Dear Governor Scott Walker

We need to talk. I was thinking about a few things before I fell asleep last night. Here’s what is on my mind:

1) The recalls are happening. They are your fault. I know, that’s blunt, but I’m not exactly known for beating around a bush. I don’t think it will change the balance of power in the Senate, but I’ve been wrong before. I’ll be ticked if you don’t follow through on a few things before those votes.

2) I want voter ID, dammit. Yesterday. Can you please explain why you are so content to Tweet around the state about your lunch while I have no guarantee someone didn’t vote in three polling locations?

3) I want this budget business nailed down. Cross the t’s and dot the i’s and drag the Senate through an ironclad vote. I know it would be more fun to let Sumi land on her face in front of her judicial peers, but the longer you drag out this unknown contract issue with the municipalities and school districts, the more it’s going to hurt.

Those vulnerable Republican Senators aren’t going to lose a single vote by sticking to their original decision. Enough is known about the recall filings to take action. Make it happen.

Besides, I need to gloat. It won’t be so much the collective bargaining than the removal of mandatory dues that brings a smile to my face. If it makes you feel any better, you can think of it as cleaning up organized crime in Wisconsin. That’s the way I see it.

4) Could you please be more judicious with your political appointments? Good grief that side of you is annoying. You discount all of the good work you accomplish when you plop a campaign donor into a high-paying government job. Cut it out.

That’s it for now. I need more coffee. I reserve the right to add to this list as the day continues.



  1. Yea, that sounds good. Stop playing in the sand Gov. Walker, game time is done.

  2. Scott Thinnes says:


    Concealed Carry – one of two out of 50 is stupid!! It’s working fine everywhere else and Constitutional Carry (can’t call it Vermont style anymore) is expanding all of the time… Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming.

    States currently considering Constitutional Carry – Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennesee and West Virginia.

  3. Thanks for that addition, Mr. Thinnes.

  4. I will just guess, bet, predict that nothing on your list will happen, expediently. For whatever reason, he’s not going ‘there’. He’s the Governor, for cryin’ out loud. Could have done anything on your list if he desired. He doesn’t desire. Or he’s afraid. Why else would he sit on his executive hands?

  5. Anonymous Politico says:

    This is well said. I don’t agree with everything Scott Walker has done so far this year, but he’s off to a much stronger start than I thought he would be. He does need to clean up a few areas so there aren’t problems down the road, like the whole issue of political appointments. Someone in that office is still making bad decisions at that level.

  6. Yep, I agree. Especially with point 2. Here’s why:

    McCain won 173 electoral votes. But McCain states netted 6 EVs from redistricting. I think it is overwhelmingly likely the Republicans win every state McCain won plus will take back IN (11), VA (13), FL (29), NC (15), and the electoral vote in NE that Obama won (1). That puts the Republican at 248 electoral votes.

    I think the Republican also has a great shot at picking up Ohio… that would be 18 more electoral votes to get to 266. So from there, the Republicans would have to win one more state. Any state.

    There are a few candidates (IA, NM, CO, NV, NH) but I think our best chance could be Wisconsin. So a close election in Wisconsin could very well decide the presidency in 2012.

    So just do it. Find a clear example of voter fraud on the left from the close Supreme Court election. Talk about how everyone wants fair elections and everyone agrees it is fair that only WI residents get to vote and no one gets to vote once and even though people say it only has a small impact, recent history has shown that a small impact could result in a stolen election so we want to take a very basic measure to ensure fairness.

    If there are any moderate voters left in Wisconsin, that sort of common sense message will resonate with them.

  7. John Foust says:

    2. You’d like a guarantee that someone didn’t vote in three polling locations? Is this like hunting for domestic terrorists? It smells that way. Let’s play. But what if the domestic terrorist managed to forge the new State ID four times, then voted in four polling locations?

  8. John Foust says:

    4. I heard Brian Deschane, after getting his $60K job, then promoted to his $80K job, then demoted to his $60K job again, is getting yet another cushy patronage job: he’s been given the position of high school English teacher in the Potosi Public School District.

  9. I just had another idea. Since everyone is complaining about the Kloppenburg recount (to which she is legally entitled to not only have, but have the state foot the bill) how about you amend that law to say the state will pay for a recount with the allowed percentage but if the votes remain with 80% of the current totals, the candidate agrees to fund it instead.

    That way only the most emphatic of concerns would see a recount.

  10. Ryan Morgan says:

    Since typically counts would only move a couple hundred votes, I think it should be a sliding scale. If the race is a dead-heat, the state will pick up the full cost. If the the margin is .5% the loser can choose a recount but must pay the full expense. If the margin is .25% the state pays half and the losing candidate pays half. and so on.

    So in the sorts of really close elections where a recount would actually matter, the state pays the vast majority of the cost. In cases like this where it is 99.9999% that Klop lost, she has to pay most of the cost if she wants to put everyone through the trouble of a recount.

  11. John Foust says:

    An interesting notion, Randy, but it makes the public interest the loser. Although you and I may be willing to bet a doughnut the JoKlo isn’t going to win, the probability isn’t zero. The sliding scale is weighted against discovering the largest errors. I think the straight margin for a free recount is a pretty good compromise.

  12. Dear John, that was Ryan, not Randy.

    Does it surprise me you don’t want change? Heavens no. Of course, were the tables turned, you’d no doubt think it a fine idea.

  13. John Foust says:

    Tables turned? In what sense? The rule’s the rule. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with allowing for a public-funded recount. It applies to everyone. So does the privately-funded recount when it’s not in that range. I would guess within the next three years we’ll see one of them, too.

  14. since we have public financing for Gov. and Supreme Court, we also have public financing for election issues (recount). better to have both than to have none. the legislators made this the law. just to hopefully put WI election irregularities to rest this is worth the money. if it turns up someting bad that is also worth it. we are in a money oriented society so it is fair to give us all a chance to get on the bandwagon. there is nothing more precious than my vote , and yours. after all, we are a democracy. there have been and will be more useless spending of taxpayer money. the USA is watching us so do it the right way. maybe i am in the wrong blog but the ideals still apply. if i were a teacher i would grade both political parties zero in a good faith attempt to end entitlements to feather their own bed. BTW, feel free to correct me on the facts. in the law there is a way to do justice. it is called DUE PROCESS. when we have due process it is the best that can be done.