WisDems beg to keep the hate alive

I don’t go all “you suck Democrats!” very often, but I’m close. Darn close. I am so disgusted by the desire they have to keep this state torn to shreds. Now the fight is over districts to recall three State Senators. Whatever. Even if, my dear stupid Wisconsin Democrat readers, even if you replace the Governor and replace the Senate, you are still going to have a Republican Assembly to block your bad policies. I’ll say it again, all this recall scuttle is to keep a few crime bosses employed. It does nothing for the rest of this state.

Elections have consequences. Even more importantly, failed Democratic leadership and failed Democratic ideals have consequences. Democrats are where you are in Wisconsin because you sold out to organized crime to maintain your power. That the majority of this state is on to you means you need to regroup without the crime. All your weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth is kind of funny. And while we’re laughing, I’ll politely ask, so what is Jim Doyle up to these days?

WisDems, I’m going to help you spend all that money your crime bosses provide to keep things nasty in Wisconsin. I will click on every Google recall ad I find with WisDems attached to it from every computer I own all day long. I remember another state candidate once mentioning how expensive those ads were. They were breaking the budget. Well, I can help you with that. And I promise to laugh while I’m doing it. If you insist that this is what democracy looks like, well, I’ll have no problem playing according to your rules. One of you whined last week that he was so tired of all the nastiness. I laughed at that, too.

I guess the joke is on you, WisDems. For all the hate you need to survive, there’s a lot of laughing going on around here. The more you prance around in anger, the more fun I’m having at your expense.

Happy Monday. Drive that news cycle. Get those signatures. Some where in a $700-a-night hotel room a crime boss is counting on you while he waits for room service.

Comments

  1. FactOrOpinion? says:

    Tis the season to be jolly:)

  2. Democracy: It’s tough on Tea Party GOP autocrats.

  3. Phil, no, I’d disagree. Clicking that ad is pretty easy stuff.

  4. What I find so amusing about this post is that it is, like so much conservative writing out there, a big logical fallacy. It assumes an emotional and motivational state for the other and proceeds to unfold an argument based on that fallacy.

    In this case, the fallacy is “hate.” There is no evidence of “hate” presented, it is simply assumed to be a state of mind of the generica “Democrat.”

    Most Dems I know (and I am not a Dem, for the record) are driven by the incompetence of the Walker administration and by the disingenuousness of Walker and the Fitzgerald brothers. Hate never figures into it.

    Frankly, Walker is too much of a buffoon for me to hate. I may despise his policy positions because they are counterproductive to things like GDP growth and poverty alleviation, but hate him personally? No. It’s like hating a bad clown. Why bother?

  5. Then explain your goals given the obvious hurdles to effect change without Democrats in control of all three branches of government? Why perpetuate the recalls if you won’t accomplish anything in the end?

    (Another giggle for the Democrat who just isn’t a Democrat. You guys are amusing.)

  6. Because if we can prevent the implementation of further failed policies (many of which are authored in DC by ALEC and do not represent the goals and objectives of the citizens of Wisconsin) then further savaging of the state can be prevented.

    I’d have thought that that would be obvious.

  7. Sorry Cindy, your little plan is all wet. Online pay-per-click ad services are well aware of schemes such as yours, and malicious clickers are easily identified and ignored. In fact, malicious clicking could be considered illegal in certain jurisdictions, and is definitely against terms of service on many online service providers and could easily get you banned. Of course, there are ways to get around this. But do you really want to bother setting up proxies, faking ISPs, resetting sessions, etc. to cost your evil enemy a nickle a click?

  8. Oooh. A conspiracy. I thought is was the Koch brothers that caused you to quake in huddled groups. I’m having trouble keeping up.

    What changes are in the future that have not already been implemented?

  9. Before the wounds can heal, the bleeding has to stop.

  10. And Cindy, I notice you didn’t bother to refute the observation that you, like so many other conservative “commentators,” love the logical fallacy “argument” strategy. You construct straw men and then act like mighty warriors, victorious in your ability to knock them over. It’s kind of sad, really. But do what you’re good at, I suppose. Refuting actual arguments from actual people is hard when the facts consistently refute your policy positions time and time again.

    One day you will realize that this strategy doesn’t work anymore. But that day is not today.

    You hacked up another logical fallacy hairball in your comment about my assertion that I’m not a Democrat. I don’t think you even realize you’re doing it! It’s reflexive (and mildly pathological).

    My interests may coincide with the policy positions of the Democratic Party from time to time, I am not, nor have I ever been a member of the Democratic party.

    (giggle!)

  11. There’s no reason to “refute” anything. You attempted to gain control of the argument and you failed. Boo hoo.

    And so I will ask again: What changes are in Wisconsin’s future that have not already been implemented? As you explained, these yet unspoken but anticipated changes are why you are working to recall a governor and three state senators.

  12. Cindy. there is a point about the generic use of a general statement. only 20 to 30% vote in some elections and WI does not have a party registration system. in my opinion the middle moderate class is growing larger because of the political discourse. those people have no ax to grind and are for good government and capable office holders. many like myself just had a wonderful thanksgiving with no political haggling. who speaks for the moderate ?

  13. Cindy: Ok, I’ll take your response as a tacit agreement that your utilization of the logical fallacy was both intentional and will continue. Got it.

    And since I’m not privy to what ALEC has in store for our state, it’s best to preempt any future out-of-state medling in Wisconsin politics and policy.

    Boo-hoo to you too!

  14. Oh, but jimspice…you underestimate my understanding of this matter. Plus, it’s fun!

  15. Oh. Ok, Phil. So you set out a lie by claiming “we can prevent the implementation of further failed policies (many of which are authored in DC by ALEC and do not represent the goals and objectives of the citizens of Wisconsin) then further savaging of the state can be prevented.”

    And then you said you thought that would have been obvious. But when I asked you to articulate the potential policies, they didn’t exist, so I guess it wasn’t that obvious. You are attempting to recall a governor and three state senators, not because you hate them, and not because there are future policy changes you fear, and not because you can effect change regarding the policies already implemented, but because…

    Oh, come on. Tell me why again.

  16. When I said

    “we can prevent the implementation of further failed policies (many of which are authored in DC by ALEC and do not represent the goals and objectives of the citizens of Wisconsin) then further savaging of the state can be prevented.”

    I was expressing MY opinion, not projecting an opinion onto YOU. Got it? It’s not a “lie” or a straw man or anything other than my opinion. I’m actually entitled to express MY opinion but YOU are NOT entitled to express MY opinion.

    You then mischaracterize my position when you write “You are attempting to recall a governor and three state senators, not because you hate them, and not because there are future policy changes you fear, and not because you can effect change regarding the policies already implemented, but because…”

    What I wrote was:”And since I’m not privy to what ALEC has in store for our state, it’s best to preempt any future out-of-state medling in Wisconsin politics and policy.”

    Simply because I don’t know what the GOP / ALEC has in store for my state, it’s best to remove the Governor and as much of the policy apparatus as possible to ensure no more damage is done to Wisconsin. Got it now?

  17. What is a “crime boss” and who are these people?

  18. How ’bout this one, a real nod to “local control:” http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/f/f0/3A9-State_Pesticide_Preemption_Act_Exposed.pdf

    Explore the site. All the model legislation is there.

  19. jimspice: I have. My concern is with what might NOT be there. 🙂

    “Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you!”

  20. Lorax, intelligent and compelling question that no one else has asked. I suppose you could substitute the word “union” for “crime.”

    Phil. Thank goodness we live in a country where you can have an opinion. How sad that I do not.

    jimspice – Does “alecexposed.com” come from a garage with photos on the walls connected by strings?

    Wait – I just received an email with some real news. Back soon.

  21. Scott Walker is elected and all of a sudden the Left is the daily watchdog of government with a blog or more a day on JSOnline on Walker and Company. I would give more credence to Left’s positions and claims if this type of watch dogging had been consistent during the James Doyle administration and if the intensity of the watch dogging is maintained, if and when, a Governor Recall takes office. The ethically challenged Doyle was famous for the lie ““We should not, we must not, and I will not raise taxes” among other questionable things. The current situation is nothing more than a desire to redo the results of the Walker election and falsely assume the Union/Democratic Party symbiotic relationship and gravy train will be restored.

  22. Cindy: From logical fallacy to victim in one comment stream! You sure can turn on a dime!

    “Thank goodness we live in a country where you can have an opinion. How sad that I do not.”

    Sad…

  23. Shorter leapin: Blah, blah, blah, DOYLE, blah, blah, blah, DEMOCRATS, blah, blah, blah UNIONS blah.

  24. Nope, it’s a project of the Center for Media and Democracy, located in Madison. You’ll notice they disclose contributors, and list themselves as non-profit, but NOT as non-partisan (http://www.prwatch.org/finances.html). I hate it when groups with an obvious agenda attempt to hide it.

  25. Phil, muttermutter. Have a good rest of your Monday. Go out there and get some signatures!

  26. Not specifically ALEC related, but maybe taking one or both of exec or senate might stop the (R)s from banning the pill: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/proposals/ajr77

  27. I’m wondering if Cindy can articulate what specific crimes union “bosses” have committed that would make them “crime bosses.”

  28. jimspice, you are a little desperate, aren’t you?

  29. Desperate? To keep Wisconsin from moving further right than Mississippi? ABSOLUTELY!

  30. Sure Zach. Just as soon as Phil comes up with a reason he’s working so hard to recall Walker and three state senators.

  31. Cindy, take the teabags out of your ears and listen. I know it’s hard to hear things you don’t want to hear, you’ve demonstrated that ably here on your blog. For the third, and FINAL time:

    ”And since I’m not privy to what ALEC has in store for our state, it’s best to preempt any future out-of-state medling in Wisconsin politics and policy.”

    The way to do that is to recall as many Republicans as we possibly can and ensure that we never elect them again.

    Any questions?

  32. So in other words, you’re just talking out of your hind-end, because union bosses have committed no crimes. Instead, you’ve labeled them as “crime bosses” simply because that’s the rhetoric all the “cool kids” are using on the conservative side of things.

    It’s sad to see what you’ve become….your blog’s tagline is more of a joke rather than reality, because you’re no better than Fred Dooley and his ilk.

  33. jimspice: Exactly. I don’t want to live in Wississippi either.

  34. No, Zach. This is a serious issue to me, and so I will answer. I feel strongly that organized crime is a major player in non-trade unions. I think the unions launder money. Did I see it for myself last week? No, but I don’t get out much. There are newspaper articles from different places over the years to indicate there’s a connection. I think it’s sad because the unions who have been so good for worker’s rights in the history of our country get swirled in confusion with those unions who exist only to provide cover for illegal activities. That didn’t come from my hind-end. It came from my brain, and it’s a legitimate concern of mine.

    It’s always sad to see you guys attack a blogger personally when you can’t win on the subject. I guess you are just doing your part to keep the hate alive.

  35. Yes, Phil. Why aren’t you out there collecting signatures?

  36. Cindy: I think you overestimate the criminality of unions (trade or otherwise). Jimmy Hoffa is a great whipping boy for a lot of anti-union propaganda, but how does that translate to public sector unions? What evidence do you have that the unions that Walker and the GOP attacked were involved in criminality?

    And “Not getting out” is hardly an excuse for making that kind of general accusation.

  37. It’s my opinion. You got to have one, remember?

    Plus, it’s more than just Hoffa. Last January in New York for example.

    I find it amusing (see? what would I do without you?) that you were unable to win your own argument so you took up Zach’s. Still waiting for a legitimate answer on why you are recalling Walker.

  38. “I feel strongly that organized crime is a major player in non-trade unions.”

    That’s what you wrote, and as “proof” of your assertion, you cited a NYT article that discusses mob control of Local 6A of the Cement and Concrete Workers Union in New York, which by the way happens to be a trade union.

    I’m still waiting for some proof of criminal activity on the part of the union “bosses” involved in the recall effort here in Wisconsin.

  39. And I explained I didn’t need proof to be concerned. But you are correct – it looks like unions of all kinds are at risk.

  40. Cindy: My gosh, you’re right. Two locals in New York were accused of having mob connections! Two whole locals!

    First, do you know how many locals there are in the United States? I don’t, but I’m willing to wager that it’s more than 5,000. There are 15,4 million union members in the US so 5,000 locals is not out of the question.

    Second, the indictments were against individuals, not against the locals (let alone the national unions). So every time there’s embezzlement from a company, do you blame the company or the individuals who did the embezzling?

    Third, “There are newspaper articles from different places over the years to indicate there’s a connection.” is NOT an opinion. It’s a statement of fact. I merely asked you to back that fact up with data which you have done, though I challenge your interpretation of that data and your use of the indictment of members of two locals as a wholesale indictment of the labor movement in America. Nor does this provide any reinforcement for Walker’s attack on AFSCME and the other public sector unions.

    I’m sorry you’re feeling victimized again. It seems to be a perpetual state for many (most?) conservatives in this country. So put upon you all are… It’s so sad. (a little “concern troll” for you, Cindy!)

  41. Cindy learns the “concern troll” meme!

    “And I explained I didn’t need proof to be concerned. But you are correct – it looks like unions of all kinds are at risk.”

    Yay, Cindy! Well done! You get a Gold Internet Troll Star for that one!

  42. Hmm. Last time I commented on this blog was to question the blogger’s reading comprehension. Phil has patiently explained his reason three times, and Cindy doesn’t get it.

    If Cindy had read the article that she had provided in the link above, she would have noticed that a longshoreman’s local was a victim of organized crime.

  43. Phil, you’ve led an entire day of comments on one post of mine and you call me the troll?

    Let it be known whatever kind of legitimacy you were hoping to cultivate has been washed away in your one day’s effort. Your claim to not be a Democrat is probably felt with relief by those who are Democrats. I suspect you are one of those folks who will spend all day on a computer on a meaningless blog and then wonder why capitalism has failed you.

    But you know, party on. 😉

  44. RWW: I realize now that a Venn diagram consisting of two figures, “Cindy” and “Reading Comprehension,” represent two discrete, non-overlapping circles.

    Willful ignorance is hard to combat with facts.

  45. She’s at it again! Concern troll and logical fallacy in one comment! FTW, Cindy, FTW!

    “Let it be known whatever kind of legitimacy you were hoping to cultivate has been washed away in your one day’s effort. Your claim to not be a Democrat is probably felt with relief by those who are Democrats. I suspect you are one of those folks who will spend all day on a computer on a meaningless blog and then wonder why capitalism has failed you.”

    You know nothing about me yet you think you do. And who wasted a day on a “meaningless blog”? It takes two to tango, darling. It was a nice dance but the music’s over now.

  46. He called me darling. The only men who have ever called me “darling” are as not-gay as they are not-democrats. But you know, I don’t have any proof to back that up.

  47. Cindy: Wow… Homophobia now? Really? You think calling me gay insults me? You’re one pathetic specimen.

    Zach’s right. Your blog is quite misnamed. There’s nothing “Fairly” about you.

  48. I didn’t think it an insult. I’m just saying that the only men who have called me “darling” are gay. But like I said, I don’t have any proof for that. Why would you take it as an insult?

  49. Yikes! This has gone from bad to worse. And Conway Twitty is rolling in his grave. He’s dead, right?

  50. Cindy you really have to ask WHY we would recall the governor and the Senators? Seriously?

  51. Yes, Jeff. I am asking if it’s not hate, it won’t make any changes to the policies that have passed, and there’s no one to articulate the policies they fear will change in the future, why a recall when you failed in those elections?

    I mean, it’s not like I can be right or anything and you are being jerked around by a guy in a $700 hotel room.

  52. Its not hate with me, although I have no respect for our unethical governor. How do you figure it WONT make any changes to the policies that have passed?

    NO ONE wins the Governorship without campaigning on restoring collective bargaining rights. Its that simple.

    I dont get your $700 a night hotel rooms unless your referring to Robin Vos stay at the ALEC convention. $700 buys two bottles of wine as an appetizer for Paul Ryan….

  53. Wishful thinking re: the campaigning for bargaining rights, but that’s my opinion, too.

    The point I made earlier is that the Assembly will still be strongly R, so nothing in the way of change back could be passed.

    What is it with you guys and ALEC? I bet the Koch brothers are feeling left out.

  54. The assembly across the board comes up for election every two years, this next election cycle will be that year.

    I get that the repubs have done everything in their power, short of outlawing voting democratic(which im sure they would if they could) to rig the election in their favor.

    They have to face the voters. Not sure if you have been paying attention but taking bargaining rights away from workers is not a very popular platform to run on. Neither is the fact that we have lost jobs every single month under Scott Walker. I know you will disagree but the electorate is left of this center, and are in awe of the far reaching power grab they have seen the republicans do and will let them know its not ok.

    I wish ALEC was not a problem, I wihs that repubs all over the country did not meet with them and then come back and introduce bills word for word exactly as they were told, but the grimm reality is that it is real and a major threat to our democracy.

  55. So, the only reason you can give me for the recalls is wishful thinking and a longing for the way things were? You still haven’t (nor did Phil, despite his claims otherwise) give me a reason for the recalls.

    UPDATE –

    Wait. Maybe you did. The reason for the recalls is the hope to restore collective bargaining rights. I.e., the union wants their power back. But given the R Assembly (I know, I keep mentioning that) and the new districts for voting over the next decade, aren’t you being a little delusional?

  56. Wishful thinking? No wishful thinking at all. This is not about the Dems its about Scott Walker himself. This is not a two party story or he said she said. This is absolutely about the ethics and lies of Scott Walker.

    you cant take peoples rights away(even if they dont use them) in America and expect to get away with it. Its that simple. Since he knew all along he was going to break the public unions yet never campaigned on it (i know you knew it was coming yet no one else did) then we would not be here.

    Yet he felt the need to “drop the bomb” on everyone thus dropping the bomb on his political career. EXACTLY the same reason we have recalls in the Constitution as is.

  57. The Senators reasons are the same except for scotty fitz who blatantly has broken law after law and even likes to yell and intimidate women if they dare speak to him.

  58. Yes, the recalls are allowed by the constitution. Get those signatures, let us verify them, and then we’ll see. But don’t pretend this is about anything other than unions desperate to restore their power in the state of Wisconsin. To come close to a win they must keep the hate alive. You guys aren’t even tilting at windmills. It’s truly an impossible dream to restore collective bargaining for public employees in this state with the current political climate. (Interesting that we’ve come full-circle back to my original point in the post.)

    And what about defending Obama in the next year?

    Are you really being convinced that you can pull it off, or is there another goal at hand? I have to think about that for a bit.

  59. Oh, and by the way:

    Walker supports a bill that would take a way the rights of unions to negotiate healthcare benefits. Ryan Murray, Campaign Policy Advisor for Walker, said “The way the proposal would work is we would take the choice out of the collective barganing process.”

    Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 8/29/10

    You are either lying on purpose or at least perpetuating a myth when you claim, “he [Walker] knew all along he was going to break the public unions yet never campaigned on it.” There it is in print from last August with a link to the story and everything.

  60. You do understand that the current political climate is – HUGE buyers remorse over the republican majority because they took workers rights away.

    So yes under the current political climate I do expect collective bargaining rights to be restored. in case you think im not on the right path see Ohio.

    Has nothing to do with Hate and everything to do with uniquely American beliefs and ideals.

  61. You do understand the only way you win is to lie (see MJS quote) and keep the hate alive, right?

    It still won’t do a thing for collective bargaining rights. You aren’t taking the Ohio strategy, so why would you expect the same results?

  62. Well you just gave us another reason to recall. Lying under oath, since the gov testified under oath that he never campaigned on ending public unions.

    As for the only way to win is to lie, have you checked Scottys record with politifact?

  63. Link please?

    Politifact is there to sell papers. No one’s record with Politifact is more than 50/50.

  64. Yes, Cindy, that was SUCH a big part of the campaign that it only took you guys A FULL 9 MONTHS SINCE THE BUDGET BILL to track it down. I never saw this and apparently no one else did either.

  65. That’s not true either, jimspice, because although I can’t find the link right now to my own blog, I’ve covered it before months ago. It was easier to find from JSOnline.

    So, that’s conceded. Someone from Walker’s campaign said Walker would take the choice out of collective bargaining. What wasn’t said? Well, even though there’s no link from Jeff yet, what wasn’t said is that Walker would end the public unions. The unions can still exist. No problem. So if those are the words on which the left is relying, that’s not the case, either.

    I still think it’s very cool someone from the left gave in on the “Walker never said” meme. Woohoo! This long blog day has finally born decent fruit.

  66. Nope. I’ve never seen anyone point to anything since this all began, and suddenly today, all the righty blogs have it. They didn’t remember either or they would have been all over it the first and many times it was mentioned.

  67. No Cindy, someone from Walker’s campaign said he’d “take a way the rights of unions to negotiate healthcare benefits.”

    That’s not the same as taking away virtually all collective bargaining rights as Act 10 did. Act 10 went much further than taking away collective bargaining rights for health care benefits, as you well know.

  68. does anyone remember Gimbie and Ellie , and Billy the Brownie ?

  69. Fine. I’ll try to find it jimspice. Expect to be amazed. 🙂 It’s just because the left popped up the “never said it” meme again in an advert that you’re seeing the rebuttal today. Also, just because you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it wasn’t said prior to the election.

    Zach, sadly, I can’t find a link for your quote, nor did you provide one, but you can’t fight:

    The way the proposal would work is we would take the choice out of the collective bargaining process.”

    That’s the 5th paragraph after “already in pool.” (Well, you can try, but you are going to look silly.)

    And to repeat, that’s not the same as “ending public unions” as Jeff claimed.

  70. Cindy, your entire argument seems to boil down to, “They can’t do any more damage because they’ve done everything they could” That’s hardly true on its face. There are dozens of bad bills backed up, just waiting for the next floor session.

    Jacques’ so-called “personhood” bill is, all on its own, the perfect reason to get these people away from the levers of power.

    You apparently understand hate so you ascribe that as a motive to everyone else. You seem to be willing to acknowledge greed as a motivator for only your opponents and fail to see it in your friends.

    The John Birch/Bradley/Koch cum ALEC connections aren’t even being denied by the palyers themselves; they see Walker’s scorched earth policies as a victory. I’m not as worried about Wisconsin turning into Mississippi as having it turn into pre-war Italy.

  71. Oh grumps. Hey! But you sound really goofy there.

  72. Cindy, my quote is directly from your comment. I’d say I’m surprised you didn’t remember something you wrote in a comment from mere hours ago, but given what I’ve read here today, nothing would surprise me from you.

    I’ll admit that I’m disappointed that you’ve gone from really being aptly described as “Fairly Conservative” to something more along the lines of “Wholly Conservative” or “Angrily Conservative” or even “Lock-Step Conservative.”

  73. There you go with the personal thing again.

    The quote, Zach, is from an MJS article. Your blip is the reporter talking. The Walker campaign, however, said something different, as we’ve already discussed, and quoted, before. Did the reporter miss something? Maybe. But it was still declared by the campaign.

    And Tada! I found it jimspice. It seems Jeff and I have been on this road before.

  74. yes we were and we should not be at this point now….its clear walker admitted it.

    Asked if he had really campaigned on a plan to roll back collective bargaining rights, Walker repeatedly danced around the question, insisting he had campaigned on a “range” of promises to impose fiscal discipline. But Connolly kept pressing the point, and finally asked him point blank: Did you “explicitly” campaign on this proposal?

    “No,” Walker conceded.

  75. Link?

  76. “I feel strongly that organized crime is a major player in non-trade unions….Did I see it for myself last week? No”

    “And I explained I didn’t need proof to be concerned.”

    Facts really are stupid things. Just go with the gut.

  77. The most “hate” I have seen in a long time has occurred in your posts about WisDems…

  78. Randy in Richmond says:

    Gee Cindy, I go out of town for a day and you enter a Post that generates 70 something Comments. As it’s late, or early, I began to read thru them but thankfully early on in Comment #4 Phil’s statement that he is not a Dem saved me some time. His own bio states “he worked on the Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Obama campaigns gathering signatures”. Are there any other ‘non-Dem’ contributors to Blogging Blue ?

  79. That’s a charming catch, Randy. Those not-Dems are a loyal bunch, huh? (And if he worked on the Carter campaign he’s much older than I would have suspected.)

  80. Craig T – I wish I had the power to follow my instincts on this one. But alas, I am but a whining housewife and not attorney general of Wisconsin.

  81. Come on, Jeff. Where’s a link? Or is it your opinion that Walker said the things you wrote? 😉

  82. Jeff, you gave a video with Kucinich grilling Walker. I’ve scanned it a couple of times, and can’t find the quote you gave. (Warning, that video does nothing to make Kucinich lovable.) So, if it’s there, please offer a time in that video.

    Also, your quote used “Connolly” as the source who extracted the confession from Walker. Who is Connolly? I’d still like a link for that quote.

  83. Zuma Bound says:

    Well, Ms. Cindy, in the interests of full disclosure, I am a progressive who came by occasionally because other progressives elsewhere described you as being a reasonable and fair-minded conservative.

    Up until I read this post of yours, and your contributions to the comment thread below it, I found that I generally agreed with that assessment. I also thought that you were witty and entertaining.

    Unfortunately, there is a fine line between clever wit and sophistry.

    Cheech and Chong used to “dog” George Carlin because, while they thought his “wordplay” was clever, they saw it as being just “air”, nothing really there beyond the cleverness.

    As I read your comments here, particularly those directed at Phil and Jeff, you seemed to be hiding behind “air”, clever one-line retorts and “tongue-in-cheek” personal attacks, rather than substantively responding. Pure [and regrettable] sophistry.

    I thought that you were better than that. I guess that I was wrong about that.

    I was chagrined to see you hypocritically engage in the very kind of personal attacks at which you took such umbrage earlier on in the thread, rather than substantively respond.

    Well, Cindy, as a consequence, I find myself agreeing with the other progressives here and elsewhere who have commented on the things that you have said here. You are more thin-skinned than I ever imagined, and hardly “fairly” conservative. Catty, childish conservative simpletons/bloggers like Fred Dooley are probably chortling with delight at your willingness to use your intellect to serve the hyper-partisan “dark side” of conservative politics, as you have here.

    That said, Cindy, your clever dancing around the fact notwithstanding, Phil more than adequately answered your sophistry with substance.

    Furthermore, while I know that it’s hard for you to admit it, Jeff prevailed in your exchanges with him regarding whether or not Governor Walker campaigned on his plan to take away collective bargaining rights.

    In his Congressional testimony, Walker unambiguously said that he had not campaigned on such a plan. The fact that, somewhere in some obscure Walker campaign document, a Walker campaign representative made a tangential reference to the idea of taking away collective bargaining rights hardly makes it a central plank in Walker’s campaign platform. All of the sophistry in the world, even yours, can’t change or obscure that fact.

    Anyway, with this post, Ms. Cindy, you’ve proven to be a disappointment. Such a sad development. Oh, well. Life in the fast lane, I guess.

    Zuma

    P.S. Phil was right to mock your use of the *giggle*. Not only is it a plainly disrespectful deflection, it’s silly and sophomoric.

  84. Zuma – you lectured me on Cheech and Chong! My life is complete.

    And while you are shaking your head, kindly remember it’s my blog and therefore I can save “substantive” rebuttals for a new blog post.

    Forgive me for not living up to your expectations. I’m sure that will haunt me.

    (PS. This is an update to the earlier comment, but you sure do write a lot like Emily Mills. That should be a big compliment to you because she’s very talented.)

  85. Zach, you talking about anyone and their “ilk” is truly something. Have you seen the hatefest you run lately?

  86. Fred, go crawl back under your rock.

  87. Zuma Bound says:

    Ms. Cindy: “Zuma – you lectured me on Cheech and Chong! My life is complete.”

    I didn’t lecture you on Cheech and Chong, or anything else. How ironic that you elected to just respond to a valid point with more snarky, insubstantial “air”.

    Ms. Cindy: “And while you are shaking your head, kindly remember it’s my blog and therefore I can save “substantive” rebuttals for a new blog post.”

    “Nice, convenient AND lazy out. And yet you mock people like Phil for purportedly not satisfying your apparently insincere and impossible-to-satisfy standards regarding matters of substance and proof.

    “Forgive me for not living up to your expectations.”

    Forgive me for thinking that you could put your obvious intelligence to better and more fair-minded use. Using it as you do to conjure up empty, meaningless, superficially clever responsive snark, while reserving your right, “because its [your] blog, to reserve substantive comment to a future blog post, is truly pathetic.

    ” I’m sure that will haunt me.”

    I suspect that, although you don’t really want to admit it to yourself, much less to the readers of your blog, it actually does.

    The truth is that the snarky, insubstantial condescension that you display demeans you, and it reflects a regrettable level of disrespect for thoughtful, intelligent progressives like Phil.

    Of course, if all you’re trying to do is weed out everybody but catty, childish and inarticulate conservative morons like Fred Dooley, in the words of Emily Latella, “Never mind.” It’ll happen soon enough.

    I’m kind of glad that Fred chimed in there at the end of the comment thread to take about the “hatefest” over at http://www.bloggingblue.com because it reminded of the fact that you had made reference to all of the “hate” on the left. It also reminded me of the way that Fred went after Joanne Kloppenburg based on her looks (have you ever seen Fred? Yikes!!!), and the way that Rush Limbaugh went after “Moochelle” Obama, and the way that the Glenn Beck listener tried to “visit” The Tides Foundation in San Francisco with a car full of weaponry because Beck’s insane and opportunistic vitriol had whipped him up into a frenzy, and the way that. . .

    I just don’t see that kind of “hate” on the left side of the political equation. Honestly, I don’t. It’s one of the reasons why I went from voting, to my great present embarrassment, for George W. Bush twice to becoming a progressive and voting for Barack Obama in 2010.

    Much like the word, “racism”, the Right has turned reality on its head, and started mindlessly and undeservedly throwing the word, “hate”, at the left.

    I get why conservative boobs like Fred Dooley and a guy named Notalib aka Mark Phillips who used to be the poster child for “hate” over at Blogging Blue do that. They’re mindless partisan hacks/ideologues. I get why profit-driven opportunists, like Limbaugh and Beck, who aren’t above manipulating the rightwing rubes “out there” do it.

    But, unless it just says something fundamental about conservatives in general, including you, and their ethics, I don’t understand it coming from someone like you who is intelligent enough to know better.

    Take care, Ms. Cindy. Given what I’ve seen of you in the comment thread here, it’s unlikely that I’ll be back.

    Makes me wish that William F. Buckley, Jr, the last intelligent and principled conservative that I remember encountering was still around.

    For a minute there, I thought that you might fall into the same category.

    Doesn’t look like you do.

    Oh, well. . .

  88. Zuma – Hah! You said I was intelligent! I guess I’ll chant that one as I fall asleep tonight. “Forgive me for thinking that you could put your obvious intelligence to better and more fair-minded use. ”

    Now, you said a lot of stuff there I’m pretty much going to ignore except 1) when Fred Dooley smiles he lights up a room and you are unfortunate not to be there, and 2) thank goodness you won’t have read this comment because you won’t be back.

  89. Cindy: “Now, you said a lot of stuff there I’m pretty much going to ignore. . .”

    Yeah? So, what else is new? You ignore most everything of substance that progressives say here, and apparently seem to think that a snarky quip and/or clever, but insubstantial, wordplay passes for erudition. It doesn’t.

    William F. Buckley, Jr. knew that. He also knew that the kind of deflection in which you regularly indulge reflected a weakness either in one’s intellect one’s argument. With you, it clearly isn’t an intellectual deficit. Why the heavy reliance on snark? Do the math. I have.

    “…1) when Fred Dooley smiles he lights up a room and you are unfortunate not to be there…”

    Yeahhhh, I kinda doubt that, well, unless you’re a dowdy Wisconsin housewife who shares his political perspective.

    Having dealt with Fred, and having been astonished at his mean-spirited, juvenile and shallow partisan hackery, I can assure you that I would count myself as fortunate to be anywhere but where Fred might be.

    For the record, Fred Dooley wishes he had your intellect. That said, he’s truly a mean-spirited, partisan hack. If he “lights up” your world when he’s in the room, that says a lot about you, none of it good. But, hey, if he turns you on. . .

    “…and 2) thank goodness you won’t have read this comment because you won’t be back.”

    Oops! (*laughing*)

  90. Oh rats. Zuma lied.

  91. Oh rats. And I so wanted to believe that Cindy might actually say something meaningful.

    Que lastima, pobrecita. You had such promise.

    Que vaya bien.

  92. Randy in Richmond says:

    Zuma
    From your continuous use of “Ms. Cindy” to your being “chagrined” and your into the “fast lane”, to the sexest “dowdy Wisconsin housewife”, I find your comments fulfill most everything I believe about liberals. A progressive, as you label yourself, is a liberal not comfortable with being called a liberal. It is always liberals, not conservatives, that bring race into the conversation for no apparent reason other than to impress other liberals. And the lovefest you on the left are having here is commendable.

    And your elitist comments that you previously found Cindy’s comments “witty and entertaining, that you thought her better than that, that she’s proven to be a disapointment, and for a minute there, and, I thought that you might fall into the same category as William Buckley, Jr.” do not line up with your comments on July 8th from this site where you said this:

    “And, Cindy, it is your blog, but do you need to be so thin-skinned and overbearing”

    While accusing others of being “disrespectful, silly, and sophomoric”, your comments define these very attributes.

    So no, you haven’t changed your tune about Cindy–only the volume control on how loud you are singing.

    And when you voted for Barack Obama in 2010, which position was he running for ? Oh, that’s right, you’re not coming back. Then it really doesn’t matter.

  93. Just to change the topic … I generally don’t like recalls, but I support this one because … BWA DA BWA DA BA DWA … I envision that Mr. Walker smells funny. Never met the man. But if I did, bet he’d smell funny.

  94. And by the way, I would take “disrespectful, silly, and sophomoric” as a compliment, as would I “liberal” or “progressive” or “actually-understands-what-socialist-means.” “Communist” or “fascist” not so much.

  95. Zuma Bound says:

    Randy: “While accusing others of being ‘disrespectful, silly, and sophomoric’, your comments define these very attributes.”

    Well, Randy, I’ve heard that you had a major crush on Cindy. . .

    Anyway, dude, haven’t you ever noticed that Cindy generally responds to substantive comments from progressives with substance-free, candy-coated snark, derision and condescension? There’s nothing wrong with replying in kind. Or is that concept above your intellectual pay-grade?

    Regarding other matters, like racism, well, your “non-sequitorish” comments don’t really surprise me. Standard rightwing pablum. The rightwing wears its racism on its sleeve (ever heard of the Southern Strategy? How about Rush Limbaugh’s recent description of the First Lady as “uppity”?) everywhere it goes. It’s part of the rightwing’s DNA. I’ve seen it and experienced it enough in my life not to worry too much when a reactionary like you seeks to turn reality on its head by trying to suggest that it is “actually” the Left that has a problem with race.

    Racism is alive and well on the Right. People of color know it. Whites who view things realistically and honestly know it, too. While I find the fact that you don’t, or, for partisan political reasons, disingenuously deny that you do and laughably try to call the Left racist, distressing, I’m not going to lose sleep over it. It is what it is. I also know that, because of that endemic rightwing racism and the changing demographics, in this country, the Republican Party and its “Caucasian-centric” point of view will eventually be relegated to the dustbins of history, and the rightwing will be marginalized.

    Your representations regarding racism notwithstanding, as I told Cindy earlier on, one is entitled to their own opinions, however wrongheaded they may be. They are just not entitled to their own set of facts.

    That said, Randy, who exactly was it that brought racism into this discussion?

  96. Zuma Bound says:

    By the way, Randy, look up “elitism” in the dictionary. Cindy’s picture is next to it.

    What’s truly funny about you’re calling me elitist in this context is the fact that if Cindy was a progressive, you’d undoubtedly be calling her an elitist based upon the way that she writes and the condescension that she exudes.

    If you’d stop “crushing” on Cindy, and just take the partisan blinders off, for a minute, maybe you’d be able to see, and think, more clearly.

  97. Zuma, you aren’t cute anymore. Do you really want to continue? I’m kind of embarrassed for you like when you see a kid throwing a tantrum in the supermarket because she can’t have a candy bar. It’s very awkward.

  98. “Zuma, you aren’t cute anymore.”

    Right back at ya, Cindy.

    “I’m kind of embarrassed for you like when you see a kid throwing a tantrum in the supermarket because she can’t have a candy bar.”

    It’s always entertaining to see someone like you who decries personal attacks at the drop of a hat whenever it suits you hypocritically engage in one.

    The inaptness of your metaphor aside, Cindy, the ongoing insincere, cnady-coated, “I’m above it all”, pseudo-maternal snideness you regularly display makes me think that you’re the one that needs a time out.

    “People who live in glass houses”, as they say…

    What is it that actually grates you most, Cindy, my politics or the fact that I call you out on your “holier than thou”, “It’s my blog and I’ll do what I want” double standards.

    Every time that I see you post some of your sugar-coated snideness, I wonder, “Why bother?” She’s just Fred Dooley, hiding behind schoolmarmish and cloying sweetness.

    I also think, “Cindy, [d]o you really want to continue.”

    You don’t need to answer that, by the way. It’s rhetorical.

  99. Randy in Richmond says:

    Zuma
    You sasked me, “and who brought racism into the discussion” ?

    You did in Comment # 88. And again in Comment #96.

  100. Anonymous says:

    “Well, Randy, I’ve heard that you had a major crush on Cindy”

    Really, it’s so disturbingly obvious. You two should get a room.

  101. Randy in Richmond says:

    That’s gotta be true. Someone with no identity quoting someone who voted for Obama in 2010.

    For the umtenth time–isn’t it interesting that those on the left continuously resort to personal attacks when their views and arguments are questioned.

  102. Anonymous is really making a name for himself, huh? 😉