Impeached Prez: Recall Gov!

Bill Clinton steams into Badger State, talks selective recall support, fails to draw blood from Scott Walker.

MILWAUKEE — Democratic Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett is campaigning against outside money flowing into Wisconsin’s recall election, but in his home city Friday morning, he turned to a high-profile outsider to energize his troops.

Former Democratic President Bill Clinton, in from New York City for the day, stumped on Barrett’s behalf and touted the Milwaukee mayor as someone who can unite the state to move it forward.

Clinton’s speech began immediately after an embrace by the two men, and continued as the former president embraced Barrett’s governing style.

“Cooperation works,” Clinton said. “Constant conflict is a dead-dang loser.”

Barrett’s campaign is seeking to invoke class warfare in the election, saying Republican Gov. Scott Walker, the man the mayor is hoping to replace in the June 5 gubernatorial recall election, favors the interests of the rich and powerful over regular workers.

Clinton lashed out at Walker, saying common sense calls for “shared prosperity” in good times and “shared sacrifice” in tough times.

The mayor complained that Walker “has done a wonderful job of making the wealthiest people the happiest people.”

While boasting of Barrett’s ability to involve all groups in Wisconsin’s electorate, Clinton had sharp words for some more conservative folks.

The former president said that if tea party-types like those backing Walker had their way, “there never would’ve been a U.S. Constitution.” He went on to talk about the horse trading in which the Founding Fathers engaged to write the Constitution.

“We would not even be here today if they (tea party-types) had had their way,” Clinton said.

The mayor cast the election as critical for the Badger State’s future.

“It’s for you. It’s for your kids. It’s for your grandkids,” the mayor said. “It’s for our state.”

The former president also touched on his 2003 stump speech against the recall of California Gov. Gray Davis, saying if the process came to fruition, it would “create a circumstance where nobody ever makes a hard decision again.”

For Barrett, Clinton makes an exception.

“Normally, I’m against recall elections,” Clinton said, adding this is a special occasion. “It’s the only way to avoid a disastrous course.”

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    “Cooperation works,” Clinton said. “Constant conflict is a dead-dang loser.”

    And nothing says cooperation like round the clock drum circles.

  • Brutus||

    I think he's talking about the symbiotic, incestuous relationship between public sector unions and the state Democratic Party.

  • wareagle||

    in left-speak, cooperation means "do it our way." Always has.

  • Brutus||

    "Do it our way...or else," even.

  • wareagle||

    that addendum is especially implicit with unions.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    That's "Fuck you, that's why", Brutus.

    Observe the protocols.

  • Brutus||

    I was hoping they'd be polite, at least when they issue the order the first time.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    If you're lucky, they'll gently shoot your dog.

  • yonemoto||

    Observe the protocols.

    You mean tow the lion.

    This is like a smart man's Joe'z law.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The leopard doesn't change his spots.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    A leopard cannot change his shorts,

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Shit. I squirreled myself.

  • Sevo||

    OT:
    Did you know "Obamacare's economic effects expected to be small"?
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....e=business
    Pretty sure Pelosi told him so.

  • ||

    Item Not Found

    The article or page you requested was not found. If this link was sent to you via e-mail or posted on another website, it was probably incorrectly formatted.

    If the link that gave you the error appeared on one of The Gate's pages, please mail us and let us know at webmaster@sfgate.com.

    You can also go to our search page at: www.sfgate.com/search.

  • Sevo||

    rsi,
    Tried it twice more; sfgate seems to be having problems.

  • Sevo||

    OK, I think this'll work and it starts with a whopper besides:

    "Should it survive intact, 99,000 new jobs would be created statewide, according to the report"

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....z1wkrCswAI

  • ||

    ... 98,999 of whom will be worthless bureaucrats.

  • ||

    OK so it creates jobs ( low level bureaucrats ) and it's effects will be small ( admittedly bad effects but dont worry they wont be that bad...).
    I have not heard a single commie scumbag tout this as a serious improvement in health care. More coverage yada yada but never " ..this takes a good system and makes it even better, the quality of health care will skyrocket"

    They all know it is a giant fuck up but cant admit it. They still love it because the intentions are good....

    God, I hate lefties....

  • ||

    On-topic: It's Bill Clinton. You mustn't take anything the man does or says seriously.

    OT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....ure=relmfu

  • Sevo||

    “Cooperation works,” Clinton said. “Constant conflict is a dead-dang loser.”

    And then he shows how 'cooperation' works by supporting Barrett’s campaign; a campaign based on pure partisanship.

  • Ice Nine||

    The former president said that if tea party-types like those backing Walker had their way, “there never would’ve been a U.S. Constitution.”

    The irony overwhelms.

  • wareagle||

    once again, the left plays to the ignorant/uninformed who are easily moved by platitudes and mischaracterizations of the opposition. Doesn't make Walker a saint, but good grief.

  • Keith3D||

    let's actually think that horrible alternative out a bit. Articles of confederation, weak central govt that can't even tax anyone, no imperial presidents with their constant wars.

    Ah but then you run into the whole slavery problem, which as we know could only have been ended by a guy with the power to kill 750k americans.

  • triclops||

    “Normally, I’m against recall elections,” Clinton said, adding this is a special occasion. “It’s the only way to avoid a disastrous course.”

    Simply awesome.

  • Brutus||

    You will remember, dear reader, that the balanced budgets produced in the late 1990s were brought about against by dragging Bubba's administration kicking and screaming into them. Maybe that's what he's referring to about Wisconsin's new budget surplus.

  • ||

    What the hell are you talking about? Mr. Intern's Delight was a fiscally responsible, totally awesome president who we should have made President-for-Life.

  • Brutus||

    We do need to find the ideal Supreme Lawgiver, do we not?

  • ||

    You're going a little far there -- Emperor Barack I has already been declared Grand Autocrat an Supreme Lawgiver. Your racist libertarian mindset wouldn't be encouraging you to exclude him from consideration because he's black, would it? I think I'll just report you to the White House on their special site and let the Secret Service have you, you heathen!

  • wareagle||

    yup, it's all about melanin. The dissenters are not criticizing Clinton, per se; they merely use him as the surrogate for pushing their nefarious racist agenda against King Obie I.

  • ||

    I know, dude. I mean, man, I'm completely for the great stuff and things like the freedoms of speech and stuff in the 1st Anamenamendment and, like, warrants in the 15th Anamenamendment, but criticizing the President should be banned because only tea party crypto-fascists do it, you know? Why would you hate on BO for anything other than skin color? You know, dude?

  • Brutus||

    You know, I do seem to recall being exhilarated at the thought of the Central State commandeering 1/6 of the American economy back in 1993 or so, and being so enthusiastic precisely because Clinton was such a pasty hue of pink, like a sun-bleached Band-aid. I'm not usually fond of the idea of a jackboot on my neck, but when it's a lily-white foot in that boot, I just can't resist.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Since Clinton was dubbed The First Black President by noted super-genius Toni Morrison... isn't it racist to criticize Clinton?

  • ||

    Holy shit, you're right.

    Quick, guys, flagellate yourself quick and beg for forgiveness before the SPLC classifies Reason as a hate-group-militia and Janet Napolitano's boys in black come calling.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Too late for that, Res. All non-liberals are on the SPLC shit-list.

  • ||

    Should I expect to see a Predator drone circling my yard sometime soon, then?

  • ||

    You'll not see it. You will only feel its effect...for a few milliseconds. It's really the kindest way.

  • ||

    The Most Humanitarian and Transparent Administration Ever (tm), killing you the humane way!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Quit being so optimistic, guys.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You're an idiot. The balanced budget of the 90s were fought by the GOP and not a single GOP vote were cast for them.

    http://business.highbeam.com/2.....ng-federal

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|6.3.12 @ 8:44PM|#
    You're an idiot. The balanced budget of the 90s were fought by the GOP and not a single GOP vote were cast for them."

    From your link, bozo:
    "In a joint session of Congress on February 17, 1993, President Clinton unveiled his budget proposal that included deep spending cuts, but which relied overwhelmingly on tax increases to bring the deficit downward."
    Hmm. How surprising! People vote against increased taxes!
    Go away.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Hey Clinton balanced the budget. No one asked HOW.

    Largest spending cuts ever plus raised the top tax rate to 39%. That is how you do it.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|6.3.12 @ 9:01PM|#
    "Hey Clinton balanced the budget."
    No, he didn't

    "No one asked HOW."
    Your sophistry is, shall we say, tiresome.
    Shriek, why not post under your old handle?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/.....r-clinton/

    Fuck you, he did run a surplus. The Bushpigs fucked it up and Cheney said deficits don't matter.

    And my old handle is temporarily lost in one of my many e-mail accounts.

  • sloopyinca||

    ...and Cheney said deficits don't matter.

    Is that supposed to get us riled up? Of course Cheney said that. He's a fucking moron, just like the rest of the idiots running the show.

    But again, linking to the site that makes the claim without substantiating the increase in assets that would be necessary to offset the increase in national debt. You're a broken fucking record, asshead.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

  • sloopyinca||

    Again, where is the footnote clarifying and accounting for those claims? You simply can't offer them because they do not exist.

    No more factcheck.org bullshit. Give a link to a .gov site that substantiates and breaks down the accounting behind the claim or shut the fuck up. I want to see those assets you used in your hypothetical. (Protip: don't bother as they do not exist)

  • Palin's Buttplug||

  • sloopyinca||

    Look at the adjusted #'s from the treasury from the link I provided. They are obviously updated as info comes in. Same as the unemployment figures.

    Sorry, but I'm still gonna believe the debt #'s I cited after all receipts were reported (from the US Treasury as well).

  • sloopyinca||

    Look at the adjusted #'s I provided...also from the Treasury. So solly!

  • Sevo||

    "So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while."

    Ignoring the temporary 'current accounts' sophistry, you left out the part about how the dot-com boom figured in the issue.
    If Bush were so lucky to have been president at the time, I doubt seriously if your cheerleading would extend that far.

  • sloopyinca||

    Hey Clinton balanced the budget. No one asked HOW.

    I didn't?

    That is how you do it.

    Only, he didn't.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

  • sloopyinca||

    Yawn. Again, an unsourced claim and an accounting trick that would get a private sector businessman put in jail.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yeah, you are a true wingnut. Only the Bible and Rush (King of the Rednecks) Limbaugh are to be believed.

  • sloopyinca||

    I suppose I'll take that as a compliment. It's the true sign of someone that has lost an argument. Not to mention the Bible is the most read book of all time (that doesn't mention Hogwarts) and Rush is the most listened-to man on the radio since Edward R Murrow.

  • Cytotoxic||

    And Shriek gets his ass kicked again. Sun to rise in East.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You cannot explore a link then. I brought facts here.

  • RockLibertyWarrior||

    As usual shriek big fat FAIL. LOL! As usual when we don't swallow his "facts" i.e. bullshit either he or some other web site has twisted to prove their point, he runs off crying. Please stay away now.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I doubt Clinton actually balanced the budget as much as he SAID he did. I'd bet it was more about numerical wizardry than anything else, shrike.

  • sloopyinca||

    Again, what balanced budget? The debt increased nearly $300B during the "surplus" years alone. Based on that and the fact that the alleged surplus was $260B, you need to account for an asset increase of approx $550B for that period. That's using your measurement from below. And if the government accumulated over a half trillion dollars worth of assets in 4 fiscal years, there would be some reporting on it.

    Back up your claim, fuckhead. I linked to the Treasury, which is the balance sheet of the US Government. They show an increase in the debt of nearly $300B for that period. All you link to is a partisan site that doesn't support the narrative in any way other than to expose the government ponzi scheme.

    I seriously think you need to remove the "Palin" from your moniker. Even that lady is too smart to be associated with you. The buttplug part, on the other hand...

  • Palin's Buttplug||

  • sloopyinca||

    Yeah, that link's the claim. There is, however, no support there that shows how a surplus exists when the debt for that same time period grew by nearly $300B.

    I want you to show what assets the US government accumulated for that time frame that accounts for the increase in debt as well as the claimed surplus. It was an accounting trick by Clinton, Gingrich and the rest of the shitheads in DC. If a private company ran their books that way, they would be imprisoned for fraud.*

    *Unless they're a large campaign donor or bundler.

  • Keith3D||

    "You're an idiot. The balanced budget of the 90s were fought by the GOP and not a single GOP vote were cast for them."

    why isn't anyone challenging this revisionism. The budget wasn't remotely balanced in 1993. It was balanced in the late 90's. And yes not a single DEMOCRAT voted for those later budgets that actually got somewhere. only Clinton himself crossed the line to join republicans. And by the way the Republicans immediately LOWERED the crap out of capitol gains and other taxes right after they got control in 1994. Also before the economic boom and near-balanced budget, if you're trying to play the "1993 budget set the stage" argument.

    Seriously am I the only one old enough to remember the warring proposals? with clinton saying "7", "I mean 9", I mean 11" years etc. While Gingrich was demanding much shorter timeframes. I give Clinton a lot of the credit for the result, but to call him the leader in that process and republicans obstructionists is a flat out lie.

  • ||

    So, "normal" is when Democrats are in power? Got it.

  • ||

    “Normally, I’m against recall elections,” Clinton said, adding this is a special occasion. “It’s the only way to avoid a disastrous course.”

    Normally, I consider a southern accent folksy and endearing, but, this is a special occasion.

  • Suki||

    Hatin' on the First Black President are you?

  • ||

    Yeah, the last time we had "constant conflict," Clinton was president, the stock market was booming, and unemployment was under 5%. Sounds like a dead-dang loser to me...

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    And a federal budget surplus.

    But that was pre-Bushpig.

  • sloopyinca||

    And a federal budget surplus.

    [citation required]

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/.....r-clinton/

    $236 billion surplus at its high mark.

  • sloopyinca||

    From the google: def·i·cit/ˈdefəsit/
    Noun:
    The amount by which something, esp. a sum of money, is too small.
    An excess of expenditure or liabilities over income or assets in a given period.

    sur·plus/ˈsərpləs/
    Noun:
    An amount of something left over when requirements have been met; an excess of production or supply over demand.

    Please explain how we had a surplus when the national debt rose by close to $300,000,000,000 during the "surplus years" of the Clinton administration. Please include your math. My data came from the US Treasury.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Because surplus FICA payments must be used to purchase US Treasuries by statute. Your Treasury debt link only provides one side in double entry accounting.

    IOW, if there is a trillion dollar FICA surplus UST debt will rise a trillion --- AND cash received will rise a trillion too (not shown in your link).

  • sloopyinca||

    By all reasonable measures in the real world (business or private), if you have more obligations (or reduced assets) at the end of a year, you ran a deficit. If you have lowered your obligations (or increased your assets), you ran a surplus.

    Try this scenario:
    I have $100 at the start of a year.
    I borrow $50 that year.
    At the end of the year, I have $110 but still owe the $50.
    Did I enjoy a $10 surplus that year, or did I run a $40 deficit?

    Please show your work.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I begin with $100.

    I borrow $50 and buy a $50 asset. I earn $10.

    End of year I have $160 in assets and $50 in liabilities (debt).

    I have $110 in equity.

  • sloopyinca||

    In what way, shape or form did the government's assets increase enough to offset a nearly $300B increase in the national debt during the Clinton years? I'd think that was newsworthy, but I can't seem to find any links that support it.

    Remember, I asked you to show your work. I'll need to see links that show an increase in assets for that period to the tune of $550B (that's the difference in the increased debt and what they claim the surplus was.

  • Mike M.||

    Hey, Shrieking Idiot, how come you're not talking about the stock market quite so much lately? Could it be because all the major indexes are down between eight and ten percent in the last month or two? Things aren't looking too good for you and your ilk right now, are they?

  • sloopyinca||

    Shhhhhh, don't bother him. He's busy poring over "data" at Kos, DU and Balloon Juice so he can back up his surplus claim. God knows he isn't gonna find it at any .gov address.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I got kicked off Kos a long time ago. I only post at Straight Dope now. It non-partisan - all intelligent. Wingnuts get massacred there.

    On the stock market I survived 2008 and the Bushpig meltdown so this May sell-off is just a light bump in the road.

  • sloopyinca||

    Sooooooo, no facts to back up your claim? That's what I thought.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Bullshit, I posted a Factcheck link that confirmed my claim with CBO data. Clinton ran a surplus with or without payroll tax issues.

    Then I attempted to explain it to you but I might as well talk calculus to my dog.

  • sloopyinca||

    Then I attempted to explain it to you but I might as well talk calculus to my dog.

    You gave an explanation. Something about assets offsetting increases in debt. I would like you to show an increase in assets over those years that accounts for the claimed surplus and the very real debt increase. You are yet to do so.

    Sorry, but you are full of shit. Any person with a brain knows that if you have less or owe more at the end of a year, all other things being equal, you did not enjoy a surplus. I want you to show that increase in assets that accounts for the fuzzy math at the CBO that doesn't jibe with the Treasury Department's true accounting of our national debt. And you fucking can't.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|6.3.12 @ 8:35PM|#
    "I got kicked off Kos a long time ago..."

    Hey, broken clocks and all that...

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|6.3.12 @ 7:02PM|#
    "I begin with $100.
    I borrow $50 and buy a $50 asset.

    *I earn $10.*"

    Uh, if we're presuming hypotheticals, why didn't you claim to 'earn $10M'?

  • AlmightyJB||

    ""Shared sacrifice" in tough times"?

    Does he mean the "shared sacrifiices" that the publin sector unions are unwilling to make which was the entire reason for the recall?

  • AlmightyJB||

    And does anyone in Wisonsin not get the irony of that statement?

  • Brutus||

    It's only ironic if it's unintended. It's cynical on a Machiavellian level if it's self-aware. I leave it to you to decide whether the beneficiaries of the tax pelf are self-aware.

  • Randian||

    oooh, "pelf". New Word Sunday!

  • ||

    This proves that libertarians are all super-rich one-percenters who can afford to send their kids to really expensive schools and colleges where they learn big words like "constitatution" and "pelf".

  • Brutus||

    My thesaurus runneth over.

  • ||

    We're living on welfare checks, Brutus, you filthy rich guy. My seventh son, Johnny, can't even go out an buy himself a new iPod. Why you gotta be all up in this shit flaunting your educations?

  • Brutus||

    You think we're satisified just sporting monocles and top hats, stubbing out our cigars in the ears of the hoi polloi? Perish the thought...

  • Pi Guy||

    I've long since retired Webster and Roget to the circular file. I can learn way more cool wordy stuff in the HnR comments than if I read two of those all day, cover-to-cover, from here on out.

    Same goes for Britanica. You people are just plain smart.

  • sloopyinca||

    Don't worry scro'! There are plenty of 'tards out there living really kick ass lives. My first wife was 'tarded. She's a pilot now.

  • ||

    And look who we've got as President! Man, anybody can make it big in America!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Don't forget Joe Biden, Super-Genius Vice-President.

  • ||

    Bad analogy. Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho would fuck Obama's shit up in under 5 seconds.

  • juris imprudent||

    And shamefully I must admit I would cheer that spectacle.

  • mr simple||

    Are you saying Bill Clinton is a mendacious, self-serving slime ball? Unpossible!

    Clinton lashed out at Walker, saying common sense greed calls for “shared prosperity” in good times and “shared sacrifice” in tough times.

    You're doing better than me so you owe me some of your stuff.

  • ||

    Bipartisanship means doing whatever the fuck liberals want. Otherwise you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Clinton's got nothing better to do, but this is going to be such an embarrassing debacle for the Democrats that Obama won't go near it.

  • sloopyinca||

    What Clinton doesn't understand (or does but chooses to ignore) is this doesn't have anything to do with "prosperity" or "sacrifice." It's about freedom for people to choose whether or not they want to be in a union, and it's also about whether or not taxpayers should be forced to fund the retirements of government workers in a way that is extremely rare in the private sector-fully funded pensions.

    Good on Walker for beating back this challenge. His hypocrisy IRT cops and firefighters aside*, this is a step in the right direction.

    *Personally, I hope the cop/firefighter exemption is struck down and the taxpayers elect people that will pass laws that effect all pubsec unions equally, but I'm not holding my breath.

  • wareagle||

    Oh, Clinton understands alright; he just counts on the typical Dem voter's ignorance in the matter. Liberalism never relies on actual ideas in order to win; it's all about painting the opposition as evil or ginning up hatred about things politicians cannot control.

  • sloopyinca||

    Well, that's gonna be a tough sell in Wisconsin, seeing as the rolls of AFSCME members has plummeted and the budget has been balanced with nary a sign that service levels have fallen. As a matter of fact, Dems would do well to leave Wisconsin to the GOP and pray that they don't fustigate them with it in the fall.

  • sloopyinca||

    Well, that's gonna be a tough sell in Wisconsin, seeing as the rolls of AFSCME members has plummeted and the budget has been balanced with nary a sign that service levels have fallen. As a matter of fact, Dems would do well to leave Wisconsin to the GOP and pray that they don't fustigate them with it in the fall.

  • Anacreon||

    fustigate -- that makes two new words today. Thanks, sloop.

  • Randian||

    There is nothing inherently wrong or hypocritical with a cop/firefighter exemption, IMO. That doesn't mean I like it, but it's not hypocritical.

  • sloopyinca||

    If you say "pubsec unions are the problem" and selectively choose which of them you will allow to bargain for work rules and which you will only allow them to negotiate pay, I'd say that's pretty hypocritical. Not to mention, he exempts them from having to contribute a higher % of their pay to their retirement plans like he did for all other pubsec union employees. I'd say that's veeeery hypocritical.

    The guy is getting his state under some fiscal control, but he is still playing favorites by exempting groups he needs to pander to for endorsements/greater political aspirations. IMO, that's textbook hypocrisy.

  • Randian||

    You can say "public sector unions are the problem" but "we have to preserve benefits to public safety officers and first responders" very easily without being hypocritical. The police and firefighters* are legitimate** government services.

    * - maybe
    ** - not legit to anarchists in all 50 states, Guam and Puerto Rico.

  • sloopyinca||

    I never said they weren't legit services. That point is debatable (I support a publicly-funded police department that would enforce private property rights and crimes of violence). But proponents of big government, like Scott Walker, think all government services that are funded are legit, yet he picks and chooses which of them he will restrict in collective bargaining and which he will not. That's some serious hypocrisy.

    Scott Walker: You're all valuable public employees, but I'm only going to enforce limitations on some of you.
    Cops: Yay!
    Firefighters: Yay!
    WPPA Rep: Yay!
    DMV workers: What the fuck?
    Teachers: What the fuck?
    AFSCME Rep: What the fuck?

  • Randian||

    If he can legitimately eliminate some government programs and not others, then I find it hard to believe that it's somehow hypocritical to restrict some government employees and not others.

  • Tulpa the White||

    The reasons he's giving for eliminating the other public sector CB rights apply with equal force to cops and fifis.

  • Randian||

    Except for cops and firefighters have different functions from the others.

    you may think that it is a bad idea, but it is not hypocrisy.

  • sloopyinca||

    Cops and firefighters have a job that is (by all standards) more akin to air traffic controllers than teachers, and if they ever go on strike, they deserve the same treatment Reagan gave the ATC strikers. Unfortunately, Walker's stance runs at full speed in the opposite direction Reagan went in. And he's dead wrong.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Huh? Every agency has a different function. That doesn't make it unhypocritical to pick and choose which agencies get CB rights.

  • Randian||

    One set has an explicit public safety function, and the other set clearly does not.

    Regardless, unless you think Walker is lying, there is no hypocrisy to be had. Hypocrisy is believing in one thing and doing another. From my vantage, Walker has pretty strongly believed that police and firefighters should have unions.

    Again, you can question the wisdom, but isn't hypocritical.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'll concede the point. Hypocritical was the wrong choice of word, and words have meanings. I'll correct it to say he has an inconsistent stance when it comes to police and firefighter unions that just happens to coincide with their endorsement of him at the expense of all other pubsec union employees.

    Hypocrisy? I guess not.

    Double-standard? Yes.

  • Lord at War||

    Sloopy-

    You can't argue with results...

    Walker was effective w/ his 'limited' reforms. And when he comes back two years from now with the results from this phase supporting taking on the cops/firefighters, will AFSCME and SEIU fight really hard against it?

    Compare to Ohio, where Kasich went "whole hog"- and the unions managed to overturn it by referendum.

  • Tulpa the White||

    That's not the argument Walker is making. He's not claiming that the other govt services aren't legitimate.

    And in any case, it would be kind of a bizarre argument to make that public sector unions are OK for legitimate govt services only. The question of legitimacy of a govt service is separate from the wisdom of allowing collective bargaining.

  • sloopyinca||

    He's not claiming that the other govt services aren't legitimate.

    That was my point, Tulpa. Walker claims they are all legit, but says only some of them deserve to bargain for anything other than compensation. Why do they deserve that right when the others don't? Walker has yet to give an answer that isn't code for "I wanted their endorsement."

  • Tulpa the White||

    I agree, sloopy. Though, as always, I assume good faith if plausible, and I could certainly see that practical considerations would mandate that you don't piss off the police ahead of massive civil unrest.

  • Randian||

    That's not the argument Walker is making. He's not claiming that the other govt services aren't legitimate.

    He is saying they are more important than other routine functions.

    That is, in other words, pretty close to the exact argument he is making:

    Instead, the governor said he is concerned that his budget bill may lead to walkouts by some public employees. He didn't recommend changing the rules for cops and firefighters because he said Wisconsin can't afford for them to leave those positions vacant for even a short period.

    "To me, that's not an area to mess around with," Walker told the Journal Sentinel.

    From here.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Yes, Randian, I know his argument has been that it's not practical to try to remove CB for the cops and firefighters. Which I agree with.

    But, it's still kind of a hypocritical position to take. He wasn't making the principled argument about legitimacy of govt functions that you were attributing to him.

  • Randian||

    His argument is that the risk of a walkout is too great, because of the public safety function.

    I don't see that as a practical argument entirely. I further do not see the hypocrisy - some positions are more critical than others, therefore the more criticial positions receive a benefit that others don't. Is it hypocritcal to pay a nuclear engineer more than the nuclear plant's janitor?

  • Tulpa the White||

    Ultimately as a practical matter, the last people in government who should have a secure, virtually unfireable position are cops. While I think most of them are good people, that's the position where abuses of power are most likely and most destructive.

  • Randian||

    OK, again, but that is not hypocritical. The original point sloop made and you agreed with was that this was sheer pandering on Walker's part, which is unsupported by the evidence.

  • Tulpa the White||

    I never said it was pandering, in fact I said we should assume good faith so long as it is a tenable assumption.

  • sloopyinca||

    If his argument is "Wisconsin can't afford for them to leave those positions vacant for even a short period," then he should have used that for a call to abolish their unions altogether. As things are, his stance gives the cop and firefighter unions the ability to hold the state hostage at their leisure. It was the only way to make things work in the short term, but in the long run, it will be catastrophically bad because it gives cop and firefighter unions carte blanche.

  • Incredulous||

    Randian, I disagree vehemently with you. It is extremely hypocritical to treat firefighters and police differently than other public sector unions. Why are these workers treated differently under the law? Why don't individual firefighters and police have the right to opt out of the unions?

    Moreover, unionization of firefighters and police makes the least sense in a constitutional democracy. Citizens depend on these public sector workers in emergencies and they are privileged with unusual power to maintain public safety. If they are superempowered to band together and hold the public hostage, the basic rights of citizens are undermined. In essence, a corrupt shadow government is created. The entire situation is worsened by unconstitutional mandatory union membership. It makes just as much sense to allow the military to form a union. It's fucking insane and should not be allowed.

  • Randian||

    Please note that simply because I do not think it is hypocritical does not mean I think that keeping police and firefighters' unions is a great idea. I do not. Whether it is wise is a different discussion, but Scott Walker has been pretty consistent in saying that police and firefighters should be allowed in unions. There is no hypocrisy here.

    FWIW, I somewhat agree with your criticism (even though I think you went tinfoil hat on the end there), except for the fact that you say it's "unconstitutional" to mandate union membership. I fail to see how that could be. Do you know something about the WI Constitution I don't?

  • mustard||

    Maybe Walker should have called on the nutjob Oath Keepers or the Wisconsin branch of the Michigan Militia in the event of a police strike. Then the nation could have seen the true face of what the right wing wants to turn our country into.

  • sloopyinca||

    When there is a map like this one that details the incidences of misconduct by either of the groups you mentioned, I'll listen to you. Until that time, however, your point will fall on deaf ears.

    Oh, and do you want to know why most of the incidences from that map go unprosecuted? It's because of the police unions, jackass.

  • Sevo||

    mustard|6.3.12 @ 5:00PM|#
    "Maybe Walker should have called on the nutjob Oath Keepers or the Wisconsin branch of the Michigan Militia in the event of a police strike. Then the nation could have seen the true face of what the right wing wants to turn our country into."

    Or maybe you could grow a brain-cell.

  • ||

    You're against cops who join an organization that says they will first and foremost do their duty to uphold the oath of office they take, even if it goes against orders from their superiors?

    Holy shit you really ARE a goddamn retard!

  • Tulpa the White||

    except for the fact that you say it's "unconstitutional" to mandate union membership. I fail to see how that could be.

    Compact Clause, Supremacy Clause + RICO, etc.

  • Incredulous||

    I think we can agree to disagree on the hypocrisy issue although I think I understand your viewpoint.

    As for the unconstitutionality of mandated union membership, it directly and clearly violates the First Amendment by abridging one's right to freely associate. Since dues are forcibly confiscated and then spent on political activities, this is not a theoretical violation.

    As for the greater moral issue of violating a basic human right, it also violates the UN Universal Declaration of Human rights ("no one can be compelled to belong to an association").

  • Randian||

    You don't have the right to a job. If the employer says you have to join a union, you have to join a union. The freedom to associate includes the employer, too.

    And don't ever cite to me the UN DHR ever, ever again.

  • sloopyinca||

  • Randian||

    Nooooo!

    Now my Favorite Webpage is defunct.

    Now to keep an eye on my second favorite page.

  • Brutus||

    Hogan's Heroes was a fave of mine. RIP, Corporal.

  • sloopyinca||

    Read this. It's pretty incredible this guy had anything to do with the show.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Is there a Henry Silva fan club? I'd like to see if they have a newsletter.

  • sloopyinca||

    Kurt Zagon was a great bad guy in a shitty movie. I wish he would have killed Nico.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I'm trying to find a Burt Ward Appreciation Society. Maybe I should create it myself?

  • sloopyinca||

    HnR addressed the gay superhero in a thread the other day. If there's a Burt Ward fan club, there's probably a link in that thread.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I missed that thread, but actually I was going for obscurity, not gayity.

  • Brutus||

    Excellent link. Good to see he's still going strong at 86.

  • ||

    Loved him on Match Game too.

  • ||

    Match Game at its finest.

    That would never air today.

  • Brutus||

    Charles Nelson Reilly's answer was great.

  • Killazontherun||

    Shit, that was funny.

    Sandy, damn. That hot 70's iconic look should never go out of style.

  • jacob||

    That female contestant was really cute. I agree that the feathered hair look is never out of style.

  • Anacreon||

    Great video of him cracking up from a stupid answer. Another one suggested by YouTube on the same page shows him incapacitated after he asks "during which month of pregnancy does a woman begin to show" and the contestant answers "September".

  • ||

    *snickers* "September".

  • mike c.||

    Alt text: Back that ass up!

  • Cool Story, Bro||

    Fuck civil rights, this is what happens when you dare cross the union twats.

    My hatred of these thuggish apparatchiks is reaching a boiling point.

  • Brutus||

    Because nothing is more liberal than demanding someone be put in jail for voicing an opposing view.

  • Cool Story, Bro||

  • ||

    Shitstains of that cop's type are usually cowardly assholes outside of their authority. I'm tall and big. I'll bet my Ruger the fat fuck would have called for back-up before illegally detaining me.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You're just asking for a Secret Service beatdown, Res.

    /snark

  • ||

    Don't worry, the Secret Service needn't bother -- there's plenty of local cops ready and willing to commit assault, battery, theft, and murder that'll probably get to me first.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Yeah, but you've earned a beat-down from the elite SS, Res. Getting roughed-up and frog-marched by local cops is... beneath your stature.

    Have some self-respect, man!

  • ||

    Nah, dude, SS would probably be too clean -- shoot to kill, wrap it up. To truly go out in style, I have to disrespect a Fullerton cop, I think. What's the fun in being murdered by state-sponsored thugs if they don't at least disfigure and mutilate you beyond recognition first?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Res, you're a seasoned Reason commenter, and you're a dangerous anarchist hell-bent on taking over the entire country and you make Tony cry. Fullerton cops are BENEATH you, dude.

  • Tulpa the White||

    What about the shitstain with the red baseball cap on, claiming he was arrested for "creating civil unrest" and threatening to have the guy with the camera arrested for "intimidating me with your camera".

  • sloopyinca||

    He's just a loudmouth punk. He should be able to blather that shit all day long. The problem here is with the cops that took his advice and cuffed the man for speaking his mind.*

    *The video shows the cops physically assaulting him before red-hat even shows up, so they didn't actually need the goading from the masses to physically assault the man and wrongfully arrest him.

  • Tulpa the White||

    I assume you're talking about the cop grabbing him by the back of his collar at the instant the video began? To be fair we don't know what the guy was doing immediately before the video began. If he was pushing and shoving other people in the crowd the cop would be justified in trying to get him to knock it off.

    Still doesn't justify the arrest, but we should be suspicious of edits that are serendipitous to our agenda.

  • Cool Story, Bro||

    I hate to link Breitbart, but it's the only website running the whole story:
    http://www.breitbart.com/Breit.....-Dem-Rally

  • Killazontherun||

    Cop just being a cop, a savage, a thug, a fool; just remember, they are selected for those traits.

    Police Reject Candidate for Being Too Intelligent

  • ||

    A typical specimen of the common pinko fuck -- a breed of troglodyte to whom no asininity is unfamiliar.

  • ||

    That's my weekly dosage of cardiac arrest-inducing blood pressure spikes spent in the span of four fucking minutes. What a fat fucking piece of shit. I hope the guy sues and wins.

  • Cool Story, Bro||

    My only hope is that Reason or Stossel pick up on this story before the Team Red pundits exploit it. This is a goddamned travesty of justice.

  • ||

    Reason should definitely take it up.

    It's fucking blood-boilingly enraging. An anti-pinko veteran illegally arrested by some fat fuck with a God complex while an entire crowd cheers.

    I hope these union assholes screw up their tax returns and land in federal prison for tax evasion.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Just a taste of the Team Blue-led police state of the future.

    Unless Team Red gets there first.

    Either way... it's coming.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Didn't appear to read him his Miranda rights when he cuffed him either.

    There was an edit right afterwards, but still. Aren't they supposed to do it immediately upon cuffing you, assuming there's not a safety issue?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    That's how they do it on TV, but this is reality in the 21st century... Miranda is an inconvenience in the real world.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Is Dunphy on his CBA-mandated third vacation of the year or something? We need him to clear this up.

    It doesn't make much sense for them to advise him of his right to remain silent after they've already had him in custody for 15 minutes.

    Of course, they're probably not planning to charge him with anything anyway, it's just an excuse to remove him from the area.

  • ||

    Remember the time when neglecting to Mirandize was a serious issue that cops would get chastised for? That's slipping away.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Remember when neglecting to shoot your dog was a serious issue that cops would get fired for?

  • ||

    That's what our kids'll be saying.

  • Tulpa the White||

    It probably doesn't matter whether they Mirandized him since the charges will be dropped after he spends the night in jail.

    New professionalism and shit.

  • ||

    STOP RESISTING.

  • Randian||

    You can read Miranda any time after taking the suspect into custody, but you have to do it before you interrogate him, and anything he says pre-Miranda is generally inadmissible. So they could say them to him in the car after the furore has died down, but if he says something before that, it's probably not admissible.

  • sloopyinca||

    Randian put it perfectly. Every time I got arrested for protesting, they never read me my rights...ever. I was put in a squad car and taken to the jail and put immediately before a magistrate for bond. In both instances (on the same day), the magistrate released me without charge. The second time, she told me if I was brought back that day, I would be held in contempt and jailed.

    The cops that arrested me would not tell me what the charge was, would not inform me of my rights and couldn't voice that to the magistrate. I even told her why I had been arrested in hopes they would charge me (after she asked the cop, who couldn't come up with a charge either time). Alas, she wouldn't give me the satisfaction.

  • Tulpa the White||

    It's BS that a judge can hold you in contempt for exercising your 1st amendment rights.

    Another one of those loopholes they use.

  • Cool Story, Bro||

    In a situation like this, Miranda Rights are typically read in the squad car away from the zombies, just prior to the skull-bashing that the man practicing his civil rights will inevitably receive.

  • Incredulous||

    Yeah, it's fucking obscene. The victim should be able to sue and win millions for illegal assault, illegal imprisonment and violation of his First Amendment rights. The officer involved should not only be fired but criminally prosecuted and put in fucking prison himself. Hopefully, the libertarian media picks up on this and these fucking fascists get their just punishment. It's unlikely to happen because the "liberal" mainstream media and at least half the government is just a bunch of fucking fascists. Otherwise, the arresting pig would already be suspended and under investigation.

    One more reason we should have fucking fascist police unions.

  • Incredulous||

    Correction: one more reason we should "not" have fucking fascist police unions.

  • sloopyinca||

    The officer involved should not only be fired but criminally prosecuted and put in fucking prison himself.

    Ironically, it is people like Scott Walker that give police extrajudicial power by granting their union powers they should never enjoy, which mean the taxpayers will pay a huge settlement and this cop will never miss a day of work.

  • Randian||

    How is collective bargaining power "extrajudicial"?

  • sloopyinca||

    Because they use CB to get immunity from punishments for their illegal activities. Just look at the CBA in your city. It almost certainly grants cops qualified immunity from prosecution or civil liability for a plethora of offenses. It also (often) establishes the standard for investigation of offenses, which is outside the normal investigation of criminal activity by non-cops.

    If those aren't extrajudicial, I don't know what is.

  • Tulpa the White||

    The guy was foolish for pointing his finger at the cop and giving him a hard time about his oath. Certainly doesn't excuse the cop's behavior or justify an arrest, but you don't want to pull that tiger by the tail more than you have to.

  • ||

    The guy was foolish for pointing his finger at the cop and giving him a hard time about his oath.

    --------------------------------

    In the terms of our practical reality, yeah, but it shouldn't be that way at all. He was giving the fat fuck precisely the lecture he needed, and he got arrested for it.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Agreed.

  • Incredulous||

    Agreed. The fat fuck had fucking assaulted him.

  • mustard||

    What about Bill Clinton's freedom of speech? Don't you think our greatest living ex-President has the right to address issues of deep importance to the nation without having to shout over government supporters?

  • sloopyinca||

    What about Bill Clinton's freedom of speech? Don't you think our greatest living ex-President has the right to address issues of deep importance to the nation without having to shout over government supporters?

    Freedom of speech never meant you wouldn't have to raise your voice above someone else's.

  • Sevo||

    mustard|6.3.12 @ 4:56PM|#
    "What about Bill Clinton's freedom of speech?"

    Yeah, what about that?

  • D.D. Driver||

    What irony? If everyone would just read the Federalist Papers they would understand how the Founding Fathers supported the modern leftist agenda.

    What do you expect from a guy that parties with pornstars in Monte Carlo on one day, and then talks about shared sacrifice the next?

  • juris imprudent||

    It was a sacrifice to leave the pornstars.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Clinton lashed out at Walker, saying common sense calls for “shared prosperity” in good times and “shared sacrifice” in tough times.

    Which is why public workers shouldn't have their benefits cut when the state is bankrupt. You know, shared sacrifice.

  • Hyperion||

    or explain why the current president is not setting foot in the Badger State

    Can't see the big O not stepping into another class/race/sex warfare quagmire at some point or another. Might as well do it now.

    Maybe he will just use his typical make stupid comment, duck and hide approach. He will say something like 'Scott Walker loves fat cat billionaires who don't pay their fair share(which covers anyone employed in the private sector) but hates poor people, and grandmas, and uhhh.... and kitties too!'. Then a week later when some reporter asks Opie Carny about it, he will say 'we don't have any further comments on that'.

  • sloopyinca||

    This is from above by Randian: Except for cops and firefighters have different functions from the others.

    It gave me a good idea for a litmus test for pubsec employees.

    If you are in a job that is deemed essential for public safety or one that is constitutionally required, you are unable to have a union because a walkout/strike would be dangerous even if it were a short one. If you are in a job that is not deemed essential for public safety or one that is constitutionally required, you are terminated immediately.

    Sound fair?

  • Tulpa the White||

    Homage to P Brooks?

  • sloopyinca||

    Haha. It does look like something Brooksie (PBUH) would write. Alas, it's all me.

  • ||

    If he still reads these threads, I think he would be pleased, and, no doubt, have some crack about the PooBUH. I still miss his posts. Well done, sloop.

  • Tulpa the White||

    I was actually referring to the neglect of the "reply to this" button, but that too.

  • Incredulous||

    Brilliant.

  • Chris Mallory||

    Get rid of overtime for them too. If they are so "needed" for public safety then they should stay on the job no matter how long it takes.

  • sloopyinca||

    Want a good laugh? Look at reason's wikipedia entry and click on Mike Riggs' name.

  • Spoonman.||

    Is that...our Riggs?

  • sloopyinca||

    Of course not. I sent him an email asking him and he said no. But, I think we need to ask him lots of questions about his Rob Zombie days when he comments next time.

  • Xenocles||

    So let's see if I have this right:

    Shared prosperity = Give me your stuff.
    Shared sacrifice = Give me your stuff.

  • Hyperion||

    Yep, you got it. What is it that you don't understand about the fact that you are not willing to pay your fair share?

  • Killazontherun||

    From each according to his abilities, to me.

  • jacob||

    +1

  • TheZeitgeist||

    It's telling Chief Clown won't touch this pig. In his career as Chief, Clown has turned into Dreams from Krypton.

    Whether its the Olympics in Copenhagen, Corzine in Jersey, dozen burned Reps from 2010, or Carbon Profits Scheme 1.0 back in...Copenhagen - Clown is the kiss of death for his causes and lesser clowns. It is hilarious to watch. If he visited Wisconsin, Walker wins by ten. Maybe that's why Donkey Nation seems to give Chief Clown a pass on this one.

    But I can't believe the Republicans didn't get a long-zoom telephoto of Air Force One blipping over Wisconsin as it surely did yesterday. Its like when Hitler drew the dining-car shade over his own army's starving wounded in a cattle-car next line over way-back-when.

    It'd be political gold for Walker's outfit to throw up a muckraking banner-fed ad on the usual Dem suspect websites titled 'Clown comes to Wisconsin!' with that photo. Light a backfire in the Donk kitchen while the living room is ablaze and laugh and laugh at the resulting antics.

  • sloopyinca||

  • Hyperion||

    What? He only kicked her in the head? Was she resisting? I mean, it was one on one, there wasn't 6 cops to beat her, so how is that fair? This officer could have been hurt! I mean, it's one thing if she would have only hurled her own 2 year old out of the 70th story of a high rise because she was stressed, but resisting an officer? Trying to hurt one of our shining boys in blue? Lock that bitch up!

  • sloopyinca||

    I especially liked the 10 year sentence of felony battery with a dangerous weapon, with all 10 of those years suspended.

    BTW, don't click this second link unless you want to get enraged. Hint: it's because it says he was convicted of assault in 2001 in an off-duty attack of a jogger.

  • Brutus||

    What.
    The.
    Fuck??

  • Hyperion||

    Why does it matter, Sloopy? We don't have real justice in this country anymore. Used to be, you did a crime, you did your time, and then you were forgiven. Now we have fucking lists. In a few counties in MD now, they have added a gun offenders list to the sex offenders list. In this version of justice, if you have ever committed a crime involving a gun, you have never paid your time, you are punished forever. These bastards have to be stopped, this is no longer a free country, but instead a nightmare version of 1984.

  • Tulpa the White||

    At least he's ineligible to ever own a gun.

  • sloopyinca||

    I care less about him owning a gun than I do about him collecting a pension paid for with taxpayer dollars and his ability to escape punishment (10 years, all suspended???) that a normal person doesn't enjoy.

  • Tulpa the White||

    I'm trying to stay positive, Mr Inca. You know how important that is to me.

  • Whahappan?||

    How DARE you imply there's a double standard!!!!! BIGOT!!@#@#@#@%%#@!!!
    /dunphy

  • jacob||

    The video that shows the lady kicking the cop first, but I agree with his conviction; the response was completely disproportionate.

    http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/l.....sault-case

  • Killazontherun||

    I can't believe Tim C hasn't posted anything today on the latest political assdouchery coming out of the great state of California. Got a fix that needs feeding, man!!!

  • sloopyinca||

    Perhaps he read this and keeled over in shock.

    If there's a reason staffer reading this thread, could you please call his wife and have her administer the smelling salts?

  • Brutus||

    And what are the chances Californians are going to get a second bite at that apple? Sorry, folks, the ratchet has clicked...

  • Sevo||

    You think moonbeam cares about the 'voters' unless he's up for re-election?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Black guy, and professional football player, takes significantly less money so that he can return to the south because "I just think this is a better place to raise a family."

    Didn't anyone tell him that the south is full of nothing but a bunch of backwoods rednecks where only the SPLC is stopping them from hanging every black person around?

  • Almanian...still||

    The self loathing, it burns

  • Hyperion||

  • jacob||

    I watched it, but didn't quite understand what I was seeing. Can you provide more info?

  • Hyperion||

    Apparently from what I can grasp thus far, the GOP establishment in LA really do not like that us evil Libertarians are becoming a force to be reckoned with. That is all I have so far..

  • ant1sthenes||

    The former president said that if tea party-types like those backing Walker had their way, “there never would’ve been a U.S. Constitution.” He went on to talk about the horse trading in which the Founding Fathers engaged to write the Constitution

    Horse trading? Oh, you mean the 3/5th compromise? Racist!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "But that was pre-Bushpig."

    What about "post-Obamafucker"?

  • KDOG||

    Bill has it wrong about compromise. It absolutely doesn't work. Compromise left us with slavery, compromise gave us the Missouri Compromise, compromise gave us the 3/5 compromise. Someone has to stand on principle and do the right thing as much as hurts someone's feelings to be on the losing side. Never compromise on principle. Evil always wins.

  • lunettes de soleil pas cher||

    The former president said that if tea party-types like those backing Walker had their way, “there never would’ve been a U.S. Constitution.” He went on to talk about the horse trading in which the Founding Fathers engaged to write the Constitution.

    “We would not even be here today if they (tea party-types) had had their way,” Clinton said.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement