Wisconsin is "ground zero." Wisconsin is "pivotal." Wisconsin is "critical." Wisconsin is where "the battle will be won."
Or lost.
Speaker after speaker at the "Defending the American Dream Summit" Saturday in Milwaukee reiterated that this is the battleground for conservatives.
It's expected that presidential hopefuls will tell the party faithful that their state's votes are the most important, wherever they might be.
But the only such presidential hopeful on the docket Saturday at the Wyndham Hotel was former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum. Yet, speaker after speaker on the docket — be they sitting members of Congress or pundits or organizers at the national, state or local levels — said the same:
All eyes are on Wisconsin.
Here is where they make their stand
The Wisconsin Republican primary, just 10 days away on April 3, could set the Republican ticket. A win by Santorum could keep him in the race. A win by Mitt Romney, the frontrunner now, could seal the deal for him.
In the national election come November, Wisconsin, always a swing state, could make or break either party.
But a strong undercurrent during the day at "the summit," sponsored by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, was concern about the Wisconsin recall elections.
Most of all, the outcome of the recall elections here, especially the one challenging Gov. Scott Walker, could be a bellwether of national politics and in every state.
Moreover, contended Michelle Malkin, nationally known blogger and regular FOX News contributor, a Walker loss could change the very face of democracy, making every governor and elected official vulnerable to the whims of a disgruntled minority.
Malkin said such a loss would be "the most damaging thing" that could happen in all of American politics.
Going to the grassroots – perhaps for life support
The summit itself was billed as an educational conference put on by the AFP's Foundation arm, offering training in grassroots activism, particularly through social networking.
It was organized in 18 days and drew nearly 1,000 registered participants without any significant notice in the mainstream media, said state director Luke Hilgemann.
- Live Blog Replay:
- Video:
In interviews, Hilgemann, echoed by Malkin and Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, said the Republican Party was catching up and in some ways surpassing the Democrats in organizing followers through social media and grassroots organizing, long the domain of the left.
The presence of Santorum on the speaker's list may have been an indication of his need to run strong in Wisconsin and to tap that grassroots support.
"All the candidates were invited," Hilgemann said. "We even invited President Obama to explain his economic vision."
That Romney, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul did not come is perhaps indicative of their various positions in the race.
Romney is not just the frontrunner, he has recently been dubbed the presumptive nominee by elder statesmen in the GOP such as John McCain and Bob Dole.
that has turned a majority of Wisconsin voters toward Romney as the party's best hope. Gingrich and Paul are hardly registering life signs here or on the national vital signs monitor.
Santorum took the stage Saturday and spent about two minutes attacking President Obama's policies before turning his attention entirely to attacking Romney.
And the next next GOP nominee is...
Even though he shocked his own party earlier this week in Louisiana by comparing a vote for Romney to one for Obama, Santorum continued in that vein Saturday in Milwaukee, saying that no one could tell Romney's policies from Obama's on important issues from health care to energy.
Santorum got a warm enough welcome from the crowd, as did U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson earlier.
But the wild enthusiasm was saved for the guy who says he is "really into numbers" — U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, the final speaker of the day.
Santorum might possibly be a nominee for next president of the United States, despite great odds.
Ryan, it would seem, might very likely be a nominee for next president after that, if he wants to be.
"The battle … is coming to a main crescendo this year," Ryan told the enthusiastic crowd. "Because of math and momentum, the change will last for a generation.
"The debt crisis is coming and we see it coming. All these smart economists tell us that we’ve got about two years."
Obama's "fourth budget proposes to do nothing about this debt crisis," Ryan said. "No, I take that back. He’s going to make it worse.
"The good news: It is not too late to turn this around. We can do this. We an grow our economy by letting people keep more of what they earn.
"We need to be talked to like adults and not pampered like children. We need to deserve victory.
"We will save the American idea."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
What payoff? You do have any idea what you are talking about Bob?
******************************** 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.
"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.
Many are concerned about discussions of cutting senior care programs, for the elders we know and for coming generations.
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.
Coffee Bean @CoffeeBean26 BUSTED! Paul Ryan lied about benefits of budget plan http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3722 #WIunion #connecttheleft @robzerban @DefeatPaulRyan1 @AARP Ryan Budget's Claim to Finance Its Tax Cuts for the Wealthy By Curbing Their Tax Breaks Does Not Withstand Scrutiny PDF of this report (3pp.) By Chuck Marr March 22, 2012 Despite warning that the nation faces the “perils of debt,” House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan introduced a budget on March 20 whose tax proposals would be extremely costly and would disproportionately favor the nation’s highest-income households and large corporations.[1] His budget would cut the top marginal income tax rate, now 35 percent but scheduled to rise next year to 39.6 percent, to 25 percent. It would cut the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent and eliminate taxes on the foreign profits of U.S.-based multinationals. It would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), designed to ensure that high-income people pay at least a minimum level of tax. And it would eliminate health reform’s increase in the Medicare tax for high-income individuals. ....