
My position remains unchanged. Limited obstruction is not a problem for me. I said so before while complaining about the Senate Blockade, when folks asked me about my position concerning the filibuster during the Republican Majority.
My problem is with endless contempt for majority rules, with senate minorities that destroy eighty percent of a legislative agenda, rather than object just to the worst, and get their objections on the record against the rest. I mean, once you told yourselves it was necessary to block everything the Democrats brought up in the Senate, you pretty soon concluded that it was no longer good enough to say you voted against a bill, you had to completely deprive most of the bills of their opportunity to see an up and down vote.
This despite the high dudgeon your people got into over just a few judges, just a few bills being filibustered.
So, to sum up:
1) You, or at least your party violently opposed even minor obstruction from my party, and then flipped all the way to the other side, and employ a scorched earth policy as a Senate Minority.
2) Me, or at least my party argued for limited obstructive ability for the minority, and now object to the Republican's hypocritical scorched earth policy, as it has deprived our Senate of its ability to prove itself on the vast majority of the bills.
In short, you dish out to the Senate majority in excess what you could not take in moderation from them when they were the minority.
As for representing "the people?" I make no such broad claims. They represent their districts, and their action is popular with the people of their districts. Their position is also more popular than that of the opposition at this point. I need no such broad bromides about representing the will of the people.
Concerning the recall, most of the Republicans are in districts that Obama won, while most of the Democrats… Are in districts that Obama won! For your folks, that's a handicap, for mine, it's advantage.
I think the Republicans have already overreached, that they overreached long ago, but have treated the 2010 win as a consequence of people coming back home to the conservatives, instead of a reaction to perceived overreach and irresponsibility on the Democrat's part.
Republicans, in short, need to stop buying their own propaganda, especially when they come into office about as unpopular as the Democrats, if not more so.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 16, 2011 7:58 PM
There is an old saying, "if a liberal opens his mouth, he is lying".
Once again, I cannot let this pass; Stephen said Obama enjoyed a 78% approval rating. This is a lie. RCP has an average of all main stream polls and Obama was never more than 65.5% and that was in 2/2009. Ever since then it has dropped. Except for a brief 51% approval in 1/2011, Obama has been at 50% or lower since 12/2009.
In fact, if Mr. Daughterty would exercise some of his education experience, he would find a direct coloration between the Rasmussen approval/disapproval index and the approval/disapproval polls taken and averaged by RCP
This is what you said Stephen, "It's one thing to represent your constituents, and to occasionally prevent the majority from winning a fight, or winning it easily as the case may be. It's quite another to deny the majority of people in this country the agenda, right or wrong, that they voted for."
You said the politicians who represent conservatives or Republicans were denying the majority of people in America, their agenda. That is what you said; are you now taking this statement back.
Furthermore, we do not live in a majority rules nation. We live in a Republic. Although many ignorant people often refer to America as a democracy (majority rules), we are not. We are a republic (a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law). Thus allowing small states to have as much power as large states when it comes to making law.
Peddle your socialism somewhere else.
From A USA Today Gallup Poll taken during the transition.
As for the RCP average? It's an average. Meaning it's an unscientific mixing of different polls whose result follows no one clear methodology, but instead is affected by several. It's a novelty, not anything you could rely upon. As for it's correlations with the Approval Index?
The approval index measures only those voters of strong opinion. But had it been used during the Bush Administration It would have predicted a Bush loss in 2004. It introduces, literally, an extra bit of information into the equation that does not compute in the actual votes. There is no checkbox for strongly approve or strongly disapprove on the ballot.
I would expect some kind of relationship between the RCP average and the Rasmussen index, given the fact that the index is partly based on the Rassmussen poll, as is the average itself. It would be surprising to find no correlation at all.
But if you're being scientifically or at least statistically literate, you should then repeat after me: Correlation does not equal causation.
This is especially true if you consider that all the Approval index is measuring is the difference between those who love Obama deliriously, and those who hate his guts. The Republicans have kept the fever pitch up on Obama Hatred, and Democrats aren't quite as cultish about their leader as some of your people have claimed, so some are moderate about their approval.
And, I guess, a negative approval index is better than reporting that recently Obama actually came up for air in the Rasmussen poll, however briefly.
As for your last comments?
We are a Republic that elects its officials by either majority or plurality. Our legislatures generally pass legislation by majorities, except where the constitution or legislative rules say otherwise. To say there isn't a strong majoritarian streak in our Republic is to deny what is obvious to any grade school student.
What kind of a Republic do you have in mind? A one party Republican like the one China has, where nobody can question what your people think is best?
Nah, probably not. I could commit myself to believing that, but it wouldn't make it any truer than your commitment to peg me as a socialist would. Personally, I don't have a problem with socialists, just some disagreements with them which would lead me to take a side against them.
What I do believe in is the sort of hybrid, regulated system that we won the Cold War with, a system that doesn't give real socialism any opening. If folks aren't starving in the streets, if they're not getting beaten down by corporate America all the time, they have less reason to rebel against market economics. If the rules make things more fair, and less burdensome for the masses, the chances of any kind of socialist takeover become very low.
But ya'll aren't thinking that way. Politically speaking, you've gotten so greedy for power that you don't stop to figure that you might be building any kind of backlash against you, even if your intentions are the best.
You really don't appreciate that if you want people to stand by and let others make more money and hold more power than they do, they have to know that if they do so, it won't endanger their own interests. I believe, like Adam Smith said, that people tend to work for their own benefit. If you take so much from people that you plunge them into a crisis of some kind, and then repeat this process with enough people, you're going to end up forcing people to act to shield those interests of theirs. Only in an equilibrium agreed to, or developed spontaneously between those two parties do they have peace.
You can get as self-righteous with me as you want to get, but my basic premises are that Liberalism is the way capitalism can satisfy enough people's needs, to avoid provoking people into joining radical opposition like socialism.
As for peddling whatever my political philosophy is elsewhere?
Ha. I'm staying right here. If that makes you mad, my apologies, but I can, because I'm an American, write without the leave of those who consider themselves my betters.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 16, 2011 9:45 PM
Coming to you live from underground, in a cave or under a bridge.
1776, my job as chief troll at WatchBlog is not to defend SD., it is to troll the trolls. And, to provide commentary from time to time; although quite a bit of it should have been redacted before written and posted.
Unlike many, I have never denied being basically a troll. I have admitted it on more than one occasion.
Pardon me, it's that time again, time for all good Ohioans to get on their knees and worship Kasich the beloved one.Posted by: jlw at March 16, 2011 10:12 PM
Weary Willie- Google "Stephen Daugherty" "Republicans in Washington" and you get 74 results.
That's funny, Stephen Daugherty, considering you can mention Republicans 74 times in one post.
All of those bold points you make are ligit. People support them on their face.
It's how it's been mandated by the Democratics that has people scared! They don't want government taking over the health care system, they want government to fix the health care system. Your party must realize the difference.
The Democratic Party leadership is insisting every doctor report to them via. a government mandate. How does that fix health care? It doesn't. It hires more people to verify doctors are doing what the federal government says must be done. This law and HillaryCare both are insisting individuals report their actions to the federal government. period.
Why do we need another social program like this? Can't we make what we have work?Posted by: Weary Willie at March 17, 2011 12:12 AM
Perhaps the Democratic Party has outlived it's usefullness.
For the time being, of course.Posted by: Weary Willie at March 17, 2011 1:05 AM
I thought it was cool when Rush said we should keep New York in a bottle, so we know what it looks like when it erupts somewhere else.Posted by: Weary Willie at March 17, 2011 1:15 AM
Weary Willie-
I keep on telling Republicans that it was originally their idea. How else did Mitt Romney come up with it? It was their original response to Hillarycare as you folks call it. Did you know Massachussetts is now the state with the most complete coverage in the nation?
Of course he can't admit that now, and neither can many Republicans. That's what happens when you define your positions so purely in terms of opposition. You can't take yes for an answer.
As for your question, don't you think we've tried? Even now the current system allows draconian rate hikes on healthcare coverage. As much as you can dis the government solution, the private solution's pretty much pushed people's patience and wallets to the limit.
But to further answer your question, where exactly has the government taken over? There's no single payer, not even premium-financed public options or Medicare Buy-ins. You're talking about a take over that essentially hands private industry everybody's business. How's that a takeover?
As for the Democrats outliving their usefulness. Well, you can say that, but as you folks pile up the cuts and the job losses, folks will find plenty of uses for us. You're making us useful, by pushing many people too far with your stunts and arrogant attitudes.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2011 1:20 AM
(he still doesn't get it)
Weary Willie- I keep on telling Republicans that it was originally their idea.Posted by: Weary Willie at March 17, 2011 2:18 AM
Weary Willie, those who oppose government health care are holding a minority position.
By a huge number, Americans prefer universal health care over employer based health care. A majority of Americans aren't mad because the Obama plan goes to far. They are mad because it didn't go far enough.
Single payer will eventually be the plan, not because it is shoved down the peoples throats, but because of popular demand. The only people who care if it is shoved down the throats of conservatives are conservatives, and they are a minority just like liberals.
Obama's plan is a form of universal health care where the citizens are mandated by government to purchase for profit health insurance.
The other is non profit universal health care where government mandates a tax on employees and probably employers.
This is why the conservatives prefer to rant rather than debate.
The conservative argument is, this is not the way we are supposed to do it in this country.
Posted by: jlw at March 17, 2011 2:49 AM
Speaking of "'Recall' Reality," the good people of Miami evidently thought raising property taxes during a most trying economic period in South Flotida and then giving raises to certain public employees was the 'straw that broke the camel's back.'
I wonder which political party will claim victory?Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at March 17, 2011 8:13 AM
Weary Willie-
What is there, precisely, to get? The Republicans have taken an approach, which beforehand was good enough for Mitt Romney to run on without a problem, and have made it radioactive, revising their own history to disown what was once their own idea.
That you have trouble accepting this… Well, that's your problem, but no amount of socialist this and socialist that is going to convince me that my eyes were lying when I read about the Heritage Foundation's mandate.
Kevin L. Lagola-
Yours, it seems. But then you have to deal with the same budget mess.
I don't think your party or most people on the right have a clear perspective on how much of the pain and suffering coming from the cuts is going to fall on them, if they don't watch out. The guy who shot Gabby Giffords in Arizona was in need of mental health treatment. But what did the Arizona legislature recently do? Cut funding for Mental Health facilities.
Your people are granting tax cuts to rich people and corporations and cutting programs all over the place, exploiting the crisis to erode liberal public policies. Do you think Democrats and liberals won't leave that uncommented upon? Why is there enough money to kiss so much revenue goodbye, but then not enough to provide basic services for people in the states?
It all seems rather disingenuous to me, because so much of the time your people talk about devolving such services to the states. Well, that adds to their budget burden, and guess what gets cut when times are tough?
The Republicans apparently think that the best way to get us out of a consumer-driven economic downturn is to destroy even more buying power at a poor, middle class, and working class level. Let me know when starving the lower classes, especially in this credit-poor economy, helps revive our economic fortunes.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2011 11:41 AM
Kevin, the 9 to 1 vote proves that neither party can claim a victory. The victors are the people who without thought of party, united in the common cause of striking a blow against the privileged and prosperous that have controlled our governments from the top to the bottom.
9 to 1 also seems to indicate that there were non taxpayers and non property owners in the mix.
In the last ten years, the voters of the local city have recalled the nonpartisan (all candidates supported by the Chamber) city council twice. Not for giving raises to workers or raising property taxes, but for an unending assault on raising fees and water rates while making decisions that use tax dollars to benefit businessmen.
Example, a plan to purchase a deserted and neglected, out of business for several years, retail store building appraised at $750,000 from the owner for $2.5 million and spend several million more in tax dollars for renovation into a city office building.
It's not Miami, just a small city with a population of 23,000. A small town where the conservative business and government elites rub shoulders at raw veggie functions with the college liberal elites and make the decisions that govern the lives of the hoi pol-loi.
Posted by: jlw at March 17, 2011 4:35 PM
"I wonder which political party will claim victory?"
Miami-Dade County elections for mayor and commissioners are non-partisan elections.Posted by: Rich at March 17, 2011 6:53 PM
Rich wrote: "Miami-Dade County elections for mayor and commissioners are non-partisan elections."
Thanks for the info. I did not know that. However, I was speaking about nationally. Who will claim victory nationally with respect to WI and the myriad recalls there.Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at March 17, 2011 8:31 PM
You are not being consistent. Republican "obstruction" was/is well within accepted parliamentary procedures in the Senate. I have not heard of significant filibustering recently anyway. Have you?
Republicans clearly are NOT obstructing the majority in Wisconsin, since they were elected to the majority by the people.
Re overreach and getting elected (or not). I recall we had this discussion before the recent elections. How did that one work out for Democrats? Yes, Obama carried some of those districts - IN 2008. Two years later, Republicans won those districts. What do you think that says about how well the people liked what Democrats did? You don't drive by looking in the rear view mirror, nor judge a football game by the half time score. If you recall the simple idea that 2008 comes before 2010, you see what happened to Democratic majorities.Posted by: C&J at March 17, 2011 9:04 PM
I suspect that the astounding margin of the Miami-Dade County mayoral recall is in part due to the non-partisan nature of the county political process. There is no "party" to defend the incumbent. There is no knee jerk conservative or liberal vote regardless of the merits. It makes it much easier for voters to vote the person not a party or ideology.Posted by: Rich at March 17, 2011 9:11 PM
I believe that you are trying to confuse the matter of whether the filibusters are legal with whether the action is morally right. I haven't been arguing legality. I've been arguing whether, as a whole, that the Republicans' actions represent a proper execution of the voters' will.
Do only those lucky enough to support a Republican get to be represented? And before you complain that you're not represented because you're in the minority, this isn't a parliamentary system where you're shut out if you're not in charge. You can defeat legislation in the Senate the old fashion way, by drawing off Democrat votes. You can force concessions that benefit your constituents. If that isn't enough for you, then tough, because It isn't Democracy, if the same party can rule regardless of whether the voters want them in charge.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 18, 2011 10:10 AM
The best way to test for bias is to strip away the identities and ask about the action.
Is is moral to filibuster? Is it moral to flee the legislature to prevent action (filibuster on steroids)?
If you think the filibuster is immoral, you certainly must think that fleeing the state is immoral.
Beyond that, we are talking past v present. Right now it is the DEMOCRATS WHO ARE GOING AGAINST THE MAJORITY.
Don't you get that? You keep on talking about what Republicans did in the past. That is okay. But the best your argument can achieve is that Democrats today are as bad as Republicans in the past.
In the Wisconsin case, YOU are the minority. You are arguing the wrong case here. You are defeating yourself. Think about it. You are proving that the recent Democratic action in Wisconsin is immoral. Good job.Posted by: C&J at March 18, 2011 8:18 PM
I have to agree with Stephen Daugherty; the filibustering by the Republicans may be legal, but it was not moral. On the other hand, the Wisconsin Democrat Senators had every moral right to go into exile. There is legal and there is such a thing as doing what is right. The neocons always want to push legality, but sometimes we have to do what is right. Power to the people!!!Posted by: LeftCoast at March 18, 2011 8:54 PM
Is is moral to filibuster? Is it moral to flee the legislature to prevent action (filibuster on steroids)?
If you think the filibuster is immoral, you certainly must think that fleeing the state is immoral.
What got you that idea? Go back through my comments and pages. My main assertion has been that the way the Republicans were using it was the objectionable thing. It is not the tactic, it is the near total application of that tactic against an entire legislative agenda.
Your use of it has been excessive, arbitrary, and not in the service of forcing any kind of moderation. It wasn't as if we could get things passed if we compromised. Your Minority Leader, in fact, barred his Senators from doing anything of the sort. As such, it was sixty votes or nothing.
I don't think that was the situation that the voters intended when they went to the ballots in 2008. I think those people should have been given the chance to find out they were wrong to put the Democrats in charge, not be pre-emptively defended throughout that Congress by the Republican minority.
You took a tactic that can be admirable and good in moderation, and turned into a cowardly circumvention of the election results. Your party's excessive and arbitrarily partisan use of the Filibuster, as part of a cynical plan to improve your party's fortunes by magnifying political divides, is what I object to.
Sooner or later, you are going to realize that governing well takes precedence over winning elections. Sooner or later, you will figure out that every abuse you can visit on us, can be visited back on you when you gain power, and you will realize why past generations of politicians left this idea of filibustering the other side's agenda out of existence off the table.
Sooner or later you will realize that excess is your party's worst political enemy, not the Democrats, and really, the past decade is more a decade of the Republicans defeating themselves through an unwillingness to accept some moderation, than it is of Democrats beating you of their own accord. Unfortunately, you've decided, as a party, to sell yourself on that excess, and now you have no room to slow down or turn around as you head for the political iceberg of inevitable, unmerciful change.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 18, 2011 9:29 PM
What the Democrats did you call moral because you agree with their position. Republicans thought what they were doing was right. Your argument is merely a value judgment.
When the Republicans were in the minority in Wisconsin a couple years back, the Democrats and the Democratic governor passed laws strengthening union power. Would it have been moral for the Republicans to flee to Illinois to stop it?
My "moral" position is that collective bargaining for government employees is wrong. That is why we have civil service rules. I think the people of Wisconsin will be well served by what the Republicans did. I believe this is the moral high ground.
Talk present tense. Democrats in Wisconsin fled the state and stopped the majority from enacting its program. This happened soon after an election where the Democrats got trounced, evidently because the people were fed up with them.
BTW - in the Senate the minority leader cannot command Senators to do anything. They all are elected by their own states and answer to their own people. Maybe some of the Democrats should also have changed sides.
In the last election, Democrats lost more seats than anybody had for a generation. Democrats did poorly in the Senate too. The only reason they held onto the Senate was because fewer Dems were up for reelection than there will be in 2012. The people don't seem that pleased with the Democrats, do they?
The will of the people seems to be more on the Republican side. We look forward to 2012. It is way early, but I am willing to bet that Republican take the Senate in 2012. Want to put your prediction on paper here and now?Posted by: C&J at March 18, 2011 11:26 PM
When the Republicans were in the minority in Wisconsin a couple years back, the Democrats and the Democratic governor passed laws strengthening union power. Would it have been moral for the Republicans to flee to Illinois to stop it?
Ahhhh. So Republicans get to endlessly filibuster in the Senate, blocking an entire agenda that the voters approved, but Democrats in Wisconsin disrupt ONE vote, and its all immoral.
As for being against collective bargaining being a moral position… why? It's an alternative to strikes which deprive people of services, which allow the workers to get their grievances heard, and allow the management int state and city governments to bargain with their counterparts in the unions without having a work stoppage over their heads like the sword of Damocles.
Making Collective Bargaining a thing of the past is about tearing the unions out of government, reducing their power, making it easier to do away with those unions and others altogether. It's not about morality, it's about taking power from liberals.
But like I said a few entries ago, taking power away from people doesn't take the demand for redress of their greivances away. In fact, the adversarial actions Walker took strengthened the hand of the unions, the desire of people to protect themselves as workers.
Talk present tense. Democrats in Wisconsin fled the state and stopped the majority from enacting its program. This happened soon after an election where the Democrats got trounced, evidently because the people were fed up with them.
The question is what they got fed up with them over. Wisconsin is one of the Rustbelt states, with chronically high unemployment. So, the problem with jobs probably figured into it strongly, the economic problems driving people's dissatisfaction.
Well, now you're in charge, what are you doing to resolve it? What, you're attacking workers in a strongly unionized states? Taking away bargaining rights?
In politics, it's not good enough to think out your own moral sensibilities, you have to consider the point of view others bring to the table.
You know Walker didn't campaign on this issue, right? He came in and pushed this notion of destroying collective bargaining after the fact. If you look at the polls, your claim that he had the people on his side are gravely mistaken He would not be elected today. Angry with Democrats over the decline of labor up North does not translate to the willingness on the part of the people in those states to see Republicans destroy jobs further.
Republicans have one and three quarters more years to alienate people, to teach them once again that today's Republican Party is out of touch with the rest of the country. They're getting off to a good start, really.
Worse yet, your Tea Partiers are probably going to find out, as the budget battles go on, that their inflexibility is something of a liability. See, we still have the Senate and the White House, and Obama and the other Democrats have no incentive to cross their constituents by taking a bad deal. Boehner, meanwhile, has to deal with the fact that the polling says that Republicans will take most of the flak for shutting down the government. Of course, if he doesn't resist changes to the House-passed budget, he might lose the Tea Partiers and other Republicans worried about losing their constituents.
How do you win that game?
In a Democracy, if you can never compromise with your opponent, you only win when the public's on your side. Well, the Republicans ran on jobs, and if they want the public on their side, real jobs real fast are going to be necessary. If they don't get those jobs out there, if people in fact lose jobs, the Republicans will have a tough time building political momentum. In fact, if Republicans have to rely on Democratic votes to pass a budget, it could turn in the other direction.
I don't know fully what will happen, but I can tell from here: the Republicans have put themselves in a difficult position to win from.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 19, 2011 5:10 PM
Government workers do not need collective bargaining. They are protected by civil service rules.
Civil servants should not be allowed to strike. If they do, they should be fired, as president Reagan did with the air traffic controllers.
Re taking the power away from the people, civil servants are a subset of "the people" they are not the people. Unions are a subset of civil servants, they do not represent all civil servants. Most of the people of Wisconsin are taxpayers or family members of taxpayers. They benefit from the more efficient running of the state.
So by limiting the power of the unions, the governor is giving more power back to the people.
re Democrats getting fed up in Wisconsin - Democrats were in charge when the place went to hell, which is why the people of Wisconsin voted the Democrats out of power a couple months ago. Power to the people.
You are laboring under a misconception that the Democrats represent the people, when the people - manifest by the most recent elections only a few months ago - have chosen Republicans to represent them.
The Democrats are fighting the will of the people. That is the inconvenient truth.
You make this almost too easy. I can use all your own words. How do YOU win the game?
I am a Wisconsin native and my cousins & sister live there still. It is hard to figure out what people in Wisconsin will do in the future. That said, it doesn't look good for Democrats. Even in Wisconsin, most people are not union members. And the taxpayers of Wisconsin are not really fond of paying too much for services and not getting a good payback. I think Democrats will be in a difficult position. Obama will lose Wisconsin in 2012 and as goes Wisconsin, will go the nation.Posted by: C&J at March 19, 2011 11:27 PM
According to your narrative, nobody needs to be protecting their interests as a group at all. They should all stand as individuals against well organized, well-funded management that can pretty much replace them at will if they get their way.
Businesses can get together, protect their interests, fund political opposition, but regular citizens? No, we can't have community organization like ACORN, community driven broadcasting like PBS and NPR, We can't have Labor Unions, we can't have public employee labor unions, we can't have the ACLU, we can't have Planned Parenthood-
****, we can't have much of any power, if we follow the GOP's rules.
Mister, do you know what that First Amendment to the Constitution says? I have Freedom of Assembly. You know why I have that right? So that the government cannot outlaw organizations whose politics run counter to it.
The Republicans would do that, I think, if they could get away with it, at least if we take their rhetoric at face value. Faced with an American not firmly under their control anymore, they have portrayed every even remotely liberal group as being a threat to freedom, a threat to the economy, or a threat to morality.
Unions are necessary, because today's corporations are much more organized, and low-level laborers much more interchangeable, thanks to industrialization and automation. In Adam Smith's time, a person doing a particular job in a factory had to be a skilled worker. As the Industrial revolution came along, that changed, since machines took over much of the specialized work. Workers became commodities, easy to replace with somebody just off the farm or off the street.
Not a good position for bargaining. But if labor can be bought and sold as a commodity, it can be denied as a commodity, too, withheld by workers united in watching out for each other's interests. Their solidarity isn't necessarily something socialist, it's a rational response to a situation where you otherwise are interchangeable with another worker, and therefore in a bad place to bargain.
You talk about giving power back to the people. Where? What leverage does one worker have over an entire company, if they aren't some star designer or world class financial artist? If you're replaceable, how do you make sure you go get the pay and the benefits you deserve?
Now what about Collective Bargaining? It's better and less disruptive than a strike. Seeing as how the public employee unions were willing to accept many of Walker's cuts, the argument that Unions would simply stonewall necessary cuts doesn't hold so much water as you think.
But what it does allow them to do is work out their differences in a relatively non-disruptive way.
Which, apparently, is a lost skill among too many Republicans. They're so concerned about winning that they fail to observe the imposition they put on others, imposition that inspires resistance to them.
Case in point. Obama and Walker are doing almost opposite in the polls, and Obama's not exactly in electoral pain, if you know what I mean.
Despite your confidence, we can see real damage being done to the GOP and to Governor Walker in particular over this controversy. I know it's politically incorrect on your side to admit that not everybody loves your positions, but here, you really ought to admit it. You might have two people and some memories to tell me differently, but the polls indicate that a lot of other people, when asked, disagree with you.
As for people being fed up? The operative question will always be, in such situations, fed up with what, before fed up with who. Fed up with what is important. If they're fed up with a bad labor market, or bad economic conditions, then Republicans applying their ideology might be making a mistake if they threaten labor interests.
If I were Walker, I would have accepted the train money, because that would have meant jobs. I would have held off on taking on the Labor Unions or not taken them on at all. If I were Walker, I would have looked into attracting businesses to Wisconsin, or struck down some truly obnoxious regulation that nobody liked.
Republican politics, to be popular as it is today, has to sell it's economic elitism as being of general benefit. If all people see is you bashing and attacking unions, you're not going to convince them of that.
Obama's going to be in a better position to be re-elected than Walker, barring unforeseen events.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 21, 2011 11:11 AM
Government workers have civil service protection. They do not need collective bargaining.
Make unions voluntary. Let unions collect their dues themselves. Give the workers a choice. If they still want to have a union, fine. But government workers, who have civil service protections and who work for the taxpayers, should not bargain collectively.
You can have ACORN, NPR etc. Again, make it voluntary; people can join, or not. I give money to NPR, despite its well-known leaning. I suppose you do too. It can live off "people like us." But we have no right to coerce others to pay for what we like. ACORN was corrupt, but if it was run by only private money, go ahead. Give them some of your money. I won't be taking part in that one and I do not think I should be coerced into paying for those crooks.
If Walker is making it less likely that GOP will get elected, that should make you happy. We will see in 2012. But don't count on Obama winning in Wisconsin.Posted by: C&J at March 21, 2011 7:32 PM
"Government workers have civil service protection. They do not need collective bargaining."
Civil service protections are mainly related to hiring, promotion and firing. While those are not trivial benefits, compensation and working conditions are not covered by civil service protections.
The public unions came into existence for a reason. They were freely voted in by their members. Do you really think that thousands of employees would vote for dues and be limited to negotiated contracts if they didn't believe that they would benefit and have benefited from the assistance of a collective bargaining and representational unit?Posted by: Rich at March 21, 2011 8:10 PM
I expect that government workers like to make more money. What a surprise. The problem is that their money comes from taxpayers and unlike a private business, political leaders have less direct incentive to resist wage demands. In fact, there has developed a corrupt system of union money going to help elect politicians who give higher wages (i.e. more union money) the only loser is the taxpayer.
But let's make union membership completely voluntary and let's make the unions collect the dues directly. Then let's see how many people stay with the union.Posted by: C&J at March 21, 2011 8:23 PM
I worked for the State of California. I was also a rep. for C.S.E.A. (Cal. State. Ees. Assoc.) for several years. Testing and hiring practices, salary and leave benefits were among the highest of our priorities. Working conditions occasionally, but not often. We had some of the best insurance packages available, so much so that my husband, who was a Federal employee, very much wanted me to carry those for us. Once we were rolled into S.E.I.U., our benefits packages were not as sought after.Posted by: jane doe at March 21, 2011 9:42 PM
So what are you saying jane doe? Are you for choice on unions?Posted by: 1776 at March 22, 2011 12:49 AM
"But let's make union membership completely voluntary and let's make the unions collect the dues directly. Then let's see how many people stay with the union."
Unions are already voluntary. Employees are not obligated to organize for collective representation. It is only through a majority vote of employees that a union can be certified as the exclusive collective bargaining agent for the employees. If the employees are dissatisfied by the union, they can have it de-certified as their bargaining agent through a majority vote.
It is a collective majority decision of employees organize for representation and to employ an agent (union) to represent them in negotiations with management. Once that decision has been made, it makes little sense to allow some of those represented to opt out of paying for that representation.
Posted by: Rich at March 22, 2011 7:25 AM
Rich said union membership is voluntary. Not true, union membership is a pre-requisite to employment or a condition of employment on many jobs. For example, railroad employees have to be in a union to work on the railroad, railroad shops are closed shops. Secondly, railroad employees are represented by international unions. The same unions that represent American employees also represents Canadian railroad employees. Your idea that all the employees have to do is vote against the union and de-certify the union is impossible due to the territory covered. It is true that in the construction industry, agents represent the employees, but again, the employees cannot opt out of the representation. My son hires IBEW union electricians and he has a contract that requires him to hire them and he cannot hire non-union employees. If he opts to not use union employees, he can after a six month declaration to opt out of his contract, but when he does, he can only use non-union electricians. He cannot mix union and non-union. So these jobs are virtually closed shops as well. Only is states where there are laws that make closed shops illegal, can an employee opt out of the union and stiil have a job. Many of the workers in WI and other states will opt out. Of course, the dems don't like this, because it cuts off their flow of cash. It's always about the money.Posted by: 1776 at March 22, 2011 4:19 PM
My experience has been that cities have more constraints on their spending, so there are limits to what Unions can demand, and for what politicians can get away with in terms of raising salaries.
Yes, it makes it harder to just arbitrarily cut wages and cut benefits. But you assume that's good for the people as a whole. Why? Because they don't have to pay for it.
Except, at the same time, they won't be getting paid by it, and the folks that get laid off, or don't get paid, like anybody else that has lost wages, or lost their job, won't be contributing to the economy.
As for the question of "coercion"?
You are asked to pay taxes. That is the coercion. You are not forced to make a choice on what the money is spent on. In fact, you are given, by your vote, a share in the decision, via the people you select to decide how the money is divided.
Republicans are all to willing to practice what they call "coercion", paying for programs others don't want, not paying for programs most people want, running government differently from how some want it to be run, when it benefits them. That is how you run such monstrous deficits Your politics is more about punishing Liberals for what you see as bleeding heart expenditures, than actually balancing the budget. You had that opportunity, you had that authority. You could have manifest your policies as you wished, but you acted otherwise, rationalizing that policy as you're lead to rationalize just about everything.
That's the Republican's weak point: their leaders are cynical, and their followers, all too often, allow themselves to be convinced of what they say, especially when adversarial attitudes towards the mainstream media and its tendency not to ignore Republican mistakes and problems gets in the way.
If Repblicans saw their people in a more skeptical light, and their policies as well, they could take and leave things as they chose, and not merely blindly push and justify policies that have screwed up consistently.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 22, 2011 4:34 PM
I don't disagree with many of your points. I was simply pointing out that the existence of a union is a decision of the majority of employees in a company. If there is sufficient disagreement with the representation of the employees, they can vote them out and they can vote out any union representation. The fact that it may be difficult doesn't change the fact that employees have the ultimate right to chose chose union representation. In past posts, you have disagreed with many aspects of unions (e, g., political activism with your money). However, you have also admitted that the union contracts provided you with a good income, health care and retirement. I suspect that the continued support for unions by railroad employees is derived from those facts.Posted by: Rich at March 22, 2011 6:41 PM
Rich said, "The fact that it may be difficult doesn't change the fact that employees have the ultimate right to chose chose union representation."
I contend it is impossible, for the very reasons you state:
"However, you have also admitted that the union contracts provided you with a good income, health care and retirement. I suspect that the continued support for unions by railroad employees is derived from those facts."
When younger men and women hire on the railroad, they are entering a career that has been around for 150+ years. The older employees are not going to do anything to jeopardize their retirement and the younger are too few to do anything about the unions. But I will say this about railroad benefits; the pay is not as much as the auto industry and not near the benefits of state and federal workers, they are required to pay a portion of their healthcare, and at least 15% of their earnings goes into railroad retirement.
But I also said in times past; I would have opted out of the union if I could have, simply because I disagreed with how the union supported politicians, of which I disagreed, and the union bosses were untouchable and spent union dues for personal gain and a lavish lifestyle.
Unions have connections with communist groups and they work against everything that has made America great.
Steven Lerner, by his own description, was the director of SEIU's banking and finance campaign. This man has had access to the White House on at least four occasions; in the capacity as an adviser to Obama. Obama stated he has worked with the leaders of the SEIU and supports them. This audio came out over the weekend and Steven Lerner is explaining how to destroy the economy of the United States. He should be arrested and tried for treason.
Instead of attacking Beck, perhaps a few of you liberals could actually listen to Lerner's audio? Is this what YOU have in mind for America?
http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/03/22/beck-clear-case-of-economic-terrorism/Posted by: 1776 at March 22, 2011 8:41 PM
Well, the SEIU appears to agree with you also since they fired him last year for pursuing his plan to attack Wall Street.Posted by: Rich at March 22, 2011 9:24 PM
Make unions voluntary for ALL workers. If you go to a restaurant and get bad service, should everybody there have to vote to allow you to leave? Maybe they like the food, but you don't.
Workers should have the right to join unions … or NOT.
The Wisconsin proposal would make unions get a majority of the workers each year, sort of like an election in a democracy. Would that be okay with you?
Yes - the ASK me to pay taxes. What if I decide not to do as I am asked? They call that part coercion.
But you make a good point about the vote. The people of Wisconsin voted in the Republicans and now they are doing the job the people put them in there to do. Why do you complain about that, if you like this collective decisions.
Unions are fine things. Civil service employees don't need them, but let workers organize if they want. As long as nobody is forced to join a union and as long as unions collect dues themselves, directly. Freedom is good.Posted by: C&J at March 22, 2011 10:45 PM
You present your proposals for opting in or out of unions at will or annual elections for certification as though they were reforms in the interests of workers. Sort of a bill of rights for union workers. However, the union employees have soundly rejected those proposals. They recognize that the proposals are nothing but an attempt to destroy their ability to act in a collective manner. So, from the union employee perspective, it is thank you but no thank you on your generous offer to provide them new rights.Posted by: Rich at March 23, 2011 6:27 AM
You are asked to pay taxes. That is the coercion.
See, I said it. And yes, that's an understatement, but don't be so excessively literal with me.
But you know, even that's not as coercive as you might think. I mean, for all folks dislike the obligation of taxes, it's yet another thing the people democratically accountable to us can shape.
The main question is, are people getting what they want with the tax situation, and getting it good and hard? We need to consider whether your policies are actually wise, or whether they're worsening situations to benefit a lonely few whose good condition might not exactly be contagious to the rest of us.
America needs to rethink what kind of tax rate is in its interests. And it needs to be trusted to do so, rather than panicked by elitists who merely want to waste away the system that constrains them, while state, local and federal governments consequently take our country into fiscal and social ruin to do so.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 23, 2011 8:27 AM
What I would say is that Republicans were deceptive about a couple of things. First that they're any more fiscally responsible than they were. In many of the cases where workers were cut, so were taxes, cancelling out part if not all of the gain.
If Tax cuts like that actually worked, it might seem a prudent thing, but they generally haven't, so it take whatever gain from the cuts and flushes it down the toilet, and then some.
The second thing they lied to voters about was their agenda, the extent and the extremity of it. Many of these elections, especially in the midwest, were won by bare margins, meaning at least half the people, if not more, were in disagreement.
Don't tell me you've never considered it possible for people to regret an electoral decision. Polls show the Republican governors down. I guess people really did want the jobs, and are suprised to see the Republicans who ran on jobs doing little more than battering them down further.
You can win this kind of thing for a term, perhaps, but the fact is, it's not sustainable. People will look for the means to relieve their pain.
I recently wrote a diary entry on Kos, talking about the need to prepare people with the logical undergirdings of an idea before you try to rally them with the symbolic. Well, what I'd tell you here, is that you'd better be sure most people don't want unions before you try and tear them down, because if people are not there with you on that, they may have reason to differ with you when the election comes around.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 23, 2011 10:10 AM
Well, the SEIU appears to agree with you also since they fired him last year for pursuing his plan to attack Wall Street.
Posted by: Rich at March 22, 2011 09:24 PM"
I can provide this from a liberal socialist huffpost website:
"Lerner currently directs SEIU's banking and finance campaign, mobilizing SEIU members and other community groups across the country into action to break the decades-long stranglehold Wall Street and big banks have had on our economy and democracy. Through this campaign SEIU is also partnering with unions and groups in Europe, South America, and elsewhere to build a campaign to hold financial institutions accountable in a global economy."
What strikes me as unbelievable is that Obama appointed Andy Stern (former leader of SEIU) as part of the debt commission, and Steven Lerner was a leutenant of Andy Stern's. Now we have facts and tapes of Steven Lerner calling for an organized attempt to destroy our economy. What part does Obama play in this, because there is nobody going to convince me Obama is ignorant of these facts. With Andy Stern making some 40 visits to the WH and Lerner making 4 visits, while they were at SEIU and Obama's defence of the SEIU:
"Obama: 'We're going to paint nation purple with SEIU'
Explains how he 'built political power on south side of Chicago'
Posted: October 13, 2009
9:41 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
During his campaign, President Obama boasted of his track record of working with the Illinois-based Service Employees International Union, helping it "build more and more power" – and he promised to "paint the nation purple with SEIU."
In the following recently surfaced video from January 2008 posted by Breitbart, Obama told a group of SEIU workers that all presidential, gubernatorial and congressional candidates claim they are pro-union when they are looking for endorsements:
"They'll all say, 'We love SEIU,'" he said. "But the question you've got to ask yourself is, do they have it in their gut? Do they have a track record of standing alongside you on picket lines? Do they have a track record of going after the companies that aren't letting you organize? Do they have a track record of voting the right way but also helping you organize to build more and more power?"
Obama referenced his background as a community organizer and his ties to SEIU Local 880, a union for homecare workers and home childcare providers in Illinois that first mobilized through Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.
"I've been working with SEIU before I was elected to anything," he said. "When I was a community organizer, SEIU local 880 and myself, we organized people to make sure that home-care workers had the basic right to organize. We organized voting registration drives. That's how we built political power on the south side of Chicago."
He continued, "And now the time has come for us to do it all across this country. We are going to paint the nation purple with SEIU."
Obama credited the SEIU with helping him with his election to the U.S. Senate.
"I would not be a United States senator had it not been for the support of your brothers and sisters in Illinois," he said. "They supported me early. They supported me often. I've got my purple windbreaker from my campaign in 2004."
He encouraged the crowd to knock on doors and "work the precinct."
"SEIU, I'm glad you're with me," he declared. "Let's together change the country."
Obama raised his fist and chanted, "SEIU! SEIU! SEIU!"
As WND reported, newspaper evidence shows Obama was a member of the New Party, which sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda. While running for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 as a Democrat, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the New Party, according to confirmed reports during last year's presidential campaign.
According to Democratic Socialists of America documents, the New Party worked with ACORN and SEIU Local 880 to promote its candidates.
In 1995, the DSA's New Ground newsletter stated, "Chicago organizers for ACORN and organizers for SEIU Local 880 have been given modest monthly recruitment quotas for new New Party members."
The 1.9-million member SEIU publicly endorsed Obama in February 2008.
"There has never been a fight in Illinois or a fight in the nation where our members have not asked Barack Obama for assistance and he has not done everything he could to help us," Andy Stern, the union's president, said when he announced the decision.
WND also reported when SEIU members appeared at national town-hall meetings in droves to support the administration's health-care plans. Obama specifically called on some SEIU members who asked non-compromising questions."
Read more: Obama: 'We're going to paint nation purple with SEIU' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=112780#ixzz1HSpY3dHA
Posted by: 1776 at March 23, 2011 6:24 PM
Do I need to repeat it? SEIU fired him specifically for pursuing his Wall Street strategy.Posted by: Rich at March 23, 2011 8:15 PM
So Rich, should he be charged, or do you defend him?Posted by: 1776 at March 23, 2011 11:27 PM
"So Rich, should he be charged, or do you defend him?"
I am not defending him nor is the SEIU who fired him for persisting in his scheme to bring the banks down. In fact, there is no story here. While many may agree with his concerns about the financial markets (TBTF banks are not an exclusive liberal or conservative issue), very few agree with his tactics. That would certainly include the Obama administration that has fallen all over itself to prop up the major banks. Geitner, Sumner, Rubin, etc. are hardly radical "economic terrorists" bent on destroying Wall Street.Posted by: Rich at March 24, 2011 7:11 AM
That's what strikes me about the Republican's arguments that he's trying to destroy capitalism.
All he had to do was just step out of the way.
Now, you look at Walker and others, who immediately embarked on a campaign of radical change once they got into office, and there you see what somebody is capable of doing if they really want to exploit a crisis for political or ideological gain. A real agitator would push the program, and launch attacks against those who oppose him.
He wouldn't be on television all the time talking about compromise and bipartisanship.
What Republicans are looking for, these days, is a pretext to go extreme, not permission from the voters and clearance from the other side to pursue policy.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 24, 2011 12:56 PM
Sorry Stephen, this is not about Walker; it's about a radical who wants to bankrupt America.
You get angry at me and RF for accusing you of using liberal talking points. Well here is an example:
"Now, you look at Walker and others, who immediately embarked on a campaign of radical change once they got into office"
There is nothing radical about what Walker or many other Governors have done or are doing.
"What Republicans are looking for, these days, is a pretext to go extreme, not permission from the voters and clearance from the other side to pursue policy."
Talking points…Posted by: 1776 at March 24, 2011 1:58 PM
"There is nothing radical about what Walker or many other Governors have done or are doing."
You must be kidding. Extinguishing public employee rights for collective bargaining is not radical? Even an advocate of limiting public union bargaining, the rising star of Republican governors, Mitch Daniel, recognizes that such legislation is altering fundamental employment rights and such legislation deserves a full public discussion and debate during the election process.Posted by: Rich at March 24, 2011 8:29 PM
Rich, could you explain what rights were taken away from the public employees? Well, I will tell you:
"What Would Happen to Collective Bargaining?
We were also asked who would be affected by Walker's plan to limit collective bargaining:
Q: Is it true that Wisconsin's governor is proposing to eliminate collective bargaining rights for only some public unions? Why only some and not all? Is it true that the firemen and police unions would not be affected by the bill?
Yes, some unions will be treated differently than others. Under current law, municipal and state employees are allowed to collectively bargain over wages, hours and employment conditions. Walker's proposal would limit the bargaining ability of some union employees, and eliminate it altogether for others, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau.
Most public safety employees at the county and city level, for example, are completely exempted from the proposal's bargaining restrictions. That would include police officers, firefighters, state troopers and sheriff deputies, although there are some public safety officers — such as state criminal investigators, park wardens and university police officers — who are not exempted. Those few public safety workers and all other public employee unions — including teachers and transit workers — would see their bargaining abilities limited strictly to issues concerning wages. A cap would also be instituted so that employees could not — unless approved by a voter referendum — bargain for wage increases larger than the change in the consumer price index.
And University of Wisconsin System workers, and employees of the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority, would no longer be permitted to collectively bargain at all. Neither would certain home care and child care providers.
In addition, Walker's proposal would ban deductions for union dues from the paychecks of state and municipal employees, except for public safety workers. And it would permit those employees to remain members of the collective bargaining unit, even if they do not pay union dues."
I don' find any rights inflicted upon. Do you have a problem with the voters having a say in the pay raises of public employees? I don't; in fact, I believe voters should have a say in ALL Fed and State employees salaries and benefits, including politicians. I don't have a problem with giving the employees the right to be union or not, do you?
35 states have laws similar to the old WI laws and 15 states don't. Can you tell me, without looking it up which states do not have colective barganing right for public employees? No, I don't thnk so. But if the rights of the public workers were so bad in these 15 states, you would think it would be all over the news, since the unions and the left believe it is a violation of their civil rights. Nuf said…Posted by: 1776 at March 24, 2011 9:13 PM
If you think that unions are an impairment to "the voters having a say in the pay raises of public employees?" then are you in favor of the exemption for police and fire since they constitute by far the largest part of any municipal and local government budget?Posted by: Rich at March 24, 2011 10:07 PM
No.Posted by: 1776 at March 24, 2011 10:39 PM
You talk about radicals who want to bankrupt America? Why is it that in so many cases, putting a Republican in charge is a sure way to see violence done to the fiscal balance?
Republicans are much more confident about their skills in fiscal matters than their performance merits.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 27, 2011 7:57 PM
"Why is it that in so many cases, putting a Republican in charge is a sure way to see violence done to the fiscal balance?"
Supposition and innuendo; you are making a conclusion based upon what you think.
Wake up America. It's time to regroup.
Read "Common Sense 3.1" at ( www.revolution2.osixs.org )
We don't have to live like this anymore. "Spread the News"
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation. Please report abuse and inappropriate behavior to email@example.com.