April 9, 2012

"Are public union labor leaders trying to save Scott Walker?"

Paul Fanlund, editor of Madison's venerable (and very liberal) Capital Times, says that many Democrats are asking that question. These Democrats are the Democrats who support Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett in the recall primary, who don't like the way his Democratic adversary Kathleen Falk is beating up on him, portraying him as insufficiently union-friendly. Barrett's angle is he's more likely to win, and if Walker is the enemy, then ixnay on Barrett criticism.

It's amusingly similar to the Republican primaries, where some people love Santorum because he's more hardcore, and others want Romney, because you've got to win over the moderates, and they really don't much like the hardcore of your party.

Fanlund seems to spend a lot of time listening to Democratic State Senator Sen. Jon Erpenbach, who has decided to support Barrett:
While loath to criticize Falk... Erpenbach’s decision certainly implies he thinks someone not from Dane County would run strongest statewide: “For me personally, the goal is to get him (Walker) out of office before he does any more damage.”

Erpenbach says he has spoken with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people across the state and collective bargaining is only one of many issues on voters’ minds....

Erpenbach aside, my interviews with other Democrats elicit phrases like “labor leaders are blowing it” and are “being selfish.” One says, “What we don’t need is a circular firing squad” during the next month....
Ha ha. This is just like the way the Republican establishment tries to shush the Tea Party. After all the hard ground work is done by a passionate, ideologically committed group, the party insiders move in to claim a valuable political foothold that they never would have fought for personally, and the theory is they're doing everyone a favor because the protest kids just don't look right in mainstream politics.

Kathleen Falk is getting Christine O'Donnelled! She's getting Sharron Angled!

77 comments:

David said...

It's just the war on women. Step aside, little lady. You are far too strident.

Maybe Falk and Sarah Palin should have a little get-together.

DKWalser said...

Just because an argument is wrong in one context doesn't mean the argument is wrong in another. Or something.

Richard Dolan said...

"Kathleen Falk is getting Christine O'Donnelled! She's getting Sharron Angled!"

If so, that implies that she will also be the nominee.

traditionalguy said...

That's a nice Glass Ceiling you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.

Women may be combat eligible. Be our guest. But don't expect political leadership roles.

I thought that was only a Catholic Church doctrine.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Interesting that the Milwaukee police and fire unions are officially supporting Walker.

garage mahal said...

This is the thread where you can fake being concerned about the good old boys club and glass ceilings.

"I think it's just terrible what this poor woman from Madison has to go through. Sheesh!"

SteveR said...

Erpenbach says he has spoken with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people across the state and collective bargaining is only one of many issues on voters’ minds....

One of many? Really?

Ann Althouse said...

Yeah, concern about women evaporates whenever it doesn't coincide with your political will to power.

Women are here to be exploited, one way or another.

You can say you're serving their interests, when you want them to serve your interests, and then push them back into the background when they become inconvenient or embarrassing.

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
damikesc said...

Given that the recall is SOLELY due to Walker limiting union influence, let Falk be the nominee. Make the choice clear.

edutcher said...

Interesting point. After all, dictator Zero doesn't like women - at least in speaking roles - so maybe it's spreading throughout the Democrat Party.

The one quibble (if that's a noun) I have with Ann's point is that Santorum is not in any way, shape, or form hard core, he's just not Romney and so the ABR crowd has turned the most Nelsonian of eyes to Santorum's record as a spender and statist while caring nothing about the Romster's record other than Romneycare (for good or ill).

garage mahal said...

Walker supporters fear Barrett beating Walker. They fear Falk less.

Cue fake concern for a woman.

It's all quite predictable.

Jay said...

Ann Althouse said...
Yeah, concern about women evaporates whenever it doesn't coincide with your political will to power


Yes.

Additionally,

concern about blacks evaporates whenever it doesn't coincide with your political will to power.


concern about blue collar workers evaporates whenever it doesn't coincide with your political will to power.

concern about "tax cuts for the rich" evaporates whenever it doesn't coincide with your political will to power.

concern about gay marriage evaporates whenever it doesn't coincide with your political will to power.

Notice a pattern, Ann?

FedkaTheConvict said...

Wait...didn't Barrett lose to Walker in the 2010 elections?

Hasn't he utilized the tools Walker provided through Act 10 to close Milwaukee's budget deficit?

The only hope that Walker's opponent have is that Barrett's wouldn't lose as badly as Falk.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

edutcher said...

...the most Nelsonian of eyes...


Wonderful allusion, one I have not heard used in this way before. Admiral Nelson of Trafalgar fame held a spyglass to his blind eye at the battle of Copenhagen when his commander flew a signal to retreat, saying,"I really do not see the signal".

leslyn said...

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Interesting that the Milwaukee police and fire unions are officially supporting Walker.

Maybe, but not surprising. The same unions supported Walker in his election. In return they were exempted from all restrictions and contribution increases that applied to other unions in 2011 Wisconsin Act 10.

edutcher said...

Tyrone Slothrop said...

...the most Nelsonian of eyes...

Wonderful allusion, one I have not heard used in this way before.


Don't know how old you may be, but the phrase, "turning a Nelsonian eye", was around when I was a kid (50s), but it wasn't all that commonly used. I guess it just stuck in my head.

leslyn said...

The unions came out in support of Falk because she was the most viable candidate at the time. It will be interesting to see if they stick with Falk as the recall gets closer.

AllieOop said...

Wisconsin Democratic, liberal, progressive women and many independent women, who are concerned about state government getting between them and their doctor will vote for ANY candidate that has the better chance of winning the recall election.

Similarly women who are concerned about schools now being allowed to teach abstinence ONLY sex ed will also vote for candidate that has the best chance of winning.

The candidate that can unseat this governor and put a halt to the extreme ALEC inspired legislation will get my vote and the vote if many Wisconsin women and men too.

PatCA said...

On metafilter they're all exercised that Walker Hates Women. On the basis of a thinkprogress article.

*sigh*

TosaGuy said...

Those same women that AllieOpp described voted for Tom Barrett in 2010, not Scott Walker.

The loudest people in this whole brohaha didn't vote for Walker in the first place.

Some original political analysis, please.

Christopher in MA said...

Similarly, women who are concerned about schools now being allowed to teach abstinence ONLY sex ed will also vote for candidate that has the best chance of winning.

Besides being a screed, it's gibberish. Are the schools being forced to teach only abstinence only, or is it in addition to the regular "here's how you use a dental dam while fisting your partner" perversion that government school sex ed classes have become? If the first, I'd be concerned, too. If not, what's the problem?

Oh, that's right. It always comes down to the poor, persecuted genitalia of the left. I note that "women who are concerned about the quality of their children's education" are strangely absent from your list.

damikesc said...

If they abandon Falk then it would be the funniest thing I have seen in years. It would be awesome.

And women who are upset that its not illegal to teach abstinence are likely too hysterical to actually vote.

WI Progressive women would vote for a Democrat even if he were a convicted rapist.

AllieOop said...

Tosa Guy,

Those same women will vote for him again, even if they would've preferred a different candidate, that is the point. Any Democrat with a chance of winning.

Democrats aren't going to fight amongst themselves to the degree that any Democrat will stay home on election day because their candidate of choice isn't running.

AllieOop said...

Dami, abstinence ONLY.

Abstinence WAS being taught as part of a comprehensive sex ed course before this administration and this new law.

TosaGuy said...

One aspect not yet really examined in this whole recall thing is the lack of interest in Milwaukee's sizeable African-American community in the whole thing.

Tom Barrett has never really engaged with this group as mayor. Also, Milwaukee's fashionable liberals on the East Side and in Bay View really don't care about them either.

The vast majority of them are not gov't employees who took a hit to their paycheck.

Their kids go to horrendous schools stuck with a teacher's union that sues for viagra coverage. Wisconsin's Democrats have never supported efforts to fix these schools.

Since most programs offered to the poor in those communities are largely unaffected in the budget, they continue to go along, get along -- no outrage from cuts.

While they probably won't vote for Scott Walker, they probably won't be motivated to go vote period (in numbers higher than your average off election). This community will turnout huge on Nov 5th, but not so much on June 5th.

Original Mike said...

"abstinence ONLY."

Do you have a corroborating link for that, Allie?

TosaGuy said...

"Those same women will vote for him again, even if they would've preferred a different candidate, that is the point. Any Democrat with a chance of winning."

People as active as you say they are don't ever stay home -- they vote in special elections for dog catcher. Their numbers are already built in to every political analysis on both sides because the dynamic for how they vote has not chnanged.

Tell me how a prison guard who likes voter ID and conceal carry will vote then you can make some big bucks from both campaigns.

Jay said...

AllieOop said...
Dami, abstinence ONLY.



Please link us to that portion of the bill.

Thanks in advance.

purplepenquin said...

Tell me how a prison guard who likes voter ID and conceal carry will vote

Well, since ya asked...here are a couple examples.


Personally, I am very much in favor of the new concealed carry law. But CCW ain't enough for me to vote Walker...

leslyn said...

@ damikesc:

AllieOop said...

Dami, abstinence ONLY. Abstinence WAS being taught as part of a comprehensive sex ed course before this administration and this new law. 4/9/12 11:29 A.M.

In fact, the previous law relating to sex ed said that abstinence shall be taught as the preferred method.

Original Mike said...

Are you still there, Allie? I'd heard a news report that abstinence was to be taught in addition to, not only, but I have no independent knowledge, so I was hoping for a link.

Original Mike said...

Well, now I'm really confused.

Curious George said...

"leslyn said...

Maybe, but not surprising. The same unions supported Walker in his election. In return they were exempted from all restrictions and contribution increases that applied to other unions in 2011 Wisconsin Act 10."

So you have proof of this Quid Pro Quo?

Rusty said...

Maybe, but not surprising. The same unions supported Walker in his election. In return they were exempted from all restrictions and contribution increases that applied to other unions in 2011 Wisconsin Act 10.


Could it be that those unions are city specific and not statewide like teachers unions? They have their contracts with the city of Milwaukee.

AllieOop said...

AB 337

Schools who choose to now teach abstinence ONLY can do so.

AllieOop said...

here

Original Mike said...

"Schools who choose to now teach abstinence ONLY can do so."

OK, thanks.

That's not the same as mandating abstinence only.

Were the schools required to teach abstinence under the old law?

AllieOop said...

They were, as part of a comprehensive course, it was called the Healthy Youth Act.

AllieOop said...

Reality Check

garage mahal said...

“What you’ve got to look at, and Ann Coulter has looked at this, is you have to break it down by married and unmarried. Once you make it down by married and unmarried, the differential disappears.” Link.

Awesome, Ann Coulter is inspiring Wisconsin laws.

Jay said...

AllieOop said...
AB 337

Schools who choose to now teach abstinence ONLY can do so.


Um, so that isn't what you inferred by stating "abstinence ONLY"

I'm shocked by this development.

Jay said...

Um, allie, from your link:

Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

You want to try again?

damikesc said...

Abstinence WAS being taught as part of a comprehensive sex ed course before this administration and this new law.

Clearly it wasn't.

Can you give me the track record of success of your preferred method.

Over, say, 40 years --- has pregnancy amongst high school age girls gone up or down?

Christopher in MA said...

Schools who now choose to teach abstinence ONLY can now do so.

And why this is a problem? Is choice now bad, unless it concerns your genitals? Does a school not get to choose what it wishes to teach in regard to certain subjects, with the proviso that it is meeting the state's educational standards? If the argument is "it's my tax money, I want them to teach sex ed my way," then you have to accept the converse; it's my tax money, too, and I don't want them to teach your way.

Shall we mandate that Hebrew schools teach the history of Christianity as well as the Torah? Shall we mandate that Islamic schools teach about the Stonewall riots?

And I must say, it both amuses and irritates me to see you use scare caps for abstinence ONLY. Whatever happened to mom and dad and the lecture about the birds and the bees? Why presume your children are such animals that absent condoms and "alternative lifestyle" presentations, the moment you turn your back on them, they'll rut like rabbits in heat?

I have yet to see any argument for teaching sex ed that didn't boil down to, "well, they're going to screw around no matter what we do, so we'd better make sure they know how to keep from getting knocked up". Perhaps you have a reason that doesn't end up there. It would be interesting to hear.

BarrySanders20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllieOop said...

Jay, how do you know what I inferred are you are you a mind reader? The law was signed on Thursday, announced on Friday.

BarrySanders20 said...

"Kathleen Falk is getting Christine O'Donnelled! She's getting Sharron Angled!"

Only if Falk wins the primary and then loses the election. The D's who fear Falk can't win might point to O'Donnell and Angle as examples of what happens to perceived extremes in general elections to avoid the same outcome they experienced. Of course, Angle had to beat the incumbent Senate Majority Leader and O'Donnell had to win in a blue state in an spot vacated by the sitting VP. Not easy tasks, but apparently those were jobs only a man could do.

Erpenbach thinks taking on Walker is a man's job. Pat Kathleen on the head and tell her that she can do the woman's job of stuffing envelopes for Barrett.

leslyn said...

OriginalMike said,

"Were the schools required to teach abstinence under the old law?" 4/9/12 12:21 P.M.

Read the thread.

"In fact, the previous law relating to sex ed said that abstinence shall be taught as the preferred method."

It was directly above your earlier post, Mike.

Jay said...

AllieOop said...
Jay, how do you know what I inferred are you are you a mind reader? The law was signed on Thursday, announced on Friday.



Um, the all caps and the continued usage of the phrase abstinence only for the last 3 days, maybe?

Face it, you've been duped.

You've been spreading propaganda.

Lem said...

".. where some people love Santorum because he's more hardcore, and others want Romney, because you've got to win over the moderates, and they really don't much like the hardcore of your party.." (and my italics too)

It's My Party ..

I'm just realising something.. can a Santorum holdout turn around and berate the professor when she votes for Obama.. again?

We may have handed the professor a bullet point on her, How Romney Lost Me, way out to vote democrat, again.

AllieOop said...

Act 215

Honestly Jay you do blather on.

AllieOop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllieOop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mutaman said...

What does any of this have to do with Falk being a woman?

Original Mike said...

leslyn - If you look at the time stamps, we posted at the same time. Your post wasn't their for me to read when I wrote mine, so get off your high horse.

Seesh.

Fen said...

labor leaders are blowing it” and are “being selfish.”

Maybe the Dems should nominate a Scott Walker. That's what we did.

But then, why the recall?

Fen said...

Althouse: Women are here to be exploited, one way or another.

You can say you're serving their interests, when you want them to serve your interests, and then push them back into the background when they become inconvenient or embarrassing.


Right there. There's your article. Run with it.

leslyn said...

@Curious George & Rusty, re: Milwaukee unions.

See Act 10.

Act 10 exempts "municipal" public safety workers from the restrictions and contributions required of state unions (except the State Patrol).

Milwaukee police and firefighters (and the State Patrol) endorsed Walker before the election. Milwaukee is by far the largest municipality in Wisconsin, and its public safety unions by far the largest such unions.

When one adds to that fact that the State Patrol was the only public safety union to be exempted from the same state union restrictions and contributions, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the "municipality" exemption is primarily directed at the Milwaukee public safety unions. The State Patrol is headed by the Fitzgerald brothers' father, who was appointed by Walker shortly after his election.

So far, the State Patrol union is not endorsing Walker. In fact, when their exemption in the bill became known, the head of the State Patrol union local wrote a letter of objection. They objected to the "cherry picking" of their union out of other state unions, including other public safety unions.

The State Patrol union also asked to submit an amicus brief to the court in opposition to Act 10.

traditionalguy said...

Kathleen Falk needs to be put into her place. She can marry a man who will support her while she raises his kids.

But what can poor Tom Barrett do if she takes away the man's job ? He cannot marry a woman and raise her kids, can he?

This is definitely Retrograde Day in a retrograde world.

On Wisconsin!

Rusty said...

Schools who choose to now teach abstinence ONLY can do so.



That's a lot different than what you implied in your first post.
Is it your nature to be dishonest?
Why couldn't you have explained it clearly in your first post?

Rusty said...

leslyn said...
@Curious George & Rusty, re: Milwaukee unions.

See Act 10.

Act 10 exempts "municipal" public safety workers from the restrictions and contributions required of state unions (except the State Patrol).

So it IS because their contracts are with their municipalities rather than the state.
70% of the fire departments in the United Staes are volunteer fire brigades

AllieOop said...

Rusty, jumping to conclusions is something we are all guilty of, if my post was confusing to you and didn't sound plausible, you know You can look up the law too.

I am a tax payer, I don't want my grandkid's public school to teach them an abstinence only sex ed course, which they now can do.

One of the reasons why many Wisconsin Democratic women will vote for anyone who will have a chance of winning and getting this regressive administration out of office.

AllieOop said...

Recap of three regressive bills signed by Walker recently

damikesc said...

I am a tax payer, I don't want my grandkid's public school to teach them an abstinence only sex ed course, which they now can do.

Wow. Didn't know "Goddess of Wisconsin" posted comments on a blog. Can you also help kids avoid death and cure all diseases?

You know, since you're all-powerful and all.

Maybe some parents do want their kids to be taught abstinence. THEIR rights, however, are trumped by yours because you are so much better than they.

One of the reasons why many Wisconsin Democratic women will vote for anyone who will have a chance of winning and getting this regressive administration out of office.

Again, if a Democrat raped somebody you knew personally, you'd still vote for that same Democrat.

AllieOop said...

Dami, do you ever NOT post over the top dumb responses?

I've even read comments by conservatives here on this blog who have noticed the same hyperbolic crap comments coming from you.

You sound an awful like Alex, strange.

Jon Burack said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jon Burack said...

I am not sure I see the analogy of Barrett and Falk to Romney and Santorum. Both Romney and Santorum are opposed to Obama's policies, however much they differ and however much they appeal to different sectors of the party. Barrett and Falk are running in a special election that is defined and legitimated by a single issue, Act 10. Barrett is effectively supporting Act 10. (I really do not know what he actually says about Act 10 but he supports it by his actions). It is as if Romney were to endorse Obama's policies but still run against him. It is a higher order of incoherence here, in other words, if Barrett is the nominee. I do not see how he can campaign at all, frankly. Still, I hope Falk wins because she seems far more likely to lose to Walker

damikesc said...

Allie when one deals with one as intellectually deficient as you, the idea that you don't get it is expected.

You are a fascist. Id say you are also a Progressive but why be redundant.

AllieOop said...

Pfffft, Dami, the Godess says be gone, at once!

Hysterical over the top comments don't exactly make you look like a genius. Oh yes, we would all vote for rapists and murderers and satanists if they would beat Walker!

You are on the Godess's list of who to ignore along with Alex, who does sound JUST like you, so strange.

damikesc said...

If you are ignoring me, you are doing an amazingly piss poor job at it. Do you do all things in life this poorly?

AllieOop said...

Ignoring begins when I stop having fun poking fun at you.

Mutaman said...

"But what can poor Tom Barrett do if she takes away the man's job ? He cannot marry a woman and raise her kids, can he?'

Isn't that sort of what Meade did?

leslyn said...

Rusty said:

[Re the exemption in Act 10 from the union restrictions and benefits contribution for "municipal public safety workers"--]

"So it IS because their contracts are with their municipalities rather than the state. 70% of the fire departments in the United States are volunteer fire brigades." 4/9/12 5:44 P.M.

Sorry Rusty, if you think the municipal public safety exemption is meant to include volunteer units. Not so.

The exemption applies to "employees" of the municipality. Sec. 111.70(1)(mm)., a person that is employed in a position that is classified as a protective occupation. (Emphasis added.) See also ss. 211.70(1)(a) and 221.70(b).

Further it appears that "municipal public safety employees" qualify for the exemption if they are in a "county or city retirement unit." S. 111.70(1)(mm)(2).

This appears to strengthen the argument that the municipal public safety employee exemption is directed at, or at least includes, Milwaukee city and county police and firefighters unions. They get a free pass. They endorsed Walker before and they're endorsing him now.

leslyn said...

Jon Burack said:

"Barrett is effectively supporting Act 10. (I really do not know what he actually says about Act 10 but he supports it by his actions)."

Barrett says that he would restore collecting bargaining rights, including repealing the union-busting provisions. He is also on record saying he would not rollback the increases in employee contributions. This may not be as significant as it sounds since the unions had already agreed to the increases. But we shall see.

damikesc said...

So, Barrett is going to intentionally run deficits? He fixed the deficit by using those provisions.

Christopher in MA said...

I am a taxpayer. I don't want my grandkid's public school to teach them an abstinence only sex course, which they now can do.

I am a taxpayer. I don't want my grandkid's public school to teach them the global warming cult, which they now can do. But if I say that, you'd shriek that I was a climate denier.

And apparently you really don't have any argument against an abstinence course other than kids are animals and they're going to fuck no matter what. I'd say "intellectually deficient" is pretty much on the nose