Good point. Why did the Republicans spend 7 times as much as the Democrats to win only a few months of unused power? The Politico quote says the vote was "decisive" (actually 53-46), so why didn't Koch and the other outsider Republican oligarchs save their money for other national priorities, and just let their power grab in this state win "decisively" by itself in November, without the expensive misinformation spending?
Exit polling data also showed that 38% of state public employees voted for Walker. Maybe a lot of them like not having their paycheck raided by the union prior to even being taxed?
Because they didn't? The Dem recall effort used over $50 million of Big Labor money. I know you're not stupid, so stop falling for the Crybaby's "$4 million" spin in the video. Barrett "raised" $4 million after winning the primary in March, but most of the money went toward WI Dem PACs, which were anti-Walker. Anyhow, you and your public union goons lost. Sorry.
If I were a Wisconsin voter and I disagreed with Scott Walker's policies, I still would have cast my vote for him. Disagreeing on policy isn't a reason to have a recall election. It's just like if I were a US Senator and the President nominated someone for the Supreme Court who was qualified, but with whom I vehemently disagreed. I would vote to confirm. Elections have consequences. What's shocking to me is that the Wisconsin Democrats have treated the democratic process so shabbily when votes have gone against them. Hiding out in Illinois, trying to recall a whole host of State Senators and a Supreme Court Justice, etc. If they have the better ideas, they should promote them in the 2012 elections, not through legal wrangling.
What the hell is wrong with these people? [video=youtube;2yGYfFQjybs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yGYfFQjybs[/video]
Here's the real story, which will result in the next gov being a Dem anyway: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ll-but-investigations-may-zero-in-on-him.html
Voter turnout was quite good. As high or higher a participation rate as for the last presidential election. Seems like a good thing to me.
Peggy Noonan wrote in her column today that since Wisconsin made it optional for govt. employees to be dues paying union members, fully 1/2 of the 60,000 govt. employees stopped paying dues.
When I worked for the union with the state of Oregon the union was into itself and the teachers and to hell with the rest. We got completely sold down the river by them. It was all talk and no spine. Although I had a choice to pay or not I felt it morally right to pay dues as, even though by default, they were "representing" me as an employee. And as such they were worthy of their wages- even if they did a shitty job and betrayed us. If someone isn't willing to pay dues then they shouldn't be able to belong to a union. I also believe that no one should be compelled in government to be a member of the union. But if you're not, then you don't get the benefits of their collective bargaining. Those workers get what they get from the government- be it better or worse than the unions.
Wishful thinking, is more like it. Two failed elections, so they know they can't beat him at the polls. Time to start destroying him, so an even more corrupt and incompetent Democrat can take his place.
Bullshit. The pressure is on to quit the union to hold your job. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/06/09/151809/unions-will-start-spending-millions.html
