RT @TWERadio: JPMorgan Chase & Washington's anti-capitalist impulse, plus Obama campaign rips Romney for his work at Bain Capital ht ...
Click to Print
Include Comments
Scott Walker and the truth
The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund is a walking political encyclopedia. I was fascinated by his recall of regional election statistics a few weeks ago when he spoke at the Pennsylvania Breakfast at the Conservative Political Action Conference. He grabbed my attention again on Saturday in his latest column, where he presented a correlation between embattled Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s passion for speaking the truth and his electability . . . even against great odds.
Prior to winning the governor’s race in 2010, Walker served two-and-a-half terms as county executive in heavily Democratic Milwaukee County (he won a special election in 2002, followed by general election victories in 2004 and 2008)—the first Republican elected to a countywide position. In ’08, John McCain garnered just 31 percent of the vote in Milwaukee County (to Obama’s 59 percent) while Walker hauled in a remarkable 59 percent. Four years before that he received 57 percent of the vote.
How does Walker explain those numbers?
“I would go on reality tours [to discuss Milwaukee County’s problems],” he told Fund. ‘Critics would call them ‘gloom-and-doom’ tours, but in the end people came to agree with me on what needed to be done. I won because people will ultimately respond to the truth. There is an unseen reservoir of support out there for leaders who will do the right thing.”
This wasn’t the first time Walker spoke about truth to the media. In the spring of 2009, this son of a Baptist minister told radio host Glen Meakem, “Truth, passion, and most importantly, the right message can go a long way and it can transcend any sort of political punditry or consultant’s demographic sheet. In the end, people are drawn to truth and drawn to genuine candidates who really believe in something and stand for something—and even more so if you not only say it, but then go out and do it. I believe that candidates can go out and get elected and get reelected anywhere in this country because people are craving for it.”
Walker’s career demonstrates that truth-telling is a winning strategy. Once again he is relying on it in his current battle with Democrats and public sector unions. People are craving for it—that’s the truth.
back to top62 Comments to “Scott Walker and the truth”
Wow. Truth, justice and the America way!
i blogged about “Spin” today over at Red Letter Believers.
Sounds like Mr. Walker’s kind of article:
http://t.co/bazu7ek
Report comment to moderator
Anyone tired of relative “truth” these days?
Report comment to moderator
Scott Walker is a friend to the CEO. Here’s a joke you all might like:
A public union employee, a Tea Party activist and a CEO are sitting at a table with a dozen cookies on a plate in the middle of it. The CEO takes 11 of the cookies, turns to the Tea Partier and says: “Watch out for that union guy – he wants a piece of your cookie.”
Report comment to moderator
3. Where did the cookies come from?
Report comment to moderator
Walker ran on truth and the Democrats ran away to hide in another state.
And so they hide out at a resort in Illinois eating, drinking and making merry knowing it won’t last forever.
Report comment to moderator
Who is paying for the resort in Illinois?
Report comment to moderator
Check out the article on http://www.powerlineblog.com
entitled “AWOL Democrats will cost Wisconsin $165 million -tomorrow”
Report comment to moderator
KBalls, you are brilliant.
Report comment to moderator
Gee, Wisconsin is a swing state. If I were an R, I’d campaign on what that $165 mil could have been spent on.
Report comment to moderator
So the Democrats will blow $165 million in order to save $143 million. No wonder they lost.
Report comment to moderator
Actually Walker just blew 165 million to bust a union. The unions have already agreed to cost saving measures — all he has to do is remove the language surrounding the limitations of collective bargaining. This standoff could end now and save money for Walker’s tax breaks.
Report comment to moderator
Obama support the state unions, but his employees(federal workers) do not have the bargaining rights. Go figure.
Report comment to moderator
#4,
The cookies came from the big cookie machine in Washington, D. C. Didn’t they?
Report comment to moderator
The cookies represent economic success. They’re not a stand-in for money.
Corporations have almost all of the economic power in this country, and they’re actively trying to stir up discord between the people on the lower economic rugs, so they can continue to quietly take cookies.
The reason this is heating up now is that with the Citizens United ruling, organized labor and whatever political power unions have is the only thing left standing in the way of a total corporate takeover of the country.
And you’re all serving as unwitting pawns.
Report comment to moderator
So how many cookies is this guy getting?
http://i.b5z.net/i/u/1350838/i/contra_costa_times.pdf
Report comment to moderator
And when you’re providing the flour, the sugar, the stove and the kitchen you deserve more of the cookies.
Report comment to moderator
Clever rebuttal, KBells, but I note how in your modified analogy (where the CEO provided the supplies to bake the cookies), the CEO is still a jerk.
“It’s my flour and sugar, so I’m going to take 11 cookies and pit you two against each other for the 12th.
So there.”
Report comment to moderator
KBells: The article reports that a union leader (not a worker, the head of the union) made 4500,000 last year.
Michael Laphen, the CEO of Computer Sciences Corp., made more than $15 MILLION last year. And he is the LOWEST paid of the 100 highest-paid CEOs on this list. The highest paid, Gregory Maffei of Liberty Media, pocketed nearly $87.5 million.
I’ll agree that it might be unseemly for a union leader to make half a million dollars, but it is NOTHING compared to what corporate CEOs earn. (CSC, by the way, is a government contractor … where do you think the money in Laphen’s pocket ultimately comes from?)
Report comment to moderator
AUGH! That’s $500,000, not 4500,000 …
Report comment to moderator
Luke 17 7 “Will any one of you who has a servant plowing or keeping sheep say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and recline at table’? 8 Will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, and dress properly, and serve me while I eat and drink, and afterward you will eat and drink’? 9 Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? 10 So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’”
Report comment to moderator
17. It’s not like the people are starving. They are better off than most of us. Most CEO’s take big chances and work their tails off. Many of them go broke a couple of times in their lifetime. When you are ready to go through that, you are free to do so, but is unreasonable for you to expect to live just as good with none of the risk, hard work or sacrifice. I also notice we don’t get the same condemnation from the left over the huge salaries of movie stars and other performers. How many little people do you think it takes to make Sean Penn look that good?
Report comment to moderator
The problem with the cookie illustration is that it sounds cute but is purposely exaggerated (why exaggerate if you have an honest argument?). The plate would more likely have 1200 cookies. The CEO could get 5-10% or 60-120 cookies if he is really successful. The government steps in and takes 30-60 of his cookies (local, state, and federal). So he keeps 30-60 cookies, still a lot of cookies. In the meantime, however, with his efforts he provides jobs for 200 union workers who each get just under 6 cookies. The 200 workers get 1080-1140 of the 1200 cookies among thmeselves. Very simplistic but more likely the average case. Of course, you can find CEOs who make much more, and there are also unions that have killed their industries in this country with their unrealistic demands.
Report comment to moderator
KBells, the man you held up as an example of a union leader living a lavish lifestyle makes 1/30 — about 3% — of what the lowest-paid of the top 100 CEOs makes. His pay is not even a grain of sand on the beach for the highest of those highest paid, less than 1%.
And you think that’s too much … for someone who fights for the rights of ordinary working people.
CEOs are generally not the entrepreneurs who take the real risks to start and establish companies. Except in very new companie, the CEO is usually someone brought in from outside or promoted from within to keep the company on a profitable course.
I’m not saying they don’t deserve to be well-paid. They do. But so do wage-earners, and this campaign to try to deprive them of their abilities to stand up for themselves is obscene.
Report comment to moderator
Movie stars, musicians and atheletes aren’t actively trying to break the back of the common man. The amount of money CEOs earn is not the issue; the efforts they’re making to earn even more at the expense of the people whose labor gives their companies value is the problem.
Where do you think a CEO would be without a whole bunch of people working hard within the company?
Why should those people not also be paid well for their work?
Report comment to moderator
#18 – where do you think the money in the union boss’s pocket comes from? Quite a few people who would rather not give it I suspect, unless it’s a right to work state. I’m just not going to spend my life envying and resenting the millions that CEOs make. I don’t have any problem asking them to share it in worthy ways. The alternative to allowing people to earn money the corporations agree to give them is to not allow them to earn that money and give it to the government, who is as wasteful as the 14 democrats sitting in Illinois at the pool when they should be doing their job.
Report comment to moderator
This is not about CEOs trying to earn more. It’s about states trying to follow through on the promises they’ve already made to people and can’t in their present situation.
Report comment to moderator
Somebody makes a movie and it produces 12 cookies. The stars get 6, the studio gets 6 and then 2000 people from from the makeup artist to the usher in the theater shares the other two. That’s not fair!!!
Report comment to moderator
27. Wait a minute, my math is off. That’s 5 cookies each for the stars and the studio. This is one reason I’m not a rich CEO.
Report comment to moderator
No, that sounds pretty fair. The vast majority of actors work very hard and never become stars. I’m not begrudging the relative few who do the ability to earn based on the money their work makes for their employer. (Actors have a union too, you know.)
Now, if the stars and the studio decide to take the 11th cookie and leave everybody else to fight over the remaining one, that would be a problem.
And trying to cast this argument as “envy” over what CEOs earn (#25) is wrong. I’ve nowhere suggested they shouldn’t earn whatever their shareholders think they are worth. But I want the people farther down the ladder rewarded well for what they contribute to their employer’s success, too.
I don’t understand the fervent defense of corporate largess and open hostility to workers displayed here, by people who ARE workers themselves. This is a perfect example of how moneyed interests on the right deceive people into arguing against their own best interests.
Report comment to moderator
The vast majority of business people work very hard and never become CEO’s. So why are you begrudging the relative few who do the ability to earn based on the money their work makes for their company. There is probably much smaller gap between the CEO and his workers than there is between a star and a theres usher. However as some one who has work in both the corporate world and the media world, I will tell you that the corporate boss us usually more polite and concerned about the guy in the cubicle than the star is about the guy behind the camera.
Report comment to moderator
#23 …. this campaign to try to deprive them of their abilities to stand up for themselves is obscene.
What’s happening is obscene alright. Just last week on the floor of the Assembly in WI one of the Democrats burst into a frenzy and started screaming at Republicans in general, and one female colleague in particular: ‘You’re f—— dead!’ He has since apologized to the woman, of course, and is expected to be disciplined. One can only hope that he exorcises his rage by drawing up campaign plans(complete with targets on a map if he wishes) rather than calling on his union buds outside, who were busy shouting down and roughing up a FoxNews reporter.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/wisconsin-dem-to-gop-colleague-youre-fing-dead/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/a-guy-just-hit-me-fox-news-reporter-attacked-at-wis-protest/
Report comment to moderator
KBells: The vast majority of business people work very hard and never become CEO’s. So why are you begrudging the relative few who do the ability to earn based on the money their work makes for their company.
I have not said ONE SINGLE THING suggesting this.
Report comment to moderator
Debra: Frustration expressed inappropriately doesn’t diminish the fact that the workers are in the right in what they’re asking.
Stop trying to demonize them. It’s really unbecoming.
Report comment to moderator
Let me know if you need some more straw for that man you’re building, Conan. I know where you can get a few bales at a reasonable price. ;–)
Report comment to moderator
Let me explain this in small terms, Conan, since you keep trying to shift the debate. First of all, Walker has been in office only a couple months. Do you really expect us to believe that he has (magically) created a budget surplus (never mind the state was in debt $3.3 billion when his predecessor left office,) in that time? That he has fixed the budget problem and then turned around and squandered it on “tax cuts for the rich”? Second, you’re comparing apples to oranges. Corporations and government are not the same. Your argument seems to be that since corporations make “too much” money (whatever that means-corporations actually produce wealth, not confiscate it from actual producers as government does,)we should ignore the obvious corrupt vote buying scheme that is public unions. Here’s how it works in a nutshell. You want to be a government employee, you are forced to join a union. The union then taxes your income (can dues really be called anything other than a union tax? You MUST belong to the union, remember,)and takes a portion of it for their own uses. Since this is taxpayer money you are being paid from, in essence, taxpayers are forced to pay money that eventually goes partly for union dues. The union then turns around and spends that money, with or without the taxpayers OR union members’ approval to elect candidates that are sympathetic or greedy enough to support their causes (i.e., in most cases Democrats.) In essence, taxpayer money is being funneled off to support one political party but not the other. Taxpayers get no say or representation in this process, despite the fact that it is their money being used. Neither, by and large, do union members get to say no to this process, even if they personally would not support Democrat candidates. In essence, we have a rigged system to make sure that Democrats are always better funded than their Republican opponents–and they are using taxpayer dollars to do it. We have a word for that–CORRUPTION. Public unions therefore have an unfair and immoral advantage in the political process-they can force taxpayers to monetarily support their(unions) viewpoint, even at the expense of their own legitimate interests.
Arguing that we should ignore union corruption because corporations in the private sector have too much power is nonsense. We have to start somewhere to fix this system that Democrats and socialists have screwed up for too long, and public unions are a good place to start. I agree that crony “capitalism” is wrong, and needs to be dealt with (it has turned our economy more towards mercantilism than capitalism.) I do not like politicians being “bought” by private special interests any more than public ones. Tea partiers and libertarian conservatives like myself want a system where no one group can exert control over the political process at everyone else’s expense, period. Union workers already have a voice at the ballot box, and if they are treated unfairly they can seek remedy there by trying to pass laws outlawing unfair work practices in government. They should not in essence get a “double vote” by also being allowed to directly pressure government to give them higher wages and Cadillac retirement plans that they know the majority of taxpayers would never approve via the democratic process.
Report comment to moderator
Barracuda: If you really think my argument has anything to do with “corporations make ‘too much’ money,” or that I’m saying we should “ignore union corruption,” then you have not heard a word I’ve said.
Here’s the Cliff’s notes of what I have actually been arguing.
The governor says the unions need to make some concessions and have workers contribute more toward some benefits in order to ease a financial crisis.
The unions have agreed to that. There’s some uncertainty about just how long it took them to agree, but they did agree.
So problem solved, right? He asked them to make some concessions, they agree, let’s all go on to the next concern.
Except no, not so fast. Not only does he want them to make certain concessions, he also wants them to give up, forever (or until a future governor changes it back) their right to bargain and negotiate on anything other than basic salary.
That won’t do anything to ease the current financial problem, but it will put the workers at the mercy of their employers from now on. And the unions — quite rightly — refuse to go that far.
Simple enough?
Report comment to moderator
Barracuda:
Here’s how it works in a nutshell. You want to be a government employee, you are forced to join a union.
False. Only about 36 percent of public sector workers are in unions. That is a much higher percentage than private sector workers, but it’s still only about one in three. The forcing must be pretty ineffective.
(Source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm)
The union then taxes your income (can dues really be called anything other than a union tax? You MUST belong to the union, remember,)and takes a portion of it for their own uses. Since this is taxpayer money you are being paid from, in essence, taxpayers are forced to pay money that eventually goes partly for union dues.
That is true. Taxpayers are also forced to pay money that goes to fund wars, enforce bad laws to do other things that a given individual taxpayer may not like.
In this case, the employee is still an employee, and the fact that he works for taxpayers should not require him to give up the rights to negotiate employment terms that a private-sector counterpart would have. And if you do make that requirement, how can you expect to ever attract talented and capable employees into government service, or stay for more than a few years?
The union then turns around and spends that money, with or without the taxpayers OR union members’ approval to elect candidates that are sympathetic or greedy enough to support their causes (i.e., in most cases Democrats.) In essence, taxpayer money is being funneled off to support one political party but not the other.
If that’s true, it’s only because Republicans are hostile to labor. If Republicans supported workers, workers would support Republicans.
But the argument doesn’t really wash. The money may come from taxpayers, but only because they’re employing the workers (indirectly through agencies). Once it becomes a worker’s salary, it’s a salary. It becomes the employee’s money, not the taxpayer’s, and the employee is free to spend it on whatever he pleases, including supporting candidates you don’t like.
When you hire a plumber or a gardener, you don’t first make sure that he’s not going to take the money you pay him and donate it to a Democrat or pay his union dues with it, do you? It’s no different. Public sector workers are hired to perform services, and we pay their salary — at which point it becomes their money, not ours.
Taxpayers get no say or representation in this process, despite the fact that it is their money being used. Neither, by and large, do union members get to say no to this process, even if they personally would not support Democrat candidates. In essence, we have a rigged system to make sure that Democrats are always better funded than their Republican opponents–and they are using taxpayer dollars to do it. We have a word for that–CORRUPTION.
Oh please. Corporate interests pump billions of dollars into Republican campaigns. Unions are hardly making elections a one-sided battle.
Report comment to moderator
Two basic options:
1. Bust these greedy public unions.
2. Stand by as these greedy public unions bust Wisconsin and America.
Report comment to moderator
Show of hands … how many of you let your employers tell you how to spend the money they pay you?
Those of you who don’t … so why should government employees be any different?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: Third option: Stop lying about unions and fostering resentment toward working people.
Report comment to moderator
#40 That’s good advice. Why don’t you take it.
Report comment to moderator
it is not like public employees are slaves. If taking away most of collective bargaining rights away is to much for them, they can hand in their resignations the day the bill passes and plenty of unemployed people w/degrees would be willing to take their jobs in a instant because that is a way better alternative than being laid off.Also do you notice how nice and willing the unions are acting when they don’t have the spineless dems to vote for whatever they want like last Dec. w/the new employee contracts
Report comment to moderator
“False. Only about 36 percent of public sector workers are in unions. That is a much higher percentage than private sector workers, but it’s still only about one in three. The forcing must be pretty ineffective. ”
If this was the case, then why are the unions fighting specifically the provision in the law that union membership must be voluntary and voted on yearly? The reason it’s only 36 percent is because the other 64 percent of government workers either live in right to work states, where joining the union is voluntary (and surprise, surprise, most of the time when it IS voluntary, those darn workers don’t join the union!)or work for the federal government, which doesn’t have the same deals with unions, by and large.
“That is true. Taxpayers are also forced to pay money that goes to fund wars, enforce bad laws to do other things that a given individual taxpayer may not like. ”
Yes, but taxpayers get to vote on who they elect to office that has the power do those things, and can make them answer for their acts. When they try to stop unions’ powerful arrangements, notice what you get? Now you are fighting to convince us all that breaking up a little corrupt agreement that allows the left to siphon off public dollars for personal power and political benefit somehow breaks a moral law involving workers’ rights. You’re spouting so much ridiculous garbage you could open a landfill, Conan.
“If that’s true, it’s only because Republicans are hostile to labor. If Republicans supported workers, workers would support Republicans. ”
News flash buddy, the voters DID support Republicans. Now you are trying to convince us that the taxpayers and voters’ will is somehow irrelevant because it would violate “labor rights.” It’s supply and demand. If people treat their workers poorly, most will either leave or do the bare minimum to keep their jobs, and they won’t be loyal. If the government couldn’t find workers willing to work under the conditions it offered, it would be forced to offer better working conditions to attract workers.
Note too that Walker is not talking about throwing out labor laws governing things like overtime, safe working conditions, or hostile work environments. All he is doing is taking away the unions’ ability to hold a gun to the heads of the taxpayer and government employees who aren’t leftists. But that’s what really sticks in your craw, isn’t it? You know if the unions lose their power to compel membership, they will lose power, and without the unions political power, the Democrats will start losing even more elections. This whole thing about worker’s rights is a big smokescreen for your viewpoint that conservatives should have no right to influence or direct the political process, democracy be damned.
Report comment to moderator
Note too that Walker is not talking about throwing out labor laws governing things like overtime, safe working conditions, or hostile work environments.
Of course not. He’s got to get rid of collective bargaining first.
Why do you think he’s so adamant that it has to go, even when the unions in Wisconsin have agreed to everything else he insists is necessary?
If he wins that one, the other things you mention will not be far behind. Guaranteed.
Report comment to moderator
BARRACUDA et. al, you’ve dismayed the left and many in the middle.
Well done.
Democrats need this shock. Independents need to know their enemies, and voters who’ve forgotten the ingredients of our social contract needed to review the recipe.
Leftists can be glad about Gov. Scott Walker for all the reasons David Brooks deplores him:
In Washington, the Republicans who designed the cuts for this fiscal year seemed to have done no serious policy evaluation. . . Out in the states, the situation is scarcely better . . legislators and administrators are simply cutting on the basis of what’s politically easy and what vaguely seems expendable . . [This] will be a disaster . . Unfortunately, that’s often how it is being done now.
Leftists have more to be thrilled over than Schadenfreude, however.
Republicans have gone to war to overthrow the legal right to collective bargaining and to raise up the right of each worker to make a separate contract with each employer, free of union involvement.
The fact that Evangelical Republicans foolishly want to re-fight this battle, this losing battle, means that the Lord God surely will deliver them into the hands of their enemies.
Report comment to moderator
Go Barracuda!!!!!!
Report comment to moderator
Aside from the practical reality that unions are an indispensable component of prosperity for the masses, there are ethical reasons for the government to protect collective bargaining.
1. One has the right to be a scab (with police protection), but there is no fundamental right to offer one’s labor in a job market that is free of labor unions.
2. Labor contracts are fair and valid exclusivity contracts between a set of workers and an employer.
3. In all workplaces, each worker has a right to persuade fellow workers to de-certify the union and to persuade the employer not to negotiate with a certified union.
4. Government regulation of labor relations preserves free will of all participants in a voluntary system.
Report comment to moderator
Here is the real truth about Scott Walker.
http://other98.com/koch-bros-monopoly/
You guys talk about George Soros like he’s the devil in a suit, but the Koch brothers buy our democracy and you stand and applaud.
Report comment to moderator
lol. Is that what passes for evidence now–’infographics’? Lots of claims, but not a single link or a shred of evidence.
Report comment to moderator
Debra: There are four links to articles at the bottom of the page underneath the graphic.
You’re right, there’s “not a single link,” there are four links.
Maybe look closer before you rush to chortle derisively?
Report comment to moderator
And while you’re chortling, maybe you can explain why it’s ok with you for billionaires to buy our democracy.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
Those are not links; I already tried them. And I’m not chortling. I actually don’t want to see billionaires or multinationals or foreign countries purchasing our democracy any more than I want to see the mob or union thugs do so.
If we are ever going to restore balance to our economy, globalism has to come to an end. When the dollar tumbles, I hope that will start to happen. And from what I’m reading in the WSJ, it will probably be soon. But it’s going to be painful for most everyone.
Report comment to moderator
I actually don’t want to see billionaires or multinationals or foreign countries purchasing our democracy
Then stop playing into their hands.
if the references at the bottom of the graphic are not active links, they’re still full URLs that you can copy into your browser and go look. But even aside from that, the Koch brothers’ activities are not secret, they’ve been reported on and their donations are a matter of public record like everyone else’s.
You are another person who glibly speaks of “union thugs” as if one automatically requires the other. It’s an insult. The wealthy want one part of the working class to resent the other part, and their plan is working … your automatic use of phrases like that is proof. The possibility that a union rep might be an honest hardworking person just trying to help look out for workers isn’t even something you consider. Union = thug.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
I shouldn’t have to point out that it’s the thugs in WI who have been shutting down the schools and legislature, threatening news reporters, and mobbing legislators. Would those be an example of your ‘honest hardworking’ union reps? Not that it matters, since you guys will probably find a way to scapegoat the tea party for the ruckus anyway.
We’re in for a rough ride for a while—at least until we can restore some honor to the presidency, and some balance to our economic policies both at home and abroad. And barring a miracle, that can’t happen for at least 2 more years, if then.
Report comment to moderator
So what should they do, Debra? Sit back and let the governor take from them their sole bit of leverage without a word of complaint?
If you attack people’s livelihoods, and especially if you try to scapegoat them for problems they are the least part of — if even a part at all — expect them to not take it well.
Report comment to moderator
I think voting is a better methodology than mob violence or physical intimidation and shutting down the government. We saw Obamacare passed—no, DEEMED passed—without half the thuggery displayed by the union in WI. And that is a MUCH more egregious piece of legislation. You have a very short (or convenient) memory.
Report comment to moderator
WI has representative constitutional government. Let the chickenlittles return back to the state legislature and vote for their constituents.
Report comment to moderator
Oh I see. So they should sit down and shut up now and let the governor take away their bargaining power, and then impose on them whatever further cuts he has in store after they’ve lost their power to do anything to resist it, and then maybe in two year or four years they can elect new legislators who, after months of debate, might restore their bargaining power (or might not, always dicey), and then might (or might not) restore whatever salary and benefits they lost during the years they were not legally able to resist?
Vs. fight now to not lose it in the first place?
Yeah, your way makes much more sense.
Report comment to moderator
For the Marxist crowd, ‘resistance’ and revolution are always going to be more popular than voting. The masks are coming off now.
Report comment to moderator
#59 “The masks are coming off now. ”
The masks have been off for decades; it’s just that only lately have the common Joe/Jane had the incentive to claw back, and the bullies are in a quandary cause their intimidation tactics are now being openly challenged.
They see their golden goose about to be beheaded and the panic is obvious.
Go Walker, GO!!!
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
Let’s get back to reality and out of the marxist myths. The chickenlittles don’t have to return and shut-up. Just be responsible adults, vote and accept the outcome. The governor doesn’t make the laws. WI has elected representatives in the state legislature that makes the laws for the governors approval or veto. The representatives represent their respective constituents and are supposed to pass laws in conformance to their constitution. What’s the problem?
Report comment to moderator
Conan
How about the fact that for 20 years or so I had to give money to a union that I did not like or agree with? How about the fact that that same union spent lots of money to get people elected to office that I did not support?
Please explain to me how I, or anyone, should be forced to support (monetarily) people in elected office whom I did not agree with?
Government forced me to support a union that used my money for political purposes. Tell me how that is good, right or honorable. Go on, tell us all.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!