Sunday, August 21, 2011

Walker And Bipartisanship? It Is To Laugh!

Yesterday, when I was on the radio with Sara Schulz the first question she had asked me was my opinion on Scott Walker's statement that the recalls show that he is ready for proceeding with the air of bipartisanship.

Some people said it was a sign that the Democrats won in the recall rumble (which they did) and that Walker knows he's in trouble of recall himself (and he is) and they were hoping that this meant the bad stuff would end.

I told Sara that no one should believe him.

I pointed out that when Walker was in front of Congress, providing sworn testimony (the only time he even comes within shouting distance of the truth), he dismissed the notion of bipartisanship:
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker defended his school of union hobbling as a route to fiscal discipline to budget-weary Washington on Thursday, telling a House committee that nail-biting negotiations in tough economic times can produce inaction and bad policy.

"Sometimes," the Republican governor told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, "bipartisanship is not so good."

It was an extraordinary message to deliver to Capitol Hill at a time of divided government, when leaders in Congress realize they have little choice but to negotiate the path toward the nation's economic stability. As Walker spoke to the House panel, a Congress facing tough fiscal battles ahead was preparing to send the White House a bipartisan deal for $38 billion in spending cuts over the next six months.

Walker's budget for Wisconsin is an explicit act of partisanship.
And I really hope that our Democratic leaders aren't foolish enough to trust him. After all, it was Walker and is Republican cronies in the state senate that actually went so far as to send state troopers after their political foes. That's not only not bipartisan, that not even partisan. Sending state police to arrest political foes is tyranny and fascism at its worst.

Senator Chris Larson, in his weekly newsletter, listed some of his greater concerns of the things Walker and the Republicans did in their disregard for bipartisanship:

  • Cut $1.6 billion in funding for public education, while also cutting funds for higher education
  • Eliminated accountability and consolidated power through administrative rules
  • Spent $2.3 billion on special interests, corporate giveaways and loopholes while raising taxes and fees on working families and seniors
  • Eliminated worker's rights
  • Reduced job retraining opportunities
  • Added a waiting period for unemployment compensation on workers who just lost their job
  • Killed wind energy jobs across the state
  • Locked out the public from the Capitol
  • Landed the state government in court over open meetings violations
  • Undermined local control by passing extreme legislation related to wetlands, redistricting, highways and sick-leave
  • Rejected federal grants to support transportation and health care that then went to other states
  • Defunded women's health care programs
  • Removed consumer protection by changing our victim protection laws
Yeah, any person or group that is willing to go to those extremes and trample on people's rights without a moment's hesitation doesn't have the morals necessary to even begin to care about bipartisanship.

And given Walker's past behaviors, he's got even less moral that the Republican legislators.


  1. Walker's dubious conversion to bipartisanship is nothing more than another cynical tactic in the GOP's Koch-funded attack on Wisconsin and it sucks that we have to worry whether or not Democrats will fall for it.

    Remember, fracturing the opposition is one of the ways that the repugs conduct their political campaigns. Walker's pleas for cooperation are intended to peel off so-called independents (aka weak-kneed weenies) whose votes are based more upon the candidate that makes them feel good rather than the candidate that actually does good.

    The only response that opponents of Walker should be giving the newsmodels and stenographers in the media when they are asked about the governor's position is that these are cynical and manipulative political tactics coming from a guy who will do and say virtually anything to gain political power. This is to be expected from a narcissistic sociopath like Walker.

  2. "... whose votes are based more upon the candidate that makes them feel good rather than the candidate that actually does good."

    Actually, I think that pretty much sounds like republican voters.