Gay Patriot Header Image

The “relevant discussion took place last November”

So says Moe Lane (via Little Miss Attila) in a short post that’s well worth your time.  Seems the unions know they’ve lost and are trying to find a way to save face.

Guess to the “milk cartoon” Democrats, elections are only over when Democrats win them.

Oh, and the concessions have caused Stacy McCain to quip,  “So after all this protesting, now the unions want a ‘compromise’? Yeah, they’re losing this battle and they know it.”  (Via Instapundit.)  Just a reminder, they may have lost the battle for people’s hearts and minds, but they still haven’t lost it legislatively.

Recall that on Main Street USA, Democrats lost the health care battle, only to win it on Capitol Hill.  Still, a high school friend of Glenn Reynolds wonders if this is, “the high water mark of Liberal America? Will their push be broken? Is the tide turning? All eyes seem turned to the Wisconsin Capital, waiting for a result.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Louise B nails it:  “The only reason the unions are agreeing to the financial cuts now is because they know if they keep the collective bargaining, they can reverse the financial cuts later.”

UPDATE:  Apparently, Wisconsin voters were aware of Scott Walker’s stands on unions when they elected him to office:

He has never tried to disguise his stance on the issues of the day, and if it can be said that “[u]nions have always been his piñata, over and over,” then one can hardly be taken by surprise by his stance on unions in general, or on public sector unions in particular.

And despite–or because of–this stance, the voters of Wisconsin elected him Governor in 2010, with a 6 point, 124,000-plus vote margin between himself and his opponent. Not a landslide, but not inconsequential either, especially given the fact that Walker has not shied away from stating clearly his public policy views. In doing so, the voters not only elected Walker, they endorsed his views, views he clearly articulated throughout his career in public life.

The relevant discussion did indeed take place last November.  Via Instapundit.  Read the whole thing.

Share

28 Comments

  1. Well, to quote Chairman MuBarack in 2009: “We won.”

    Elections DO have consequences, you know.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 20, 2011 @ 10:02 am - February 20, 2011

  2. The only reason the unions are agreeing to the financial cuts now is because they know if they keep the collective bargaining, they can reverse the financial cuts later.

    Comment by Louise B — February 20, 2011 @ 10:43 am - February 20, 2011

  3. The Republicans need not budge; the collective bargaining has to go into the dust bin along with most of the public sector union.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — February 20, 2011 @ 11:03 am - February 20, 2011

  4. The union compromised? Don’t get out your party hats yet. Compromise is the Left’s “Hezboallah ceasefire”. The Left compromises only to give itself time to restock ammunition to achieve complete victory later. This is something the Right never seems to get. When a deal is reached or we win in the courts or the legislatures, we think the battle’s over and we go home. The Left regroups and comes back swinging. For Leftists, it’s never over until they win. That’s how the Left in all its manifestations–economic, political, social, religious–has gotten as far as it has. The Left cannot be compromised with; it must be defeated. Period. I just don’t know when the Right will get the balls to do the job.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — February 20, 2011 @ 11:27 am - February 20, 2011

  5. [...] The “relevant discussion took place last November” [...]

    Pingback by Daily Dive-20 Feb 11 | adeliemanchot — February 20, 2011 @ 12:15 pm - February 20, 2011

  6. #4: S-A: you are exactly right. The problem is that people in the private sector have other things to do (work/look for work, trying to figure out how to survive once we’re too old to work, etc).

    The per-head amount of money for, say, teacher pensions is relatively small for most of us but it’s big enough to fight about if you’re on the receiving end.

    If gubmint were smaller and less expensive, there wouldn’t be so many people (be they teachers, welfare recipients, or GE wanting to build a jet engine no one wants) spending so much time and effort trying to get their hands into the (empty) treasury.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — February 20, 2011 @ 12:44 pm - February 20, 2011

  7. The “revelant discussion” hardly equates to winning an election with a state of more that 3.400,000 registered voters by only 123,000 votes. :)

    It appears that you do not look for information beyond your own conservative viewpoint – based on the articles/posts you quote from – have you ever analyzed whether your arguments hold water in a different light?

    Don’t get me wrong, you do have an awesome writing style, however, I noticed some imbalance by posts clearly stating that the conservative side is without error or fault – how could that be? I do admit that I come from the more liberal side, but I’m always looking for a middle ground between our two ideologies. That is why I visited your site today and read through your articles.

    Something for you and your readers to ponder – something greater than you or I have a vested interest in exploiting and profiting from our differences – and you might recall the saying, “United we Stand, Divided we fall”?

    Something has to start healing this national wound – can’t we find some common ground?

    Joe Guy

    Comment by Joe Guy — February 20, 2011 @ 3:16 pm - February 20, 2011

  8. Joe, where do I ever say that the conservative side is without error or fault?

    Okay, so, if an election does not mean a relevant discussion of policy issues, will you then call for a rescinding of all legislation based in the first two years of the Obama Administration since that Democrat’s margin of victory in 2008 represented a similar percentage of the total U.S. population as did Walker’s 2010 margin compared to the total population of his state?

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 20, 2011 @ 3:27 pm - February 20, 2011

  9. Where do you say they are at fault or error? Heck, the liberal side screws up every day, and there is no integrity in denying it.

    If you are talking about Obama’s Popular vote, that is not quite exactly true per, but I’ll give you close.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

    In the 2008 election, Obama had 52.9 %, McCain had 45.7.

    Per the Washington Post,

    http://news.yahoo.com/page/2010electionsdashboard

    Walker had 52 and Barrett had 47%

    And agreeing with you that they are close – I’m kind of confused as to why you would ask me if I would want to agree with rescinding all of Obama’s legislation.

    I assume that you yourself are gay, is that a fair assessment? If I am correct, do you view the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act some kind of left wing conspiracy? Do you think that this bill was not important?

    Joe Guy

    Comment by Joe Guy — February 20, 2011 @ 3:53 pm - February 20, 2011

  10. Joe, I offered you a challenge to point out where I said something you said I said and you offer no links to anything I wrote or said. If you’d like me to address your points unrelated to the post to which you attach them, please first show me the courtesy of addressing mine, especially since you’re commenting on my blog, not vice versa, using space we afford for commentary on and criticism of the points we raise.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 20, 2011 @ 4:19 pm - February 20, 2011

  11. Daniel –

    First – you sound a bit defensive, and I apologize as it appears that I have made you feel this way. I can tell you that my intentions are genuine.

    As far as your question asking me to point out some post – That is exactly my point – I can’t find one single post where you have criticized any conservative argument or found error with it. I would think you being the author could identify and point me to a post where I could find that you have done this. I know from my own blog, I could show you where I have personally called out the inadequacies of the left.

    And yes, I am on your blog – which is my initial point in my first comment – I am here, I am reading your posts and trying to understand your point of view. I hope that you might be able to return the courtesy someday.

    Again – I’m looking for common ground, not additional ideological fighting. Who cares about that – again – United we stand……..divided we fall….

    Joe Guy

    Comment by Joe Guy — February 20, 2011 @ 5:53 pm - February 20, 2011

  12. Something has to start healing this national wound – can’t we find some common ground?

    Sure.

    Why not start by repudiating the lying Rachel Maddow and the Obama Party thugs who are making and putting up these signs?

    After all, you want criticism of conservatives. Go ahead and show that you can hold your fellow Obama Party members accountable for their statements and actions.

    Or is it more appropriate to say that you’re just trying to STFU conservatives while allowing your own leftist friends to spread hate and lies?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 20, 2011 @ 5:56 pm - February 20, 2011

  13. As far as your question asking me to point out some post – That is exactly my point – I can’t find one single post where you have criticized any conservative argument or found error with it.

    I see this is the latest iteration of the left’s STFU conservatives game.

    Guess what, Joe Guy? Obama Party members, with the endorsement of Barack Obama, funded and brought together by Obama’s Organizing for America DNC group, are not only screaming racist epithets at and making death threats against Republican legislators, they are actively defrauding the government in the process using state-paid and complicit Obama Party doctors.

    So of course, you’re going on the offensive, trying to attack conservatives rather than deal with the disgusting rot and vomit that your own Obama Party and liberal left are carrying out now.

    That shows quite nicely that you’re not interested in “healing wounds”. You’re interested in getting conservatives to shut up, and you intend to exploit the fact that we have a sense of decency and fairness to do it.

    Typical moocher and looter behavior. And that’s all you and yours are — moochers and looters. The Obama Party’s face is in full view on the Capitol grounds in Madison, and you are trying to desperately blame conservatives for the fact that it’s so damn ugly.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 20, 2011 @ 6:07 pm - February 20, 2011

  14. So, Joe Guy, please tell us what margin of victory is necessary before a Republican is allowed to govern, in your world?

    Comment by V the K — February 20, 2011 @ 6:18 pm - February 20, 2011

  15. Something has to start healing this national wound – can’t we find some common ground?

    If unity is your highest value, then the solution is quite simple.

    You change.

    Comment by Matteo — February 20, 2011 @ 6:18 pm - February 20, 2011

  16. Defensive, Joe. Hardly. More amused than anything else. You made a sweeping statement as well as numerous assumptions.

    I decided to challenge you on the sweeping statement since it should be the easiest for you to prove if it were true. I mean, you tell me I have “clearly” (your word not mine) said something I never actually said.

    I did this more to show the hollowness of your critique. And your responses have helped show just how hollow it is.

    Then, in your latest post, you who claim to be on my blog (suggesting that you are a regular reader) tell me you’re trying to understand my point of view. Well, if you read the blog, that should be pretty clear, so your comment about returning the courtesy is, in this context, totally meaningless. If you read my posts, it should be relatively easy to understand my world view.

    If I were interested in the nature of your critiques, then, perhaps I should probe you about the nature of your interest, but, well, with all due respect, I could care less. I responded to your comment on a whim because your one comment I challenged you to back up was patently false.

    I mean, if anything, I should be asking you to return the courtesy of asking you to articulate your point of view since I offer mine up on a regular basis on this blog. I don’t mean to offend, but I wonder why I should take seriously someone who begins his initial comment in this thread by suggesting that a victory at the ballot box doesn’t give an elected governor and legislature a mandate to enact reforms in the spirit of their campaigns (with proper respect, of course, for the precepts of the state’s constitution and the rules of each legislative chamber–something I addressed in a previous post).

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 20, 2011 @ 6:30 pm - February 20, 2011

  17. Some convenient facts are ignored by right wing commentators as they madly try to outdo each other with their shameful union bashing. Wisconsin ranks 2nd in the nation got the highest SAT and ACT scores–you know, standardized tests, something I though those on the right idolized.

    Which states rank the lowest on these measures:

    South Carolina – 50th
    North Carolina – 49th
    Georgia – 48th
    Texas – 47th
    Virginia – 44th*

    What do these states have in common? They are the only 5 states that do not have collective bargaining for teachers.

    * the information was posted at Lawyers, Guns & Money–a left liberal blog, but facts are facts.

    Comment by Brendan — February 20, 2011 @ 7:03 pm - February 20, 2011

  18. Interestingly enough, Brendan doesn’t provide the link.

    Here’s why.

    It comes from a website that is repeating a statistic gleaned from a 1999 evaluation.

    And even the commenters were questioning it.

    The results I linked were 8th grade tests in the schools. There are problems using ACT/SAT scores because there are two different tests and different proportions of the students from the various states take the tests.

    Unfortunately there aren’t enough 12th grade results at my link to compare.

    A good point, John. To the extent that they are useful at all, the SAT/ACT are useful for evaluating individual students. Group averages on those tests, especially at the statewide levels, are pretty meaningless. For instance, states like South Dakota often rank very high on “statewide average SAT scores.” This is not because their school systems are performing miracles, but because the SAT is taken by a very small, unrepresentative subset of high school students in those states–probably students applying to selective, out-of-state colleges.

    So let’s see, citing twelve-year-old statistics that even their proponents acknowledge are flawed.

    You were having better luck with your Hitler signs and forged doctor’s notes, Brendan.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 20, 2011 @ 7:13 pm - February 20, 2011

  19. Whoa..!!! Dude – Is your response above within your guidelines for comments?

    •Remember that the people under discussion are human beings. Comments that contain personal attacks about the post author or other commenters will be deleted. Repeated violators will be banned. Challenge the ideas of those with whom you disagree, not their patriotism, decency, or integrity.

    Really….. Really??

    Hang cool –

    Joe Guy

    Comment by Joe Guy — February 20, 2011 @ 7:21 pm - February 20, 2011

  20. Please identify the personal attack in my comment, Joe. Thanks!

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 20, 2011 @ 7:26 pm - February 20, 2011

  21. Funny, Brendan, I thought the Teacher’s Unions have always said that teachers can’t be held responsible for how kids perform on standardized tests, because that would be “unfair?”

    Comment by V the K — February 20, 2011 @ 7:33 pm - February 20, 2011

  22. Brendan – it’s not PC to mention this but you will find a stronger correlation between demographics and student performance than you will between performance and unionized teachers. Care to look into that?

    Also, some years ago, someone found that there was greater correlation between student performance and proximity to the Canadian border than with per-student spending.

    Given that students in Wisconsin aren’t smart enough to figure out that they’re the ones on the hook for future (and unfunded) salary and benefits to public sector workers tells me that ACT/SAT scores don’t tell us much about common sense.

    On a related note, venture over to the NY Post or Michelle Malkin to read about the best ‘n’ brightest geniuses over at Columbia who heckled and insulted a disabled war hero (and student) at an ROTC debate. Myself, I wouldn’t hire any of these “students” to clean up horse manure; they would be too stupid to figure out which end of the shovel to use.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — February 20, 2011 @ 8:26 pm - February 20, 2011

  23. “You were having better luck with your Hitler signs and forged doctor’s notes, Brendan.”

    ND30, I don’t have any hitler signs–though I see quite a few such signs from the right wing regarding Obama–not that you would criticize that. and I am not a doctor so I don’t write doctor notes. Quite frankly, you are a complete pig and an asshole. Your repeated nasty and delusional comments on people you don’t know that go completely unchallenged on this blog makes a mockery of the tiresomely frequent postings here about the alleged lack of civility on the left.

    Comment by Brendan — February 20, 2011 @ 8:46 pm - February 20, 2011

  24. ND30, I don’t have any hitler signs–though I see quite a few such signs from the right wing regarding Obama–not that you would criticize that.

    Which is a hilarious irony, given how you endorse and support the Hitler signs being made and displayed by your Barack Obama Party and its Organizing for America astroturfing organization led by Barack Obama.

    Is it Hitler signs that bother you, Brendan? Or are you just being a hypocrite, whining and complaining about Obama Hitler signs while endorsing and supporting Barack Obama and the Obama Party making, promoting, and displaying Hitler signs?

    and I am not a doctor so I don’t write doctor notes.

    But you support your Barack Obama Party and its Organizing for America astroturf organization led by Barack Obama, which has taxpayer-paid doctors writing fraudulent notes for union members in order to assist them in defrauding the government.

    Quite frankly, you are a complete pig and an asshole. Your repeated nasty and delusional comments on people you don’t know that go completely unchallenged on this blog makes a mockery of the tiresomely frequent postings here about the alleged lack of civility on the left.

    The reason they go unchallenged, Brendan, is because a) I back them up, as I just did, and b) because people realize what hypocrites and liars liberals like yourself are, whining and crying about “civility” and “Hitler signs” as you parade your own around the city and make death threats against Republican legislators and their families.

    It’s always a hard fall for spoiled brats like yourself. But at this point, no one really cares, because they’re sick of having their pockets picked and their hard-earned dollars taken away by welfare brats like you and yourself in Wisconsin who spit on the people who pay your salary and call them names.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 20, 2011 @ 10:14 pm - February 20, 2011

  25. Link for the Hitler and other signs being paraded by Barack Obama’s Organizing for America and the Barack Obama Party.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 20, 2011 @ 10:15 pm - February 20, 2011

  26. And just in case there was any question, here are some more Barack Obama-approved, Organizing for America-sponsored and endorsed Hitler signs.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 20, 2011 @ 10:34 pm - February 20, 2011

  27. And let’s not forget as was pointed out here The Larouchies were the ones with the Obama = Hitler signs.

    Also mentioned here.

    Facts, it’s what eats leftists for dinner.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 21, 2011 @ 7:50 am - February 21, 2011

  28. #27 – LW, for libtards, “facts” are an inconvenient truth.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 21, 2011 @ 11:09 am - February 21, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.