ext_306469 ([identity profile] paft.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics2011-03-10 09:06 am
Entry tags:

Lawless

As I was saying:

Republican Wisconsin State Senator Scott Fitzgerald on what Walker’s union busting is REALLY all about:

If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the union, Obama is going to have a much more difficult time winning this election and winning the state of Wisconsin.






Democratic Representative Peter Barca, as the Joint Conference of Committee rams through the bill stripping public sector unions of most of their collective bargaining rights:

This is a violation of law. This is not just a rule. This is the law.




This attack on public sector unions is not about being fiscally responsible, any more than “voter fraud” laws supported by Republicans are about respecting the vote.

This is about breaking the unions, defunding the Democratic party and making it difficult for President Obama to be elected. It is about the raw exercise of power, regardless of the law. It is about establishing what amounts to single party rule.

I draw a direct line to this moment from our willingness, as a country, to countenance what happened during the 2000 presidential “election,” when Florida’s Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, deliberately disenfranchised several thousand legal voters. Afterwards, the leadership of both parties told those of us who objected to sit down and shut up about it, as if valid American voters being turned away from the polls were nothing to make a fuss about.

The Republican Party learned they could win by openly and illegally subverting the will of the people and trashing the constitution and rule of law. Nobody should be surprised that they’ve escalated this tactic over the years. A large voter turnout is a liability to the G.O.P., and they know it. Their agenda directly and adversely affects too many voters – minorities, women, gays, union members, and lately, the middle class in general.

They don’t really need or desire a lot of voters anymore – just a nasty core of astro-turf supported yellers, and corporate buddies to funnel money into their campaigns.

And we, as a country, have allowed this to happen.

I stand behind pro-union demonstrators in Wisconsin. I wish them luck. I hope the tide of protests doesn’t recede. I hope that every single one of those Republicans who are ramming through this law find themselves confronted with hisses of “shame” every time they step out into public. I hope that recalls send as many of them as possible packing in the next couple of years.

But to every one of those protesting people who voted for Scott Walker, or those other Republicans I also say, “elections have consequences.” By voting for people who have nothing but contempt for you, you threw away freedom with both hands.

Good luck getting it back. And I mean that sincerely.

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Re: Democracy, not lawlessness

[identity profile] rasilio.livejournal.com 2011-03-10 05:48 pm (UTC)(link)
"I have contempt for the absentee Democrats, who fled to Illinois for three weeks to avoid taking a vote on this bill. By so doing, they robbed their constituents of representation in the Wisconsin legislature. These are the people who threw away freedom -- and for nothing more than partisan political points."

The thing I wonder about this, what would Democans have said if Republicrat Senators had all left Washington to prevent a vote from having ever been taken on Health Care reform?

Re: Democracy, not lawlessness

[identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com 2011-03-10 07:15 pm (UTC)(link)
I would have said "excellent, they're gone, now we can get on with it without having to listen to ridiculous bullshit like death panels."

But of course, they couldn't have prevented that vote.

Re: Democracy, not lawlessness

[identity profile] sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com 2011-03-10 11:57 pm (UTC)(link)
The scary thing is that I think you might mean it.

Re: Democracy, not lawlessness

[identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com 2011-03-11 12:44 am (UTC)(link)
Of course I mean it. The republicans weren't necessary to the process; they refused to participate, and the Democrats had the votes without them. As it was, they were there, they all voted against it, and it was passed anyway. It wouldn't have made any difference had they not shown up, except there would have been a lot fewer lies broadcast on CSpan.

Re: Democracy, not lawlessness

[identity profile] jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com 2011-03-10 09:03 pm (UTC)(link)
dums had a big enough majority that they didn't need reps to be there anyways.

Re: Democracy, not lawlessness

[identity profile] headhouse.livejournal.com 2011-03-11 01:03 am (UTC)(link)
They would've said pretty much the same thing the republicans are saying, only they would've been incredibly passive-aggressive about it.