Every 3.5 seconds

That’s how often the left is claiming someone is signing the papers to recall Scott Walker.

Sweet! They must be really pleased with their efforts. I look forward to the final drop on January 17 – for the organizers have said they won’t submit the signatures until the last date even if enough are collected before – to comb through them.

And I think this might be my contribution to this mess. It’s David Blaska’s fault. He penned a particularly compelling piece yesterday explaining how the GAB won’t be doing much to vet the signatures. The same document indicated signatures could be challenged.

Now prior to my excellent career as a housewife, I spent time as a secretary. I can still type about 85 words a minute. I’m also quite capable when it comes to databases. I think I could help coordinate volunteers to enter the names, etc., and provide a good database of signatures. This would let us check for duplicate names, addresses, etc., as well as provide a marketable resource for any eventual campaign.

Cool, huh?

Before someone goes nutter and calls me “darling” again today, let me explain I’ve got stuff to do and won’t be playing on the computer all day. I think it’s also time to share my opinion in two points:

1) It won’t kill Scott Walker to have a recall election, and

2) A signature does not a new governor make.

Yesterday’s snaking comment stream reminded me of something I’ll share with you. While the left swears, swears! darn it! that Walker never told them he’d take away collective bargaining rights for public workers, Walker was elected governor. Now don’t miss this: most of those on the right think Walker’s goals were pretty clear prior to that election. Walker was elected even though his goals were known to the majority of voters. The small number screaming about it now are not the majority needed to overturn the results of that election. If Scott Walker is confirmed twice in two years as the state’s choice, isn’t that going to bruise WisDems immensely?

There’s also the tiny little detail about no one to run against Walker. Russ Feingold has declined several times, and in fact, an inside document circulating (sorry can’t leak it) says the effort to recruit Feingold should be abandoned. Tom Barrett is fine where he is right now. He’s really very competent as Milwaukee’s mayor. (Yes, even if you don’t agree with every single thing he does.) I know! Maybe WisDems can recruit that guy Chris Abele!

(Ah gee. I’m laughing again.)

Comments

  1. Tom Barrett can run again for governor stating how he rescued Milwaukee’s finances using the Walker tools. I picture a commercial with Tom speaking and a trolley car in the background.

  2. chances are the recall will never happen for many reasons. but if it does there will be a viable opportunity for an intelligent moderate democrat who has never held public office.

  3. The OWS/Recall Walker crowd would vote for Abele or Jerry Brown (who is doing the same thing in California) just to spite Walker. It isn’t about collective bargaining to them. It’s about “winning.”

  4. Keith Schmitz says:

    Maybe among us cognoscenti (you, me and others) we knew that Walker would pull a few things, but the fact that many people didn’t is evidenced by the energy behind the signature gathering.

    Like Charlie Pierce with Esquire said, it was quite evident what people like Walker, Kasich and Scott would do, but people were either not paying attention, or in our binary political world thought that since things were not going well, try the other side.

    Is it our fault therefore that Walker so heinously over reached that he woke certain people up? In fact Walker has done such a great job of invigorating progressive groups across the state he should be given honorary memberships.

    If Walker was smart (that of course is a stretch), he would have brought these changes in slowly and not poked the dog dish. Instead, he believed his own BS and particularly he listened to the fawners on right wing talk radio and on his Facebook page. Paul Ryan may very well be proof of that danger.

    But now that we have seen so many people who have voted for Walker join in on the recall I am a little upset my holidays have been ruined, though nothing says the holidays like a Walker-less Wisconsin.

    And yes, I’ll avoid calling you hon, darling or your honor.

  5. KPOM – so one vote for keeping the hate alive.

  6. We’ll see, Keith. I’m thinking most of those signatures are Capper’s since One Wisconsin Now is encouraging folks to sign more than once. Another blogger swears it’s not more than half, though.

    I think Walker’s reach was perfect. I love the results. I’m I a huge Walker fan now? Not really. But it’s not like I have to have dinner with the guy.

  7. “Walker was elected even though his goals were known to the majority of voters.”

    If his goals were known to the majority of voters why has it taken you so long to remind us of that? You know, you could of brought this up months ago. You could have been hammering this into our consciousness day in and day out for months on end. But noooo! You wait until yesterday to remind us! Thanks a lot, pal! 😉

  8. wisconsin factcheck says:

    Just because Scott Walker and his supporters say something over and over again does not make it true.

    He pointedly did not campaign on ending collective bargaining for public employees. He explicitly campaigned on making public employees pay more for their health care and their pension plans. A concession that the Democrats in the State House and the major state unions agreed to right away in February. Wisconsin voted for that platform, and Walker’s opponents conceded these points.

    Scott Walker never campaigned on any of the following issues:

    (1) Removing all workplace issues from collective bargaining for public employees.

    (2) Not allowing public employees the right to bargain collectively for anything except base pay which is capped at the rate of inflation.

    (3) Requiring Unions to undergo certification votes every year.

    (4) Requiring Unions to receive 51% of the votes of the members of the bargaining unit, not 50% of the people who voted.

    (5) Ending the automatic deduction of dues from public employee pay checks.

    To have any sort of honest dialogue, Scott Walker and his supporters must acknowledge the fact that he willfully hid major portions of his platform from the voting public during the 18 months he ran for Governor.

  9. Oh good grief Milton. Really? And I just posted what you quoted this morning.

    To the other two, I’m sure I’ll be really swayed by whatever you said. Truly. In a I-just-can’t-bear-to-look-at-my-own-reflection kind of moment.

    Has it dawned on anyone besides another blogger that the 1) more ridiculous, and 2) more personal a comment gets – especially by someone who rarely comments – then tada! the more I’m making an impact.

    It’s another love/hate day of blogging.

  10. You need to rename yourself “WisDem copy master”

  11. Keith Schmitz says:

    Even if Walker buys and lies his way though the recall election, there still is the little matter of rising unemployment and the desire of the GOP to make something painful even more so by shredding the safety net.

    It’s best we dispatch him now and rather than later when he will surely fall into the wood chipper in 2014.

    God bless that you love what he’s doing, but somehow Walker is managing to piss off everyone.

    And he is taking a risk here. Passing every right wing fetish might please some, but this is rubbing salt in the ever growing wound of unemployment, an issue the GOP was loathe to address in the “jobs” session.

  12. How about Dale Schultz running against Walker?

  13. Zuma Bound says:

    Ms. Cindy: “Walker was elected even though his goals were known to the majority of voters.”

    Your evidence?

  14. “KPOM – so one vote for keeping the hate alive.”

    Talk about hyperbolic partisan hackery.

    You want to know what hate is, Cindy? Visit the neo-Nazi/white supremacist website, http://www.stormfront.org, or any given rightwing fringe website, for that matter, that is, if you can tear yourself away long enough from mischaracterizing the exercise by Wisconsin voters of their clear and unambiguous legal right to recall Governor Walker as “hate”.

    While your at it, try to remember that Walker didn’t have a problem with recalls until he became the subject of one.

  15. Keith – “Even if…” That’s a very interesting choice of language. Kind of defeatist, but maybe that’s just the way I read it. Plus, if I’m not mad at Walker, how is it possible for him to “piss off everyone?” And please, no “wood chipper” business on my blog. I don’t want to have to give the state police your IP when they call.

    Chris – Thanks for offering a fresh idea, but 1) I had to google Dale Schultz to be reminded of who he was and if a political junkie like me didn’t recall his name immediately it’s not a good thing, and 2) Walker will not be seeing a Republican challenger, no matter how much a Democrat he might seem.

    Zuma – Forgive me, but you aren’t as smart as Emily Mills. And you used the word “Nazi” first so you can take a hike now because with that word you’ve proven your lack of ability to engage in reasonable debate.

  16. Ahhh, Cindy, IF only you were as smart as you think you are.

    And if only you weren’t as thin-skinned and defensive as you apparently are.

    I didn’t use the word “Nazi” in reference to anyone, particularly. I simply pointed you to a place where you can find good examples of what hate actually is.

    It isn’t exemplified, as you have attempted to suggest that it is, in a truly abysmal display of hyperbolic partisan hackery, by the exercise of Wisconsin voter of their legal right to recall Walker.

    Nothing “fair” about you, your ability to characterize what I have written or “. . .your ability to engage in reasonable debate.”

    Try re-reading and actually comprehending what I wrote, huh?

  17. wisconsin factcheck says:

    Wait. What?

    In what ways was my listing of the things Walker did not campaign about either “ridiculous” or a “personal attack?”

  18. Just above, I wrote: “Ms. Cindy: Walker was elected even though his goals were known to the majority of voters.”

    Your evidence?”

    Still waiting on your substantive response, you know, your evidence that “. . .[Walker’s] goals were well-known to a majority of voters.”

    I’m not holding my breath. More substance-free snark/”air” on the way, instead, I suppose, huh?

  19. But but but Zuma – you called me obviously intelligent! How dare you whip my delicate feelings around so heartlessly.

  20. Wisfactcheck – Sorry. I need to go to threaded comments someday. But while we’re at it:

    BTW, I love this song, so it isn’t really that much of a slap. But, you’re so vain, you probably think that comment was about you. 😉

  21. Cindy: “But but but Zuma – you called me obviously intelligent! How dare you whip my delicate feelings around so heartlessly.”

    Me: Nothing but “air”.

    So predictable.

    Oh, well. . .

  22. wisconsin factcheck says:

    Fair enough! But your post was right after mine and mentioned new/rare commenters, so I incorrectly inferred.

    And I have never seen a total eclipse of the sun…

  23. WisFactCheck: No problem. I just wanted you to know it wasn’t about you, and I was feeling a bit silly by then. Sorry for the misunderstanding on my part.

    jimspice, I think I’m confused, but it’s very early and before coffee. I will say I think a lot of what’s happened here the last couple of days is flattering. I mean, Scott Walker should be paying me to have deflected so much attention from him. Why in the world I became the target is a study of humankind I will never understand. I guess “shooting the messenger” is the shorter explanation.

    Randy – Amen! to the observation of Zuma’s volume control. And folks label me strident. That person’s arrival was really something I don’t care to repeat for a while.

  24. I’m going to make a more honest attempt to respond to Wisconsin factcheck.

    First, just because disgruntled progressives say something over and over again doesn’t make it true, either. It’s pretty apparent the day’s news was being directed from one place since it was very similar in many locations. I know you guys keep a pretty active news group. The right isn’t that organized. So, when you see more than one of us come up with the same thing, it’s because we ran across it on Facebook or Twitter and came back to use it on our own blogs. That’s what happened with the rebuttal to the recent “Walker never campaigned on it” approach you’re using. And as I showed (I think Jeff) someone in an earlier comment thread, it did come up on this blog several months ago, so we have been here before.

    While I still say there were plenty of instances where the campaign offered a glimpse of what could be, I’ll also say, so what? Much like Obama did on a national level, Walker implemented a series of best case scenario moves when he came to preside over a state that had gone completely Red. Why would he have campaigned on changes he could make when they would seem impossible to achieve? But once all the newly elected members were in place, it became apparent what could be accomplished.

    It seems you are very unhappy with the five points you presented, and it’s likely I’d have trouble finding where Walker campaigned on any of those points specifically, but like I said, “so what?” Oh, and here’s the hurdle you will find in the way of your cause: Woohoo! Number 5, in particular, is one that delights me and one I specifically advocated in the past. In fact, when all that mess was going on with MaryAnn Sumi and the is-it-a-law crowd, I kept suggesting all the legislature would have to pass again to topple the union stronghold was that single point alone.

    It is enough to have taxes withheld at a rate against my choosing (I’m talking about withholding rules here, not that I have to pay taxes), I can only imagine what it might be to have union dues pulled automatically. That so many unions can not collect dues from their members now is proof those members weren’t pleased with the concept.

    Did Walker bust the unions? Yep. There’s really no other way to put it. Your only argument for the recall is that his move was bad for the State of Wisconsin. And, just because you make that argument doesn’t make it true. While it’s not labeled a referendum on the law (I guess there’s a reason of some kind the left went after Walker instead of the law like Ohio?) that’s in effect what’s happening. I feel pretty confident the majority of those voting should the state have to vote again will decide the pain of the discourse is worth it because of the benefits coming from the changes.

    Like my local taxes didn’t go up this year. Do you know how extremely rare it is not to have had my taxes go up? Given the economic downturn, a strict campaign on the specific savings to a household is going to trump the union screaming, “but Walker didn’t tell me.” The union had a great deal of power in this state over the last few years. Fortunately, it wasn’t more than half of the voters, or we’d be looking at Governor Tom Barrett right now. Do you really think that number has changed in a year given my local taxes didn’t go up?

  25. Zuma Bound says:

    Awww, dear, sweet Cindy, no matter how much you inaccurately say that Governor Walker campaigned on going after and ending collective bargaining rights, you can’t really change the fact that Walker unambiguously testified before Congress that he hadn’t.

    You’re entitled to your own opinions, wrongheaded as they may be. You’re just not entitled to your own set of facts.

    Anyway, it’s nice to see you get away from exclusive reliance on snarky, “there’s nothing there there”, “I’m so damn clever” cuteness, and post something substantive in a comment thread, for once.

    The next time that you have the impulse to go to the “snark” side, just remember something. The person who is patting you on the back so enthusiastically, and saying, “Atta, girl!!!”, is you. The rest of us aren’t as impressed with you as you seem to be.

  26. Good morning Zuma. Have a great day.

  27. Geeze, ZumaB, that was snarky.

  28. Zuma Bound says:

    @ Cindy

    You, too.

    @ RL

    Do you ever read Cindy’s comments?!

    Dude, sometimes you just have to fight “snark” with “snark.” What’s good for the goose. . .

  29. Now I’m trying to figure out if you are a Goose, or a Gander, ZumaB.

  30. Why don’t open-minded liberals like Zuma move to Illinois where Democrats run everything? Then they can live in bliss, with higher-than-average unemployment, and 67% tax increases passed at 1am on the last day of lame duck legislative sessions? Plus, government workers there have all kinds of collective bargaining rights. So there’s this little matter of the unfunded pension liability of $90 billion. Someone else will pay for it, right?

  31. Anonymous says:

    Illinois just added 30,000 jobs in the month of October. Wisconsin? Nadda … dead last in the nation. Oh well.

  32. For the month.

    Could you at least pretend to come up with a name?

  33. Randy in Richmond says:

    If I understand Wisconsin’s procedure there is 31 days allowed to check the signatures. In 31 days there are 44,640 minutes. It has been announced that approx. 50 workers will be hired to verify the signatures. If the verifyers work 40 hour weekly shifts that means about there will be less than 1 minute available to verify each and every signature. Unless there is some system available of which I am not aware this is next to impossible to achieve.