When Democrats Win, and then proceed through backroom deals and ramming bills through without even the promised opportunity to read and discuss them, we’re told that “elections have consequences.”
When Republicans Win on the promise to actually get budgets under control, compile bills to do so in the open with opportunity for review, progressives refuse to show up and conduct the people’s work, and labor union shills use intimidation, violence, obstruction, and threats, in the name of “the people”, to prevent those promises from being kept because a central tenet of doing so means outlawing collective bargaining…in a situation where both sides of the negotiation are playing with OUR money, and complaining about the loss of a “right” or “freedom” when they have no choice about membership and paying dues in the very organization they claim to be fighting for.
But if you support public sector unions and their right to collectively bargain, this makes sense. Somehow.
And if you don’t like it, you’re a h8ter. And probably a fascist. And obviously one of the rich who are illegally keeping people from the natural resource of wealth. Or something.
Why don’t you just die, preferably in a horrible and painful fashion.
Class dissmissed.
Taxes, Stupidity, and Death 
Ironic how loosely people who wish to impose the will of a gilded, spoiled special interest group(and believe me the government bureucracy is a especially powerful special interest group) upon the populace throw around the term fascist.
So now representing the taxpayer at large who elected you is being a dictator and imposing the wishes of a willful bunch of thugs through threats and subverting elections is “democracy”.
Orwell would be so proud!!!
As I said on my “radio” show this afternoon, when it comes to Wisconsin, a pox on all their houses … the Dem’s the GOP and Walker himself. Wisconsin is an example of broken government. It’s a damn shame.
Rutherford, as is most often the case, you’re analysis is what is broken.
The governor, and the GOP weren’t broken. They were elected to deal with budgetary problems. They announced how they planned to do it. The Dems, who didn’t have the numbers to block it (and don’t pretend they were interested in “negotiation”…their union masters simply would have none of it), so they threw a tantrum and left.
I think if you asked the average person in Wisconsin, I don’t think that you’ll find the belief that the world came to an end is one that they share.
As for the “breakdown”, the only thing that resembled a “breakdown” in government is when police officers stopped doing their job.
The real wake up call is coming, R. When union membership isn’t manditory and suddenly, the unions don’t have the membership, and the dollars they have been able to extort with it in years past.
This sort of double standard is exactly what you get from people who hold themselves to be infinitely your intellectual and moral superiors.
Rutherford needs to read the Hayes article linked at my blog.
To lazy to grab the link.
The unions, their supporters and sympathizers, and the Progressive wing are all becoming more and more desperate as they are faced with a few courageous state governments who are trying to accomplish what the voters have asked them to do. If a pox is to be imposed, it should be aimed squarely at the collection of thugs, lawbreakers, ethical retards and dimwits who continue to attempt to impose their selfish goals on those who pay their generous salaries and benefits. Had these people been facing the real-life market place, they would have been fired long ago. No wonder they are so panicked over the idea of having to have real discussions and dialog leading to compromise, rather than getting their way through temper tantrums and threats.
While I am one of the few libs who does not defend the Dem State Senator walk-out, do you REALLY think there was going to be any compromise? Now if you say the Dem’s should have had the up or down vote and taken their medicine “like a man”, I can understand that argument. But let’s not pretend Walker had any interest in compromise.
There certainly was no prospect for any type of compromise – or even dialogue – when there were members of the Wisconsin Senate who refused to remain at their elected posts and do the job that they were hired to do.
“But let’s not pretend Walker had any interest in compromise.” If you had engaged in conversation with the Governor and he stated to you his evil intent that is one thing, but otherwise your statement is purely speculative. My inclination to accept him at his word is in no way “pretending” and I frankly find your accusatory language insulting.
Our system is designed to foster compromise and when some of those who have campaigned to become part of it and then ignore their oaths of office, it is obvious who is acting in bad faith. Those Democrats who participated in the “walkout” have demonstrated only that they are bought and paid for by the unions and have thereby completely failed to represent all of their constituents.
Hardly admirable.
My latest post at my blog should surely get your dander up, I suspect ….. ‘course that remark is purely speculative and you might prove me wrong.
Car In, thanks for pointing me to your blog. I find it curious that no where in Hayes’ article (unless I overlooked it) does he mention the phone call between Walker and fake-David-Koch. I bring that up because the phone call made it clear that Walker was willing to lure the Dem’s back into Wisconsin for the sole purpose of tricking them into technically green-lighting a vote. I think the premise was that a quorum need only be achieved during the calendar day and not necessarily when the actual vote takes place.
Of course, once Walker got busted, his plan went south.
Again, I bring this up to justify my original position … a pox on all their houses. Walker was not acting in good faith and had no intention of compromise and the Dem’s behaved irresponsibly by fleeing the state.
Rutherford states that Walker was acting in bad faith by trying to “lure” dems back into the state – who left to avoid a vote and were held in comtempt by the senate. Forget about the fact that Walker revealed nothing in that phone call that he hadn’t stated publicly, but I fail to see how him being forced to “lure” elected legislators back into the state who were too childish to do that damned jobs and be there in the first place, somehow reflects negatively on Walker. He should never have been in that position in the first place.
If the roles were reversed, and Scott Walker had a “D” following his title with his support vested in public unions and Obama, I can assure you Rutherford wouldn’t be playing the role of arbiter of injustice, but cheerleader with nothing but praise for the governorship.
It’s the neo-
paganprogressive way.“I bring that up because the phone call made it clear that Walker was willing to lure the Dem’s back into Wisconsin for the sole purpose of tricking them into technically green-lighting a vote.”
Tricking them? Tricking them into participating in the legislative process they were hired to participate in rather than creating their own extra-legislative veto power?
Rutherford, absent from any of the discussion is the defense of public sector unions and the public’s right not to negotiate with them if they choose not to. Care to take a stab at it? Oh, I forgot — you’re a Dem and therefore not obligated to participate in the discussion while expecting compromise and appeasement — the liberal approach to everything.