62 thoughts on “Scott Walker”

1. One strand of political thought is that if you need to have or decide to have government doing certain things, those things should be provided at the most local level of government possible. Exhibit A is public education — do you want these questions decided by your local school board or dictated on high from Washington, or even the state level?

   An example of this was the resounding defeat of a school voucher state initiative in the neighboring state of Michigan (Michigan is a neighbor — if you drive north, you end up in Michigan, which has pretty good schools, thank-you-very-much). You would think the school choice is a strong Conservative/Libertarian cause, but the big pushback against it came from the suburbs and wealthier districts.

   You see, despite governmental and especially Federal mandates and court decisions to desegregate housing, people want to be segregated, people want to live with like people within their comfort zone. And among the things that make people similar to each other is the priority they assign to schooling and the money spent on schools. Some people are of the mind that beyond some minimums, schooling is elitist and higher taxes for fancier schools is a big waste of money. Other people, not only “Tiger Moms” but the tiger moms of different ethnic groups and times in our social history, can’t find a school bond referendum that they don’t like.

   So the anti-Tiger Moms tend to locate in this part of town that votes down school-bond referenda, and the Tiger Moms tend to locate in this other part of town, where the houses are expensive and the property taxes even more so, so that every conceivable frill is lavished on the local schools.

   The Michigan school choice deal failed because the Tiger Moms organized against it. You would think that vouchers were Tiger-Mom friendly, that a family that values education and raises their kids to work hard in school and compete academically would want to attend magnet schools, charter schools, etc. etc. But a lot of these people threw all the financial resources they had into living where the houses are expensive, the property taxes even higher, but the schools are spared no expense or “enrichment” frill. After having made this sacrifice to attend the best possible public school, people who prioritized education said “forget this!” The people giving education a lower priority (and I am not passing judgment here, this is a choice, and a choice people make through how much money they spend to live with like-minded people), these people probably didn’t have a strong enough opinion in favor of vouchers.

   People don’t want a level playing field. People don’t want one-size-fits-all Federally mandated cars. People don’t want one-size-fits-all Federally mandated education.

   So what has the latest GOP hopeful achieved in his home state. He has capped property taxes — gosh knows how much people hate property taxes. He has capped education spending. But his signature legislation prevents local school districts from raising their property taxes if people locally want to vote for higher taxes to give their schools all of the frills and enrichment activities and bells-and-whistles.

   You could say that this man is a principled egalitarian. No, taxes should be low, we should not be wasting money on schools with all of the frills, enrichment activities and bells-and whistles, and this standard should be applied statewide to rich and poor, to majority and minority. We need to make our K-12 schools more Spartan, and this standard should be applied to everybody.

   The Northern Midwest — Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin — has a reputation for good public schools. There is probably a long way to go on leaning the funding to make it to the ranks of say, North Carolina not to even consider Mississippi. Paraphrasing John Maynard Keynes, there is probably “a lot of ruin (in our education system)” and it may take a full generation to see the effects of the changes.

   Taking matters out of local control, dictating uniformity on what localities can spend on education, and mandating spending caps on education for everybody — is this what we want? Is this what we stand for?

   1. I’m not a Walker fan (I don’t know enough about him to have an opinion of him yet). but, to answer your question, Paul, YES, I very much approve of tax caps.

      Why? Because not everyone in an area that votes for a hike wants it. So, if some of the folks want to give more to the schools, they can – just write a check. But, on the flip side, I sure as heck don’t want my taxes raised just because the local busybodies manage to get a tax hike referendum through. So, tax caps work great.

      Also, more money does not equal better eduction. Fully scrapping tenure would have a more beneficial effect than any conceivable budget hike.

   2. “You would think the school choice is a strong conservative/Libertarian cause, but the big pushback against it came from the suburbs and wealthier districts.” Non sequitur. The suburbs and wealthier districts are quite possibly liberal – I don’t know Michigan but they certainly are enormously liberal in Maryland where I live. That means that they are strongly against school vouchers on deeply-felt principle if their local schools are good – but are in favor of school choice if their own kids are getting a terrible education.
      Since wealthy districts are likely to have good schools, they will muster the political clout – and deeply-felt principle – to keep everyone else’s kids in awful schools so that theirs don’t have to.

   3. “people want to be segregated, people want to live with like people within their comfort zone.”

      Middle-class people all over the US are cocking their heads like a confused dog, wondering why you’re badmouthing them as they look up and down their suburban streets, taking in their neighbors of all colors and religions.

   4. “But his signature legislation prevents local school districts from raising their property taxes if people locally want to vote for higher taxes to give their schools all of the frills and enrichment activities and bells-and-whistles.”

      Given just how much money school districts all over Wisconsin _immediately_ started saving just by seeing the teachers’ health insurance rates drastically drop, I think there was room for the schools to get a few fripperies.

2. http://www.thenation.com/article/scott-walker-campaigns-against-unions-wages-and-weekends/
    The state budget that Walker signed on Sunday as Wisconsin’s governor includes a provision that eliminates a historic guarantee that factory and retail employees “must get at least 24 consecutive hours of rest for every seven-day stretch” of work.
   You call this a conservative? Sabbath is a God given right. A Pox on him.

   1. What “conservative” means in the U.S. is “classical liberal.” The kind of thought that put the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses in the First Amendment.

      Because our statist media like to portray American “conservatives” as a bunch of theocrats, doesn’t make it smart to accept that portrayal as true.

   2. Sheesh. This coming from an atheist rag. Tell you what, allow the ten commandments to be visible in the public square and then we’ll talk about 7 day stretches.

   3. Your link is not helpful. It is nothing but a collection of statements by anti-Walker people, with absolutely no attempt at fact-checking. Every single thing on the list will be skewed and unreliable.

   4. I could be wrong, but I took Godzilla’s comment as quip satire.

3. Imagine breaking the back of the organized heart and soul of the Democrat party and dispatching AFL-CIO leader Richard “Morrie The Wig Salesman” Trumka back to the White House to show the President the “W” shaped scar carved into his forehead as a warning to anyone else who stepped foot in the state.

   And yet Obama chose to announce his actions on overtime pay — a labor priority — in WI. One theory is that the Dems want to help Walker’s primary chances, seeing him as a weaker general election opponent than Bush or Rubio.

   As a Democrat that strikes me as a dangerous game. Democratic leaders may see Walker as too socially conservative and anti-immigration to win, but I’m not sure the voters do, and a 2016 economic downturn or foreign policy crisis could suddenly make any GOP nominee electable.

   1. That is, unless you cheat.

   2. I don’t think Obama wants Walker to be the GOP nominee. He has an overinflated sense of his own effectiveness, and thinks making that announcement in Wisconsin weakens Walker (try saying that three times fast with a German accent).

      The Democrats are in greater peril than Obama (or, for that matter, Hillary or Biden) is capable of realizing.

      1. What is the lesson learned if Hillary wins?

         1. “Shouldn’t have nominated Jeb.”

         2. “There is absolutely no candidate so trashy, corrupt, classless, or incompetent that Democrats won’t line up to put them in office.”

   3. ” and anti-immigration ”

      Walker isn’t anti-immigration, neither is the GOP. Why do you guys always insist on lying about the other’s positions, often using racist rhetoric and dehumanizing attacks, rather than just have an honest debate about the issues? You would think that a person who is aware of your party’s past wouldn’t be so quick to use racism to motivate the base or to intentionally use racist attacks to frame the discussion.

      The stars and bars came down over the SC capitol but Democrats continue clinging to their old methods and tactics.

      1. Walker isn’t anti-immigration, neither is the GOP.

         He told Glenn Beck that he opposed the current levels of legal immigration:

         “In terms of legal immigration, how we need to approach that going forward is saying we will make adjustments,” Walker said. “The next president and the next Congress need to make decisions about a legal immigration system that’s based on, first and foremost, on protecting American workers and American wages.

         “Because the more I’ve talked to folks — I’ve talked to Senator Sessions and others out there, but it is a fundamentally lost issue by many in elected positions today — is what is this doing for American workers looking for jobs, what is this doing to wages, and we need to have that be at the forefront of our discussion going forward.”

         As the mention of Pete Sessions indicates, his position is hardly unusual in the GOP.

         1. Here you go again, twisting the definition to support your position.

            Changing immigration does not make you “anti-immigration”.

            1. He wants to “change” legal immigration by having less of it, so that there’d be less competition for American workers. That makes him anti-immigration.

            2. “He wants to “change” legal immigration by having less of it,”

               Your quote didn’t say he wanted less of it. There wasn’t anything anti-immigrant in that quote.

               BTW, this is one of the racist attacks used by Democrats to stir up the racist tendencies of their own base.

            3. Your quote didn’t say he wanted less of it.

               He said he wanted “adjustments” to the number of legal immigrants allowed in, and that his criteria for those adjustments was “what is this doing for American workers looking for jobs, what is this doing to wages”. You can’t seriously believe he’s arguing for more legal immigrants as a way to help American workers looking for jobs.

         2. Excellent quotes, Comrade Jim. And those of us on the extreme Left know that “we will make adjustments” really means that all immigrants will be shot on site. You Republicans are despicable.

4. foreign policy crisis could suddenly make any GOP nominee electable.

   One might think with a former SOS running against them, a “foreign policy crisis” would be just what the doctor ordered, right Jim? Right? Jim?

   1. It depends; some foreign policy crises benefit the incumbent party (e.g. 9/11, while others benefit the opposition (Iran hostage crisis, Iraq 2006). My point was that while demographics and the state of the economy and world today auger well for Clinton in 2016, things could change.

      1. I hope Democrats pay you well for that pathetic analysis. Pretty easy to understand why foreign policy, such as the non-response to bombing of US embassies the year previous, related to 9/11 made Democrats look bad compared to 9 month in office President Bush, while Iran Hostage Crisis specifically attributed by the hostage makers to Carter’s treatment to the Shah.

      2. “My point was that while demographics”

         Ahh yes, the old ideology is skin deep arguement. That changing Demographics, less white people, means that the Republicans will lose representation because they are white. You realize how racist you are? Seriously, this is pretty f’n racist line of thinking. You know that right?

         Ideology isn’t skin deep. There is nothing about the pigment of your skin that makes you think a certain way about tax rates or micromanaging a person’s dietary choices.

         I hate to break it to you but inculcating racist ideology in our minority and immigrant communities isn’t good for the country, or even the Democrat party in the long run. Sad sign when you view creating a racist base and using racism to motivate that base as progress in the long arc of history.

         And it has been horrific to white Democrats who have to lie about their race in order to be accepted in leadership and to get employment.

         1. That changing Demographics, less white people, means that the Republicans will lose representation because they are white.

            No, it merely means that groups that typically favor Democratic positions and candidates will make up a larger part of the electorate. I don’t think any part of that observation is controversial: there will be more non-white and/or Hispanic registered voters in 2016 than there were in 2012, and non-white and/or Hispanic voters have favored the Democrats in the past. We don’t know whether they will favor the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee less, more, or to the same degree as in 2012, and we don’t know whether or how their turnout will differ from 2012, so it isn’t as if you can precisely predict the impact of their growing share of the electorate. But other things being equal, the simple fact that there will be more non-white and/or Hispanic voters on the rolls in 2016 is a positive indicator for the Democrats.

            1. I think that you’re correct, and it’s an important point that deserves expansion.

               This ideal we have, of a government of limited, enumerated powers, this ideal of sober frugality and hard work, this ideal of ordered liberty in which the State does not interfere in the lives of free men–these are ideas that outside Northern and Western European cultures, humanity as a whole does not and never has found especially appealing. It’s basically a set of ideas that appeal to “pale stale males.”

               The Left has always known this and in the past generation has exerted its vast political capital to bring about mass immigration of Third Worlders to both the US and Europe–Third Worlders who come here because they’ve been promised that the government here is Santa Claus. They couldn’t give less of a damn about liberty, or enumerated powers, or freedom of conscience, or freedom of speech, or freedom of association, or a frugal government that doesn’t tax the productive unnecessarily. They want El Guëlfare and they want it NOW. They intend to vote for it, legality be damned.

               They have this desire in common with certain other Democrat constituencies, who don’t give a damn about George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or any of those other dead honkies, and just want their “gibs me dat” electronic wealth transfer every month, for which they are willing to kill as many random honkies in the streets of our major cities as necessary, for which trespasses sympathetic judges will let them plea-bargain down to “malicious mischief” and be back on the street in eleven months because they were “model prisoners” and “the ACLU sued the state over prison overcrowding” and “we have to get past this punitive model of rehabilitation” and “the prison-industrial complex is racist” and “the community organizer said dem honkies owes us.”

               That the US government already spends more on the gibs-me-dat programs than on everything else put together, and has for some decades now, and borrows money from the Chinese in ruinous quantities for yet more, is to the Left in America a feature, not a bug. See also, Cloward-Piven Strategy.

               Humans create culture. Culture does not create humans. This idea that some on the Right put forth, that if we just throw the borders wide open, and compete with the Democrats to give the foreign invaders more free stuff, the foreign invaders will all suddenly, magically turn into sober, frugal, productive Lutherans and start voting for Republicans–is visibly self-refuting, not to mention utterly insane and would bankrupt America and turn us into a Third World banana republic even if it succeeded.

            2. “No, it merely means that groups that typically favor Democratic positions ”

               But why? Is it because of the constant racist attacks made by Democrats? Is it because of the appeals made by Democrats to stir up the racism of their base?

               I have found that Democrat positions are not necessarily held by people who vote Democrat and their votes are determined by how they view Republicans on a racial basis, based on the stereotypes inculcated by the Democrat party.

               The Democrat party has been especially racist in this regard and it is both mainstream and institutionalized. Hey, come join us in the 21st century. We won’t hold your racist history against you but you have to leave it behind.

            3. this ideal of sober frugality and hard work

               Is found all over the globe. Have you seen the savings rate in Japan? Do you know anyone who works harder or lives more frugally than a Chinese peasant-turned-factory-worker? Or a Guatemalan migrant farm worker?

               ordered liberty in which the State does not interfere in the lives of free men–these are ideas that outside Northern and Western European cultures

               In fact Northern and Western Europe boasts welfare states that U.S. Democrats can only dream about.

               just want their “gibs me dat” electronic wealth transfer every month, for which they are willing to kill

               Do you ever wonder why poor and minority voters might not find your ideas appealing?

            4. I have found that Democrat positions are not necessarily held by people who vote Democrat and their votes are determined by how they view Republicans on a racial basis, based on the stereotypes inculcated by the Democrat party.

               I.e. the stereotype that Republicans view minorities as “gibs me dat” takers, as expressed by “no one important”, above? Democrats don’t have mind-control rays; if voters think the GOP looks down on the poor and minorities it’s because they’ve observed it.

5. “My point was that while demographics and the state of the economy and world today auger well for Clinton in 2016,….”

   Only in the minds of the delusional

   1. Gary Kasparov said the other day that Jeb Bush was the ONLY Republican candidate that would not beat Hillary.

      1. As a commentator on U.S. presidential politics, Gary Kasparov is a fantastic chess player.

         The most powerful predictors of presidential elections are incumbency, demographics and the direction of the economy. There won’t be an incumbent in 2016, but demographics will be slightly more favorable for the Democrats than they were in 2012, and right now the economy is doing better than it was in 2012. That could change, of course, and what happens to the economy between now and election day matters more than which candidates are nominated. If the economy strengthens further and there’s no foreign policy catastrophe the Democrat (presumably Clinton) would beat any GOP opponent; if the economy craters any GOP nominee would win.

         1. The economy does not need to crater for the GOP to win.

         2. Hmm so you think a Democrat will get elected because of Obama but then how do you explain how the Democrat candidates are speaking of Obama’s tenure as they did the Bush years?

            1. A good and improving economy favors the incumbent party, and right now that’s the Democrats. Democratic candidates are still going to promise to do even better, because every candidate promises to do better than the status quo. But you can bet that the Democratic nominee will be rooting for continued good economic news between now and election day.

            2. How are the Democrats the “incumbent party”? They’ve lost everything except the White House.

            3. How are the Democrats the “incumbent party”?

               Funny, isn’t it? U.S. voters have an exaggerated opinion of the importance of the presidency. The president and his/her party gets credit when things are going well, and blame when things are going poorly, regardless of the president’s ability to actually affect the events in question, or the existence of other powerful actors. So even though the GOP controls both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court, the 2016 GOP campaign message will be an argument for change, not for “even more of the great GOP leadership you’ve been enjoying since 2014.”

            4. The GOP does not “control the Supreme Court.” If it did, several recent decisions would have gone the other way.

            5. Most of the justices are Republicans appointed by Republican presidents, but no, they don’t vote as a bloc. For that matter the Democratic justices don’t vote in lockstep either. But it’s the Republicans who have the edge in numbers.

            6. the Democratic justices don’t vote in lockstep either.

               They come pretty close to it. They are results oriented, and don’t give a damn about the law or the Constitution.

            7. “The president and his/her party gets credit when things are going well, and blame when things are going poorly, regardless of the president’s ability”

               Well, that is wrong. Obama does take credit for things Perry did in Texas and for things like the shale boom but he never takes responsibility for anything, even things he is directly responsible for like the IRS and VA.

               “But you can bet that the Democratic nominee will be rooting for continued good economic news between now and election day.”

               Not a single one is talking about “continued good economic news”. O’Malley and Sanders have been casting the last 6 years as if it were the Great Depression. Hillary, when she does talk, is all class warfare like people don’t know how many houses she owns or what she did to get them.

               Hardly any positive talk from the Democrats about the current state of affairs under Obama. None of them are running to carry the torch.

            8. Not a single one is talking about “continued good economic news”.

               Of course not. But they’re rooting for it all the same; they know a tanking economy would help the GOP nominee.

6. and that’s exactly why he’s enormously popular

   It’s worth noting that Walker is not particularly popular in Wisconsin; his approval rating there (41% in the latest poll) is lower than Obama’s nationally (46% in the current RCP average).

   1. “It’s worth noting that Walker is not particularly popular in Wisconsin;”

      Popular enough to win 3 elections with the full power of Democrat party activism and judicial abuse arrayed against him. Democrats poured hundreds of millions, if not billions, into those elections showing that Democrats have no real ideals, the concern over money in politics is really a concern that non-Democrats have money, that nonprofits shouldn’t engage in politics, that activist groups and politicians shouldn’t coordinate their message, and on and on.

      WI was the face of the true Democrat party, militant and prone to use violence and threats of violence because they can only convince people to follow their policies by the force of government and militant mobs.

      1. Walker’s never won a statewide election with presidential candidates on the ballot; that’s a different electorate than the one he’s won. And his approval ratings have only fallen since his re-election, as WI deficits mount and he backs boondoggles like spending taxpayer money on an NBA arena.

         1. “Walker’s never won a statewide election with presidential candidates on the ballot; that’s a different electorate than the one he’s won. ”

            No. You don’t understand the environment in WI during those elections.

            1. The turnout was way lower than in presidential elections.

   2. Hah! You told us that Obama was popular and he only got a small majority of the 2012 vote. Walker got roughly the same in his reelection and he’s not popular?

      1. Walker was about as popular with the GOP-heavy off-year/recall WI electorate as Obama was with the Dem-favoring presidential year national electorate. The 2016 presidential race will obviously be decided by the presidential electorate.

         1. Huh? You tell us that it’s difficult for Walker to be popular as a US candidate since he only has recognition in the state of Wisconsin. And yet you say that his declining approval numbers in Wisconsin presage some sort of national problem.

            Which is it?

            1. You tell us that it’s difficult for Walker to be popular as a US candidate since he only has recognition in the state of Wisconsin

               Nope, I didn’t say that.

               And yet you say that his declining approval numbers in Wisconsin presage some sort of national problem.

               Nope, I didn’t say that either.

               Try again.

         2. “Walker was about as popular with the GOP-heavy off-year/recall WI electorate ”

            Uhhhh, any Democrat that didn’t turn out to vote after the 24/7 protests and hundreds of millions spent on ads, didn’t vote to send a message to the party. Off year Democrat engagement wasn’t the issue lol. Democrat engagement was off the charts.

            There has never been a political contest where Democrats were less active.

            1. Democrat engagement was off the charts.

               But actual turnout was lower than in the 2012 presidential election, by a lot: 58% for the recall vs. 70% for the presidential election.

               There has never been a political contest where Democrats were less active.

               I think you mean “more” active. But that’s not true; measured by votes, which are the things that decide elections, WI voters were much more active in the presidential election.

7. What’s this ‘true-red hardcore Conservative” bullshit? Red is the color of socialism and the left. You remember “true-blue” as a description of a patriotic citizen? When did they manage this reversal? And why is apparently only in the USA?

   Even here in Canada, where red & white are our national colours, the Conservatives own blue.

   1. Apparently it’s a historical accident, a result of the marathon news coverage of the 2000 presidential election. Until 2000 the US TV networks did not consistently assign colors to the parties in their election result graphics, and using red for Republicans and blue for Democrats that year was an arbitrary choice. But after months of daily coverage of the disputed results, the colors stuck.

      1. Ya, it wasn’t an accident. Democrats deliberately chose red as the color because of the negative connotations that color has in our society.

         1. Why were the Democrats red in some years before 1980?

            1. Perhaps because the party was taken over by Reds in 1968.

8. So even though the GOP controls both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court, the 2016 GOP campaign message will be an argument for change, not for “even more of the great GOP leadership you’ve been enjoying since 2014.”

   The GOP control nothing which is why those that elected them are pissed and even Ace is turning off his computer.

   All we can do is ride out the storm… judgement day is unavoidable.

Comments are closed.