The State Journal used its editorial today to argue against recall elections for anything less than “illicit behavior.” Once elected, they say, office holders
…shouldn’t be targeted for recall because of public policy decisions. (emphasis added)
We’re inclined to agree, but we don’t think “public policy” means what the State Journal thinks it means. Winning a 52-48 election and then screwing the 48% is not normal public policy.
- Look, we’re not in any union. But we know WHY they went after the unions. It wasn’t just to plug a budget. Unions have always been a powerful source of (big D) Democratic support, with money, organizing, phone banks, and volunteers. When the public unions conceded on money, Walker still wanted them dead. Union money has never come close to matching corporate money in our elections, but the union bodies and the social networking were powerful. In a post-‘Citizens United’ environment, couldn’t the unions have been allowed to play their traditional role, albeit ever-more-outmatched as the contribution floodgates opened to private wealth? Nope. This was the perfect moment to unsheathe the knife. In gutting the public unions, Walker was making a pure play for advantaging the Republicans in every election in the future. Karl Rove and the sociopath wing of the Republican party smiled in their very private meetings. This had been a most excellent “public policy decision”.
- Look, we’re not all that young or all that old. We’re not blind, or handicapped, or unable to show a driver’s license. We’re not moving around because we’re in school or looking desperately for work. But we know WHY they wanted Voter ID. Everyone knows why (although not everyone can say it in public). Like the unions, certain voters tend — not overwhelmingly — but tend to vote wrong (you know, for Democrats). This is precisely why the Governor and his temporary majority passed unnecessary restrictions on who could vote. The “right” to vote? The sanctity of one person, one vote? Screw the lofty rhetoric; bring on a small (and enduring) systemic advantage in future close elections! Screw the cost. Seven million dollars? Why, what a bargain! The absence of any problem to be solved? We can work around that by repeating “voter fraud” over and over. It’s easy; we’ll just ram it through. What?!! It’s not “illicit” or anything. It’s just a “public policy decision”. We’ll just get our pals at the newspaper to repeat that over and over. You know… maybe they’ll even believe it.