Friday, August 19, 2011

NY Times Makes The Case For Walker's Recall

I'm sure Walker's insiders know that what the Times is saying is true:  Recalls are difficult, and Democrats did not win control of the Senate, but there is deep dissatisfaction with Walker's approach and program even in Republican strongholds - - all suggesting Walker is vulnernable.


Anonymous said...

why do our state Democrats persist in acting as if this is a football game? They wrongly framed "recall" as a referendum on Walker, without asking the public if they also felt that "recall" was properly used for that. The results CLEARLY show they do not.
No one was convicted of Guilt By Association which was what the Democrats were striving for. People who were NOT obviously corrupt held on to their seats, The public did not prematurely eject people who they felt had won office fair and square because of the Democrat/Republican idiotic Rival Team hatred for each other.

Message not received apparently.
The so-called logic of basing a Walker recall on whether or not the Dems won a big recall sweep does not have parallel in the minds of the public. They don't see it that way.
Nor do they see the Democrats us pure heroic guys on white horses.

If anything the recalls were a side-show that diluted rage against Walker by the way the Dems deliberately spread it over other people. Once again Guilt By Association, it's not legal, it's not how we do things here in WI and the Party will have to just suck that up. (But obviously they still wanna see thing as if everyone in WI is a hard core Democrat and EVERYONE thinks like they do. If not, you must be a teapartier. God, these people!)

Walker was the source of the problems, Him and the Fitz boys and grothmann were at the forefront. The Dems seeing all Reps as interchangeable, couldn't get at the Bad Boys so they thought some other Reps would be the same. Not to the public. Killing a footsoldier because you can't get at his general is weird.

Now they (Dems) have to start over, from a point of having deliberately diffused the anger over Walker on to other people, and re-assess where the public mood is re: Walker. I still think it is not good. And as other news Items play out that actually ARE related to Walker policies, that may help re-focus some of the ire that the Democrats themselves diffused. Like the Verizon thing. That creepy article you linked to the other day, that kind of hatred and assault on regular people.
That is what makes him recall-able. His over-reach and cruelty to his own citizenry.
I doubt he sill change so he'll keep poking in the people's wounds. Walker is the problem and will remain so. Tate and others apparently thought they could play a big chess game and move some pawns in to block Walker. So it failed to work like they planned. I guess the public (who they needed to accomplish this) did not perceive the Republicans acing recall as pawns in the same manner, but as human beings. too bad huh. And the mood as such before these recalls was that to say "I think you should wait and attack Walker himself and forget these smaller fish" would have been seen as absolute heresy. The party wanted blood and was not willing to wait. Any victim will do.

But anyways, Democrats have GOT to take their Party Goggles off and start being receptive to how normal people who probably dislike parties think.

They just refuse to. How can you represent people you refuse to hear?

RWW said...

I'm sure Walker's political number-crunchers have done the math, hence the recent conciliatory verbiage.

It's easy to focus one's rage on Walker, but that misses out on why we get involved in politics anyway--to make our world a better place to live in. Wars are not fought simply to decapitate rulers, and thus it is with politics.

Following through with that war metaphor, I'm puzzled by Annie's comment "Killing a footsoldier because you can't get at his general is wierd." That's the way it usually works in wars, and I don't see it working any differently in politics.

If the recalls allow for moderate Senate Republicans to have a voice--and for that we'll have to wait and see--then something good may come out of this. Life in Fitzwalkerstan may be incrementally more tolerable.

By the way, Annie, although Hopper had his personal problems, my take on Kapanke is that he's an honorable man who chose to go along with his party. Guilt by association and rightly convicted.

Now, if Dems really want to take off their party goggles and expedite the Walker recall, they should recruit an electable candidate to run as an independent. Avoid the whole fake primary business.

Paul Trotter said...

It's not guilt by association. How about guilt by blind and pressured rubber stamping of his vengeful and ALEC based policies. Dale Schultz was the only republican who had the independence to vote his conscience. He is not guilty as proven by his actions. The recalls inflicted just the amount of pain into Walker's ALEC train to slow it down and make Walker consider praying for guidance on how to work with people. Alas, his DNA will prevent him form doing so. A recall at the appropriate time would indeed create another 3 months of exciting politics. This monster has to go.

Ron R said...

It's interesting that the NEW YORk TIMES is so concerned and has nothing closer to home to write about than who is the govenor in WI.

xoff said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
xoff said...

This seems to have escaped your notice, Ron, but the NY Times is a national newspaper.

Ron R said...

It may have escaped your's XOn/Xoff, but with Al Gore's invention of the internet, almost every paper is a national paper. That doesn't necessarily make them the experts on events happening half way across the country.

xoff said...

I guess, Ron, that is why in the future you will always restrict your comments to local items that you know about firsthand. We'd all appreciate that.

A. Wag said...

That sounds like zero postings for Ron R.