Lawless

[paft.livejournal.com]

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

Comments

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

"just as many Republicans support the aims of massive corporations because they genuinely believe that the wealthy are inherently superior to the non-wealthy, and therefore should be running things."

In all the political conversations I've had with Republicans and/or conservatives, I have never heard this mentioned as a reason.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Of course, Republican spokespeople would NEVER equate being a liberal with being stupid, or irresponsible, or dishonest. They would NEVER call pro-union demonstrators slobs or lay-abouts. They would certainly NEVER use as a source for talking points talk show hosts who regularly insult the poor, even to the point of sneering at them as they waited in the cold for jobs.

Right?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

My guess is it boils down to the principle that white male Christian conservatives have no moral or legal responsibility for what white male Christian conservatives do.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I seriously have no clue where you and paft are going with this or how its connected to even this particular thread.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It comes from repeated demonstrations of the Republican Party passing blatantly theocratic legislation and people saying "But that's not what it is" without ever saying what it is, if they have the ability to say it's anything at all.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I was commenting on how the Republicans and conservatives I've spoken with (i.e. people I can talk to one-on-one) do not resemble talking heads or the type of person who becomes the poster child for that kind of rhetoric. I sometimes think of the talking head or spokesman as taking on the role of artificial life form, as they simply do not resemble people I interact with on a daily basis in the same way that there was just something "off" with the pod people that altered Kevin McCarthy that something was amiss.

You are going on about theocracy and from earlier, your favorite line involving vice and virtue (it was clever once. Now it produces eyerolls).

You can see how someone might reasonably be lost in a WTF moment of head-twisting confusion.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Well, as a counter to that anecdata you should listen to Joe Cironi's radio program and the callers there. Most of them make Sean Hannity warm and fuzzy-wuzzy by comparison. It's not a line, and it's not a joke. I'd tell you to google the term and see what I'm raising comparisons to do that with, but that's probably too much work. Most o' them chuckleheads sound like Pornstache, in fact.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Yes, I know people who are more charicature than human exist. I wonder though how representative a sample that is given that radio hosts attract like minds with regards to their callers.

[paft.livejournal.com]

What do you find confusing about it?

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

It's conspicuous lack of any kind of continuity with the comment it was replying to.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Where exactly does this continuity break down? You said you'd never heard a Republican say they considered the wealthy inherently more responsible and competent than the nonwealthy. I pointed out the Republican commentators who routinely reviled union members and the poor and pointed out that the policies pursued by the Republicans are quite consistent with this contempt. How does this indicate a "lack of continuity?"

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

the thread is just a reason to get all their favorite buzzwords in there: whites, males, christians, corporations, limbaugh...

did i miss any?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Your trolling makes the thread complete.

Have you ever actually taken a shot at arguing?

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

i'll leave you to argue at windmills. spin away, the breeze is fine today.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

How about we not call each other trolls. Can we do that?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Let the staff decide what's trolling, OK?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Actually none of my favorite buzzwords are in this particular thread. But thanks for trying and failing to argue.

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

there's still time. i know it's not easy, but do try and keep them to this century.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Got anything substantial to add?

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

substantial is a relative term around here. any disagreements with paft and her odd debating techniques apparently constitute trolldom.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I'm sure spokespersons and talking heads do. But then I don't converse with them. I converse with people who actually choose to display the complexity of thought associated with human beings instead of choosing to hide it behind a cartoon.

[paft.livejournal.com]

You don't have to converse with them to know that they do this. You just have to watch and read what they say.

I have conversed many times with beltway conservatives. Confront them with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, etc, and they'll try to laugh them off as meaningless. The problem is that the policies pursued by the Republican party dovetail very neatly with statements by these yahoos -- yahoos the Republican party ardently cultivate.

Funny that.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

In all the political conversations I've had with Republicans and/or conservatives, I have never heard this mentioned as a reason.

I have, plenty of times. In fact, one conservative whined about "Hollywood" values and cited that movie with Eddie Murphy, Trading Places. He was whining that the movie was so stupid, because a guy from the ghetto who is suddenly put in charge of a lot money would just spend his money all the time, while the Dan Aykroyd character (who lost everything) would just start a new business and make tons of money all over.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

So how would you reconcile and explain our two experiences, being so different?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Not my job, amigo.