How scott walker has changed his views regarding politics in Wisconsin is enough for Dan Bice to write columns through retirement. In Bice’s latest column he points out how Scott Walker was so quick to criticize Governor Doyle on the conduct of one of his aides! Walker, who we know was perpetually campaigning for Governor(PS read this link), supplied us with some very interesting quotes that Mr. Bice shares!

“Unfortunately, we have a Governor and administration that condones unethical and illegal behavior,” Walker said in a statement on Jan. 24, 2006. “The people of Wisconsin deserve better.”

OOPS…but wait there’s more:

“Today’s indictment provides further confirmation that the Doyle administration is damaged and must be removed from the Capitol,” said Walker, a Wauwatosa Republican, of his Democratic predecessor. “Governor Doyle needs to purge his administration of individuals who place politics and special interests ahead of the people of Wisconsin.”

Walker went on to call on Doyle to adopt a series of reforms that the candidate was proposing.

“Little can be said to underscore the seriousness of this charge. I am hopeful that the people of Wisconsin will allow me the opportunity to clean up Madison with the same fervor that guided my reform movement in Milwaukee County.”

Wow I guess Zach was right, for Walker to be consistent Cullen Werwie and Brett Davis must go. Of course with Scott walker’s track record, it looks like their job is secure(at least until the successful recall election).

Bu the way what did Ciara Matthews, Walkers new campaign spokeswoman who really likes to talk have to say?

Ciara Matthews, spokeswoman for Walker’s campaign, did not return messages last week.

The real question is whats next? Stay tuned!

29 Responses to Scott Walker’s Inconsistency

  1. Phil Scarr says:

    It’s the usual Republican “Do as I say, not as I do!” that dominates their ideology. It’s part of their “Heads-I-Win-Tails-You-Lose” derangement syndrome.

  2. james booth says:

    I get it that dems and repubs accuse each other of shit all the time and are both the subject of investigations from time to time. And yeah, I get it. Repubs wanted dems out of office and dems want repubs out of office now. The MAJOR difference is libs can’t wait to recall Walker at the next regularly scheduled election like they’re supposed to. They abuse the recall process.

    So I guess that’s the new modus operandi. If Falk doesn’t specifically say during her campaign that she’s going to overturn Act 10 and raise taxes I will PERSONALLY spearhead her recall as governor. And we will get the 545,000 signatures. And they will all be legit.

  3. james booth says:

    Sorry, but they can spin it any way they want. Recalling a governor who was elected fair and square is an abuse of the recall process. Think about it, it would ALWAYS be possible to raise enough signatures to recall any candidate because of how polarized the electorate has become. The Marquette law professors you linked me to make the point that all that’s necessary is “enough people” need to want it. Really?? That’s all it takes? If I would have known that I would have spearheaded the recall of Doyle for raiding state transportation funds and raising taxes. ENOUGH of us hated those actions, believe me!

  4. Zuma Bound says:

    @ James Booth

    In pertinent part, James wrote: “The MAJOR difference is libs can’t wait to recall Walker at the next regularly scheduled election like they’re supposed to. They abuse the recall process.”

    And JUST when you had me thinking that you aren’t just another ideologue. . .

    James, you don’t dispute that the right of recall is written into the Wisconsin Constitution, do you?

    If not, why is anyone “supposed [to wait]” until “the next regularly scheduled election” to “recall Walker”?

    You seem to unfortunately and inappropriately conflate the failure to do so with what you inaptly term “[an] abuse [of] the recall process”.

    Look, James, I get that your passionate. But your not agreeing with the million or so Wisconsinites who want to recall Walker NOW, in and of itself, isn’t evidence that the recall process has been abused.

    Do you have anything more concrete to rely on? Or is your comment just more partisan bluster?

    What exactly constitutes the abuse of the recall process which you allege? Be specific. Cites to the Wisconsin Constitution, legislative history and case law would be appreciated.

    P.S. Out of respect for the concept of civil discourse, I’m stifling the sophomoric impulse to all you a wingnut. Do me a favor, James, try stifling the impulse to refer to progressives/liberals as “libs”, huh? Oh, and the word, “sh*t” (first sentence of your post here)? You should probably put that “under lock and key”, along with “assh*les” (referencing your 8:53 a.m. comment from yesterday on the ‘Free health insurance & pension benefits for public employees’ authored by Zach).

    • james booth says:

      With rights come responsibility. Do you deny that at any moment either party could conger up enough signatures to trigger a recall of any politician? Your refusal to recognize and admit the gamesmanship that is being utilized for political purposes here is frustrating.

      They should “wait” because recalls really are for malfeasance in office. To me that means the actions would not be POLITICAL actions but illegal actions. And abundantly clear that the VAST majority of the state would agree to a recall. What we have here, and the election will prove this out, is about 49% of the voters think Walker should be recalled. Oh my Gosh! That just happens to be the % that voted against walker in the election in 2010! So when Walker survives the recall election with 51% of the vote it will feel remarkably like another regular election. That’s because that’s what it is! And it wasted MILLIONS of taxpayer’s money for nothing.

      As I said, I view Doyle’s actions as Governor much more agregious. And to use your logic, he should and could have been recalled for them.

      Let me ask you, what specific actions did Walker take that warrant a recall?

      As for my language, I’ll give that some thought.

      • gnarlytrombone says:

        recalls really are for malfeasance in office

        Got a cite for that assertion?

      • Zuma Bound says:

        Okay, so you’ve got nuthin’, huh? (*laughing*)

        All right, James. I think that I gave you far more credit than I should have.

      • Jeff Simpson says:

        You keep saying over and over and over that he was elected “fair and square” what the hell is this paper scissors rock? Yes he was elected and he governed, he just did not do it very well so the voters used their constitutional right and triggered a recall.

        A doyle recall was started and fizzled. I know its a right wing (luntz?) talking point but it just makes no sense(not that many right wing talking points do). It took tens of thousands of volunteers to take countless hours away from their life and family to stand out in the cold and collect signatures. That is a feat that will be very hard to re-enact by any party much less the repubs who lets face it just does not have that kind of grassroots passion.

        To say that would be like saying we need to change the way baseball votes on the Cy young because Justin verlander is going to be 24-5 every year.

        Please think about your talking points before you regurgitate them here.

      • Zuma Bound says:

        James wrote: “And it wasted MILLIONS of taxpayer’s money for nothing.”

        So, the exercise of a Constitutionally mandated right is a “waste” ?!

        In the first place, James, it isn’t always about money. More often than not in this country, it is about doing that which is right, your rightwing talking points and subjective belief that the recall is wrong, notwithstanding. In the second, you should probably be hectoring the people who wrote the right of recall into the Wisconsin Constitution, rather than the million or so Wisconsinites who are doing nothing more than exercising a right given to them by their Constitution.

        If you can’t cite anything in the Wisconsin Constitution, the legislative history or case law to support what you are saying, I think that it’s safe to say that you’ve lost your seat at the “adult’s table” with respect to this topic.

      • Steven Reynolds says:

        A “conger” is an eel, and I assure you we “libs” conjured up no eels to sign the petitions to recall Governor Walker. We substituted over a million citizens of Wisconsin, all of whom you insult here. Why do you hate the people of Wisconsin?

  5. james booth says:

    OK. I can’t find anything in the state constitution that prohibits this recall action. There should be. I’d say that even if the shoe was on the other foot. I do wonder what some of your opinions would be if it was reversed. What this opens the state up to in the future is troublesome to say the least.

    That said, I’m comfortable that Walker will survive it. I can’t say the same about the Senators that are being recalled.

    And Zuma, this one most definitely IS about money. Taxpayer’s money. The more I learn about WEA trust, the more pissed I get.

    • Zuma Bound says:

      @ James Booth

      Well, since the larger philosophical issue I raised seems to have flown right over your head, let me just stick with the basics.

      Despite the fact that you don’t agree with their decision to do so, over a million of your fellow taxpayers have decided that spending money on the recall is a good idea. It’s high time that you accepted that. If you have a hard time coming up with a rationale for doing that, I would suggest that you consider the one which you keep trumpeting in trying to disparage the recall effort, the need to accept “the will of the people”.

      • james booth says:

        “Will of the People” If you mean the roughly 6% who work for public sector unions and there immediate families, then I agree with you. The will of the 94% who don’t work for a government union MOSTLY feel differently. Those people will quietly make themselves heard on election day. But if I’m wrong and Falk wins, and she tries to overturn Act 10, millions more of us will invoke the right that eluded us with Doyle and quickly gather signatures(before it turns too cold!)to recall her. And thus will become the new election cycle in Wisconsin. Because that’s what the state constitution meant when it described recalls. OR…maybe it meant that which the federal constitution wrote and just fecked up and forgot to put the words “high crimes and misdemeanors” in there!

        • Jeff Simpson says:

          Do you really think that if Kathleen Falk, or any other dem, gets elected and repeals act 10 there will be enough groundswell to recall them from the right? seriously?

        • Zuma Bound says:

          @ James Booth

          (*laughing*)

          It’s always fun to see you twist yourself into what Phil Scarr calls a “logic pretzel”, not to mention, see you just make stuff up out of whole cloth.

          You’re like a more intelligent and more articulate version of Notalib, although often just as untethered and illogical.

          First, you admit that “[you] can’t find anything in the [Wisconsin Constitution] that prohibits this recall action.”

          And then you start “going off the rails” with your opinion that the framers had “fecked up”, and with your wild-eyed and unsupported speculation about what the framers had ACTUALLY meant when they wrote what they wrote, and about the fact that they had CLEARLY “forgot to put the words ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ in there!”

          (*laughing*) Truly breathtaking! (*laughing*)

          Do you have ANY authority whatsoever that you can cite for ANY of that, other than YOURSELF, of course?! (*laughing*)

          Notalib would be proud, indeed. Well, he might call you an elitist for having a better grasp of the rules of grammar than he does, but your willingness to just put THAT kind of stuff out there would have him cheering you on, and beaming with wingnut pride.

          Well done, grasshopper.

          (*laughing*)

          Ciao, baby! I think we’re done here.

          • james booth says:

            @Zuma:

            I’m glad that I made you laugh.

            But, I think your downfall is that you are too busy thinking how you might respond to my posts instead of understanding what I am writing.

            First, I said that there was nothing that I could find in the Wisconsin constitution that prohibits this recall action, but strangely the federal constitution does include the words “high crimes” and “misdemeaners”. Of course it’s only speculation on my part, but it would seem what’s good for the nation might be good for Wisconsin, but whatever.

            Wrong is wrong. In the past, “Wild-eyed and unsupported speculation” about what is written in the federal constitution certainly led to some of the most important amendments we have. So it is my OPINION that the state constitution should be amended to include the words, “high crimes and misdemeanors” as conditions of recalls. Keep in mind that would work for BOTH parties.

            I realize I am in the company of individuals all virtually “preaching to the choir”. That’s why I come here and read. I enjoy expanding my horizons. At the same time, it is a group of individuals all expressing their OPINIONS. The format doesn’t really allow for true understanding of one another. If you and I were sitting across from one another (and don’t worry, I won’t request that), we would debate these issues with limited ability to cite and reference with much detailed authority. We’d be forced to try and understand the intent and points of view based on the conversation.

            I like it here. I don’t have illusions about changing anyone’s mind. But maybe I’ll learn some new sh…, I mean stuff along the way.

            Lastly, I have no idea who “Notalib” is.

            Cordially,

            James

            • Zuma Bound says:

              You’re absolutely right, James. We ALL have opinions. The difference is that some of us have objective bases for our opinions, and some of “us” don’t.

              Whether those opinions are expressed here or in person, “across a table”, an INFORMED opinion is one which is built on a foundation of objective evidence (facts, citations to case law, legislative histories, etc), and it is just fundamentally tougher to form such an opinion than it is to form a purely subjective opinion. Subjective opinions are like assh*les. Everybody’s got one.

              When someone like you says that he knows what the framers of the Wisconsin Constitution ACTUALLY meant, regardless of what actually appears in the document, you are expressing a purely subjective opinion untethered to any objective considerations.

              You seem to find something wrong with my asking you to express an informed opinion, with your latest rationale for doing so appearing to be that life is just one big bull session.

              We philosophically part ways there, James. I consider the conversations in which I participate regarding matters of genuine importance, whether here or “over a table”, to be more than just bull sessions, and I feel a responsibility to make the opinions that I express therein informed opinions. I expect to be asked to support them with objective evidence.

              I suspect that your “I’m JUST expressing my opinions here, so why are you kicking up such a fuss about the fact that I don’t share your elitist belief that I should have to provide evidence or citations to objective facts to support them” are the product of a realization on your part that your “opinions” lack substance and are nothing more than rank , “seat-of-the-pants”, partisan speculation, and an ego-driven unwillingness on your part to admit it.

              It’s called “discourse” for a reason, James. Socrates and Plato would expect more than you, regrettably, seem inclined to provide. I expect more, as well. Given that, James, I doubt that I’ll be engaging further with you in the future.

              So, take care of yourself, my misguided wingnut brother.

              I hope that you’ll give what I’ve had to say here and elsewhere some thought, and give some consideration to approaching future “conversations” with others differently.

              The bottom line, James, is that knee-jerk partisanship doesn’t really persuade anybody of anything ever.

              Anyway, if you’re curious about Notalib, ask around. He used to be the resident hard-headed, insult-oriented, hyper-partisan rightwinger here at Blogging Blue until he finally crossed too big a line and, after having been warned repeatedly to “cool it”, was banned from the site once and for all.

              If I invoked Notalib in talking about you, it wasn’t intended to be a flattering comparison, but I invoked him “gently” because I don’t think that you’re beyond redemption, as Notalib clearly was.

              Check out how Locke argues his positions if you want to know how a conservative garners respect around here for what they have to say.

              Later.

  6. jeff simpson says:

    So how would you rewrite the constitution regarding recalls.

  7. jeff simpson says:

    We are good then….by the waythey tried to recall Doyle and the people had no interest. It won’t happen very often, just when justified.

    • james booth says:

      justified by rich, powerful public sector unions in danger of losing their money and influence. I get it.

      • Zuma Bound says:

        @ James Booth

        Okay, ONE more thing. . .(*wink*)

        You remind me of Rudy (“a noun, a verb and 9/11”) Giuliani.

        James (“a noun, a verb and “rich, powerful public sector unions”) Booth.

        “I get it.”

        (*laughing*)

        AND now it’s, “Ciao, baby!” Anyway, it’s been “fun”, Big J. Good luck. I think you’re going to need it.

        • james booth says:

          What part of “rich, powerful public sector unions” do you find to be false? I mean I can go find citations on how much money they donated to democratic candidates in Wisconsin vs. Republican candidates. But can’t we just take that as a given? How else does AFSCME or WEAC or MTI wield the power of those dollars as it relates to Wisconsin elections. Citing that as fact would be akin to my citing proof that the sun rises each day.

  8. jeff simpson says:

    Justified b a Gov who was elected undress false pretenses and considered agent provacatuers…

  9. james booth says:

    kinda like doyle campaigned on raiding state transportation funds, expanding indian gaming, and raising taxes, right? No false pretenses there. Were you grandstanding against him when that was happening?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.