talkpolitics | Lawless

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

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Where did I say that I was surprised by it?

I was raised in the deep south, kiddo. What the Republican Party has been doing to black and other minority voters for the past few decades has nothing new about it.

so trie. i was raised in the east where the democrat party has been screwing over blacks and minorities for decades.

And how has the Democratic Party done this in the past thirty years?

is the plight of inner city blacks significantly better the past thirty years?

In way do you feel that "the plight of inner city blacks" is primarily the fault of the Democrats? And if it is, why do most black Americans so consistently vote Democratic?

you really need to ask why?

you just said blacks consistently vote democrat. now look at which party controls most inner cities for the past 75 years and you'll find your answer.

pft: In way do you feel that "the plight of inner city blacks" is primarily the fault of the Democrats? And if it is, why do most black Americans so consistently vote Democratic?
d: you really need to ask why?

Yes.

And you still haven't answered my first question. Again. In what way do you feel that "the plight of inner city blacks" is primarily the fault of the Democrats?

d: you just said blacks consistently vote democrat. now look at which party controls most inner cities for the past 75 years and you'll find your answer.

Does the fact that most black residents of inner cities vote Democratic mean that Democrats will have the power to do anything they want in the inner cities? Really? Even when the Republican party engages in successful voter suppression in those areas?

Is it your contention that Black Americans are, as a group, stupid and gullible and consistently vote against their own best interests?

Does the fact that most black residents of inner cities vote Democratic mean that Democrats will have the power to do anything they want in the inner cities? Really?

if they have no power, then who does? you aren't making any sense.

Even when the Republican party engages in successful voter suppression in those areas?

how exactly does the republican party suppress voters in democrat strongholds?

Is it your contention that Black Americans are, as a group, stupid and gullible and consistently vote against their own best interests?

most voters are stupid and gullible, full stop.

Paft: Does the fact that most black residents of inner cities vote Democratic mean that Democrats will have the power to do anything they want in the inner cities? Really?
d: if they have no power, then who does?

I didn't say they had "no power." I questioned whether or not they have "the power to do anything they want in inner cities." The fact, for instance, that black precincts voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates did not prevent many of those same black precincts from seeing massive voter suppression in Florida in 2000. The people calling the shots about the poll lists were not Democrats, but the Republican state attorney general and her people.

d: how exactly does the republican party suppress voters in democrat strongholds?

Voter caging, removing names from the voter rolls, sometimes sending out deceptive flyers to black neighborhoods, assigning a deliberately low number of voting machines, or making sure the machines shipped to those districts are badly maintained and prone to breakdowns...

Do you understand how voter suppression works?

Paft: Is it your contention that Black Americans are, as a group, stupid and gullible and consistently vote against their own best interests?
d: most voters are stupid and gullible, full stop.

Are black voters, as a group, more stupid and gullible than white voters?

I didn't say they had "no power." I questioned whether or not they have "the power to do anything they want in inner cities."

nobody nowhere has the power to do whatever they want, but they have as much power as the people of any other city.

The fact, for instance, that black precincts voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates did not prevent many of those same black precincts from seeing massive voter suppression in Florida in 2000.

move them goalposts! we're not talking about florida 2000, we're talking about the plight of inner city blacks in cities run for and by democrats.

The people calling the shots about the poll lists were not Democrats, but the Republican state attorney general and her people.

who cares? this isn't the topic of discussion.

Voter caging, removing names from the voter rolls, sometimes sending out deceptive flyers to black neighborhoods, assigning a deliberately low number of voting machines, or making sure the machines shipped to those districts are badly maintained and prone to breakdowns...

"democrat stongholds" have the majority. any voter suppression would more likely be against non-democrat voterss.

Do you understand how voter suppression works?

yes. and contrary bto your implications, it's a tactic used for centuries by political parties past and present. it's also irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Are black voters, as a group, more stupid and gullible than white voters?

already asked and answered.

d: Nobody nowhere has the power to do whatever they want, but they have as much power as the people of any other city.

Not when their own party isn't in charge of how voter polls are handled on the state level.

PFT: The fact, for instance, that black precincts voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates did not prevent many of those same black precincts from seeing massive voter suppression in Florida in 2000.
dd: move them goalposts! we're not talking about florida 2000, we're talking about the plight of inner city blacks in cities run for and by democrats.

And the 2000 election provides a well known example of how precincts run by Democrats are victimized by voter suppression.

PFT: The people calling the shots about the poll lists were not Democrats, but the Republican state attorney general and her people.
d: who cares? this isn't the topic of discussion.

Given that we're discussing how voter suppression works, it most certainly is on topic.

Paft: Voter caging, removing names from the voter rolls, sometimes sending out deceptive flyers to black neighborhoods, assigning a deliberately low number of voting machines, or making sure the machines shipped to those districts are badly maintained and prone to breakdowns...
d: "democrat stongholds" have the majority. any voter suppression would more likely be against non-democrat voterss.

In other words, you don't have a clue about how voter suppression works. It's not the local precincts that determine who gets on the voter rolls, what voting machines get assigned, or how many. Nor do they have the power to prevent Republican operatives from sending out deceptive mailers to local residents.

Paft: Are black voters, as a group, more stupid and gullible than white voters?
d: already asked and answered.

No it wasn't, and you know it.

debergerac I also grew up in the north-east where it was routinely the Democrats who were screwing over minorities and the poor. In my opinion it is the political establishment in general that is corrupt.

Forget about Republicans and Democrats, people in general do things for petty selfish reasons.

As for the specific topic of your original post. My (admitedly limited) experiance with unions has been prdominantly negative. My mother was a teacher who had very liitle polite to say about the local Teachers Union. Likewise when I entered the workforce as an EMT I had a lot of dealings with Police and Firefighter Union reps who were more concerned with safe-guarding thier own position than actually representing the interests of thier members.

Forgive me if I find it difficult to muster a great deal of concern.

Do you honestly believe that the Wisconsin State Legislature will be able to stop disgruntled workers from organizing or that a minor loss of funding for the Dems will result in a single party system a la the Soviet Union? Because frankly I don't buy it.

s: Forget about Republicans and Democrats, people in general do things for petty selfish reasons.

When did the Democrats last have to sign a consent decree about voter suppression?

Was it the Democratic Party who used the "Southern Strategy" in the wake of the Civil Rights Bills?

sw: Do you honestly believe that the Wisconsin State Legislature will be able to stop disgruntled workers from organizing

I think they're going to try very hard. And yes, disgruntled workers HAVE in the past been prevented from organizing by powerful and entrenched institutions, as anyone familiar with the history of union organizing will attest.

sw: or that a minor loss of funding for the Dems will result in a single party system a la the Soviet Union? Because frankly I don't buy it.

Where have I said it would be like the Soviet Union?

Perhapse I read too much into your statement. The Soviet example was a bit heavy-handed, but when it comes to political suppression it's the first one that came to mind. (Coming from a family of soviet-era exiles tends to color my thinking in that regard.)

Still...

I am inclined to beleieve that both sides are comprised of a lot more bark than bite. Nor am I entirly convinced that Public sector unions shouldn't have to pay into the State pension system like any other organization (the orginal ballot that started this mess).

The public sector had already made concessions. What got them out in the streets was the attack on collective bargaining.

There's an old middle-easyern proverb on negotiating...

Translated (roughly, as my Arabic is remidial at best) it goes something like this...

"Both men leave happy or both men leave angry. Otherwise someone's been cheated."

And that applies to the current attack on unions...how?

The State bites, and the Unions bite back.

It matters because any (real) progress is likely to leave both sides bloody.

Equally bloody? Hardly. Middle class families barely holding on by its fingernails face far more dire consequences than the wealthy fat-cats who want to take away their collective bargaining power.

I am well aware of that but you asked what the proverb meant.

I didn't ask what the proverb meant. I asked how it applied to the current attack on unions.

Applying it requires unfocusing your eyes and indulging in the fiction that middle class public sector employees have the same resources and the same level of power as the forces trying to break their unions -- and can afford to lose as much "blood."

State is going to balance the budget, or at least make a show of trying.

They can do this in 1 of 3 ways; cut spending, increase revenue, or a mix of 1 and 2.

If the state cuts spending, what should they cut if not the pension system? Should they lay-off some state employees? Let roads fall into disrepair? cancel unemployment cheques? The money has to come from somewhere.

Alternately how would you propose that the state increase revenue? Jack up taxes? Start charging people for services? Sure the public-sector unions would love this but the farmer who finds himself having to shell out half his income on property taxes or to renew a drivers liscense might feel differently.

Someone's going to be "bleed" somewhere, that is the signifigance of the proverb.

How about NOT giving tax cuts to the wealthiest among us? And are you claiming that the ONLY way to reduce the deficit is by all but eliminating collective bargaining?

No

However if the unions decide to act as a road-block they mustn't be surprised when someone threatens to fire-up the bulldozer.

"are you claiming that the ONLY way to reduce the deficit is by all but eliminating collective bargaining?"

That "No" was in response to your 2nd question.

As a side question, do you have any data on coperate taxes in Wisconsin, and how much of the overall state budget/economy they comprise? The whole "tax the wealthy" argument doesn't work without data.

Lawless

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...