RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Pierce writes: "On May 16, 2012, I wrote this about Scott Walker, the goggle-eyed homunculus hired by Koch Industries to manage their midwest subsidiary formerly known as the state of Wisconsin. At the time, Walker was facing a recall election after a year in which 100,000 people regularly camped on his front lawn."

Scott Walker. (photo: Getty)
Scott Walker. (photo: Getty)


Scott Walker: The Assassination of Wisconsin Democracy

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

15 July 15

 

In which coward Scott Walker makes his campaign for president official tonight.

n May 16, 2012, I wrote this about Scott Walker, the goggle-eyed homunculus hired by Koch Industries to manage their midwest subsidiary formerly known as the state of Wisconsin. At the time, Walker was facing a recall election after a year in which 100,000 people regularly camped on his front lawn.

I predict that he will have an "exploratory committee" set up in Iowa within the month, and he will suddenly discover a deeply held desire to spend a lot of time in places like Nashua and Manchester. Make no mistake: If he hangs on, he will be the biggest star in the Republican party. Chris Christie yells at all the right people, but has he ever faced down the existential threat that schoolteachers and snowplow drivers brought to bear on Walker? Marco Rubio? Has he withstood the wrath of organized janitors and professors of the humanities? If Walker wins in June, it wouldn't take very much effort at all for Fox News and for the vast universe of conservative sugar-daddies and their organization to decide that Walker should be the odds-on choice for 2016...It's not idle speculation to say that a lot more is riding on this than who gets to be governor of Wisconsin. This is the first real fight of the 2016 presidential election.

That all becomes official in Waukesha tonight, when Walker formally kicks off his campaign. I know some things have changed. Walker's bungled a bit on the stump, and the campaign flyer that passes for his 2015 budget has pissed off both parties in Wisconsin, a state about which he cares very little at this point. And it seems that the rise of Donald Trump -- and, to a lesser extent, the presence of Jeb (!) -- has cost Walker in the national polls and has shaved his lead a bit in Iowa, where he really must win. But he is still formidable enough, as the elite political press is already engaged in whitewashing his record for him. Here are two profiles -- an old one from the National Journal and one that appeared on Monday in Tiger Beat On The Potomac. You will note that in neither piece does the phrase "the Koch Brothers" appear, and you will also note that the penny-ante corruption that has surrounded every campaign Walker ever has run is soft-pedaled in NJ and absent completely from TBOTP. Hey, why should Chris Christie be the only Republican running for president while under criminal investigation? And Rick Perry's indicted, so he's still in the lead by that important metric. Step up your games, people.

(My favorite part of the National Journal profile is how the nearly unbroken strain of petty grifting that has sent so many of his aides to the sneezer is merely Walker's unfortunate habit of trusting the wrong people: In interviews with dozens of Wisconsin Republicans, none of whom would speak on the record when asked about Walker's weaknesses, one consistent criticism leveled at the governor is that he has not, over the years, surrounded himself with good people. That's just too, too adorable for words.)

Since his approval rating in Wisconsin is headed south, and since he can't point to having accomplished much there except winning three elections, and since the budget he just signed demolishes Wisconsin's public universities while bestowing more goodies on the extraction industries, Walker's entire campaign is going to consist of how he stood up bravely to schoolteachers and firemen and elderly grandparents back in 2011 and 2012. This man can stand up to ISIL because he was able to beat back hordes of angry guidance counselors. We are going to hear about alleged death threats -- and a lot about the one that allegedly threatened to gut his wife like a fish -- and about how he bravely went to work each day. (You should keep in mind that at least one of those stories that he peddles is pure moonshine.) And then there's that business about the "teacher of the year" that Walker uses to make the case that the wreckage he's made of public education in the state is really the construction of a palace. (Go Warriors!) Nothing the man says can be trusted. If you work for him, and you are instructed to do something ethically dubious, rest assured that you're on your own when it hits the fan. But Walker's invocation of his own courage as a campaign trope is perhaps the most fraudulent thing of all. Because, throughout his career, Scott Walker has been nothing if not a political coward.

During the protests back in 2011 and 2012, he hid in his office. A hundred thousand of his constituents were there on his lawn and he declined to hear what they had to say. He used a tunnel to get back and forth to the state capitol. He empowered the Capitol police to roust legitimate demonstrators from a building that had a proud history of open protest and open political activism. He lit the capitol's Christmas tree in the early morning hours in a closed ceremony instead of opening the proceedings to the public. In January, a Wisconsin appeals court ruled that many of the tactics that were used against the demonstrators -- and, in particular, against the Solidarity Singers -- were unconstitutional. This was what Unintimidated Scott Walker hid behind while he was dismantling progressive democracy in the state where so much of it was born and selling the state off wholesale to whoever wanted to buy a chunk. And, last week, when it was discovered that there had been slipped into the budget an item that would have gutted the state's open-records law, one of the last remaining elements of progressive government in Wisconsin that Walker hasn't shredded, the state exploded in bipartisan outrage. True to form, Walker and his people tried to fob the responsibility off on the Republicans in the legislature until Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald blew the whistle on who really was to blame. Unintimidated! Leadership!

Walker has spent his time as governor cosseted by (until very recently) a docile legislative majority and insulated by millions and millions of dollars of out-of-state money. If he were any deeper in someone's pocket, he'd be covered in lint.

In 1897, in a small town called Mineral Point in Wisconsin, the governor of the state came to give a speech about the state's economy. His name was Robert LaFollette, Sr.

These corporations, not content with taking royal tribute daily from the private citizen, shift upon him the chief support of the government. The same disregard for the rights of others, and of all obligations of the state is shown in a determined resistance to bearing a just share of the burdens of taxation. Corporations exacting large sums from the people of this state in profits, upon business transacted within its limits, either wholly escape taxation, or pay insignificantly in comparison with the average citizen . . . Owning two thirds of the personal property of the country, evading payment of taxes wherever possible, the corporations throw almost the whole burden up on the land, upon the little homes, and the personal property of the farms. This is a most serious matter, especially in the pinching times the people have suffered for the last few years. . .

It is LaFollette's legacy that Walker has made his mission to dismantle root and branch on behalf of the modern plutocrats who have funded his remarkable rise in the country's politics because, if they can do it in Wisconsin, they can do it everywhere. It continues tonight, in comfortable Waukesha, where Scott Walker will announce that he is running for president. He has spent his entire political life punching down and leaving the people who do his dirty work twisting in the wind when they get caught. Christ, what a mess this can make of democracy.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+83 # tswhiskers 2015-07-15 13:20
With the coming of each election since 2008 I've written in effect, that the American electorate has finally come to its senses and THIS ELECTION will throw the Rep. bums out! Now I'm afraid to say anything about them. Have they come to their senses? With the tidal wave of crowds bursting to see Bernie Sanders I'd sure like to think so. Are enough people finally tired of losing labor rights and voting rights, tax cuts for the wealthy and generally the Rep. determination to impoverish the majority of Americans? I have a few friends who are still diehard Reps. and think Fox News is gospel. Scott Walker is walkin' and talkin' the Rep. Kool Aid to cheering crowds. I'm still as baffled as I was in 2008.
 
 
-186 # Roland 2015-07-15 16:05
The reason you don’t understand your friends is that they haven’t become socialists. They, like the majority in this country, think we have gone far enough in that direction. They can easily look around and see what the overspending of other people’s money does to govt. finances and in turn the economic health of the city, state or country.

Nice biased hit piece. The left should be proud of this type of attack.

So what if Walker got funds from out of state for his last two campaigns. He needed this to go up against all the funds coming from out of state to defeat him. He was the number one target of unions and their money. The country poured in money from both sides of the debate to hopefully affect the direction of the country.

Yes, Walker stood up to school teachers and other public sector unions for the benefit of the economy and the financial soundness of the state. That benefits the public as a whole over the long term. Can anyone tell me why FDR, who was a strong supporter of unions, was against public sector unions?
 
 
-146 # Texas Girl 2015-07-15 17:36
Public sector unions present a HUGE conflict of interest which costs the taxpayers billions. They continually vote into office the very public officials they will eventually be setting across the table with in collective bargaining sessions.
 
 
+126 # jimmyjames 2015-07-15 18:16
That's right - be anti-union. At the same time, you should be anti-40 hour work week, anti-sick leave, anti-vacation leave, anti-worker safety laws, anti-environmen tal laws, anti-health insurance, etc. These are the issues unions have supported and fought for over the years and are enjoyed and relished by most working Americans.

I despise Americans such as yourself, who support the corporations and governments which choose to deny worker's rights in favor of the rich and powerful. May you and your kind be on the receiving end of unbridled corporate power and begin working 80 hours a week with no benefits. It's all you will deserve. Keep believing the BS that's being fed to you and voting against your own welfare. Unfortunately, many will suffer for your ignorant madness....
 
 
+9 # warrior woman 2015-07-16 06:48
Doesn't the current budget do away with a weekend or day off requirement??
 
 
-45 # Roland 2015-07-16 07:38
Since, I was talking here about public sector unions, should I believe that you think government (the people) is greedy and denies worker rights in favor of the rich?

But, since you brought up private sector unions, as a whole I believe that unions were necessary at one time. That time has passed and they cause more harm than good today.
 
 
+24 # Texas Aggie 2015-07-16 09:25
Yes, of course they do more harm than good. If it weren't for them, why CEO income would be increasing astronomically while ordinary people would be flat lined. And that is exactly what happened when private unions were eviscerated starting under Reagan and aided by the SC.
 
 
+18 # ericlipps 2015-07-16 10:59
What makes you think that if unions faded away, the "necessary" gains they brought to the American worker wouldn't do likewise?

What troubles you, I suspect, is that unions tend to favor the Democrats. This should come as no surprise, though, given that the R's treat unions--except ones like the mobbed-up Teamsters which frequently support the GOP--as the spawn of Satan.
 
 
+3 # Phlippinout 2015-07-16 15:10
Yes Roland, they seemed needed until the white men of those unions were being forced to let others play too, boom, unions gone. Unions bad. Thats how it always plays out....
 
 
0 # bingers 2015-07-17 08:39
From Lincoln:

It is not needed, nor fitting here [in discussing the Civil War] that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions; but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effect to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor, in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them, and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded thus far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.
 
 
+3 # bingers 2015-07-17 08:39
Now, there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights.
 
 
+48 # futhark 2015-07-15 19:55
I was a negotiator for a California Teachers Association local in a small rural school district for many years. Yes, we did negotiate for issue related to salary and benefits. Our group only agreed to form after the school district adopted several sequential policies contrary to our interests as professionals in terms of compensation and working conditions. It took about two years of abuse by the district until we had a majority that was willing to give up the old, comfortable paternalistic relation and assume a new and sometimes uncomfortable, adversarial, and, yes, occasionally confrontational relationship.

Aside from the salary and benefits, we also negotiated for such things as teachers having telephones in their classrooms, now regarded as a safety issue for staff and students and required by California state law, but which, only 20 years ago, was being denied by a local school district still stuck in a 19th century mindset.

Real democracy, where those with opposing positions are freely allowed to present their points of view on the basis of enjoying equal status, is almost always guaranteed to produce superior long-term results than any authoritarian and paternalistic hierarchical system, which is why the Founders guaranteed in the Constitution a republican form of government in each state.
 
 
+5 # Vardoz 2015-07-16 10:04
When govts hurt the majority to enrich themselves while eroding the 99%, it is no longer a Democracy. Outcomes must include the ability for prosperity for the majority which is also in the constitution.
 
 
+5 # Texas Aggie 2015-07-16 09:31
Sweetheart, The people who sit across from the bargaining table from teachers are not elected by the voters. They are the local school administration. And why do I get the idea that you have no problem with the police unions that are willing to go to the mat for any cop who beats up on or kills unarmed civilians just for the pure joy of it?
 
 
0 # theshift33 2015-07-19 05:49
Agreed. The Police Unions need to take the
word Benevolent out of their title. They
don't live up to that anymore and are losing integrity, professionalism and
credibility daily.
 
 
+71 # davidr 2015-07-15 17:57
Quoting Roland:
… [1] what the overspending of other people’s money does to govt.

… [2] Can anyone tell me why FDR, who was a strong supporter of unions, was against public sector unions?


(1) Walker used budget cuts to give big tax-breaks to corporations. It was he who took the people's money & gave it away for no HHI gains, no employment gains, no gains to state GDP, no nothing — just a degradation of the people's public services & educational institutions, lower wages & weakened job security.

(2) FDR objected to collective bargaining for wages that had been enacted in the budget. In that sense, collective bargaining seemed to him a bit like flouting the law. This isn't a necessary conclusion, but it was his. For FDR, the legislature was the proper forum to debate public sector wages, and he made no objection to organized lobbying efforts by public sector workers.

BUT NOTE: FDR's rationale is NOT Walker's. WI public sector workers hadn't impinged on the budget when he made his attack, but in fact, Walker himself had done so (see point 1 above). What bothers Walker is precisely what did NOT bother FDR. Walker can't abide the ability of public sector workers to organize, to lobby, to express their right of association in collecting dues, hiring lobbyists, & especially turning out votes.
 
 
-37 # Roland 2015-07-15 21:18
(01) The people's money? Really?

(2)“The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”

Government collective bargaining means voters do not have the final say on public policy. Instead their elected representatives must negotiate spending and policy decisions with unions. That is not exactly democratic – a fact that unions once recognized.
George Meany was not alone. Up through the 1950s, unions widely agreed that collective bargaining had no place in government.”
- by a conservative in the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions
 
 
+25 # davidr 2015-07-15 22:05
(1) Yep, that's what I said. And guess whom I'm quoting. That's right … W Bush. And now, to speak for myself & for a rational understanding of public finance: tax receipts in a democracy are a public asset. Period. Here's how I know: (a) govt bonds are issued against tax revenues (taxes = asset, bond = liability); (b) our govt, I've been given to understand is of, by & for the people. Our asset, our liability.

(2) (a) Who told you that the labor movement is based on profit-sharing? The Fox News Fairy? The focus of the labor movement has historically been on wages & working conditions. If govt workers generate no profit, Roland, then your argument resolves to the idea that they shouldn't be paid at all. (b) You then wrongly presume that public sector unions shouldn't exist because they shouldn't strike. That's another bit of nonsense. Who says it's lawful for them to strike? Mostly, it isn't, but they can still have a union, pay dues, point out worker safety concerns, lobby the legislature & GOTV. (c) You say, astoundingly, that the representatives elected by the people to carry out the people's business (e.g., establish budgets) should not actually do so in a democracy. Why do we have these elections if they're just a waste of bunting?
 
 
-25 # Roland 2015-07-15 22:14
For those of you who don't believe FDR was against public sector unions, includes quotes from FDR

- from politifact -

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/aug/13/scott-walker/Did-FDR-oppose-collective-bargaining-for-governmen/
 
 
+19 # davidr 2015-07-15 23:32
Surely you didn't read the article, Roland. For example, the part where FDR said that public workers could join any union they liked, or the part where he expressed no objection whatever to the TVA's agreement to bargain with its unionized workers.

On the evidence you yourself cite, FDR did not object to public sector unions, nor did he object categorically to collective bargaining in the public sector. Moreover, he never took any action to reduce public workers' wages, never even suggested restricting union membership among public sector workers, and never expressed the least desire to frustrate the collection of dues and the concerted political activities of public sector unions. FDR's objection was narrow & clear. Public sector wages were legislative enactments & not subject to administrative bargaining, except through the legislative process. Other matters, such as safety & labor practices, were in his opinion fair game for discussion among management & labor, whether unionized or not. And as to GOTV, lobbying, education & political activities of any description by public sector unions, FDR was all for it. The idea that he & Scott Walker see eye to eye on the treatment of public sector workers or the status of their unions is (even by admission of the article you cite) far-fetched.
 
 
-16 # Roland 2015-07-16 06:55
Seriously, these comments after you read the whole article?
at one point politifact summarizes -
Taken together, the letter and news conference remarks positioned Roosevelt as deeply skeptical of the need and wisdom of collective bargaining power for unions in the federal system.

When he wrote that the unique circumstances would make it "impossible" for government officials to make a binding deal on behalf of the government, that didn’t leave a lot of ambiguity.
 
 
+9 # davidr 2015-07-16 10:42
Walker is dancing on the head of a pin. I'll repeat: "FDR's objection was narrow & clear." He disfavored collective bargaining by public sector unions, because he took the view that an administration could not upon its own authority implement changes (i.e., grant wage increases) in a legislatively enacted budget. How you or Walker could think that it's an intellectual coup to find that FDR held this opinion is beyond me. FDR was in favor of public sector employees joining any union they wished. He was in favor of them acting collectively in any way they chose, except striking. Otherwise, he made no objection to their collecting dues, educating their members on political matters, lobbying the legislature, appealing through media to public opinion, demanding safety & other workplace improvements, campaigning for & against candidates & legislative proposals.

There was no public employees' strike in WI, nor did Scott Walker intend his anti-union actions to address any such thing. How do I know? Well, HE EXEMPTED PUBLIC SAFETY UNIONS! The very unions by which strikes would be most damaging to the public interest were untouched by Walker's scheme!

The idea that Walker & FDR share the same principle on this matter is both grotesquely uninformed & absurd on any plausible reading of the facts.
 
 
+8 # Vardoz 2015-07-16 10:01
It's amazing that people could actually vote for a scum bag like this. But perhaps he's stealing elections with those easily hackable e- machines.
 
 
+24 # jimmyjames 2015-07-15 19:28
It has become ever increasingly obvious that Roland is an avid consumer of "the blue pill". From Wikipedia: "The red pill and its opposite, the blue pill, are popular culture symbols representing the choice between embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality (red pill) and the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue pill). Redpills are people who have chosen to face reality, while bluepills remain living in ignorance of the truth, whether by choice or because they have not had a choice."
 
 
+24 # reiverpacific 2015-07-15 19:31
Quoting Roland:
The reason you don’t understand your friends is that they haven’t become socialists. They, like the majority in this country, think we have gone far enough in that direction. They can easily look around and see what the overspending of other people’s money does to govt. finances and in turn the economic health of the city, state or country.

Nice biased hit piece. The left should be proud of this type of attack.

So what if Walker got funds from out of state for his last two campaigns. He needed this to go up against all the funds coming from out of state to defeat him. He was the number one target of unions and their money. The country poured in money from both sides of the debate to hopefully affect the direction of the country.

Yes, Walker stood up to school teachers and other public sector unions for the benefit of the economy and the financial soundness of the state. That benefits the public as a whole over the long term. Can anyone tell me why FDR, who was a strong supporter of unions, was against public sector unions?

Could your impertinence -just for we plebs- inform us where this puppet of the reactionary forces of anti-populism, got his lucre to withstand a near-as-Hell recall, in which non-'Sconnies" as my daughter who lives and works there refers to natives, many of them deadbeats who'd never voted before, were bussed in by the same string-pullers with food and booze laid on, to swell the depleted ranks of Walker supporters?
 
 
+20 # janla 2015-07-15 19:47
Quoting Roland:
The reason you don’t understand your friends is that they haven’t become socialists. They, like the majority in this country, think we have gone far enough in that direction. They can easily look around and see what the overspending of other people’s money does to govt. finances and in turn the economic health of the city, state or country.

Nice biased hit piece. The left should be proud of this type of attack.

So what if Walker got funds from out of state for his last two campaigns. He needed this to go up against all the funds coming from out of state to defeat him. He was the number one target of unions and their money. The country poured in money from both sides of the debate to hopefully affect the direction of the country.

Yes, Walker stood up to school teachers and other public sector unions for the benefit of the economy and the financial soundness of the state. That benefits the public as a whole over the long term. Can anyone tell me why FDR, who was a strong supporter of unions, was against public sector unions?

Then why isn't the state financially sound? Why does Walker want WI to an untenable debt for our crumbling infrastructure? How does destroying the our education system benefit anyone in this state? Unions provide people with the strength to stand up against the tyranny of corporations and systems that would like to reduce their rights and their wages. People who don't like union support are jealous people.
 
 
-32 # Roland 2015-07-15 21:31
"Public sector unions insist on laws that serve their interests – at the expense of the common good.

Union contracts make it next to impossible to reward excellent teachers or fire failing ones. Union contracts give government employees gold-plated benefits – at the cost of higher taxes and less spending on other priorities. The alternative to Walker's budget was kicking 200,000 children off Medicaid. "
from same article in NY Times cited above

Standing up against for profit corporations is different than standing up against the supposed mistreatment of govt. to its employees.
 
 
+12 # Texas Aggie 2015-07-16 10:07
And speaking about the financial situation in WI, the only way that Gov Dickhead managed to balance the budget this time was by transferring payments that are due this year to next year. It's a technique he learned from ex Gov Goodhair and then refined. This along with a bunch of other accountant subterfuges is the only thing that is hiding a deficit of over $1 billion. And he doesn't even try to explain how WI is the very last of the states in creating new businesses or why it steadily dropped in people's income every year that he was in office.

Contrast the situation in WI with that in MN. They both started out roughly the same, but now MN has a surplus, has a growing education system, and has a lot more job creation than WI does. They did it with "socialism" policies of making the filthy rich pay as much as regular people. They did it by honest bookkeeping. They did it by investing in the state and the people.
 
 
+26 # JCM 2015-07-15 19:48
If you want to see how well the very conservative Republican Governor Walker did compared to its next door neighbor Minnesota's Governor, one of the most progressive candidates for governor in the country, Mark Dayton of the Democratic-Farm er-Labor Party. Check out, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/opinion/sunday/right-vs-left-in-the-midwest.html?_r=0
Minnesota had some problems but basically trounced Wisconsin. So much for trickle down economics…
There's not much about FDR on collective bargaining for government employees. In one important letter he explained that Congress determine wages for federal government employees so there really isn’t an avenue for unions to bargain. However he “praised a union contract negotiated between the federally owned Tennessee Valley Authority and unions representing workers for the electric utility created by the federal government in 1933.” Overall FDR’s attitude was immeasurably different to Walkers, basically destructive actions toward unions and regular people.
 
 
+9 # CAMUS1111 2015-07-16 07:02
@Roland from TROLLAND--you throw around the word "socialist" (as if it's bad and as if you understand it), but you get all upset when some on this site call you the fascist you obviously are--Hey, wear it as a badge of honor--be proud to be the goose stepper you are. And, no, I won't respond seriously to you, because you are not to be taken seriously.
 
 
+5 # ericlipps 2015-07-16 11:06
Quoting Roland:
The reason you don’t understand your friends is that they haven’t become socialists. They, like the majority in this country, think we have gone far enough in that direction. They can easily look around and see what the overspending of other people’s money does to govt. finances and in turn the economic health of the city, state or country.

Nice biased hit piece. The left should be proud of this type of attack.

The left should be proud it's attacked by people like you, who resort to name-calling and doctrinaire ranting to obscure the fact that they don't know what they're talking about.
 
 
-14 # Roland 2015-07-16 11:14
You don't know what you are talking about. The only name I have called people on this site is socialist, which Bernie Sanders calls himself and the people here support.
 
 
+10 # David Starr 2015-07-16 12:50
@Roland: So what? Unfortunately, there are U.S. citizens who don't know what socialism is (like yourself?), because they have been spoon fed propaganda from the U.S. media, government and think tanks.

Unlike other parts of the world, there is not a bright understanding of what socialism is among some U.S. citizens.
 
 
+9 # David Starr 2015-07-16 12:45
@Roland: Scott Walker is a con artist. Contrary to his grandiose promises, many became unemployed, job growth was stifled and there are high deficits.

His promise of 250,000 new private sector jobs failed, generating barely half. Percentage-wise , Wisconsin has a 1.5% job growth while the national average is 2.6%.

Walker also created the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. which has been accused of mismanagement, lost track of millions of dollars of loans, and gave awards to ineligible businesses.

Walker is heavily backed by Sheldon Aldeson and the Koch bros., both of which prioritize capital over labor, which means that the working class gets screwed over by the likes of a Scott Walker.
 
 
+3 # mmcmanus 2015-07-16 12:54
"For the benefit of the economy and the financial soundness of the state"? You're kidding right--the Wisconsin economy has been sinking every year Howdy Doody Walker has been governor, and the state deficit is growing. Some benefit.
 
 
0 # theshift33 2015-07-19 05:44
Roland:

If you've got your shorts in a knot about
socialism, you might want to dig into the
old history of who birthed and established
the foundation for the Global Agenda project which is well underway.
 
 
+3 # sfintersect 2015-07-16 10:17
I have a friend who was a protester in the State Capital, when clear thinking people tried to get him out of office says that the state has yet to recovered from his anti-labor, anti-intellectu al, anti-real-democ ratic process ~ I watched that process carefully & am clear that he, like Donald Trump, are a clear and way too present danger to the United States of America.
 
 
-10 # Roland 2015-07-16 11:12
Maybe it was the clear thinking people in WI that kept him inn office.

That said Trump is ridiculous.
 
 
+4 # mmcmanus 2015-07-16 13:10
Quoting Roland:
Maybe it was the clear thinking people in WI that kept him inn office.

That said Trump is ridiculous.


Well, you're doing better. In this point you're comment on Trump is correct, so you are 50% right, a much higher percentage than your previous posts.
 
 
-83 # Activista 2015-07-15 13:42
"George Soros has spent an astounding $52 million building the "Soros Web"—a vast array of organizations and associations dedicated to advancing socialism.

Soros has woven a web of influential left-wing operations, including Media Matters and Center for American Progress, that advance his socialist ideology.
He has financial ties to America's most well-known media personalities, including CNN's David Gergen and Christiane Amanpour.
To the tune of $6.4 million, Soros has worked behind the scenes to fund smear campaigns against 2016 conservative presidential hopefuls Rick Perry, Scott Walker, and Bobby Jindal.
He has funneled millions of dollars into journalism schools and more than 180 media outlets across the nation."
https://www.stopsorosnow.com/?utm_source=CNS300x250&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=StopSorosNow&utm_campaign=2015banners
support Soros
 
 
+30 # Activista 2015-07-15 17:25
Support Soros - we need Baltic type of democracy - social democracy. Not oligarchy.
 
 
-63 # Texas Girl 2015-07-15 17:40
Activista, All I see are "thumbs downs" -- no one disputing your comments with any factual information -- the usual response from those who have an inability to draw logical conclusions from data.
 
 
+29 # tedrey 2015-07-15 18:22
Perhaps the red thumbs (none mine) are because the comment was totally off topic. Also pretty incoherent.
 
 
-9 # Activista 2015-07-15 22:06
"Soros has worked behind the scenes to fund smear campaigns against 2016 conservative presidential hopefuls Rick Perry, Scott Walker, and Bobby Jindal."
SCOTT WALKER
 
 
+7 # Texas Aggie 2015-07-16 10:09
No one has to fund "smear campaigns" against the lot you mention. They do a fine job all by themselves.
 
 
+3 # Activista 2015-07-16 10:29
I am against the republicans - support Soros - this was posted as an information - how money determines the USA elections -
 
 
+18 # Merlin 2015-07-15 18:43
Texas Girl 2015-07-15 17:40
tedrey is correct. Activista is totally off topic. And you don't seem to know it ether. This kind of post borders on trolling.

Regarding any response. I wouldn't bother to respond seriously to a troll post. I did give both of you a thumbs down. You both deserve it.
 
 
-22 # Roland 2015-07-15 21:48
is it really off topic? the article brings up Koch who has a very different set of ideas than Soros. The author of the article wants to diminish Walker due to Koch's support. Should we also diminish, all democrats who get support from Soros?

If Soros is using his money to attack Walker, why is it right to demonize Koch for spending money to help Walker? The whole Koch is evil because he is spending money on politics is thrown out the window unless you criticize Soros as well. It then becomes not that these people are spending money, but rather whether they are spending it on your side. The left is intolerant of other ideas being expressed.
 
 
+26 # Jim Rocket 2015-07-15 22:12
To put it simply Soros tries to do things to make life better for people and the Koch brothers do things to make themselves more rich at everyone else's expense.
 
 
-14 # Roland 2015-07-16 06:58
That is your opinion. Others have a different opinion and the left wants to silence their speech. Is the left afraid they will lose out in the court of public opinion, when presented with both sides?
 
 
+5 # mmcmanus 2015-07-16 13:32
We'd like to take away your guns, and limit the cream filled chocolate donuts you are stuffing American to obesity, and maybe some other things, but silence your speech? Never. It is right wing speech that is slowly but surely driving the country left, to a point where we will start solving real problems confronting us.
 
 
+2 # bingers 2015-07-17 08:13
Quoting Roland:
is it really off topic? the article brings up Koch who has a very different set of ideas than Soros. The author of the article wants to diminish Walker due to Koch's support. Should we also diminish, all democrats who get support from Soros?

If Soros is using his money to attack Walker, why is it right to demonize Koch for spending money to help Walker? The whole Koch is evil because he is spending money on politics is thrown out the window unless you criticize Soros as well. It then becomes not that these people are spending money, but rather whether they are spending it on your side. The left is intolerant of other ideas being expressed.


Because the Kochs are funding Walker and in return are getting Wisconsin state property for one cent on the dollar. The Kochs are corrupt, Soros isn't. And, BTW, Soros is the one who funded Solidarity I Poland and got them out from under the Soviet thumb. If you had the ability to think outside your hateful ideology you would worship the ground he walks on. 8^)
 
 
0 # Activista 2015-07-18 12:09
Soros - immigrant from Hungary - "Soros, the Hungarian-born financier who has pledged $12.5 million to ensure "we can write off the Bush doctrine as a temporary aberration .."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros
 
 
+2 # CAMUS1111 2015-07-16 06:57
@TexassGirl--Lo ok out!! Jade Helm is behind you!!! Time to secede!
 
 
+2 # mmcmanus 2015-07-16 13:17
Texas Girl, for a while I thought you were really Rick Perry, but now I don't--while I disagree with your comment, it is coherently written, something an intellectual lightweight like Perry is not capable of producing.
 
 
+33 # jimmyjames 2015-07-15 18:57
Based on your observations, I hereby give my complete and unbridled support to George Soros! Man of the hour!!! Thank God we common people have at least one billionaire on our side....
 
 
+3 # Vardoz 2015-07-16 09:59
He's donating to Hillary- A mistake - she does not have the track record to show that she is what she says. She's a Neocon in disguise. Where as Sanders is the real deal who wants a new deal for the 99%. To many Clintons are not good for us.
 
 
+17 # reiverpacific 2015-07-15 19:44
Quoting Activista:
"George Soros has spent an astounding $52 million building the "Soros Web"—a vast array of organizations and associations dedicated to advancing socialism.

Soros has woven a web of influential left-wing operations, including Media Matters and Center for American Progress, that advance his socialist ideology.
He has financial ties to America's most well-known media personalities, including CNN's David Gergen and Christiane Amanpour.
To the tune of $6.4 million, Soros has worked behind the scenes to fund smear campaigns against 2016 conservative presidential hopefuls Rick Perry, Scott Walker, and Bobby Jindal.
He has funneled millions of dollars into journalism schools and more than 180 media outlets across the nation."
https://www.stopsorosnow.com/?utm_source=CNS300x250&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=StopSorosNow&utm_campaign=2015banners
support Soros

So -(and I will check y'r link; just its "StopSorosNow" component makes it suspicious); what's so bad about Socialism?
It's never been tried here yet.
You want to consolidate the already established Oligarchy -a.k.a. nouveau Banana Republic type feudalism- even more?
 
 
+3 # Activista 2015-07-16 10:34
we need Baltic type of democracy - social democracy. Not oligarchy.
 
 
+54 # jimmyjames 2015-07-15 17:10
Citizens of Wisconsin voted to keep this BOZO on a recall vote, despite the fact he was anti-union and anti-working people across his state. As far as I am concerned, the people of Wisconsin deserve this idiot. BUT, that does not mean the rest of the country should have to suffer under his leadership.
 
 
+16 # janla 2015-07-15 19:51
Quoting jimmyjames:
Citizens of Wisconsin voted to keep this BOZO on a recall vote, despite the fact he was anti-union and anti-working people across his state. As far as I am concerned, the people of Wisconsin deserve this idiot. BUT, that does not mean the rest of the country should have to suffer under his leadership.

This was the election during which couple of bags for ballots were found in the Waukesha County Clerk's office a number of hour after the other ballots were counted.
 
 
+6 # Jim Rocket 2015-07-15 22:14
If I'm not mistaken the Walker campaign out spent the Challenger by something like 6 to 1.
 
 
-7 # Roland 2015-07-16 06:59
how much money was spent against him?
 
 
+1 # bingers 2015-07-17 08:14
Quoting Roland:
how much money was spent against him?


Very little which is why he won despite being totally corrupt and bad for the state.
 
 
+29 # reiverpacific 2015-07-15 19:39
I'm proud that my daughter, a chef in Madison, was one of those who sent and even ran herself at times, through the lines to provide decent food for the Capitol occupiers, whilst "Wanker" slunk off through a tunnel rather than face his critics.
Like all reactionaries, he's a shivering coward who only dictates, cannot abide nor maintain a rational fact-based debate (Hitler and Rush Limpballs are classic examples) and will twist any factoid into a major issue if it can be made even seemingly rational by his handlers.
Latest example -when asked about foreign policy, especially as regard ISL, he bloviated something like "If I can handle 100,000 Teachers and Union radicals, I can handle ISIS".
What a fucking genius THAT shows him to be.
I wonder if he's ever been out of the country? At least Donald Trump has that over him.
Such a parcel of Rogues in a Nation.
 
 
+27 # Barbell 2015-07-15 21:02
Walker is a complete embarrassment to the State of Wisconsin and should be to all Republicans, except that there are no rational Republicans left. A party that has Trump, Walker and most of the rest of the clowns actually running for national office and who actually give them money is dead meat and I can smell it from here.
 
 
+16 # geraldom 2015-07-15 22:36
You really can't blame Scott Walker for what he is or for what he did. One must always blame the stupid, naive, and ignorant people who voted him into office, not once, but twice.

The fact that Donald Trump is leading the field of corrupt and lying candidates on the Republican side running for president shows that those stupid, naive, and ignorant people are still alive and well in this nation.

God help us all come 2016.
 
 
+2 # mmcmanus 2015-07-16 13:36
He will, with a Democratic President and Senate.
 
 
+5 # davehaze 2015-07-15 22:47
I read Comments fairly quickly because I skip Roland. Try it your brain becomes infinately less cluttered. And you can save your thumbs-down for more deserving clueless Comments.
 
 
+1 # Merlin 2015-07-16 00:42
davehaze 2015-07-15 22:47

Hi Dave,
I agree with your thought if you are reading for substance.

With Roland Gault, I read him for the humor he brings. He is truly harmless, as jimmyjames (jimmyjames 2015-07-15 19:28) aptly notes above. He is “bluepilled.” So totally consumed in his fantasy he can not communicate with people at all. Check his “out of the ballpark” response to my comment about activista being off topic (Merlin 2015-07-15 18:43). That one really made me laugh. Only Mr. Gault could respond like that!

Yes, there are couple of posters here (they are not on this thread however…yet) that fit your bill. They often consume the thread, and although not trolls, are a waste of time to read. Preachy and arrogant, without any humor in their posts. Those I skip, and my mind is lighter for it.

I appreciate your comments. :-)
 
 
-8 # Roland 2015-07-16 07:02
to davehaze Of course your brain is less cluttered when you only hear and want to believe one side of the argument. Why let inconvenient facts get into you head at all?
 
 
+5 # mmcmanus 2015-07-16 13:42
Thank you, now I understand the basis of why you write as you do. A fact is a fact, whether or not "convenient" or "inconvenient". Your categorization of facts explains why your posts are so factually wrong.
 
 
+1 # bingers 2015-07-17 08:18
That is a conservative activity solely. The left listens and considers, the right instantly rejects everything that doesn't fit into their skewed outlook on life and politics.
 
 
-1 # Roland 2015-07-19 14:22
The left here does not listen or consider anything the conflicts with their beliefs or desires.
 
 
+1 # bingers 2015-07-17 08:16
Quoting davehaze:
I read Comments fairly quickly because I skip Roland. Try it your brain becomes infinately less cluttered. And you can save your thumbs-down for more deserving clueless Comments.


But it's so much fun seeing how dumb his posts are. It gives one a sense of rampant superiority.
 
 
+4 # elkingo 2015-07-16 00:27
Don't know enough details to be really sure, but off the bat it looks like Soros is my kind of guy: wielding big capital to overthrow itself.
 
 
+15 # cr8f 2015-07-16 06:23
God Roland, socialists as you call them are now countries like Norway, Denmark and Sweden that, unlike us, spend their money on roads, bridges and not on wars in the middle east.

I'm 65 and remember Nixon pulling the same crap Walker is pulling.
Invest in your citizens america with affordable education, not privatizing everything like Walker is doing.

UW professors got 3 times the WI GDP in grants in 2012 the last time data is available, what happens if just 1/3 of them leave the university as is happening now.

Get a grip.
 
 
+6 # Vardoz 2015-07-16 09:55
It's these kinds of pernicious and criminal activities that are eating away at our Democratic system bit by bit. This is why it's so important to elect more like Senator Bernie Sanders who has devoted all of his adult political life to fighting for principles and ethics and for the betterment of the majority.
 
 
+5 # geraldom 2015-07-16 21:03
If anyone gets this far down in the long list of comments, the following article came out today that should piss everyone off. In my many years on this planet, I have never heard of such a thing. I’ve heard of corrupt courts letting the guilty go free and letting the innocent go to jail, but I’ve never heard of any court ordering an investigation to be completely halted, but not just halted. I’ve never heard of a court actually order the investigative agency to totally destroy the evidence that has been collected. Reference the following article that came out today:

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/walker-goes-scott-free-as-state-judges-shut-down-124254285691.html

If Obama’s USDOJ doesn’t get involved in this, then the Democrats deserve to lose in 2016.
 
 
+7 # reiverpacific 2015-07-16 21:32
Quoting geraldom:
If anyone gets this far down in the long list of comments, the following article came out today that should piss everyone off. In my many years on this planet, I have never heard of such a thing. I’ve heard of corrupt courts letting the guilty go free and letting the innocent go to jail, but I’ve never heard of any court ordering an investigation to be completely halted, but not just halted. I’ve never heard of a court actually order the investigative agency to totally destroy the evidence that has been collected. Reference the following article that came out today:

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/walker-goes-scott-free-as-state-judges-shut-down-124254285691.html

If Obama’s USDOJ doesn’t get involved in this, then the Democrats deserve to lose in 2016.


Just heard it too and almost choked on my vodka-tonic.
But Walker, just after his cheating narrow escape from recall, quietly introduced a deep measure of cronyism into the state judiciary, from which he is now reaping the benefits.
But let's just hope he isn't out of the swamp of his own making yet.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN