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

[paft.livejournal.com]

You're citing an example of me criticizing a Democrat as an example of me NOT criticizing a Democrat? How does that work?

And is Obama's embrace of indefinite detention counter to the Republican stance on this issue?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The fact that you did not post it on this community was sighted as an example of why people on this community (who do not read your blog) might think that you only criticizing Republicans.

[paft.livejournal.com]

sw:The fact that you did not post it on this community was sighted as an example of why people on this community (who do not read your blog) might think that you only criticizing Republicans.

I did not post any OP after June 6th of that year, until July, probably because A) The end of May is frequently a time when I leave town and B) I start teaching in June, which means I am, in the weeks leading up to it, often furiously tying up other loose ends in the weeks before summer classes start. In short, I wasn't posting much of ANYTHING to the board.

And again -- was Obama's embrace of indefinite detention counter to the Republican stance on that issue?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

was Obama's embrace of indefinite detention counter to the Republican stance on that issue?

No it was not, but that is not the issue being discussed.

[paft.livejournal.com]

The issue being discussed is my presumed double-standard because, (at a time when I was hardly posting here at all) I did not post a piece I'd written that was critical of Obama. That piece was critical of Obama because he was continuing a policy set during the Republican administration of George W. Bush. In short, I was criticizing Obama for acting like a Republican.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

"presumed double standard"

This is the internet, perception/presumption is all any of us have to go on.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Baloney. Posting on the internet does not magically render actually checking facts out of everyone's reach. If someone posts to me the statement that the sky over San Francisco on a clear day is brown, I am still free to look out an actual, honest-to-god window next to my desk and verify that the clear sky above San Francisco is blue.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

For all I know all I know you could be a man logged into his wife's account. Likewise for all you know I could be a teenage girl in Nepal.

Likewise, if somone with Acute Tritanopia told you the sky was yellow, would they be lying?