Bren, your complete and utter ignorance is showing once again.

You fail to grasp the concept of the private and public seector, and who pays for whom, and how the order is suppoused to be.

You consistently display a "working knowledge" of the World that is completely at odds with reality - so you ignore the facts, and continue to attack. HEY, don't let reality get in the way of your, "Me First" attitude and greed.

I know that the public employees will run the State fine by themselves, without any private sector whatsoever. I encourage any and all business owners to close up, leave the State, sell taxable assets, and withhold tax payments.

Tim, I believe many here appreciate that your emotional responses to posts with which you don't agree are the result of defensive reactions and projection.

Setting your emotionalism aside and reviewing your intended points, I disagree that I have exhibited ignorance of the private/public sectors, the world, or displayed self-interest or greed on Patch.

Hi Tim,
As one of the ignorant and intellectually challenged, I do not realize much of anything. However, as a former soldier (11B), my ignorant vore counts as much as yours.

@Tim Scott....I find it interesting that you introduce Niall Ferguson as a call on authority for Paul Ryan's position. When Paul Ryan is compared to Ferguson, Ryan comes out as a shallow rank amateur. However, the fallacies of Ferguson's positions and his economic historical philosophy also is a strong "bell weather" of what is fallacious in Ryan's thinking.

At Ferguson's foundation of thought is his dedication to a Thomas Hobbes view of the world. He is committed to the idea of empire and views the world in those terms. If Ryan shares those views, it doesn't bode well for the average American. We already know that Ryan is enamored with Ayn Rand and "Atlas Shrugged", which is not good for democracy.

In both the short and long run, it is best to reject Ryan and Ferguson, if we wish a republican democracy to continue . Both gentlemen are calling for the plutocratic oligarchy to take direct control and create and maintain a world for their benefit.

Ferguson has been accused of counter-factualism/historical revisionism. This could explain the synergy with Paul Ryan's embrace of Objectivism (which Rand would have called "Existentialism" but the name was already taken).

But to quote one of my favorite lines from Sister Act, would-ofs, could-ofs, and should-ofs don't put food on the table. One must view the world as it truly is to realistically address/resolve problems.

I'm sure you weren't referring to MY posts!

@Tim Scott: As I am an ignoramus without intellectual capacity, perhaps you could enlighten me about Paul Ryan's grounding in reality.

When I look at the CBO analysis of his budget plan (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-20-Ryan_Specified_Paths_2.pdf) I find that "The amounts of revenues and spending to be used in these calculations for 2012 through 2022 were provided by Chairman Ryan and his staff." and "The amounts for 2023 through 2050 were calculated by CBO on the basis of growth rates, percentages of gross domestic product (GDP), or other formulas specified by Chairman Ryan and his staff."

Remember, Ryan absolutely and completely depends upon this CBO analysis in order to present figures in his own document (http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/BLUEPRINT_FINAL_3192012.pdf).

So I fail to see how Ryan can be grounded in reality when the fact is that he doesn't allow the CBO to objectively assess the impact of his policies, instead forcing them to substitute his own values for both revenues and spending. How does he arrive at those values and formulae? Who knows, because he's not telling. Federal deficits and debt will apparently disappear because Paul Ryan says so. That's some version of reality, but it's not an objective one by any stretch of the imagination.

So, Tim Scott, perhaps you could enlighten me as to where reality bothers to intrude upon Paul Ryan and his budget.

@Bob McBride -- Indeed the results of the Walker recall will be very important, but Ms. Malkin shows her ignorance of the unusual situation.in Wisconsin. We have a recall provision, and as a 'folk' we don't take nonsense lying down.

We're hardly a disgruntled minority if we can legally mount a recall. Walker's proponents should have done their research better before using voter apathy and dissatisfaction with the economy to pull their takeover.

860M signatures (being generous as regards abnormalities - not being so generous the number is around 585M) does not constitute anything other than a disgruntled minority. Using the results of a defective law as an argument for preserving it is laughable.

Try again.

@Bob McBride -- Try again to make us believe that a very large portion of the state is not upset about the way things are going. And use Scott Fitzgerald's mendacious tactics for casting doubt on the validity of signatures -- he's still being recalled too.

Randy,

We've had very large portions of the state (not to mention, the country) not happy with the way things were going in the past and people managed to hold onto their sanity long enough to make it through to the next election cycle.

I'm going with the figures I presented because they come from the only group of people who've actually scrutinized the signatures fully at this point. They scrutinized them a lot more closely than the folks who just tallied up a number of pages, came up with a count and turned them in based on that tally.

There's nothing Scott Walker has done or will do (even if one is to accept the ridiculous extrapolations concocted by the folks who instigated this mess) that couldn't be corrected come next election cycle. No schools, hospitals, elderly care centers, centers for the assistance of the indigent have closed as a result of Scott Walker's actions. Bodies are not piling up like cordwood. No children are being turned away. Nothing of an emergency nature has happened, or will happen. This is pure political gamesmanship, plain and simple, designed to exploit those who view themselves as perpetual victims.

Bob, the difference is that in the past there has never been a state administration that has refused to compromise and have taken their election win to shove every imaginable idea they hold near and dear down our throats.

Walker and the GOP committed political practice by trying to do everything at once. If that woke people up to extent that if the voter suppression can be over come, the right wing pays the consequences.

They were elected to fix the job problem, which the GOP seemed to focus on about 5% of the time.

Bob McBride -
Maybe being one of those manic gamers is affecting your view of reality regarding the Constutional recall provision. There is no secret shortcut to getting around our Wisconsin Constitution. It is a game rule.
Lobby the the rulemakers and get the Constitution changed. But do not demean a rule just because you may lose the game because of it. My intuition tells me you would not protest the recall provision if it worked to your benefit. Calling our Constitution "absolute insanity" leads me to believe you are one of those hideous monsters in your games. It must be tough to live in that strange world.

Move to a country where there are no elections, and certainly no recalls, except by coup or revolution. Democracy is messy.

Game Over.

The people trying the change the game by using a leaky piece of legislation because they didn't win the last round are the Democrats. I don't approve of anyone using it in that fashion, including the Republicans who used it early on (to no avail, mind you, which probably speaks to how its usage in that fashion is viewed in general by Republicans). Should it be successful this time around, I won't approve of it being used in kind as retaliation. The law needs to be changed. Perhaps it wouldn't if your side could be trusted to use it responsibly.

And once again, despite the histrionics from folks like yourself, Keith, Randy and or any of the rest of the self-righteous victims who've glommed onto this movement because they anticipate a personal pay-off if it's successful, nothing Scott Walker is doing, can do or will do is of a nature to create such an emergency as to warrant a pre-emptive removal from office. And, yeah, if the shoe was on the other foot I'd say the same thing. The cost associated with this action and the circus that led up to it, on many levels, simply is not worth it, period.

As for the gamer reference, next time I'm making a point I'll be sure to draw some slang from a cultural phenomenon that doesn't befuddle ex-hippies and other crusty remnants of the '60s. You hardly have to be involved in gaming to have seen that term bandied about online for well over a decade.

Bob, I'm sure you can explain why the first recalls last year were filed by Republicans against Democrats (Jim Holperin's was filed February 22nd 2011; see http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/recall/2011-senate); in fact all of them were filed before the first against a Republican incumbent.

A waste of precious resources would be to allow the current administration to continue: he's managed to inflict a $208 million shortfall in his "balanced" budget (from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/publications/Revenue-Estimates/Documents/2012_02_09_Darling_Vos_Revenue%20estimates.pdf , n.b. their server seems to be down at the time of writing).

Your 860k figure seems to come from True the Vote's analysis (http://www.truethevote.org/reports/walker-exec-summary.pdf). However, that very same table shows that they did not finish processing all the sheets. Therefore your claim that "they come from the only group of people who've actually scrutinized the signatures fully at this point" is false, by your own source.

Geoff, how may signatures were "scrutinized" by those that turned them in? How many have been scrutinized by the GAB? At this point the, the only group that's looked at them in detail is that group and they've accumulated numbers. You're correct, I mistyped on the "fully" portion of it. If you've got something more accurate to point to that specifically indicates 1MM plus signatures (which is what was claimed), have at it.

I addressed the Republican efforts to recall above. It was wrong when they did it, it was unsuccessful because Republicans in general didn't support it. Contrast that with Democrats who've leapt at the opportunity for a do-over. Self interest trumps all.

The rest of your nonsense is more of the same "we have to nip it in the bud before XYZ happens". I could go back to the previous administration, pick out a point in time, latch onto some figure and extrapolate that into something that would have have suggested a impending "waste of precious resources".

Again, the bottom line:

1) It is, indeed, a "disgruntled minority", by definition, that has signed onto this abuse of a less-than-stellar law in order to obtain a do-over of the last election.

2) There is absolutely nothing that Scott Walker has done, can do or will do that warrants the extraordinary measures taken by this group in order to remove him from office prematurely.

3) This is political gamesmanship, nothing more. At an extreme cost to our State in many ways.

Actually the GAB have been through the Walker and Kleefisch signatures twice now, and provided numbers for signatures and those stricken for statutory reasons (lack of date etc, see the numbers at http://gab.wi.gov/node/2257); what we should be finding out on Friday is what the duplicate rate is.

Apparently my pointing out the lies of the current administration is "nonsense". Walker managed to convince sufficient people that he was a moderate, and once elected behaved dishonestly: if you like I can produce links to the video showing how he planned to negotiate with public unions, and he did not, and how under his own law (Act 10) he has also broken it by, er, not negotiating with unions over wages (which is still allowed). He is currently in violation of the statutes requiring a budget repair bill (see LFB memo for the details of the amounts when it comes back; the statute is found at https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/16/III/50/7). There are several flagrant violations of the Constitution I can point to, so he's broken his oath of office.

This is the *point* of the recall provision: when an elected official has dishonored the office, broken the trust of the people of the state, we get to minimize the damage to our state by having the chance to replace them early. We didn't elect a four-year king in November 2010, we elected a representative for those 4 years, and we can fire him.

As for your specific points:
1) If it's only a minority, there is nothing that will be changed by having an election then. No matter what you think of it, recall isn't the law, it's the Constitution. You also called it an exploitable "weak provision", yet the requirements are the strictest (25% of vote in 60 days) of any state whose electorate has yet managed to force their governor to face them (e.g. California is 12%, 160 days). It's not weak at all.
2) Walker lied in order to get elected. Pre-election video of him saying he'd be negotiating with unions: http://bit.ly/GPyY14 ; sent WSP to arrest senators in violation of Article IV Section 15; blocked access to the capitol then continued to block it in violation of a court order to allow it (http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-madison/blocking-access-to-capitol-building-defies-court-order-and-violates-constitution). As I've pointed out, he's currently violating Wisconsin law by failing to introduce a budget repair bill (and it does call for a special session if need be). He is on record as thinking that it's acceptable to plant "troublemakers" in a peaceful crowd which included children, which shows his attitude to Article I Section 4. As I've pointed out, he has not once in the last 14 months done any negotiating with unions, a violation of law both before and after the passage of Act 10.
3) How do you propose to tell the difference between gamesmanship and people who've been paying attention to Walker's actions?

Bob - Many in the past have wanted to deny Constitutional Rights to others when those rights infringed on their own politics or beliefs. You are just so adamant that there is something wrong with the recall signatures, there are not enough, it is a big waste of money, etc. You have to be giving a lot of credit to the intelligence of Democrats over Republicans, as the Republicans are flopping around like a carp on the dock trying to figure out some way to call off the recalls, but are just sucking air.

And it is frankly hard to believe you would not support a recall of a Democrat. Just incredibly hard with your hardcore positons. I suggest you start a petition to change the Constitution so recalls are forever banned. Not likely.
And it is just hard to believe that you would have opposed recalling those Dem. Senators who "fled the state" if the Republicans could have gotten enough signatures. The Repubs failed to get those signatures, so how convenient that you can say you are now opposed to recalls altogether. What a moralist!
The game is on, you are losing badly, and you want to hit the reset button and start over. But that button is locked by the highest authority, the Constitution.
Buck it up and accept constitutional democracy with some kind of renewed spirit. Go to the small .Republican rally stuff and vote in the recall.

Geoff,

It's weak in that the grounds for recall can be virtually anything, numbers required aside. It requires no proof of malfeasance, no proof of a crime. If I just don't like Scott Walker because of the way he parts his hair and I can convince enough people to sign recall petitions based on that, he's recalled and we have an election. Up until now, no one has abused that loose provision. Now they have. It needs to be changed. Whether or not Walker survives the recall election or not is immaterial.

The GAB figures also indicate that less than 1MM verifiable figures (per their verification process) were turned in. Who knows what's going to happen when duplicates are taken into account. As I said, the most complete verification at this point in time appears to be one I cited. Either way, the number as reported by the recall effort appears to be incorrect, and it was a number much touted as "proof" that most of the people in WI wanted Walker gone. Either way, it still represents a minority of the population of the state.

The rest of your points about what he said before he went into office, the delay in getting the budget repair bill, etc, supposed violations of the law (have charges been issued in any of those cases?) - similar things can be pointed out in previous administrations here, the one currently in Washington, etc.....(cont'd)

(cont'd from above)

Never have we had a series of recalls like this as a result.

And once again, as I have said repeatedly and will say again - there is no emergency, there is nothing warranting this action at this time. The State is not in imminent danger of collapse, nor will it be as a result of anything Scott Walker and the Republicans have done. That's how you tell it's political gamesmanship. The same arguments being made about Walker and the Republicans have been made about other administrations in terms of what they've done, how they've pushed things through, how they've been uncooperative with the opposition, and the opposition has always been content to bide their time 'til the next election. Until now.

Dirk, honestly it doesn't matter to me if you believe me or not. Recalls for no legitimate reason shouldn't be allowed. Simply disagreeing with the person in office and being able to scare a bunch of folks into signing petitions based on overblown extrapolation is not a legitimate reason. My point regarding the numbers is that much has been made of the claimed numbers as justification and even those aren't what they were purported to be.

Bob,

You seem to be saying that there is no reason to have any kind of recall provision at all; if we are to wait for the courts to act then the Constitution disqualifies a criminal from office anyway. I've pointed out examples of where he's lied and broken the law and continues to break the law. I will also point out that if he isn't currently being criminally investigated or charged for campaign finance violations and/or prohibited election practices, then he's also violating the law by setting up a legal defense fund under https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/11/64/1 two and a half weeks ago (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/142107673.html). If you like the kind of incumbent who violates the public trust this way, by all means vote for him again.

You strawman the whole process by referring to Walker's hairstyle. You may not agree, or may just not care about Walker's lies, violations of the law and the Constitution. Whether you will see it or not, he's damaged our state's reputation for open government, he's damaged our state's Constitution by flouting it. The fact is we don't have to wait for more damage to be done to our state in order to take action to prevent it. This is a feature, not a bug. Whatever you think about previous administrations, the fact of the matter is that the people then had the opportunity to recall, but did not. Failure to gather sufficient support then (and yes it was tried) is no excuse for Walker's actions now.

The fact of the matter is that a recall can be mounted, according to our system, if someone just doesn't like Scott Walker. I've heard a dozen or so "reasons" why Scott Walker's being recalled and I've heard those same reasons disclaimed by others as not being the reason. Depending on the day, the issue at hand, the spin being put out there by the union controlled Democratic Party in WI or the latest so-called violation being blown out of proportion, that's the reason he's being recalled.

If this was really about the supposed offenses of Scott Walker and his administration, we wouldn't have recalls targeting other Republicans who are believed to be vulnerable as well.

Again, this is all politics, plain and simple. You guys found a way to attempt to regain the foothold you lost in 2010 because you were so high on the fumes of 2008's "Hope & Change" that you missed the fact that the GOP wasn't quite as DOA as you thought they were. If other states had the same kind of provision for this nonsense as does ours, you'd see similar actions in those as well.

Seriously, cut the crap. You're fooling no one.

Yes, a recall can be mounted for any reason at all. So what? That has no bearing on people's reasons for signing the petition for Walker's recall, whether you can imagine them to exist or not. You're clearly attempting to paint the Walker recall as being solely out of partisan spite while at the same time totally ignoring the lies and violations of law and Constitution that I have highlighted and linked to evidence of for your benefit.

In your second paragraph you commit the logical fallacy that Walker's unfitness for public office necessarily means that others in different offices have pristine reputations. However, at the very least every single last GOP Senator of the 19 who took office in January 2011 violated their oath of office by voting for Senate Resolution 3 which called for the unconstitutional arrest of their colleagues in direct violation of Article IV Section 15.

I'm sorry to offend you so much by supporting my position with facts and taking apart your logical fallacies.

First, the Walker Recall has been in play long before most of the stuff you claim as proof of his unfitness for office even became issues. It's been in play since at least this time last year.

Second, if your justification for the recall of the other Republicans is because they're not "pristine" and voted for Senate Resolution 3, then why are all those who voted in favor not currently the target of recall efforts?

Seriously, it's as plain as day that what this is, in fact, exactly what I said it was upfront. Political gamesmanship. Opportunities being seized upon where its felt they can effectively result in a shift in party hold on a position, with the intent being to have Democrats seize control. You can attempt to paint it as anything but that, but you fail to do so. There's a time sequence to all of this that negates your arguments on the one hand, and a lack of universal conformity of the effort based on your argument in its support as regards the rest of it.

Bob,

So the people who originally thought about recalling Walker this time last year had a shorter list of reasons, one only as long as their arms. So what? Why does that excuse Walker's actions since somehow? Why does that mean that his disrespect for the Constitution up until that time doesn't count? Your reasoning eludes me.

In case you didn't notice, we did try to recall Grothman here in the 20th. As for the 8 GOP Senators who weren't targeted by DPW-backed efforts this winter, ask the inhabitants of their districts. Ask Lori Compas in particular (hint: she lives in SD-13).

You just can't admit that your claim "If this was really about the supposed offenses of Scott Walker and his administration, we wouldn't have recalls targeting other Republicans who are believed to be vulnerable as well." simply makes no sense at all, can you?

Then you complain that not spending limited resources on the potential recall drives least likely to succeed somehow leads you to the conclusion that Walker and GOP legislators must be pure as the driven snow and the efforts to kick them out didn't involve people from all walks of life with different reasons. Good luck with that; I'm sure your astounding reasoning powers will lead you to the truth every time.

Geoff, you haven't answered the question. Why, if this is about what's right and getting all the bad guys out of office, are the only ones being targeted those assumed to be vulnerable? You suggest I go ask people in the districts where there are no recalls happening. You seem to be able to speak to every other concern here, why are you shifting responsibility for justifying your claims about what this is about onto those districts now? Using your argument, those legislators are equally as culpable as are the ones your side is targeting.

The only logical conclusion anyone can come to is that it's not politically advantageous to do so. Otherwise, you and the rest of the pure-as-the-driven snow lefties would be aggressively attempting to run them out of office as well.

If your arguments have holes in them, it's somehow my faulty logic and I'm supposed to chase down the answers from the districts myself. In that regard, you certainly follow the established pattern of our State's Democrats. If they don't get their way, it's somebody else's fault.

Bob,

Er... I directly answered that question. I'm not sure how you missed it.

The fact is, Walker is unfit for office due to his illegal actions (and lack of action), his breaking of his oath of office, his lies in order to be elected to begin with. *I have supported those claims with references*. Your claim that the recall is solely a matter of political sour grapes are thus patently false. The entire GOP contingent in the Senate is demonstrably unfit for public office for similar reasons. That others have different motivations for recalling them is irrelevant. That resources are concentrated where they can be most effective is irrelevant. That there is no Constitutional requirement for a specific reason to recall is irrelevant. That recall efforts for previous governors have been unable to gather enough support for an election is irrelevant. No amount of strawmen or other logical fallacies change that.

It boils down to: do you want someone who's demonstrably a lying lawbreaking oathbreaker to be in office a minute longer than necessary? If so, vote for Walker on June 5th.

If you consider that your "answer" as regards why no recall efforts have been launched against all of the Republican contingent, then essentially you're acknowledging that it's a matter of political expediency, rather than an adherence to the pursuit of justice on the part of Democrats.

You've essentially thrown everything you can think of at the wall, most of which can be found to have occurred under previous administrations. In the case of the "crimes" you claim, you've haven't indicated any situations where actual charges have been filed.

It's through this process of continually throwing anything and everything at the wall that you folks attempt to justify this recall that is, essentially, based on the fact that you don't agree with the way he handled the collective bargaining situation, the initial and ultimate reason for the recall.

What you want, in essence, is the ability to apply a mulligan like you're doing here, every time you lose an election. That's why you refuse to admit it needs to be changed. It's the same reason you don't want stricter Voter ID laws. Without loopholes and with legitimate laws designed to protect the election process, you have to play by the rules and accept outcomes for what they are.

I'll will be voting for Walker, and to be honest I don't like everything he's done. But I'll be damned if I'll sit by and let one side pull out all the stops to undo 2010 just because they lost and our loose recall provision says they can.

You're assuming that people who have been paying attention are Democrats, and I'm "admitting" no such thing. Why would I not point out lies and lawbreaking and Constitution-trashing?

Nothing in what you've said addresses any of that *at all*. The only excuse provided is your "everyone does it anyway". That's pitiful reasoning: if that's your standard for elected officials, if Wisconsin must always simply suffer it when elected officials assume powers not granted them by the people, we are in a sorry state indeed.

Recall every time someone I don't care for wins an election? That perfectly explains why we've had no gubernatorial recall elections in the past. Your underlying premise is that recalling an official is easy. Clearly you have never tried, and history shows that it is done only rarely. You seem to be simply sore that Walker's attitude to the state has been so extreme that the process has gotten that far for a Wisconsin governor this time.

Now you're trying to move the subject away from Walker and onto Voter ID: again, creating a new class of people without the right to vote is prima facie against Article III of the Constitution, exactly as Judge Niess said. It's not surprising that the GOP legislature passed and Walker signed an unconstitutional piece of legislation seeing and they've shown no signs of ever having read it. ALEC cookie-cutter legislation just doesn't fit all state constitutions. n.b. Since you're concerned about state resources, having the issuance of free photo ID's is still in effect, so failure to repeal that part is costing taxpayers $2.7 million/yr according to the fiscal estimates for the bill.

Geoff, I've been watching this whole circus pretty much since inception. Recall talk started shortly after Walker was sworn in, it grew during the union driven protests early last year and has been a focus of the left since. I know what the issues are. Your Monday morning quarterbacking aside, this thing has been political since day 1.

Again: crimes? - show me some charges. Lies? - Show me a candidate who keeps all his promises, post election. Constitutional violations? - Are you a scholar of constitutional law? If not, you're taking one side of an argument and regurgitating it as fact.

Once again, the intent of the recall provision was not that it be used for political retaliation or as a mulligan for sore losers - and that's precisely how it's being used currently. That provision needs to change, since you folks refuse to use it responsibly.

If the law changes, it's unavailable to everyone, not just Democrats. I can live with that, because I know that nobody gets elected for life and nothing that either side can do while in power can't be undone if necessary. You can't. The same goes for Voter ID. It effects Republicans just as it does Democrats. I can live with that, you can't. What other conclusion can logically be drawn other than that you can't cope with a system that doesn't give you an out if you lose, or one that gives you the ability to abuse the election process? Shady dealings are okay as long as you benefit.

Bob, you persist with presenting logical fallacies. Now Walker must be pure as the driven snow since... someone was making recall noises as soon as he was elected?

The fact is that the only time I used the term "criminal" was in connection with the fact that Governor Walker must be under criminal investigation, or else he could not have set up a legal defense fund under §11.64(1) of the Wisconsin statutues (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/11/64/1), which he did on March 9th (http://wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=263794).

The term I used was lawbreaker. I have already pointed you to https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/16/III/50/7 which requires Walker to submit a budget repair bill since we are otherwise headed for a significant deficit (see http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/publications/Revenue-Estimates/Documents/2012_02_09_Darling_Vos_Revenue%20estimates.pdf). Walker is breaking the law, presumably in order to avoid drawing attention to the fact that his budget isn't balancing.

As your comment reflects, we have come to expect little of candidates' campaign promises. However, usually these are in the form of lofty economic goals or seeing some signature legislation pass that they want to see, things which are not in the full control of the office they seek. Sometimes such broken promises are in the form of policies or expectations that must be changed as a response to changing circumstances. These can at least be understood if not condoned. In the example I gave, however, it was a complete reversal from his pre-election position 3 months earlier, without change of circumstance, and it was wholly within his power since he directed the legislature to consider it in the course of the special session he had used his power as Governor to call. It was therefore clearly something that he intended to do from the get-go and told voters the exact opposite in order to gain their vote.

Constitutional violations: it's not just me, see Judge Niess' reasoning at http://wispolitics.com/1006/League_of_Women_Voters_v__Walker_SJ_decision.pdf of how Article III was tossed out of the window by the GOP legislature passing and Walker signing Act 23; see Judge John Albert's regarding the public being allowed into the Capitol at http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/117377043.html and the subsequent locking out of the public *and lawmakers* from the Capitol at http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_1bde688e-4b23-11e0-a0e3-001cc4c03286.html

You keep on claiming that the recall of Walker is all about having a do-over and is just party politicking, yet you have no answer at all to any of the above except to call it "crap" or "regurgitation" or "Monday morning quarterbacking".

As for the intent of the recall provision, firstly what's expressed in the amendment that voters approved for inclusion in the Constitution in 1926 is that one does not need to pick from a predefined shortlist of reasons. Secondly it's informative to pay attention to Bob La Follette's words on the matter since he was a major driver for it: "The recall enables the people to dismiss from public service those representatives who dishonor their commissions by betraying the public interest." I've demonstrated Walker's contempt for voters, the law, the Constitution, and the judiciary. If that's not betraying the public interest, what is?

Geoff, you can keep beating the same old dead horses (challenging Voter ID, issues regarding the massive temper tantrum at the rotunda, etc) but it doesn't change the fact that this recall is indeed nothing more than a political ploy by the Democrats and their sugar daddies, the public employees unions, to regain power and their stranglehold on public finances, respectively. That's all this is about, period.

I've been watching this since Day 1, as I said before, and I'm not buying it, period.

I never said Scott Walker and the Republicans are pure as the driven snow. They aren't, neither were the Democrats who preceded them. That's not the standard. It may be your standard as you attempt to justify this nonsense, but it's not the standard and it never has been.

This is not an emergency. The violations you cite frankly are no different than court challenges issued on legislation in the past that has effectively halted the implementation of said legislation. In essence, what you're talking about has never risen to the level of a recall in the past (because, again, it isn't necessary) and there's no reason it should now.

Again, nothing more than politics and if you honestly believe otherwise, you're not thinking rationally.

Bob, so violating the Constitution in order to deny the public access to their government - and furthermore violating a judicial restraining order - doesn't count because of what you happen to consider a "massive temper tantrum"? The Constitution isn't pick-only-the-bits-you-like-right-now. Either you care about its integrity or you don't. You and Walker have made your position on that very clear.

You claim certain reasons for this recall as fact, yet you have provided no evidence at all for that position, and I've provided a mountain. You've made your position on what constitutes a "fact" and what is "rational" very clear.

You claim you never said that Walker was pure as the driven snow, and yet you wrote "Recall talk started shortly after Walker was sworn in, it grew during the union driven protests early last year and has been a focus of the left since.", drawing the conclusion that since someone once made some recall noises which could well be construed as a "political ploy", any subsequent recall effort - regardless of Walker's actions - was necessarily a "political ploy", i.e. Walker could not possibly do anything deserving of recall, i.e. was pure as the driven snow.

Geoff, given the insanity that was going on at the time, (as instigated by the state's public unions), I'm really not all that concerned that some folks might have been blocked from entry into the Rotunda for a few days. As far as I'm concerned when people behave like animals, they get treated as such. Walker also had an obligation to keep the insanity going on outside from spilling inside into an enclosed environment where such actions could be dangerous to others and those taking part in the actions as well. We're not talking about an average day at the Capitol. Nobody has been excluded from the Capitol on a long term basis. If you want to hang your recall on this or your other "reasons", have at it.

You're never going to convince me that this whole episode is anything more than crying over spilt milk. As I said, I've been watching this for well over a year now, I've seen reason after reason touted as THE reason for the recall, and then subsequently denied as being the reason...rinse...repeat. if you combine all of them it comes down to people not wanting him in office because their personal ox has been gored and they don't think they should have to accept that.

We're having your recall, we'll see what the results of the election are. Either way, afterwards, the provision needs to change so that this state never has to be put through this again at the behest of a bunch of petulant children who can't accept not getting their way.

"Keith, Randy and or any of the rest of the self-righteous victims who've glommed onto this movement because they anticipate a personal pay-off if it's successful..."

What payoff? You do have any idea what you are talking about Bob?

I'm gonna pick this one apart specifically, because it goes to why this has dragged on and on and on here....

********************************

You claim you never said that Walker was pure as the driven snow, and yet you wrote "Recall talk started shortly after Walker was sworn in, it grew during the union driven protests early last year and has been a focus of the left since.", drawing the conclusion that since someone once made some recall noises which could well be construed as a "political ploy", any subsequent recall effort - regardless of Walker's actions - was necessarily a "political ploy", i.e. Walker could not possibly do anything deserving of recall, i.e. was pure as the driven snow.

****************************

There are no standards for recall, other than collecting a certain number of signatures. That's the bar. Recall has been on the table since shortly after he assumed the office, that is a fact. I can't claim for a fact Walker did nothing deserving of recall, simply because the provision states that he doesn't have to do anything deserving of recall to be recalled. Only that x number of signatures need to be obtained. Likewise, you can't claim for a fact that he's being recalled for a specific reason or set of reasons, or that he deserves being recalled for a specific reason or set of reasons, because there are no such standards in place. We are left to argue opinions.

Do you now understand? If not, you're hopeless.

Keith, are you going to claim you're not trying to parlay this into some sort of position of political influence on a farm team level for yourself? If so, that's laughable.

And, Geoff, just so we're clear here, the same applies regarding the Republican attempts to recall the border-jumping Democrats who, it could be argued, abandoned their positions and deserved to be recalled for that under our loosey-goosey system of no standard except a certain number of signatures. Which I disagree with to the same degree as I do with the Walker recall and those launched against Republican legislators.

AFP/Koch brothers also use stock images/video for their ads. Possibly demonstrates disrespect for the intellectual property of others and for the people whose opinions they are trying to sway (i.e., remember the Walker ad with the family waving on a bridge--clearly not in Wisconsin.)

Tosa720...Women in skirts free until 9 p.m.?

AFP's "Defending the Dream" was around long before you ever heard of Van Jones, unless you hung out at Communist Party USA events together.
I find the references to the Koch Bros. laughable.
Rule 12 in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" : Destroy the Individual
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Alinsky was Obama's mentor. The community organizer has been using Rule 12# against the Koch Bros, for a while now. IT IS GETTING OLD.

@Keith Best....Saul Alinsky? Where's your proof? The Koch Brothers agenda is well known and I find it ironic that someone who claims to be a small independent businessman would defend Koch Industries. You have more to fear from big business than you do the government.

In defense of Ms. Rand, her need for Social Security and Medicare were only the result of our society's tragic inability to see her writing for the genius it was and shower her with the wealth she deserved.

Rolando, I agree. When people decide to embrace the elderly lifestyle they should be held accountable for their own decisions.

Rolando and Bren, Please be reminded that you probably will be older some day too, and taking care of ones self does not pre-empt falling victim to a serious health problem. Be nice if you would be more open minded and less evident of the ignorance of life that you portray.!

Richard, I appreciate your staunch defense of the elderly, but a re-read of the comments might reveal the sarcasm with which they are written.

Many are concerned about discussions of cutting senior care programs, for the elders we know and for coming generations.

It needs to be pointed out that Social Security and Medicare are huge gifts to younger families, because they lift the financial burden of caring for Grandma and Grandpa and allow those families to save for their own retirement. Plus maybe have a little left for Grams and Gramps to leave to them.

@Eric -- Social Security and Medicare have been running at a surplus for the past thirty years. The extra money was put into T-bills to prepare for the foreseen demographic bulge when the Boomers hit retirement age. Our FICA was doubled in the early 1980s for this reason. Thirty more years and we'll have moved through the system.

You have fallen for a bill of goods. Of course private sector employers would love not to have to chip in their share. But where does that leave people who have contributed in good faith?

Eric - I suggest all the extreme right wingers decline to apply for SS and Medicare. If there are enough of you, maybe you can lobby for a law to get your contributions back somehow, or just blow it off anyway as an unfair tax ,and go it alone.
And if you ever need Medicaid, pay for it yourself, maybe go bankrupt and not pay that way.
Refuse VA benefits too, those are tax dollars.
Denying your own socialist benefits is my definition of Courage, Resolve, Dignity, etc. for a right-winger.
The right wingers I know, not unlike Ayn Rand, apply as soon as they can.

@Dirk: with respect, I don't think that's a valid criticism. One can take a paycheck from a company that you think isn't being run overall as well as it could be; one can accept a tax rebate you think is ill-advised for the nation as a whole.

Seeking to maximize one's personal resources given the way the system is currently set up should be independent of suggesting how the system ought to be set up.

Geoff - When I suggested that those adamantly opposed to SS and Medicare not sign up for the benefits, I was not defining a pragmatistic approach as you describe to just go ahead and sign up and enhance your personal wealth, even as you are surly to the SS folks and biting the SS hand.
Rather, I was defining a moral courage, high ground, principled stand for those that aspire to show others the righteous path of the true extreme right way believer. Those people do exist, and never sign up.
But then, have you ever been around someone who is never grateful. always complaining, but takes your help for granted?
Oh well, good luck with that idea and this bunch.

Keith - Has anyone come up with a single lump sum payout analysis for SS? Those decadent old private pension systems allow it. If you buy whole life insurance, there is a cash value you can cash out. I would like to see a fair provision like that, for those like Keith who detest the system.
SS is not just a rather poor payback investment plan, of course, it is insurance. Not just for you, but society. What about Mom, who did not have much of a job through her active life, but continues to draw an SS income into her very old age, and can live independently, and not with you? What about the guy down the street with two kids , few or no relatives that can help him, and with MS ,on SSI? Maybe charity or neighbors to help? We would need to do something about reducing their benefits if everyone starts cashing out.
But what about you Keith? Are you scam proof, never have bad luck, someone that can make good investments and devoid of bad factors like chronic gambling, alcohol abuse, getting in debt, etc., senility, bad physical health, etc. etc. ?
If you cash out, what is your safety net if things go really wrong? Will you want to come aknockin at some bottom government safety net? .Should we let you live under that bridge, or would you like that monthly check?

@Dirk -
Hi Dirk, my name is Dirk also. I am kind of liberal, but would settle for a moderate, like Obama. I will seriously consider Romney if he hits the reset button and comes out in the Romneycare, Pro-Choice costume hanging in his closet. As he will change his position on anything to get elected to anything, I believe the Dems can put enough pressure on him to even get him to raise taxes on billionaires, a moderate position actually.

Dirk Gutzmiller---Do you really believe Obama is a moderate? Obviously you know virtually nothing about him. Look up his relationship with Weather Underground domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. His grandfathers friend who became a mentor to Barack in Hawaii was an admitted Communist. Geez it sounds like you bought into the mainstream media portrayal.

@Keith Best....Are you calling Obama a communist, socialist or what? If that is the case, then, I think your partisanship is getting in the way of the facts and you need to cut the innuendo out of your rhetoric.

Keith Best, are you insinuating that Barack Obama is guilty simply by association? I don't consider George W. Bush to be a Nazi sympathizer because his grandfather Prescott laundered concentration camp profits for the Nazis prior to and at the beginning of World War II. Nor do I hold against David and Charles Koch the fact that their father Fred made a fortune working for/in the Soviet Union (a "communist" country) in the late 1920s and early 1930s. I believe it is possible to be acquainted with many people, each with their own ideologies and belief systems, without becoming that way oneself.

@Keith Best -
Well, I imagine you, having read your bleatings, standing over on the right-wing edge, about as far right as you can get without falling off, where the reactionaries, fascists, social Darwinists, libertarians, corporatists, christian militias, and other regressives live.

When you, Keith, then look way off to the left, moderates, due to the great distance, look to be standing close to liberals, which then look close to socialists, etc. In other words, you do not have the perspective to differentiate a moderate from a liberal from a socialist very well. But I, standing among them, can tell you Obama is a centrist or moderate, a bit left. Romney, in his soul of souls, if he has one, is also in the moderate spectrum, a bit right. In fact, Obama is a disappointment to many Democrats as not being liberal enough, as is Romney to Republicans for not being conservative enough.

And why are they in the center, more or less? Because that is where the great majority of voters are, particularly the middle class. And that is why the Presidential candidates way out on the edge, right or left, rarely get nominated, and even more rarely, actually win the general election.
I find your attempts to declare Obama a revolutionary for inevitable loose associations one forms when being a professor, community organizer and running for state and national offices, as your bush league histrionics calculated to get the overexcitable Rush groupies out to fizzled rallies.

What needs to be looked out for is the existing $2.7 trillion balance of the Social Security Fund. Claims that it is in crisis and that drastic corrective action need be taken right now (as opposed to up to 25 years hence) amount to that $2.7 trillion never being paid to SS depositors.

Of course people draw out more than they put in: it's called inflation and interest.

Without changes in the law, the $2.7T balance will be exhausted between 2036 and 2041, and thereafter about 3/4 of scheduled payments will be able to be made (http://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/index.html). If full payments are the desired outcome, then either the payroll tax rate can be increased by 1/3 (about 2% for both employer and employee) or alternatively the payroll tax cap lifted entirely, 25 years from now. That's not nothing, but it's hardly greatly increased. Probably best to phase in over the course of several years.

Social Security will be just fine with a bit of tweaking 20-30 years from now. Politicians are selling crisis now to try to keep $2.7 trillion for whatever their pet projects are: that buys a lot.

@Geof Tolley -- I favor lifting the cap, because, as was said back when they were considering allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, $100K just isn't what it used to be.

I'm sure many politicians would very much like to be able to keep that borrowed money from the Social Security Trust Fund. But that means that our government considers today and tomorrows retirees to be the one class of creditor they can default on. That astounds me.

Liberal males are more attracted to good looking journalists like Helen Thomas, that is the best they can do.

Jack Charles with this comment is a prime example of the real
"War on Women". Add, Sarah Palin, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, Laura Ingraham, Rep. Michelle Malkin and a multitude of other conservative women that undergo personal attacks like this all the time.

Guys, come on. Don't go there.