Sunday, July 10, 2011

The Journal Sentinel Opposes Recalls And Declines To Endorse: And If There Is Walker Recall?

The Journal Sentinel editorial board said in a Sunday offering, "The perpetual campaign," that it will make no endorsements in the Senate recall elections, preferring that policy decisions be hashed out by voters in regular election cycles.

And argues that recalls not be used to punish an elected official, or to undo an election, over a single issue, or vote or policy choice.

The editorial said, in part:

The perpetual campaign

Nine state senators face recall this summer in an extraordinary manifestation of political division. The recall elections are an attempt to punish policy decisions, and that's a mistake...

The Editorial Board will not recommend candidates in the recall elections. We believe policy arguments are best resolved on the floors of legislative bodies or at the ballot box during regular elections. Recalls should be used to punish gross malfeasance or corruption - something that cannot wait for the normal election cycle - not to overturn the results of an election or to dispute policy differences.
Advocates argue that the recalls hold politicians accountable. But these elections, arising from the heat generated by a single issue, risk further dividing the electorate and giving rise to a perpetual campaign. What's the harm in waiting a few months? Each of these senators will face voters in regular elections next year. Hold them accountable then - after passions have cooled.
This is a valid and defensible position, and is a good opportunity for more discussion.

My response?

What if the single action or policy choice, like, Scott Walker's erasure of most collective bargaining for public employees, uses state law to drastically alter the lives and incomes of thousands of citizens - - willfully, without their participation?

And removes their unions from the playing field?

And mandates broad limitations on local governments that prevents elected officials from making a range of budgeting and policy-making decisions with, and on behalf of, their constituents?

And that policy action was sprung by a freshly-elected Governor who won only 52% of the votes - - hardly a mandate - -  on an unsuspecting electorate after a lie of omission?

Described this way by the Journal Sentinel editorial board in March:
"Walker never campaigned on disenfranchising public-employee unions. If he had, he would not have been elected."
Described by Walker himself in the fake Koch brother call as when he "dropped the bomb."

It seems to me that in the abstract, and in most cases, the editorial would be correct.

But that there are exceptional, perhaps unique circumstances, to the trigger for the current spate of recalls, and though interest in future legislators' recalls may wane - - and I fully expect the current GOP-led Legislature to begin to rewrite the State Constitution to limit or bar the recall procedure - -  we all know that the Big One is coming this fall and winter when recall papers are circulated statewide against Walker.

And will probably force a recall election, too. That's speculation, of course, but right now I'd put money on it.

I wonder if the newspaper's no-endorsement-in-recalls position will hold if Walker, whom the paper endorsed for election in 2010 and is still sticking with, is successfully forced into a special election over, yes, a policy question that sparked the Senate recalls.

I cannot imagine the paper sitting that one out, and doing anything other than that affirming its 2010 Walker endorsement.

8 comments:

Paul Trotter said...

Excellent!

At times I think the board is divided as their weak endorsement of Walker indicated yet this editorial was clearly dominated by the "one" who doesn't like messy politics and holding public officials accountable.

Anonymous said...

Part 1

I actually think recalls look lame and immature except in ODD situations or situations of abuse/illegal behavior/misuse of office type of stuff. Similar to what Scott Walker has said I guess. And I have no idea about how he personally benefited from a recall in Milwaukee, etc etc. making him Mr. BigFatHuge Hypocrite, because my personal goal is to know as little about Milw. as possible since it already is such a power diva.

Anyways. I do not think that the denial of collective bargaining in itself is criteria for recall.
Nope, I don't. There's been a LOT of other stuff done in recent years that is heinous also. People stand by. No recalls. No drums and no tent city.
I know all 5 people who used to stand out every Wed. to protest the war. It was a lonely bunch.
I know how many kids did NOT wear red white and blue to High school as mandated by their principal when the war started. A lonelier bunch. I had one of the few cars back in the day with no yellow ribbon. Who even talks about the money wasted on militarism and the 24/7 death-machine we have running now? No one.
There are tons of examples of crappy policy that seriously hurts a lot of people. Not just war. There is no precedent for recalling dumb ideas. If so, we'd all spend our lives down at the polls.

The reason I feel a recall is OKAY (and I'm not wild about it but it seems reasonable enough)is the astronomical level of deception going on here from our boy Scotty as he leads his party into levels of duplicity and law-bending not before seen. Their behavior in that regard actually DOES get into misuse of office in my opinion.

There's no such thing as democracy in a state where there is such a DIRE level of bait-and-switch. i.e. It should be illegal for any Party to run a fake candidate. In a very similar vein, Scott Walker did stuff that was seriously NOT campaigned on. Doesn't really matter what that stuff is (to me). It's the principle.

People would crap themselves if a "liberal" did similar - run on a centrist policy using vague and oft-repeated phrases, win, and then aggressively socialize and take over private industry, mandate intense affirmative action, triple welfare with few questions asked, legalize marijuana and gay marriage, require a mosque be built next to every evangelical born-again church to be "fair and balanced", and build government-run abortion clinics in every county seat

so, if a liberal governor went comparably radical after winning, and whipped out an agenda that had been kept secret from voters during the campaign, i would say that is a deception-level that gets into mis-use of the process and subsequent mis-use of the office.

Anonymous said...

And-a-two-ah...

But that doesn't get into the recalls of the people for their votes supporting the Walker plans. A much weaker situation. Again, where were the recalls against those who voted for war, for the PATRIOT act abuses (those abuses of power are LESS horrible than teachers not being able to bargain? really?, no REALLY? okay if you say so...) , or for any lack of appropriate consequences for Enron type folks. They don't exist for the most part.

It is pretty obvious to all, that these recalls now are strategic, meant to tip the balance of power and undermine Walker. The idea that these people's act of voting to support their governor and their own party is a terrible and punishable act, well that's kinda weak. You're "supposed to" vote with your party. I can't see Democrats in all-out mutiny against a Democrat governor either. Like they would have gone all AWOL on Doyle even if Doyle had gotten super-freaky? I doubt it. So do you.
But, no one can get at Walker yet, and the rules of decency have all been shat upon so...might as well continue the defecating all over.
Nnd in the future we can enjoy all of these innovations to our political processes.
We will have fake candidates, 100% hidden campaign agendas, hacked voter machines, legislators that form a posse and run away (you know Republicans are gonna do this now in retaliation - just a question of when), Judicial choke-holds and Legislative potty-mouth, Insane-Clown think-tanks on every street corner, Roberts Rules of Order tossed into the toilet, and yes! a recall every year because someone doesn't like some other guy's shoes.

There are no adults in any of these rooms.

John Casper said...

James, thanks.

Paul Trotter said...

From Annie's statement one can only assume that she doesn't live on the other side of the fence. To call 30,000 voter lame and immature in one recall election for example is disrespectful of these voters. Annie would like democracy to be nice and tidy. Well Annie, it just ain't going to happen with Walker as governor. We don't succumb to suppression at all Annie so get used to it.

Mitch said...

The Journal Sentinel says these issues should be hashed out during the regular election cycle.

It's fair to point out, I think, that the Republicans are changing election laws and redrawing legislative districts to keep themselves in power, no matter what the voters think in 2012 or 2014.

Bill Kurtz said...

It is enjoyable, in a perverse way, to read editorials like this one, with their Alberta Darlingesque tone. They'll concede that Walker's actions are "imprudent" or "distasteful", e.g. "oh, dear, he's hanging out with those talk radio types."
But in the end, well, I could write it myself:
"They did what had to be done, and we have to take this position so Steve Smith can hold his head up at MMAC meetings. We can thus signal that it's all right to swallow hard and vote for Alberta, without having to mention her name and actually endorse her."

Mark Horn said...

It still takes 15,000 signatures to recall a sitting state senator and a half a million to recall a governor. Only extraordinary circumstances can trigger such outrage in the electorate that they will flock to recall petition drives in such numbers.
The threashold for recall is intentionally difficult. Extraordinary times warrant extradinary actions.