you must not like kids

Kris,

I've seen the footage. It's a freak show. It's not civil and it's bordering on unruly. You've all done a great job of annoying the heck out of those who were on the fence on this thing and who've now actually taken a look at the figures for salaries and benefits in relation to the hyperbole about the demise of our educational system.

Honestly, I mean it. Please keep it up.

Don't worry, Bob, we will keep it up. And by the way, the Madison Police have repeatedly stated that these protests have been very civil and peaceful.

Great meeting Kris- an accurate assessment from someone who attended in person.

By the way researchers- don't miss this from that bastion of left wing nuttery Forbes - The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Employee Pensions-

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/25/the-wisconsin-lie-exposed-taxpayers-actually-contribute-nothing-to-public-employee-pensions/

You can call it whatever you want, Katherine, but people can actually see the coverage of this circus on TV. That's not the impression many are coming away with. I suppose the next argument is going to that the media (no doubt, Fox) is misrepresenting what's going on through some sort of CDI trickery or some such.

Mr. McBride-
According to your comment, you weren't there. And unless you are also in contact with everyone seeing the coverage on TV, you have no idea what all those people are thinking. That's 2 gross exaggerations without an ounce of fact. Add to that a 3rd assumption that folks who were there will complain that the media misrepresented the meeting. That's a crazy amount of unsubstantiated assertions. Unless quickly finding yourself labeled as a comment section troll, it may be more constructive to focus on the issues at hand. Presenting reasoned arguments or useful information will at least earn respect if it doesn't change minds. It's harder, but a more civil conversation has to start with the adults, don't you think? Grandstanding via cheap shots will do nothing but earn you a coupla "attaboys" from the like-minded.

I'm basing it what I saw on TV, what others who've seen the same stuff on TV have said to me about it (including a couple of very left leaning friends out in CA) and some supposition posted here and elsewhere (look around, you can find it on your own - you don't have to look far) that there was some sort of media "cover up" in play last night.

On the other hand I see all sorts of statements made about Darling because she didn't return emails or something and the fact that she cancelled an appearance. Those statements are not based on anything other than supposition about why the emails weren't returned and why she may have cancelled the appearance.

Don't try to take some sort of high road here. You want to talk issues, have at it. I'll be happy to. It would be refreshing break from the kettle banging and pouting and running away that your side seems to consider and effective method of addressing the issues so far.

Just for the record, I went back and read your comment again. I think you thought I was referring to the meeting you folks had. I wasn't. I was referring the stuff up in Madison. Kris referenced that in his comment that I replied to and I went on to address that portion of his comment.

As regards your meeting about the recall, this is first I've heard about it. I have absolutely no idea how it went other than what was related here. I've got no reason to assume it was anything but civil. If that's what you thought I was referring to, I apologize for being unclear on that.

My comments stand as regards the activities in Madison and conspiracy theories surrounding the "media blackout" last night.

And I have some friends, including some very right leaning who recognize that the recall effort is within our rights, and I know an amazing number of people that were impressed and excited by the meeting. Your assertions and mine plus a buck and a half will get each of us a cup of coffee.
What's known is that Darling has been unreachable by her constituents. Many have called, and there was at least one individual who waited outside her office for 20 hours, only to be completely ignored. Why? We don't know, but we can say this is not a great time to leave your constiuents guessing as to why. Bad governing to abandon the people you represent.
The high road isn't hard to take in comment sections. All that is needed is civility and refraining from trolling with cheap shots like "pouting and running away". What's being done is being done by those with passionate patriotism and strong beliefs about where we should be headed. What's being done is being done because for many of us think it is absurd that teachers making 43,000 a year are told they need to share the pain, while millionaires and billionaires get tax cuts. What's being done is, in one facet, like the parade of filibustering with which the GOP held Senate hostage- the minority did what they had to do because of what they believe in. You can label it with deprecating labels, but that prevents any "effective method of addressing the issues".

Did the person who decided to sit outside Darling's office for 20 hours (why they'd have gone past 3-4 is beyond me, but I guess that's a personal choice) bother to call ahead to see if Darling would have time to see them? That's pretty much normal protocol in the real world, regardless of whom one is trying to see.

Speaking of "abandoning the people you represent", there are 14 Democratic senators are that one could only see (regardless of how long one chooses to sit in front of their offices OR call ahead) if you could track them down in Illinois. Why is it that only Republican officials are expected to change their stripes to represent the will of the minority of their constituents? Do these Democrats not have voters who voted on the other side that they represent as well? They don't even feel the need to be on the job anywhere near their place of employment, much less take time out of their day to meet with an unannounced visitor. And yet you're okay with that?

I'm sorry, I'm going to label that as foolishness and, frankly, it could be considered abandonment of position. Compared to Darling's lack of returning phone calls or meeting with someone who decided to drop in, it's a much more callous showing of disrespect for those they were elected to and are being paid to represent.

Mr. McBride-
Extreme move by the Heroic 14? Yes.
Necessary to prevent the Walker power grab and union busting? Absolutely.
Comparing the 14 to Darling is a false equivalency, she wasn't put in a position with no other options to represent her voters. In fact she has an option to listen, yet hasn't.
Unreachable?- Wrong. They are in communication with their offices.

If Walker's bill- which has many problems beyond the fiction of balancing budgets- wasn't so extremely radical (union busting, no bid contracts, change in balance of power eliminating legislative review, revision of healthcare controls) and if Walker was willing to sit down and negotiate, there'd be other options. Walker's unstatesman-like stubbornness has offered nothing. Using your own argument that the 14 have other constiuents... so does Walker.
The 14 are an easy target if you don't look at the causes, but not looking deeper won't resolve
your frustrations. Obviously you do not think it is right, but it's not clear you understand why they made the admittedly extreme choice.

No apology necessary, but when one labels away, it prevents any insightful perspective and understanding and only welcomes limited imagination, limited solutions, and the clearly evident frustrations. The funny thing is there is evidence that the GOP would do, and have done, effectively- the same thing. Did you come out against the procedural filibustering used over and over and over and over and over by the GOP?

Just as I didn't "come out against" the attempt to add on amendments by Democrats in the assembly that prolonged that process, I don't come out against filibustering by the GOP or anybody else for that matter because it's part of procedure. Running away to Illinois is not.

The equivalency is not only valid it's spot on.

The only argument you can make here (and the one you are, in fact, making) is that despite winning this last time around, the only acceptable thing for the Republicans to do is cave on precisely what they were elected to do because, you, the minority, find it unacceptable. And, that it only applies to Republicans because....well....it just does.

And unless you're willing to argue that Federal employees are represented by toothless giants posing as unions, limiting collective bargaining to wage alone is NOT union busting.

Your use of labels is no different, if less accurate, than mine. And that link you provided above, if you read all the way through including the update, gives the best argument for what Walker is going to do as regards collective bargaining. Correct the expensive mistakes of the past.

I'll speak more plainly and to the point than you do. Don't label someone else a "troll" unless you're prepared to prove you're not taking the same tact yourself.

Trying to control and limit the number arguments I can make by claiming you can is more than a bit absurd. There was no argument for the GOP to "cave". That kind of all or nothing extremism is what lead to the Heroic 14's extreme choice. The GOP were not elected to bust the unions, which is exactly what removing the bargaining rights leads to. If the unions were such toothless giants, then Walker wouldn't be trying to strip away their powers.

Wandering once again off topic to chastise and name call is something that was evident in your first post and your last. Call the kettle black.

Who's limiting your arguments? You're free, obviously, to attempt to make any argument you think you can. I've responded to yours and your tactic has been to shift to something else.

I'll go back to your point about the person who claimed they sat in Darling's office for 20 hours waiting for her. Instead of responding to my question as to whether she had an appointment or not, you just chose to move on.

You apparently didn't understand my point on the unions. Federal employees who are union represented don't have collective bargaining "rights". And yet, somehow, they seem to have unions to which those federal employees are willing to pay dues. Based on your description of the effect of having partial bargaining rights removed, much less not having them at all, that's not possible.

You said you wanted to debate the issues. I'm trying to do so, but frankly if all you want to do is make statements and not elaborate or attempt to back them up when asked to do so, what's the point?

Walker is trying to remove collective bargaining rights (along with the other very disconcerting items in the bill previously mentioned). Google it up- it's online and you can read it. Might help you get clarity on the full extent of the changes, changes he did not campaign on. Removing these rights removes power. To argue otherwise is illogical.

I've not seen any attempt of you trying to debate issues.Whether or not the Union official had an appointment, or how long he waited is not a debate. Your first post to an article on a meeting in Shorewood was to name call peaceful protesters (See; Amendment, First) and judge- falsely- something you had only seen on TV. Very telling.

Being so emotional, I recommend going to add your voice to the tiny faction supporting Walker in Madison and getting a first hand experience. You'll be pleasantly surprised at how friendly everyone is.

btw- This JUST IN- Majority supports workers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/us/01poll.html?src=me

Mike,

Nobody is debating that he's trying to remove some items from the collective bargaining "rights" that those union employees currently have. I'm not arguing it. Walker certainly isn't either. It's not, however, union busting

The reason he didn't campaign on it is that it's the means to an end, not an end itself. He's made that very clear in a solid, logical argument. You're seeing the need for this action as we speak. Collective bargaining is being used right now to rush through contracts before his bill gets signed into law. The contracts fly square in the face of what the unions are saying they're willing to do. The actions being taken by unions, as this minute, do not match the words they're saying.

I saw what I saw on TV and so did others I spoke to and their conclusion was the same one I had. Like I said before, unless you're going to tell me that somehow what I've seen was cooked up by Pixar, it was what it was.

That's proof enough for me that the tactics your side is using are not having the effect you want, and there's very logical reason why. I could explain that to you (and frankly I could explain how your side might want to reframe your argument in a fashion that's less about preaching to the choir and more about taking a minority position and making it attractive to the majority) but given that you're referring to the runaway senators as the "Heroic 14", I seriously doubt you'd understand it.

The removal of union bargaining rights would greatly deplete their power. Union busting, it's disgusting. (enjoy your weekend? Thank the unions!)
According to you, he didn't campaign on means, and means aren't something voters have to know. As long as the end is achieved, that's all we need to know to vote in candidates. The ends, not how they get there. @Bob "The reason he didn't campaign on it is that it's the means to an end, not an end itself." Laughable. Means are all of what gets debated! Ends- we can usually all agree on! Balanced budget? Sure! Excellent schools? Yeah! But how to get there- the means- that's where we diverge.

I didn't say you didn't see it on TV. I didn't claim it was Pixar. Seeing it first hand is very different than watching it mediated through a camera, edited, presented by the viewpoint of whatever channel you choose r or l. It was what it was ON TV, it was what it was in person- very different. Again- you obviously have strong feelings about it- it would be really helpful for your "side" to have another person there, and it would allow you to speak from a more experienced point of view.
My side seems to be doing ok so far. Polls out today put Walker at a loss if the election was today- voter's remorse. And a national poll supports labor union's right to collectively bargain.

btw- If you're going to claim you're not a troll, actions need to support it. Arrogant comments like " I seriously doubt you'd understand" don't support your claim.

You've yet to respond to any of my comments in substantive way. You refuse to address the point I made about federal union employees not having collective bargaining and, yet, there's still a union in tact. That supports my argument that modifying collective bargaining is not "union busting".

When I called you on your statement about a constituent sitting outside Darling's office for 20 hours, you first ignored it, then stated that it was, in fact a Union official and stated that whether or not they had an appointment was immaterial. It's not immaterial, nor is the fact that they were a Union official.

You don't like the terms I've used to refer to events and people, yet you've referred to me as a troll on several occasions.

As far as polling data goes, there's only one poll that matters. That's the one that occurred back in November. Other than that polls are fluid, change from day to day and from pollster to pollster. They're the refuge of a weak argument on points.

The only option available to your "Heroic 14" at this point is to come back and do their jobs. Come back and work within the framework of their elected positions. Vote on the bill. Introduce alternative legislation if they so wish. That's the way it works. It's the system that's been in place for years. The statement they're making now is that their unwilling to abide by the rules they've played by all along if it means they're going to lose. That's not governing. That's not representing their constituents.

Just to address a few of your points (I have a bit of a different way of copying yours and responding - hopefully it won't get confusing - and no that's not a snarky remark):

"According to you, he didn't campaign on means, and means aren't something voters have to know. As long as the end is achieved, that's all we need to know to vote in candidates."

************************

Every election includes statements of what the candidate intends to do without a full blown plan. Take a look at the last presidential election. It was based on a nebulous claim of "change". I don't recall anywhere reading about a plan to take over GM, institute "Cash for Clunkers", etc. Those means to an end (the effectiveness after the fact is certainly debatable) but you didn't see the auto dealers of the US start marching on Washington and sleeping on The Mall or Republicans running away to...I don't know...Jamaica?...because the Obama administration decided to jump in and change the way they do business, did you? It was a pretty good bet he was going to do some pretty drastic stuff and he did.

Similarly if you know Scott Walker and you've observed how he's dealt with things as a County Executive and you were aware (because he stated as much) that he was going to address the issue of public employee compensation, it's not a stretch to imagine that what he's doing now would be a part of that. So either the shock is feigned, or people honestly weren't paying attention. That's not....

..the fault of Walker or those who support him if they weren't. There were a lot of people who voted for Obama who probably wouldn't vote for him again, if you want to start playing with polls. In fact, you could argue that one reason Walker is governor today is precisely that sentiment.

I'm not surprised by what Walker's doing. I expected that he'd do whatever it takes to make the changes necessary. I've seen him in action in Milwaukee County. Anyone who is truly surprised by this can not be a very careful observer of politics in this state. And since most of those complaining seem to be exactly the opposite, the surprise at his tactics is most likely feigned.

"It was what it was ON TV, it was what it was in person- very different. Again- you obviously have strong feelings about it- it would be really helpful for your "side" to have another person there, and it would allow you to speak from a more experienced point of view."

*************************

My point is that what's important is what's on TV, not the personal experience of those who were there. While, all in all, maybe a 100M people attended (assuming the reported crowds of 70K or so were not always the same people) it was watched by millions. In addition, unless you were everywhere all the time each and everyday, your experience there is probably very limited compared to the many different areas and angles that were covered by the myriad of media personnel.

That image, trust me, was not a good one if the intent was to sway the public to your side of the debate. And that image is what many who don't have all day long to contemplate the finer points of this debate are left with. On the one side, you have a eloquent Governor who has done a very good job explaining his position and whose only stumble has been falling for a prank call, versus angry mobs consisting of people who took off work to participate in a '60s style protest, the entire Democratic contingent of the Senate running away, and assembly representatives acting like spoiled children when they didn't win a vote.

Maybe you personally didn't see that, but that's what the wider perspective showed.

Agreed- that JFC hearing was ridiculous!
Many have framed the election as, "the GOP didn't win, the Democrats lost".
It's hard to look at the turn out numbers and not understand why this analysis is made, agree with it or not.

Actually, her district seems to be much more vast than the article states and it spans 4 counties. I'm sure Mequon and Thiensville also went to Walker. Doing some rough math for entire 8th district shows Walker wins, 28K vs 39K. I missed Mequon, Richfield, Brown Deer and several other communities last time.

Have fun getting those 25,000 verifiable signatures, before you start hoping about any chance of a recall election taking place, John.

Carmen, I haven't stooped to the level of referring to people as d-bags, although I've been referred to as a troll myself.

That's right. You didn't vote for him and unfortunately for you, he won. You're certainly entitled to be disgusted with them. I'm disgusted with what I saw on a national level from 2008-2010.

Here's the difference. I didn't skip work so I could go to Washington so I could carry around signs referring to Obama as Hitler. I didn't camp out for a week and a half in a public building and make an annoyance of myself. My representatives didn't run away and hide rather than follow well established procedure for dealing with the fact that they weren't majority and were bound to lose on some issues. I didn't engage in recall campaigns with the sole intent of reversing the votes of the victors because I didn't like the fact that the guy I voted against was doing precisely what I knew he was going to do. I didn't start Facebook pages entitled "Barack Obama is a d-bag".

Instead, I waited for the proper opportunity to change things and did what people have been doing for years. I voted. I encouraged my friends to vote, even some of those who were on the other side of the fence. My side won. My side was not an unknown quantity. Nothing my side has done has been in the least bit surprising. And, despite the hyperbole, my side is not busting unions. My side is asking those who haven't to share the burden we have bearing for years.