Walker wins.

[Korriken]

and so it goes that Governor Walker was able to keep his seat despite the liberals best efforts to give him the boot. So what does it mean? personally, I figure it means the 53% of the people of Wisconsin who voted agree with Walker.

is it a referendum on Washington? nah. that comes in November, no sooner, no later.

Of course, If the republicans bring up the issue that Obama didn't step up to the plate to help Barrett, and bring up the reason why, "He didn't help because he was afraid Barrett might lose and didn't want anything to do with a possible loss!"

I mean seriously, Obama just handed the republicans more ammo for the "Obama's a cold hearted politician who only cares for his own success" cannon. If they don't load it and fire it off a few times, then they're morons who deserve to lose the election.

[Camarohusky]

He was recalled on a single issue that was old news a year ago. The initial enthusiasm was gone. Also, replacing with the same lame ass guy who he destroyed before wasn't exactly a bright decision.

The Democracts did exactly in Wisconsin what the GOP has been doing in the Presdential race. By snatching defeat from the jaws of victory they Couged it.

[Korriken]

Given that Obama refused to get anywhere near the recall election gives the republicans even more "Obama's a coldhearted politician that only cares for his own success and legacy" material. whether they use it to build onto their victory with it or just let it fall to the wayside, we'll have to see.

if they don't make use of it, I pity the fools because Obama's people are going to do absolutely anything they can (within and outside of legal boundaries where they think they can get away with it) to keep the white house. Never forget ACORN, it's a shining example of how far people will go for political gain.

[Angry-Hatter]

Two things I take away from this election:

1) Mark up another example of the candidate with the most money winning the election (88% of the money spent on the campaign came from Walker).

2) Russ Feingold screwed the Democrats over in a major way by not running when polling showed him destroying Walker.

[BUTANE]

At 6/6/12 03:35 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Two things I take away from this election:

1) Mark up another example of the candidate with the most money winning the election (88% of the money spent on the campaign came from Walker).

2) Russ Feingold screwed the Democrats over in a major way by not running when polling showed him destroying Walker.

Yes, there were definitely some things that went wrong in this recall for the democrats. First and foremost was the money, walker had about 30 million dollars at his disposal and had been collecting it since the recall started. Barret only announced his candidacy on march 30th, giving him only two month before the election to raise any money and to make a campaign/work out a strategy....just not enough time.

It would have been nice to have Obama come to the state to at least give a speech or two, but to say that he was completely silent and unsupportive is not true. He is not a "cold hearted politician only looking after his own self interest". Obama had officially supported Barret and the Wisconsin Dems on his facebook (not that it took much effort but it did officially link him to the recall and its outcome) and Barret even said he wasn't worried about Obama coming to Wisconsin.

And like you said, it is definitely not a referendum on the presidential election in November. The last poll that came about before the recall showed this:
among registered voters
Presidential
Obama 377 52%
Romney 291 40%
Recall
Walker 358 50%
Barrett 318 44%

https://law.marquette.edu/poll/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ML SP6_Toplines.pdf This is the poll most papers in the state were quoting.

So to say that Wisconsin, because it loves its nut-job tea-bagging governor, will swing to the right in the upcoming presidential election is pretty inaccurate. It might happen, but it doesn't have anything to do with the recall election. (I think a lot of people voted for walker because they disagreed with the recall effort, they thought a recall should be used only when someone is completely corrupt, shitty policy was not a good enough reason for them).

Generally speaking, the people of wisconsin support Obama about as much as they support walker.

[DoctorStrongbad]

At 6/6/12 03:41 AM, Korriken wrote: and so it goes that Governor Walker was able to keep his seat despite the liberals best efforts to give him the boot. So what does it mean? personally, I figure it means the 53% of the people of Wisconsin who voted agree with Walker.

Walker won, so we have to deal with it.

[Korriken]

At 6/7/12 04:38 PM, BUTANE wrote:

It would have been nice to have Obama come to the state to at least give a speech or two, but to say that he was completely silent and unsupportive is not true.

He is not a "cold hearted politician only looking after his own self interest".

Obama had officially supported Barret and the Wisconsin Dems on his facebook (not that it took much effort but it did officially link him to the recall and its outcome)

wonder how many democrats in Wisconsin have Obama on their facebook and made the effort to go vote because of it? Thing is, you gotta think like a politician. If Obama thought this would be a slam dunk and Walker would be tossed out on his ass, Obama would have been all over this one. He knew the odds were against Barret. That's just how politicians are.

and Barret even said he wasn't worried about Obama coming to Wisconsin.

This is a simple concept called Party Loyalty. He knew he could not count on Obama's help, probably even had some form of communication with him and got told that it's too risky to Obama to show his face and lose too close to his own election. What do you do then? Given that a lot of people expected Obama to speak and endorse Barret, he had to get the pressure off of Obama and say that he wasn't worried about Obama coming to Wisconsin, which Obama did, but not to speak for Barret. One does not betray his own in politics and expects to have a happy career... or a long one. Had Barret said "Obama has forsaken me!" he wouldn't be running in the next governor primary.

So to say that Wisconsin, because it loves its nut-job tea-bagging governor,

heh.

will swing to the right in the upcoming presidential election is pretty inaccurate. It might happen, but it doesn't have anything to do with the recall election. (I think a lot of people voted for walker because they disagreed with the recall effort, they thought a recall should be used only when someone is completely corrupt, shitty policy was not a good enough reason for them).

Or perhaps they don't agree with massive unions forcing people to give them money to keep their politically charged machine chugging along.

Generally speaking, the people of wisconsin support Obama about as much as they support walker.

Pretty much, it can swing either way, even though Obama has an advantage. Especially if the economy begins to sink. Don't forget, despite all of Obama Glam and Faux Rockstar status, not to mention the media's metaphorical collective masturbatory orgy over him, it was a very close race with McCain until the housing bubble burst and the economy came crashing down. Then of course the media latched onto it and used it to put Obama well ahead of McCain.

Of course, Obama no longer has his Faux Rockstar image and the media's metaphorical circle jerk isn't want it was in 2008. It'll be an interesting election day to watch. The same hypervenilating rabidly infatuated college kids who voted Obama in 2008 are now either out of college or about to be and get to experience the real world and may not be so eager to vote Obama again.

[BUTANE]

At 6/7/12 06:38 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 6/7/12 04:38 PM, BUTANE wrote:

(I think a lot of people voted for walker because they disagreed with the recall effort, they thought a recall should be used onlyhttp://www.newgrounds.com/ when someone is completely corrupt, shitty policy was not a good enough reason for them).

Or perhaps they don't agree with massive unions forcing people to give them money to keep their politically charged machine chugging along.

This is what I don't understand about anti-union rhetoric. The people that are "forced" to give money to a union in order to keep their job/get a job are payed far greater wages and get much better benefits because of the union. Yes, maybe 5-10% of their income will go towards union fee (and they have to pay it to keep working), but the without the union their wages and benefits would be far less than the 5-10% that they pay. They are still comming out ahead, it's not just an extra tax for the employees. Unions are not politically charges machines, they do give out money to candidates, but that is only to further the power of the unions and the employees that they represent.

Unions are run by the employees themselves, it's not like the people in them don't have a say about what the union is doing.

[gumOnShoe]

I think when Walker gets indited over the John Doe crap, it won't matter.

Anyhow, the Dems put up a bad candidate. In fact, the put up the one they put up last time. He has no union support. The recall was about unions. This absolutely made no sense. The democrats didn't frame the election at all, and Walker had so much money he could do whatever he wanted.

All that said, John Doe is a real issue for Walker, and if its true, which it appears to be, then Walker is the last person any decent conservative would want to support. Basically, Walker and his staff robbed the government of money for personal use. So rather than being concerned about budgets as he claimed, its more likely he just wants to advance is conservative voodoo policy while thieving from the treasury and further weakening the government.

Its a wolf in sheep's clothing basically. He's not a true conservative, and you guys should have thrown him out. He's really the last person you want to be supporting.

[gumOnShoe]

At 6/7/12 09:27 PM, BUTANE wrote: This is what I don't understand about anti-union rhetoric. The people that are "forced" to give money to a union in order to keep their job/get a job are payed far greater wages and get much better benefits because of the union. Yes, maybe 5-10% of their income will go towards union fee (and they have to pay it to keep working), but the without the union their wages and benefits would be far less than the 5-10% that they pay. They are still comming out ahead, it's not just an extra tax for the employees. Unions are not politically charges machines, they do give out money to candidates, but that is only to further the power of the unions and the employees that they represent.

Unions are run by the employees themselves, it's not like the people in them don't have a say about what the union is doing.

To emphasize this point, non-unionized teachers in PA make 30k a year starting. Unionized teachers make 40-45k starting and have great benifits by comparsion. 10% of 40k is 4k, so the unionized teachers still make 6k more than non unionized, after dues, even if they pay that max 10%.

[morefngdbs]

At 6/7/12 09:27 PM, BUTANE wrote:

Or perhaps they don't agree with massive unions forcing people to give them money to keep their politically charged machine chugging along.

;;;
I belong to a Union, we are not forced to give anyone money...politically to force us would be a violation of law.

maybe 5-10% of their income will go towards union fee (and they have to pay it to keep working), but the without the union their wages,,,,

;;;;
I pay 1.25% of my earnings as Union Dues. Out of that money, used to run my local office, as well as pay for my life insurance policy, & pay 50% of any trianing courses I take & pass. As well as retraining for things like First Aid, with defib. Equipment training, forklifts, zoom booms, elevated work platforms. Water safety courses, fall arrest , high angle recue. To name a few I have.

Unions are run by the employees themselves, it's not like the people in them don't have a say about what the union is doing.

;;;
I am a long time member & an elected member of my executive, we strive to keep our expenses down to keep costs down for our membership. We are 425 Motion Picture tech's on the East Coast of Canada, we are all volunteer Board Members. Only our Staff & Business Agent ( who is not allowed to work at anything else ) are paid wages. Wages that are in line with Union Guidelines for appropriate work in other industries that employ , secretaries, receptionist Accounting staff etc.

I am not here promoting all UNIONS ARE GREAT.
I'm simply stating what I know as facts for MY organization.

[TheMason]

At 6/7/12 09:27 PM, BUTANE wrote:

Or perhaps they don't agree with massive unions forcing people to give them money to keep their politically charged machine chugging along.

This is what I don't understand about anti-union rhetoric. The people that are "forced" to give money to a union in order to keep their job/get a job are payed far greater wages and get much better benefits because of the union. Yes, maybe 5-10% of their income will go towards union fee (and they have to pay it to keep working), but the without the union their wages and benefits would be far less than the 5-10% that they pay. They are still comming out ahead, it's not just an extra tax for the employees. Unions are not politically charges machines, they do give out money to candidates, but that is only to further the power of the unions and the employees that they represent.

1) Unions in the modern day are screw jobs. First of all let's distinguish that what Wisconsin is about is public unions. These are unions of government employees. What this does is set-up an unethical and extremely corrupt system. Unions are a major source of funding and votes (yes...they are a political machine but more on that later) for the Democratic party. So public unions take money from their members and spend it on Democratic campaigns. Then when that Democrat gets into office and they are in a position to appoint or confirm people to labor boards which negotiate with public sector unions...they pack these commissions with people with ties/loyalties to the union. Thus: public sector unions negotiate with themselves. This is how we get government employees who make more than private sector workers and get better/cheaper healthcare and pensions that don't exist outside of government.

In the end it is about the fiscal health of the government and is this an ethical (or at least non-corrupt) way to govern.

2) I have a HUGE problem with the government forcing people to join a private organization in order to secure employment. If a private employer wants to make it conditional to join a union in order to work for him, that's fine. Likewise, if an employee wants to join a union that's fine too. However, I don't think an employer should be forced to negotiate solely with a union nor do I believe the government should coerce individuals into a private association.

I think it is a violation of worker's First Amendment right to freedom of assembly.

3) Unions are political machines...Democratic political machines. In the days since the win I've seen several liberal/Democratic comentators talk about how Walker was fighting unions not out of some fiscal conservativism ideology, or even hostility to unions. Instead it is all about Dem vs Rep politics. I can't find the link I really want but here's one from The New York Times:

"When Gov. Scott Walker moved to strip Wisconsin public employees of their collective-bargaining rights last year, a few weeks after taking office, it was clear that he wasnâEUTMt doing it to save the state money. If that had been the case, he would have accepted the unionsâEUTM agreement to pay far more in health care and pension costs. His real goal was political: to break the unions by demonizing their âEUoebosses,âEU ending their ability even to collect dues and removing them as a source of money and energy for Democrats."
Source

The Union leadership/establishment is married to the Democratic party and is run by professional "bosses" who are ideologically tied to the Left and developed their power base over cozy relationships with Democratic leaders/office holders. While many in the union may not agree politically with union leadership...there is really no way for them kick these guys out.

[TheMason]

At 6/9/12 08:44 AM, morefngdbs wrote: I am not here promoting all UNIONS ARE GREAT.
I'm simply stating what I know as facts for MY organization.

All irrelevent. What is at the core of the Wisconsin recall is US public sector unions.

1) Many states have laws that compell union membership if you work for a company that is unionized. In Wisconsin not only did you have to join the union to take a government job...the State automatically deducted union dues from your paycheck.

2) Being a public sector union, they contribute heavily to the Democratic party which then rewards unions by appointing union people to negotiate contracts with other union people on behalf of the state/taxpayers. This is a very corrupt system.

3) It is also an unethical system. As an active duty member of the military I am prohibited from certain political activities. Civilian federal employees are also prohibited (albeit less severely) from certain political activities to avoid the appearance of either interfering or influencing free elections. So from this standpoint I believe that public sector unions...since they funnel money to partisan candidates for office...are unethical since they influence elections far more than any sign in base housing.

At 6/8/12 07:40 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: To emphasize this point, non-unionized teachers in PA make 30k a year starting. Unionized teachers make 40-45k starting and have great benifits by comparsion. 10% of 40k is 4k, so the unionized teachers still make 6k more than non unionized, after dues, even if they pay that max 10%.

But is this a good thing? The per capita income in Pa is about $27,000 ($50,400 for a household). SOURCETherefore you have a civil servant starting out (non-unionized) at about the average income for the citizens of Pa. Now unionized teachers make even more...with some of their money diverted to a private, largely partisan, organization that then negotiates with essentially itself regarding compensation and benefits.

I think of public sector unions as ticks. They latch onto a host (in this case the state and/or local government) and suck money out of the system. Now they provide a benefit in that a) they get their members more money and b) they get friendly politicians money and votes. But how long can this system work? In order to keep feeding they have to increase the benefits they provide to members so union leaders don't get voted out so they lean on friendly politicans to ensure juicy contract concessions are awarded during negotiations.

Eventually you get civil servants making more than taxpayers and getting benefits that no longer exist in the private sector and are bankrupting governments from the city level to the state level in the US and several nations in Europe.

The math is determinant. Public sector unions are parasites that need to be made illegal.

[Warforger]

At 6/6/12 11:56 AM, Korriken wrote: Given that Obama refused to get anywhere near the recall election gives the republicans even more "Obama's a coldhearted politician that only cares for his own success and legacy" material. whether they use it to build onto their victory with it or just let it fall to the wayside, we'll have to see.

if they don't make use of it, I pity the fools because Obama's people are going to do absolutely anything they can (within and outside of legal boundaries where they think they can get away with it) to keep the white house. Never forget ACORN, it's a shining example of how far people will go for political gain.

That doesn't make any sense. Besides the GOP is 10000000000x worse than Obama in terms of being coldhearted politicians only caring for their own success and legacy, so I don't see why they'd bring it up since it would start up a shit storm.

[Korriken]

At 6/9/12 12:00 PM, Warforger wrote:

That doesn't make any sense. Besides the GOP is 10000000000x worse than Obama in terms of being coldhearted politicians only caring for their own success and legacy, so I don't see why they'd bring it up since it would start up a shit storm.

makes perfect sense if you don't wear a blindfold and sing Hymns to the godking. Also, give examples of how the GOP is "10 billion times worse than Obama". This i gotta hear. Given that when it comes to many things, especially his Healthcare bill, he was one of the most active politicians I've ever seen. Not only that, he was so hellbent on getting it passed that he threw out many promises he made, like putting everything about the debate on c-span (didnt happen) putting the bill on the internet for everyone to see for I think it was 3-5 days before he passed it (didnt happen).

and yet when it comes to most things he takes a very hands-off approach. took him 3 months to get around to giving General McChrystal part of the soldiers he wanted in Afghanistan. I'm sure that was a GREAT boost to troop morale there when the commander in chief is playing politics with their lives and mission.

I could go on, but now its time for you to tell me how perfect the democrats (and in particular Obama) are and how the republicans are a bunch of xenophobic racists who fellate their corporate bosses.

[Warforger]

At 6/9/12 05:40 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 6/9/12 12:00 PM, Warforger wrote:

That doesn't make any sense. Besides the GOP is 10000000000x worse than Obama in terms of being coldhearted politicians only caring for their own success and legacy, so I don't see why they'd bring it up since it would start up a shit storm.

makes perfect sense if you don't wear a blindfold and sing Hymns to the godking. Also, give examples of how the GOP is "10 billion times worse than Obama". This i gotta hear. Given that when it comes to many things, especially his Healthcare bill, he was one of the most active politicians I've ever seen. Not only that, he was so hellbent on getting it passed that he threw out many promises he made, like putting everything about the debate on c-span (didnt happen) putting the bill on the internet for everyone to see for I think it was 3-5 days before he passed it (didnt happen).

Except he's kept the majority of his promises. On the other hand, the Republicans proposed their own amendments to the Healthcare bill, Obama accepted them and naturally the Republicans sup... oh no they didn't they opposed it again panicking because now they have to make up new reasons for being against it ( hence Romney care lol). They pretty much went against what was established back in the 90's that the Healthcare system is horrible in the US and tried to argue that it was the best. The fact that they tried to bend the facts to be against Obama kind of says something.

and yet when it comes to most things he takes a very hands-off approach. took him 3 months to get around to giving General McChrystal part of the soldiers he wanted in Afghanistan. I'm sure that was a GREAT boost to troop morale there when the commander in chief is playing politics with their lives and mission.

? I don't see how that's playing Politics. To begin with increasing troop numbers isn't necessarily a great idea, that was established back in Vietnam. Secondly I'm sure as hell it takes time to move troops to Afghanistan in such a way that as a regiment leaves it is replaced by a new one, and many of those new ones were from Iraq.

I could go on, but now its time for you to tell me how perfect the democrats (and in particular Obama) are and how the republicans are a bunch of xenophobic racists who fellate their corporate bosses.

I like how you put words in my mouth there. I didn't say the Democrats were perfect nor did I call the Republicans racists (I guess now it's the "you called the race card" card) who are corporate puppets. What I'm saying is that for all the Republican banter on how Obama is unreasonable they pretty much established from 2008 that they would not ever collaborate with Obama and that their goal was to get rid of him. See they're not even pretending they're trying to fix the problems the nation is facing, they're outright admitting they won't do anything until a Republican president is elected and now the nation is suffering because of that. Then they blame Obama for all the problems the nation faces.

[TheMason]

At 6/9/12 07:29 PM, Warforger wrote: They pretty much went against what was established back in the 90's that the Healthcare system is horrible in the US and tried to argue that it was the best. The fact that they tried to bend the facts to be against Obama kind of says something.

Actually, it wasn't established in the '90s that the US system is horrible.
1) The WHO studies are methodologically biased towards national healthcare systems. It measures factors like accessibility and happiness factors that can be easily operationalized in such a way that the rankings will push down other systems and inflate the ratings of the favored system. It also doesn't take into consideration demographic and cultural differences between countries that effect things like infant mortality and life expectancy.
2) One of the main reasons we have rising healthcare costs is the intervention of the government in the healthcare market. When you have a third of the population on government plans that force providers to take reduced payment for their services (in some cases 35-40% of the bill)...you get increases in the cost paid by everyone else to offset.

? I don't see how that's playing Politics. To begin with increasing troop numbers isn't necessarily a great idea, that was established back in Vietnam. Secondly I'm sure as hell it takes time to move troops to Afghanistan in such a way that as a regiment leaves it is replaced by a new one, and many of those new ones were from Iraq.

1) Yes it is playing politics. When you dither like that during a war ppl are on the ground dying. Rather than just relying on the advice of the military and his national security team he sought a broad range of advisors to build support for a surge. Sounds good...but that's something you do before a war. I don't care who started the war...but you don't dither during a war...especially when its to secure your base and/or favorability ratings.

2) Increasing troop numbers as a bad idea was NOT established in Vietnam. In all reality once we started a surge in 'Nam we actually started winning from a military perspective. The Tet Offensive was actually a defeat for Charlie and Nixon's Linebacker air raids forced the North to the table. Now, what we did loose was the political front. LBJ lost all credibility when it came to military leadership and was replaced by Nixon.

3) It doesn't take as long as you think to move troops into the combat zone. Maybe about a month. Furthermore, the longer it takes to move troops into the combat zone the worse it is for YOUR argument. The longer a president "deliberates" or "dithers"...the longer the delay and the more people die.

I like how you put words in my mouth there. I didn't say the Democrats were perfect nor did I call the Republicans racists (I guess now it's the "you called the race card" card) who are corporate puppets. What I'm saying is that for all the Republican banter on how Obama is unreasonable they pretty much established from 2008 that they would not ever collaborate with Obama and that their goal was to get rid of him. See they're not even pretending they're trying to fix the problems the nation is facing, they're outright admitting they won't do anything until a Republican president is elected and now the nation is suffering because of that. Then they blame Obama for all the problems the nation faces.

1) The Republican controlled Senate won't pass a budget so it can be reconciled with the Democratically controlled House. Oh wait...that's right! Silly me! It's the other way around!

2) For the first two years of his administration Obama enjoyed a Congress that more controlled by his party than any other president in modern history. The Republicans were powerless in the House and the Dems had what...58 seats before Ted Kennedy kicked the bucket? I mean the Dems didn't control SCOTUS and didn't have a fillibuster proof Senate...but very few presidents have.

3) In all honesty...I don't think Obama likes being president. He's an activist...he's much more happy campaigning and throwing bombs at the people and instutions he thinks oppresses people. To actually have to govern distracts from that. I think he's waking up to the reality that a president just doesn't have all the power he thought the position had. 10 years from when he leaves the White House (be it 2013 or 2017), I be he'll be saying it is a relief to be done with governing and back to "community organizing" or whatever activist job he'll get.

4) I don't think he's all that great of a party leader...much less someone who can negotiate with people who fundamentally disagree with him. On the first point: with his centerpiece legislative efforts (healthcare and stimulus) he was the mouthpiece for these initiatives. But he didn't provide congressional Democrats with support writing the bills. Now you may be prepping to respond: "Well Mason...it's US government 101: the president cannot make the laws...that's congress' job!" And you'd be right and wrong. The president canNOT introduce legislation before either House...but he (or his staff) can write all the bills they want and have congressmen introduce them before each House. In fact many presidents with policy agendas as large as Obama's give their party's congressmen such support. Obama didn't give this support.

As to the second point: he's spent the last 20 years immersed in U of Chicago academics, Chicago politics and the Illinois legislature. This means he's had to deal with people who fundamentally share his worldview. With only 2 years of guarded Senate experience...I don't think he is equipped to deal with the partisan politics of the national scene.

So what does Obama have to do politics in Wisconsin? I think the atmosphere in DC is the responsibility of both Dems and Reps. But some of the weak leadership on the part of the White House and some overzealous ideology in House Dems has spread out into places like the Midwest and even blue states in "flyover country". What we see in Wi is just a symptom of whats wrong with DC.

[Warforger]

At 6/10/12 01:14 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 6/9/12 07:29 PM, Warforger wrote: They pretty much went against what was established back in the 90's that the Healthcare system is horrible in the US and tried to argue that it was the best. The fact that they tried to bend the facts to be against Obama kind of says something.

Actually, it wasn't established in the '90s that the US system is horrible.

Yah it kinda was by the government itself.

1) The WHO studies are methodologically biased towards national healthcare systems. It measures factors like accessibility and happiness factors that can be easily operationalized in such a way that the rankings will push down other systems and inflate the ratings of the favored system.

Yah of course accessibility is a good thing, that's the whole point of healthcare. And happiness? I don't see how this is unfair in any way.

It also doesn't take into consideration demographic and cultural differences between countries that effect things like infant mortality and life expectancy.

Um the question was healthcare quality, not lifestyle choices.

2) One of the main reasons we have rising healthcare costs is the intervention of the government in the healthcare market. When you have a third of the population on government plans that force providers to take reduced payment for their services (in some cases 35-40% of the bill)...you get increases in the cost paid by everyone else to offset.

Right, I wasn't saying anything about the bill though, I was saying that Obama attempted to reason with the Republicans and adopted their proposals and they still went against it. My point was that from the start they had no intention of collaborating with him whatsoever and that it wasn't Obama's fault.

? I don't see how that's playing Politics. To begin with increasing troop numbers isn't necessarily a great idea, that was established back in Vietnam. Secondly I'm sure as hell it takes time to move troops to Afghanistan in such a way that as a regiment leaves it is replaced by a new one, and many of those new ones were from Iraq.

1) Yes it is playing politics. When you dither like that during a war ppl are on the ground dying. Rather than just relying on the advice of the military and his national security team he sought a broad range of advisors to build support for a surge. Sounds good...but that's something you do before a war. I don't care who started the war...but you don't dither during a war...especially when its to secure your base and/or favorability ratings.

You see here's the thing, if the generals had the freedom they would land a million troops and have them all over Afghanistan and chances are it won't do any permanent change because it doesn't really correct the problems that lead to recruitment by the Taliban. Worse yet you'd probably need to draft people to have so many troops, or at the very least send a much bigger force and such a move would make the war even more unpopular thereby working against you. Military advisers can only give advice in the military field, for popular support they have none. This is why Obama appointed people to heads of military departments that have no experience in the military, so they make more cautious moves instead of going "DRAFT DRAFT".

2) Increasing troop numbers as a bad idea was NOT established in Vietnam. In all reality once we started a surge in 'Nam we actually started winning from a military perspective. The Tet Offensive was actually a defeat for Charlie and Nixon's Linebacker air raids forced the North to the table. Now, what we did loose was the political front. LBJ lost all credibility when it came to military leadership and was replaced by Nixon.

When it came to military leadership it was revealed that from the start the government outright knew it could not win the war, it just would save face by going to war. Even with the Tet Offensive overall it was still a stalemate, neither side was making too many gains just losing alot of men and resources. Increasing troop numbers made public support for the war plummet as well as increase the popularity of the anti-war movement, it didn't do that much to win the war at all.

3) It doesn't take as long as you think to move troops into the combat zone. Maybe about a month. Furthermore, the longer it takes to move troops into the combat zone the worse it is for YOUR argument. The longer a president "deliberates" or "dithers"...the longer the delay and the more people die.

No,you need time to train those troops and brief them on the situation, on top of that you need to coordinate it in such a way that when one regiment leaves another one would take its place. This is true even when you're trying to reduce troop numbers. Now that's about all I can tell about military troop deployments, so unless you or anyone has any experience with it I don't think we can criticize or compliment the way it's done.

1) The Republican controlled Senate won't pass a budget so it can be reconciled with the Democratically controlled House. Oh wait...that's right! Silly me! It's the other way around!

Democrats however have pretty much been a coalition of many at times competing interests ever since the Great Depression, Republicans on the other hand remain solid in their composition and political issues. Hence why Republicans are more united than Democrats.

2) For the first two years of his administration Obama enjoyed a Congress that more controlled by his party than any other president in modern history. The Republicans were powerless in the House and the Dems had what...58 seats before Ted Kennedy kicked the bucket? I mean the Dems didn't control SCOTUS and didn't have a fillibuster proof Senate...but very few presidents have.

Ok? Did he pass his Healthcare bill quite easily? Did he get to pass a new budget quite easily? He had it, but I don't see what he passed.

4) I don't think he's all that great of a party leader...much less someone who can negotiate with people who fundamentally disagree with him.

The thing though was that I wasn't supporting Obama, I don't really care much about him, I was however criticizing the Republicans for what they were doing wrong and that somehow translates into being a Democrat supporter. Personally I just hate the overall inflexibility and stagnation of US politics, I mean hell Walker got a balanced budget in his state and I admire that, he stood up to the people he hurt through his cuts and won. I mean we had the same thing back in the 90's with Bill Clinton and we got into a damn stimulus (which the Republicans though would be great to waste on wars in the Middle East) because the public just wanted the budget done.

As to the second point: he's spent the last 20 years immersed in U of Chicago academics, Chicago politics and the Illinois legislature. This means he's had to deal with people who fundamentally share his worldview. With only 2 years of guarded Senate experience...I don't think he is equipped to deal with the partisan politics of the national scene.

? He was a prominent senator in Congress, he's been in the system for quite awhile now. I mean hell I don't recall Reagan being any better.

[TheMason]

At 6/10/12 02:05 PM, Warforger wrote:

1) The WHO studies are methodologically biased towards national healthcare systems. It measures factors like accessibility and happiness factors that can be easily operationalized in such a way that the rankings will push down other systems and inflate the ratings of the favored system.

Yah of course accessibility is a good thing, that's the whole point of healthcare. And happiness? I don't see how this is unfair in any way.

Because the way they operationalize the variables and write the questions on these topics can be manipulated. It's soft data...not hard data.

It also doesn't take into consideration demographic and cultural differences between countries that effect things like infant mortality and life expectancy.

Um the question was healthcare quality, not lifestyle choices.

Um...so what's your point?

One of the hard data points they use is comparisons of things like infant mortality and life expectancy. However, these trends are not solely effected by the quality of healthcare. Demographic and cultural differences also effect these so using these to say one system is better than another is problematic.

Right, I wasn't saying anything about the bill though, I was saying that Obama attempted to reason with the Republicans and adopted their proposals and they still went against it. My point was that from the start they had no intention of collaborating with him whatsoever and that it wasn't Obama's fault.

You see here's the thing, if the generals had the freedom they would land a million troops ... This is why Obama appointed people to heads of military departments that have no experience in the military, so they make more cautious moves instead of going "DRAFT DRAFT".

Actually, the problem is the other way around. I'm in the military. And while there is some degree of being gung-ho...most Generals would probably want ALL non-military options expired before the use of force is authorized. While I am not a general...I have served on the Base Honor Guard and been one of those guys who've handed the flag to a grieving widow/child/parent and had to say: "On behalf of a grateful nation..." and look these people in the eye. Not many people I know in the military actually want to go to war. And if they do want to go...the desire is fleeting once their convoy gets hit with an IED.

Furthermore, very few servicemembers want a draft. We are a professional military now and need people who are committed to service...not people coerced into service. In fact I think people without military experience are more reckless (see the military background of most NeoCons and even people in Obama's cabinet) than people with military service.

When it came to military leadership it was revealed that from the start the government outright knew it could not win the war, it just would save face by going to war. Even with the Tet Offensive overall it was still a stalemate, neither side was making too many gains just losing alot of men and resources. Increasing troop numbers made public support for the war plummet as well as increase the popularity of the anti-war movement, it didn't do that much to win the war at all.

From what I've studied of military history and the Vietnam war, it was our initial timidity and lack of will to fight a total war that cost us 'Nam. We weren't even allowed to hit VC and Northern regular logistical supply routes.

This is the problem with war as a tool of foreign policy. You have to fight it ruthlessly and totally in order to win. War is not about winning hearts and minds...but killing/hurting people and breaking their shit. It costs blood and treasure on both sides and therefore should be used as a last resort. Hell, I think we should go into the assassination business rather than military adventurism.

No,you need time to train those troops and brief them on the situation, on top of that you need to coordinate it in such a way that when one regiment leaves another one would take its place. This is true even when you're trying to reduce troop numbers. Now that's about all I can tell about military troop deployments, so unless you or anyone has any experience with it I don't think we can criticize or compliment the way it's done.

Um...12 years military experience. I've trained Airmen as well as held three AFSCs (MOSs), one of which was Command and Control and even deployed in support of the Air Ops Center for that theater. Masters plus 20 hrs in Political Science (International Relations w/a concentration on National Security Issues). So yeah...I think I do have the necessary chops to criticize or compliment the way it's done.

As for your first sentence:
We are talking about one particular surge, not a general one. Now during that surge we were on a war footing not a draw-down. So no...we did not need all that training time nor do we need that in-depth of briefing. Shit in terms of strategy all the ground troops really need to know can be briefed in less than three hours.

Democrats however have pretty much been a coalition of many at times competing interests ever since the Great Depression, Republicans on the other hand remain solid in their composition and political issues. Hence why Republicans are more united than Democrats.

NOT.
AT.
ALL.

Yes Dems tend to be made-up of a much broader coalition...BUT BOTH PARTIES ARE UMBRELLA PARTIES. This means both parties are made-up of people with different policy goals and objectives. For example I am a fiscal conservative. I don't like the religious right part of my party, I see them as just as overzealous social engineers and social spenders as the Dems. And as such are just as guilty of wanting to strip Constituational freedoms and run up the deficit. They on the other hand see me as bad because I believe in things such as gay marriage, repeal of DADT and legalize pot.

Hell...look at how fractitious the 2012 Republican primary was!

Ok? Did he pass his Healthcare bill quite easily? Did he get to pass a new budget quite easily? He had it, but I don't see what he passed.

Stimulus passed.

But the problem wasn't Republicans...it was healthcare.

The reason Obama won in '08 was to address the fiscal crisis. If you look at polling trends the race was much tighter than it should've been until the meltdown in Sept. It wasn't to fix healthcare and I don't think many people had a warm fuzzy on the economy yet. So when he switched gears to healthcare...it pissed a lot of people off and Dems going to town halls in their states/districts were confronted with an electorate who didn't want it. Couple this with an amatuer president who doesn't know how to lead...and you got a frankenstein bill that isn't supported by either side.

Now independants don't trust him as well as his own base seeing him as a sell-out or weak.

Personally I just hate the overall inflexibility and stagnation of US politics, ...

Our system is set-up this way for a reason. It is to balance out competing interests of different levels of government (legislative, executive and judicial) as well as the passions of the people (ie: so a majority does not trample the liberty of a minority). It is set-up that way to protect individual freedoms and liberties...not protect individuals from the ups and downs of life. That would be socialism. (And no I do not mean that as an attack.)

? He was a prominent senator in Congress, he's been in the system for quite awhile now. I mean hell I don't recall Reagan being any better.

No...not really. He had a pretty lackluster career in the Illinois Senate. Couldn't win the Democratic nomination for US House in 2000. And was only a Senator for about two years before running...and didn't push through any signature pieces of legislation or had any key leadership positions. He did have a media presence b/c Dem leadership (rightfully) saw charisma and a good PR candidate. But he was tapped way to soon. He just wasn't ready for the big time.

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/6/12 03:41 AM, Korriken wrote: and so it goes that Governor Walker was able to keep his seat despite the liberals best efforts to give him the boot. So what does it mean? personally, I figure it means the 53% of the people of Wisconsin who voted agree with Walker.

Or they just didn't agree with the idea of recalling him. Which is definitely something that has been trickling out since. Plus I think there's a good bit of "if it didn't take food out of my mouth, I don't care" going on as well.

is it a referendum on Washington? nah. that comes in November, no sooner, no later.

Agreed completely.

Of course, If the republicans bring up the issue that Obama didn't step up to the plate to help Barrett, and bring up the reason why, "He didn't help because he was afraid Barrett might lose and didn't want anything to do with a possible loss!"

I think it's more of the whole "Democrats are too worried about polls etc" going on. I was somewhat surprised he came out for gay marriage since this has been a president who has repeatedly tried to find the middle road, or even taken a more conservative or "status quo" stance on most issues.

I mean seriously, Obama just handed the republicans more ammo for the "Obama's a cold hearted politician who only cares for his own success" cannon.

Nah, nobody is gonna remember Wisconsin in like a month, trust me. This is very much a "flavor of the week" story and once it's off the networks, it's going to be off the electorate's mind, trust me.

If they don't load it and fire it off a few times, then they're morons who deserve to lose the election.

I just don't see it doing anything for them. This just doesn't strike me as an issue that was really cared about nationally by the average voter. They could try to use it sure, but I don't think it's anywhere near as damaging as you seem to think.

[Korriken]

At 6/10/12 06:52 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Or they just didn't agree with the idea of recalling him. Which is definitely something that has been trickling out since. Plus I think there's a good bit of "if it didn't take food out of my mouth, I don't care" going on as well.

I think it's more of the whole "Democrats are too worried about polls etc" going on. I was somewhat surprised he came out for gay marriage since this has been a president who has repeatedly tried to find the middle road, or even taken a more conservative or "status quo" stance on most issues.

Biden kind of forced his hand on that one. Given that Biden did it first, then a bit later Obama did it.

Nah, nobody is gonna remember Wisconsin in like a month, trust me. This is very much a "flavor of the week" story and once it's off the networks, it's going to be off the electorate's mind, trust me.

this much is true. However it can always be brought up in the advertisements.

I just don't see it doing anything for them. This just doesn't strike me as an issue that was really cared about nationally by the average voter. They could try to use it sure, but I don't think it's anywhere near as damaging as you seem to think.

Not by itself, no. However, mix it in with a few slightly distorted facts and a few "hard hitting" video clips, and it might go somewhere. Combine all he did to get healthcare passed, then show his dithering on afghanistan, other things I've probably forgotten about, and then this, and point out that he only cares about his own healthcare legacy and nothing else.

[RydiaLockheart]

What I find interesting is Ohio's union bill went to the polls, where it was shot down. Wisconsin's didn't. You'd think the folks that mobilized would have put it up for a vote, but there is one major difference between the two bills. Governor Kasich tried to be fair with Ohio's union bill and also had it apply to firefighters and police (IIRC teachers too but I'm not certain). If you think about it, it doesn't make sense to leave some folks intact while affecting others. This didn't sit well with the Ohio electorate and energized the Democrats there.

While Korriken is right that the average voter has the memory of a house fly (does anyone even remember Hilary Rosen?) I don't think this issue is going away. Other Republicans will likely feel emboldened to try certain measures in their states, and the fact is, union membership is declining and a lot of people don't like unions. There are likely several reasons for these that are probably for another thread. But I wouldn't be surprised to see the union topic pop up in a presidential debate.

For the record, when I was in Ohio, I worked at a place where there was a union. I was exempt so I couldn't join even if I wanted to. The perks and salaries they negotiated for themselves were obscene, and they made it really tough for the employer to fire incompetent workers. From the various stories people tell that I hear on and offline, this is not an isolated occurrence.

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/10/12 08:13 PM, Korriken wrote: Biden kind of forced his hand on that one. Given that Biden did it first, then a bit later Obama did it.

I always kind of figured that was how he actually felt to begin with, it's just that this president has been extremely cagey (the reasons why would be speculation, even if there are some informed guesses we can make) about any sort of "controversial" political issue, and very very concious of polls and as coming off as conciliatory and what not. It's why it's so funny when people try to insist he's this radical socialist...

this much is true. However it can always be brought up in the advertisements.

Too what end? If everybody has forgotten/didn't really care to begin with, it's a giant waste of time, money, and resources. Plus the best they can nail him on is party loyalty type stuff that the average American gives fuck all of a concern about. I just don't see any angle in which this gives them any sort of edge or gain. This was more of a local issue then a national one and it's going to do nothing for Romney's campaign.

Not by itself, no. However, mix it in with a few slightly distorted facts and a few "hard hitting" video clips, and it might go somewhere.

Like what? Give me something man because like I say...I just don't see it. This is one that I think a Dem SuperPac or something could flip on and try to actually use against Romney, saying it's just another example of the money grubbing Republicans fucking the little guy, which then could segway into Romney's company dismantling huge chains like KB Toys years ago...yeah, the more I think about it the more I think the Romney and other Republican supporters will want to just do a couple private fist pumps that Walker held on...and leave it there.

Combine all he did to get healthcare passed,

Which again, they should stay way from since after all the compromises what he actually passed is a Romney plan. Of course that could be a backfire on them as well since then they have to defend why they'd pass a Republican plan so...it actually feels more like a double loss if the healthcare law crops up as a big issue again (which I don't think it will, I think the economy will dominate the election as usual).

then show his dithering on afghanistan,

What dithering? I mean, he said he'd be a one war president, he's been a one war president. He's in fact pretty much been following all the time tables that the last Republican President set down...so again, unless they want to indict their own...

other things I've probably forgotten about, and then this, and point out that he only cares about his own healthcare legacy and nothing else.

Which is a frankly ridiculous charge, gets them nowhere and no traction with anyone other then the most far right, dyed in the wool, already-voting-for-Romney-cause-he-ain't-Obama conservatives. It's a ridiculous strategy that would net them absolutely nothing. The smartest thing they can do is just enjoy the win for what it is and move right on.

[exflacto]

A lack of Obama's presence will only make democrats turn more against him and for them to jump off the sinking ship that is his campaign. Walker won because public unions are a problem and people finally recognized it.

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/10/12 10:45 PM, exflacto wrote: A lack of Obama's presence will only make democrats turn more against him and for them to jump off the sinking ship that is his campaign. Walker won because public unions are a problem and people finally recognized it.

God I hate "the bubble"....I really, really hate it.

Did you bother to read ANY of the discussion in this thread?

[Angry-Hatter]

At 6/10/12 06:52 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I was somewhat surprised he came out for gay marriage since this has been a president who has repeatedly tried to find the middle road, or even taken a more conservative or "status quo" stance on most issues.

I think it's all an effort to get the liberal base fired up. The only people who are going to really care about gay marriage are the liberals and the hard core conservatives. Obama (or his campaing strategists at least) must be figuring that the people who are going to be dead set against gay marriage are already not going to vote for Obama come November anyway. There is a real concern about turnout among the Democratic base, so I'm guessing that Obama's announcement is all about getting his base to not just vote, but to volunteer, knock on doors, donate money, etc. They've been forshadowing this move for months now (all that crap about his views on the subject "evolving", etc) but it probably got sped up when Biden went running his mouth about it.

[Korriken]

At 6/11/12 03:36 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

They've been forshadowing this move for months now (all that crap about his views on the subject "evolving", etc) but it probably got sped up when Biden went running his mouth about it.

the very idea of that working really turns my stomach, knowing just how bad off the stupid mindless sheep masses really are. No, the idea about him being for gay marriage doesn't bother me at all. it's the fact that people can't figure out, or worse, don't care about his motivation to say he is for gay marriage. the idea that politicians can do/say/be for something strictly for political gain and the people don't figure it out makes me sick.

am i really the only person who feels/thinks this way? I mean yeah the media spin on it was both predictable and effective, but that's my point. It's not like there's a thousand stances to take on gay marriage, either you are for it, against it, or like me, couldn't care less. There are those who would wanna compromise and take the "civil union" route, but that's about all marriage is these days anyway. A ceremony with little weight and a civil union.

[Warforger]

At 6/10/12 03:16 PM, TheMason wrote: Because the way they operationalize the variables and write the questions on these topics can be manipulated. It's soft data...not hard data.

Um how do you make accessibility soft data? You can either get healthcare or you can't, it shouldn't be much more difficult than that. It's like food, it doesn't matter how well cooked if everyone doesn't have an equal chance of getting it then it's pointless.

Um...so what's your point?

Right, so taking them into account is something the WHO shouldn't do and something you said they didn't do.

Furthermore, very few servicemembers want a draft. We are a professional military now and need people who are committed to service...not people coerced into service. In fact I think people without military experience are more reckless (see the military background of most NeoCons and even people in Obama's cabinet) than people with military service.

The thing though is that generals will still probably want the most troops and equipment they can get, moderating that is essential.

From what I've studied of military history and the Vietnam war, it was our initial timidity and lack of will to fight a total war that cost us 'Nam. We weren't even allowed to hit VC and Northern regular logistical supply routes.

Um we invaded Cambodia, and we bombed the hell out of every country in former French Indo-China. Hell we dropped more bombs than we did in WWII all to get rid of these supply routes. I don't know what you mean by "regular logistical supply routes" because the Vietcong and Vietminh kept changing them because the Americans kept bombing them so I don't think they were that regular. Pretty much we did everything but a full-scale invasion of North Vietnam, and it didn't work.

Not to mention the Pentagon Papers

This is the problem with war as a tool of foreign policy. You have to fight it ruthlessly and totally in order to win. War is not about winning hearts and minds...but killing/hurting people and breaking their shit. It costs blood and treasure on both sides and therefore should be used as a last resort. Hell, I think we should go into the assassination business rather than military adventurism.

Not necessarily. Killing people is one part of it, but how you do it and what you do after is the second part. If you don't handle that second part you're going to have to go back to the first part.

NOT.
AT.
ALL.

Yes Dems tend to be made-up of a much broader coalition..
Hell...look at how fractitious the 2012 Republican primary was!

That was my point, Democrats had a coalition from Segregationists to Civil Rights activists, from Conservatives to Liberals, Republicans on the other hand tended to be either moderate Conservatives to Radical Conservatives. During Reagan this unity started falling apart as the party moved to more Conservative stances ousting more moderate behavior. The only other difference tends to be how Socially Conservative a candidate is, which pretty much was only Rick Santorum who stood out. Everywhere else it didn't seem like anyone was in much disagreement.

Now independants don't trust him as well as his own base seeing him as a sell-out or weak.

Personally I just hate the overall inflexibility and stagnation of US politics, ...

Our system is set-up this way for a reason. It is to balance out competing interests of different levels of government (legislative, executive and judicial) as well as the passions of the people (ie: so a majority does not trample the liberty of a minority). It is set-up that way to protect individual freedoms and liberties...not protect individuals from the ups and downs of life. That would be socialism. (And no I do not mean that as an attack.)

Oh I know, my problem is that nothing is simply getting done, something was done in a similar situation back in the 90's and that was a huge success throwing us into a surplus. But now? Nothing is being done and that's what my problem is.

No...not really. He had a pretty lackluster career in the Illinois Senate. Couldn't win the Democratic nomination for US House in 2000. And was only a Senator for about two years before running...and didn't push through any signature pieces of legislation or had any key leadership positions. He did have a media presence b/c Dem leadership (rightfully) saw charisma and a good PR candidate. But he was tapped way to soon.

Well say that was the same with Lincoln, and he ended up being the best President in the history of the US. Gerald Ford was also pretty experienced as a house minority leader, but again he didn't very well as president.

[RydiaLockheart]

Saw this today at work: Chicago teachers' union authorized a strike.

Full disclosure: My mom was a high school teacher for 30 years. She was on strike twice. Once was because the school district tried to pull a fast one and switch to a cheaper health insurance company than BCBS, and the employees would have lost almost all of their coverage. The second was because the school district took way too long to come up with a contract and they weren't working without one. There is a lot of work outside of school grading papers. Also, here in PA, teachers don't necessarily get the summer off. You have to take courses, since it's like other fields such as IT. If your education isn't current, you can't keep your license. I can't say what other states do though.

That being said: Teachers are important. They have a tough job, especially when parents don't give a damn. That being said though, a 24% pay raise is downright ridiculous. They even authorized a strike before a contract was even drawn up, which doesn't exactly scream "acting in good faith" to me. Also, apparently Rahm Emanuel extended the school day to 7 hours. I had a 7-hour school day from K-12. The hell were they doing before that? This whole story is an example of why people feel public sector unions are parasites.

[Camarohusky]

At 6/11/12 09:09 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: This whole story is an example of why people feel public sector unions are parasites.

The sad thing about this is that of all unions, the teacher's union is the one that deserves the most. Frankly, teachers in this country are fucked forward, backward, and sideways. They do a job where their clients don't want the services. The parents of their clients expect the teachers to do most of the parenting. Teachers get paid shit for the education that is required of them. ($40K for a job that requires a masters?! What the fuck?!) They also have a huge effect on the economy and the security of our country, but are often written off as jerks, greedy, lazy, holding the kids back, or just plain worthless.

Now, I do know that there are some shitty teachers out there. But, if we, as a society, didn't collectively shit on them perhaps the better among us would strive to teach. (Hard to fly a 747 when all you're given is a moped engine and a galon of fuel)

Also, in direct comment to your post, the school district if the Chicago school district, not Aurora, Elgin, Deerfield, Or any of the posh suburbs. This is school district that covers some of the shittiest, most dangerous, New Orelansiest neighborhoods in the country. Take all of the shit that applies to all teachers, and then add in the massive proliferation of drugs, weapons, and Satan's Deciples into the mix and you have some teachers who have been left behind much more than any of the kiddos have been.