Topic of the Week: bipartisanship in Wisconsin

So now that the Republican majority in Wisconsin’s State Senate has narrowed to 17-16, Republican Gov. Scott Walker has signaled that he wants to work with Democrats, instead of against them, but what do you think?

Do you think Scott Walker, who’s demonstrated time and time again that he’s a partisan ideologue of the worst kind, will really be able to work with Democrats, or is this all just another political ploy on the part of a man who has to realize he overreached when he attacked public employees in such a blatant manner?



Related Articles

14 thoughts on “Topic of the Week: bipartisanship in Wisconsin

  1. NO, threre is NO working with the Republicans–they have demonstrated that over and over this last several months. And now I read that 2 Repug Senators will (or have) introduced a very restrictive anti-abortion bill into the legislature. Do you call that “working with the Democrats”?? Republicans can NOT be trusted.

  2. Walker talking about bipartisanship after passing the most overreaching agenda this state has seen in recent memory is a lot like the bully on the playground pledging he won’t be a jerk anymore. Can it happen? Sure. Do we hope it will happen? Of course. But should we expect the change, just like that? No — we should welcome the opportunity, but also be on our guard, prepared for the governor to go back on his word.

    Why the skepticism? Walker only talks about bipartisanship when he NEEDS to. There wasn’t any need for it before, so he did whatever he wanted. Now he needs the assistance of at least one or two conservative members of the senate. Acting in a bipartisan way is only noble when you don’t need to do it, not when you’re forced to do it.

  3. Well, given that I was born at 10:02 pm, but it wasn’t last night, I’ll say NO.

    The WisGOPs lie, bully, and denigrate, and now that the people have started wising up to their act, the Dems are supposed to play nice with them because Walker and co. and saying a fewer kinder words. F THEM.

    Talk is cheap. When WisGOP starts demanding that everyone shares in the sacrifice and starts treating corporations the same as everyone else and gives rights back to working people, then you consider talking to them. But not a moment before, and you hold their ass accountable for the many failures that have happened and will happen in the next 6 months.

    They made this bed, and we won’t lie down with them in it.

  4. I think we need to define what bipartisanship means. The political press deploys it as some vague notion of chumminess and civility, which to me are utterly worthless if it the outcome is bad process and policy.

    The biggest problem with Walker isn’t that he’s pursuing a partisan agenda. It’s that he manipulates the process through stealth and bad faith to avoid small-d democratic judgment. Had he allowed collective bargaining and cutting education funding to proceed through the usual public discourse, we would have had very different results. He hates that, because he believes it dilutes his pure and God-sent purpose.

    1. What GT said, as usual.

      Of course, in Milwaukee we’re well aware that even when he’s vastly outnumbered, he works with others as well as a toddler (though that’s being a bit unfair to toddlers).

  5. GT dont you think they know what the end result would be had they allowed CB and cutting education to proceed through public discourse, which is why they did not go that route?

    1. Yes, of course. A good chunk of the right subscribes to disturbing interpretation of “republicanism,” in which the political process is sort of like applying for an FCC license.

      All a candidate has to do is demonstrate a fuzzy commitment to the “public interest.” After receiving a “license” in an election, the politician is then free to program pretty much whatever the hell they want to… as long as there’s no nudity or swearing.

      (And within 3 minutes of posting this some wingnut will post Obama’s “elections have consequences” quote, ignoring that Obama campaigned on health care reform and enabled the public discourse to wrangle over the bill for almost a year. )

  6. Walker is trying to set the stage for bipartisan support for the new iron ore mining law. Once he and the Fitzies get a few democrats to sign onto the ” Jobs for Generations” bill they’ll tout their bipartisan cred.

    At the very least the dems should hold out on any cooperation with that bill until already enacted legislation can be revisited.

    And the iron ore mining bill should be renamed to specify just how many generations of jobs the bill will provide. Or maybe just call it the ” Boom And Bust” bill.

  7. Or why not the , ” We Should Make A Foreign Mining Company Wealthy Act of 2011″.

    Or maybe the ” Swindling the Northern Wisconsin Rubes Act of 2011″.

    Or how about the ” Let’s Burgle Bucky Badger Act of 2011″.

    Or possibly ” We Don’t Give A Shit About Your Treaty Rights, Your Water, Or Your Wild Rice Beds Act of 2011″.

    Or finally the ” We Want That Goddamn Iron Ore And We’re Gonna Take It Act of 2011″

  8. To hell with bipartisan nonsense…what we need is partisanship pure and simple…where everyone knows where the others stand…and then…and then…be willing to talk and compromise but standing up for one’s beliefs…while realizing that to accomplish anything for the common good means you don’t always get your way.

  9. It would be mistake as democrats have screen shown they have little to no interest in working with the people of Wisconsin

Comments are closed.