On, Wisconsin!

Paul Krugman's column Sunday, Wisconsin Power Play, detailed the parallels between Cairo and Madison; he concludes that as with Mubarak the real storyline is about power. As the economy continues to struggle with the effects Wall Street deregulation induced on Main Street, the crisis of confidence in Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's leadership is because his proposal would further accelerate the disturbing trend: redistribution of wealth away from the middle and lower classes.

Of course, logically the proposal flies in the face of the evidence about his spending and budget decisions, but he evidently thought he could slip that by in the current political climate. After all, as Pew research from earlier this month points out, while lots of people favor "cutting spending" when you get down to brass tacks it turns out that the vast majority like what the government is spending the money on:

So that leaves a real problem for those who campaigned on cutting the size of government: just what are people really willing to give up?

Walker's call to remove collective bargaining rights amounts to opening a new front in class warfare, and he's at the pointy end of the stick.

"...it has nothing to do with helping Wisconsin deal with its current fiscal crisis. Nor is it likely to help the state’s budget prospects even in the long run: contrary to what you may have heard, public-sector workers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are paid somewhat less than private-sector workers with comparable qualifications, so there’s not much room for further pay squeezes."

Paul Krugman, 20 Feb 2011

I feel for Governor Walker; new bosses that flex their muscles don't always understand the limits. Less than two months into his term he's learning that ascending to the executive branch doesn't come with absolute power. Voters who liked the sound of lower taxes in November apparently don't expect vague promises of "fiscal discipline" to reduce what's invested in our children's education or the support we guaranteed military veterans. Meanwhile certain of Walker's own spending increases smell of corporate welfare and backroom deals.

The Governor is losing the battle of public opinion. People in Egypt are ordering pizza for demonstrators in Madison, for crying out loud. If moderate Wisconsin Republicans can't mediate his position and broker a deal quickly, irate people in Wisconsin recalling that government bailed out banks and learning more about the Koch's support for their new Governor may just get beyond rumors they're talking about organizing a recall and actually do so -- which will make Walker's current concerns about losing face for reversing a strongly-stated position pale in comparison.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Congressional Campaign Manager, strategist, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community, who incidentally stands in solidarity with the citizens and workers in Wisconsin refusing to let their Governor's self-created budget "crisis" and new spending priorities be re-cast as a reason to undermine contractual obligations and collective bargaining agreements.

You can follow him as @kabiu on twitter. Tweet

John McCain was for ACORN before he was against them.

Bertha Lewis, Chief Organizer of The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) said, “It has deeply saddened us to see Senator McCain abandon his historic support for ACORN and our efforts to support the goals of low-income Americans. Maybe it is out of desperation that Senator McCain has forgotten that he was for ACORN before he was against ACORN." Seriously, McCain was the keynote speaker at a 2006 ACORN rally. Evidently McCain was for Immigration reform before he was against it? It does make one wonder why he and his campaign are so exercised over their allegations that Senator Obama has also got ACORN connections.

Perhaps McCain's actions, and those of surrogate organizations such as the Buckeye Institute, are more than the typical election-year stunts we've seen in recent election cycles. Perhaps this time they aim to take some focus off Wall Street's bailout after years of deregulation and the resulting chaos in U.S. and world economies? But in 2006 McCain was pleased to be photographed at the rally, seated beside Florida Democratic Representative Kendrick Meek.

The rally, co-sponsored by ACORN in partnership with the New American Opportunity campaign (NAOC), Catholic League Services – Archdiocese of Miami, Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, Florida Immigrant Coalition, Miami Dade College, People for the American Way/Mi Familia/Vota en Accion, the Service Employees International Union [SEIU], and UNITE/HERE, was intended to call attention to the need for comprehensive immigration reform.

Senator McCain spoke at the rally attended by hundreds of ACORN members, most of whom were dressed in the red shirts typical of its members. Senator McCain's speech focused on the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, a bipartisan, comprehensive reform bill, which McCain sponsored with Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA).

See The Actual Links Between John McCain and ACORN for Yourself!

If you're a GOP supporter, or just a McCain enthusiast, please get your facts straight about McCain's association with ACORN. Remember Attorney General Alberto Gonzales arranging the firing of Republican U.S. Attorneys because they refused to prosecute voter assistance groups, including ACORN? Remember how it ended up with Gonzales resigning in disgrace? That was the same year Senator McCain partnered with ACORN.

It's no wonder McCain is trying to take over the "change" theme; his record is littered with sudden reversals in positions that leave him open to charges he's been both for and against virtually anything that Congress has voted on depending on what seemed politically expedient, and his initiatives on health care and taxes don't favor the middle class when examined impartially.

Ms. Lewis' recent remarks about McCain included a scathing assessment of his potential leadership, "...he was a maverick before he became erratic. We were thrilled to partner with him to help reform the outdated immigration laws in this country, and were pleased to work closely with him on this issue."Lewis continued, "We expected Senator McCain to support our efforts to give voice to millions of Americans who have never participated in an election before. We are surprised at his efforts to vilify an organization that, until recently, he saw as an ally. Maybe this surprise attack and change of heart is indicative of his state of mind, and the way he would govern."

Maverick, or political opportunist?

Ms. Lewis went on to say that, "We are sure that the extremists he is trying to get into a froth will be even more excited to learn that John McCain stood shoulder to shoulder with ACORN, at an ACORN co-sponsored event, to promote immigration reform."

Senator McCain was joined at that 2006 rally by Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL), Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), leaders from both political parties, immigrant communities, and members of labor, business, and religious organizations.

When a department store calls the police to report a shoplifting employee, no one says the department store is guilty of consumer fraud. But for some reason, when ACORN turns voter registration workers over to the authorities for filling out bogus forms, it gets accused of “voter fraud.” This is a classic case of blaming the victim; indeed, these charges are outrageous, libelous, and often politically motivated. The commercial media may be content to echo McCain's talking points, and tacitly approve them by not contradicting "misstatements" during so-called debates, but the era when divisive political attacks and partisan smoke-screens are accepted as just "business as usual" is ending. We demand more now, and we deserve better from commercial news organizations and candidates alike.

The conduct of Schieffer, Obama, and McCain during tonight's debate at Hofstra University will be scrutinized closely by millions. I suggest one simple ground rule: "No more lies."

Digg this story!

Palin avoids imploding during VP debate

Did Governor Palin's performance change the outcome of the election? Almost certainly not, though she probably did succeed in getting the attention back on Senator McCain. Her answers were obviously much less spontaneous, and accordingly less substantive, less revealing, and generally less related to the questions Gwen Ifill posed. In fact, the debate may have been overshadowed by the revelation that the McCain campaign has written off Michigan, and will even continue running ads there.

Both candidates foreshadowed their strengths and styles for the evening handling the very first question, Biden gave a fairly soft answer when asked had the previous week been DC at its best or its worst, but Governor Palin essentially ignored the question altogether to assert that McCain, who had championed Wall Street deregulation, nonetheless had warned people "two years ago" that something bad might be looming.

What came through from Senator Biden was the sense of a man who genuinely grasps the enormity of the dual crises facing America: the meltdown in our economy and the damage to our standing in the world that the policies of the Bush administration have wrought. Biden was considerably more willing to show himself to us, while his opponent's agenda was clearly to echo now-familiar talking points wrapped in folksy colloquialisms – a sort of blending of the styles of George Bush and Ronald Reagan.

Biden did seem to gloss over that the time-tested Republican campaign theme of "lowering taxes" which has not by any means strengthened our economy during the Bush administration. So perhaps casual viewers looking for bright spots in Palin's performance will buy her assertion that a vote for McCain isn't likely to continue current policies even though Biden did once basically dare her to name one way in which McCain offered any real change. We're left to wonder if gosh-darnits meant to sound like Reagan are sufficient evidence of a viable Vice President or not. As a strategic goal, distancing the McCain~Palin ticket from Bush and Cheney is obviously prudent, yet speaking at a tactical "in the limelight" level, Sarah Palin mispronouncing nuclear in the same way that George Bush does surely emphasized her similarities to our increasingly unpopular President.

When Ms. Ifill asked how a VP might change the partisan posturing that we associate with Washington politics the two answers were markedly different. Biden's story about being given a come-uppance and his resulting lesson about not judging another motives rang with credible humility. Palin, on the other hand, after suggesting the secret was in selecting political appointees without regard to their politics (that's a trifle naïve, I must say) then immediately launched into a highly partisan smear as she made her appeal to voters to pick Republicans to return to the Oval Office.

Who dealt with the questions better?

Palin dodged the question when both candidates were asked about their weaknesses. Biden was forthcoming, whereas the Governor clearly launched into talking points. Asked about policy issues they'd had to change on during their careers Biden admitted to giving up his original ideal about selecting judicial nominees based solely on temperament and intellect, learning there was reason to consider "judicial philosophy" as well. Palin cited not vetoing budgets when she lacked support. In other words she'd learned she couldn't dictate from a minority position, which frankly sounded like she didn't understand the question although it's a good lesson.

Biden did have the upper hand in the exchanges about taxes. The Governor was obviously in talking point territory on that topic, while Senator Biden clarified and debunked those points and how they relate to wage earners under $250,000, regardless of if they are small business owners or not. A format that allowed longer responses probably would have provided Biden the opening to talk about how tax cuts haven't been creating jobs lately, but the rules for the VP debate cut down the intervals each had for speaking in comparison to the Presidential events, and that frankly worked in Palin's favor.

Well moderated evening

Any questions or concerns about Gwen Ifill's impartiality as a moderator have been erased by her style of presenting both with similarly sticky questions – and letting both hear both questions before replying when the two were different, such as on challenging the Governor to explain why she'd said she didn't know what a VP did ("it was a joke") whereas Ifill noted Biden had been quoted as saying he'd never be a VP (which he didn't actually have to address, since Palin wanted BOTH to be seen as jokes - Sarah let Joe off the hook.) Ifill had moderated the vice-presidential debate between Republican candidate Dick Cheney and Democratic candidate Senator John Edwards during the 2004 debate, but her as-yet-unpublished book had been the source of some hand-wringing among certain pundits during the 24-36 hours before the debate.

One outstanding quandary for those who were paying close attention to Palin's talking points is how to reconcile her assertions about getting government out of the way with such statements as being the first Governor to form a climate change sub-cabinet. That's not exactly a small-government approach, although it did allow her to nearly deflect questions about what causes climate change. Biden, of course, was quick to point out that while it's all well and good to talk about avoiding finger pointing, yet it's hard to solve problems if you don't know what the cause is. Perhaps his best shot of the night came early on when he likened McCain's proposals to tax health care benefits while deregulating the health care insurance system as a "Bridge to Nowhere."

Republicans can relax, she passed.

Still, it must be said, Governor Palin was much better prepared for this than she had been for her interviews with Katie Couric, and surely exceeded the expectations of many who watched the debate. Did she win? Not in the traditional sense of providing substantive answers related to the questions. Yet political debates are not judged solely by that standard, and since she likely didn't drive conservative voters away she also didn't lose.

If the standard is which candidate presented a person ready to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency, a question Ifill asked about, Senator Biden's more thoughtful, spontaneous familiarity with the national policy issues outshined the Governor's repeated references to Alaska as an energy producing state. There can be little doubt in the minds of the voters that the Obama~Biden policies will diverge sharply from those in force currently, whereas based on Palin's performance, (which didn't meet the level she attained reading her acceptance speech at the RNC,) a vote for McCain~Palin is, indeed, a vote for more of the same.

Digg this article...