Wisconsin Democrats could stay away for weeks

[Atypical]

Madison Police Chief Noble Wray has listened to the taped conversation between Republican Governor Scott Walker and a blogger posing as Kansas billionaire David Koch, and he wants an explanation for Walker's "troubling" admission that he toyed with the idea of "planting troublemakers" among the crowds of protesters.

... "I spent a good deal of time overnight thinking about Governor Walker's response, during his news conference yesterday (Wednesday), to the suggestion that his administration ‘thought about' planting troublemakers among those who are peacefully protesting his bill," Wray said in a statement issued this morning. "I would like to hear more of an explanation from Governor Walker as to what exactly was being considered, and to what degree it was discussed by his cabinet members. "I find it very unsettling and troubling that anyone would consider creating safety risks for our citizens and law enforcement officers. Our department works hard dialoging with those who are exercising their First Amendment right, those from both sides of the issue, to make sure we are doing everything we can to ensure they can demonstrate safely.

Predictably, Walker's office responded by pointing to what Walker said during Wednesday's press conference:

"People have brought up all sorts of different options," Walker said. "As you saw if you've listened to the tape, we shot that down."

Shot it down? Okay. But not because of any fears about public safety. Here's Walker's response to the faux-Koch's idea about "planting some troublemakers":

You know, well, the only problem with that, because we thought about that. The problem, the, my only gut reaction to that would be, right now, the lawmakers I’ve talked to have just completely had it with them, the public is not really fond of this ... My only fear would be is if there was a ruckus caused, is that would scare the public into thinking maybe the governor has to settle to solve all these problems.

The bottom line is, Walker considered it. And he only "shot it down" because he was worried about the political consequences to himself. Public safety was never a concern.

Troubling doesn't even scratch the surface.

http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/...ng-statements-

__________________________________________________ _

So, the police chief is troubled by the governor's words. Inciting to riot possibilities, maybe?

But no one should call these people what they are because ...it's offensive! I guess, like Beck calling, Soros, a Nazi. Or O'Reilly suggesting a doctor that does abortions should be killed - and he was! Or the thousand other examples. Double standard? You betcha!

[Havakasha]

So i quess you are pretty much a tea partier on economic and union issues etc. Kind of what i always thought.

You kinda support Beck and O'reilly? Or just worried about the double standard in only this case?


I thought this discussion was about the fact that you were arguing that Scott Walker was pursuing a budget cutting agenda on the Wisconsin matter. I think thats clearly a false notion.

Here again i think is a reasonable interpretation of what he is really doing (not to mention if you listen to the prank call its pretty clear as well)


On Wednesday's "Studio B," Shepard Smith said the battle over union rights in Wisconsin was all about busting unions and securing Republican political power, not about the state's budget deficit.

It was a take that placed Smith squarely in agreement with people such as Rachel Maddow, who has repeatedly argued essentially the same thing on her show.

Speaking to a mostly-in-agreement Juan Williams, Smith said the fight was "100 percent politics."

"There is no budget crisis in Wisconsin," he said, adding that the unions "[have] given concessions."

The real point of the fight, Smith said, could be found in the list of the top ten donors to political campaigns. Seven out of the ten donated to Republicans; the other three were unions donating to Democrats.

"Bust the unions, and it's over," Smith said. He then brought up the Koch brothers, the billionaires who have bankrolled much of the anti-union pushback in Wisconsin. The fight, Smith said, "started" with the Kochs, who he said were trying to get a return on the money they donated to Walker's campaign.

"I'm not taking a side on this, I'm just telling you what's going on...to pretend this is about a fiscal crisis in the state of Wisconsin is malarkey," Smith said.

[SiriuslyLong]

So i quess you are pretty much a tea partier on economic and union issues etc. Kind of what i always thought.

You kinda support Beck and O'reilly? Or just worried about the double standard in only this case?

I thought this discussion was about the fact that you were arguing that Scott Walker was pursuing a budget cutting agenda on the Wisconsin matter. I think thats clearly a false notion.

Here again i think is a reasonable interpretation of what he is really doing (not to mention if you listen to the prank call its pretty clear as well)

On Wednesday's "Studio B," Shepard Smith said the battle over union rights in Wisconsin was all about busting unions and securing Republican political power, not about the state's budget deficit.

It was a take that placed Smith squarely in agreement with people such as Rachel Maddow, who has repeatedly argued essentially the same thing on her show.

Speaking to a mostly-in-agreement Juan Williams, Smith said the fight was "100 percent politics."

"There is no budget crisis in Wisconsin," he said, adding that the unions "[have] given concessions."

The real point of the fight, Smith said, could be found in the list of the top ten donors to political campaigns. Seven out of the ten donated to Republicans; the other three were unions donating to Democrats.

"Bust the unions, and it's over," Smith said. He then brought up the Koch brothers, the billionaires who have bankrolled much of the anti-union pushback in Wisconsin. The fight, Smith said, "started" with the Kochs, who he said were trying to get a return on the money they donated to Walker's campaign.

"I'm not taking a side on this, I'm just telling you what's going on...to pretend this is about a fiscal crisis in the state of Wisconsin is malarkey," Smith said.

If you'd like to label me a tea partier, be my guest. I am not anywhere near extreme in politics as you and the tea partiers are. YOu deserve each other lol. I've taken 10 damn quizzes, and they all come up "centrist". I've never watched Beck, Hannerty, O'Reilly. They can walk up and bump me and I wouldn't know it was them (though I think I know what O'Reilly looks like). As with anything this political (and passionate), it's hard to judge what is truly right. You know anything you post will be accepted with great skeptcism as you are not very impartial or objective lol. Like I said before, his rationale seems plausible - freeing up the chain to "negotiate"; is he busting union balls? Likely. Is he reveling in it? Probably. The wingnuts on the extreme right think it is fair in as much as you wingnuts on the left think it is unfair. Each party is self motivated.

Unions will never be busted. Too much money. Too much power.

[Havakasha]

Im hardly "extreme" or a "wingnut".If it makes you feel better go ahead and call me that..
Im just analyzing you by where you seem to come out on the issues we discuss. Almost always come out on the right side of the curve.

I think Shepard Smith, who is not a wingnut or extremist on the left, and is actually a Republican, is being quite objective and reasonable in his analysis of the situation, and I think that is why he says this IS NOT about balancing budgets. And i think that is why some of the other Republican Governors are not following the Wisconsin Governor's lead.

The Chamber of Commerce seems to be very powerful and have a huge amount of money.
If not for the Dems leaving the state the unions would have lost their collective bargaining power in Wisconsin, which i quess indicates that they arent as powerful as you seem to think.

Here is just a little something about unions power:

"Not a single Sunday Morning Talk Show will have labor leaders on. They are, systematically, refusing to bring on the people behind the biggest domestic story of the last two weeks.
One AFL-CIO official tells me that reps for the AFL-CIO and other unions reached out to all the big three network shows -- ABC's This Week, NBC's Meet the Press, and CBS' Face the Nation -- to ask if they would invite on any labor officials. Thus far the answer has been cool to indifferent, the official says.
No labor officials have yet been booked to appear. Carin Pratt, the executive producer of CBS's Face the Nation -- which is hosing Christie -- seemed to suggest as much in an email. "We are doing Gov. Christie for part of the show, with probably a segment on Libya," she said. "We're not only talking about labor."

But that's cool. I'm sure Joe Lieberman, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Harold Ford will have it covered. Oh, and Gov. Christie, who is oh-so-relevant at the moment."

[SiriuslyLong]

Hey Extreme Lefty Wingnut, check out this article

Public union battles spread across U.S.

By the CNN Wire Staff
February 24, 2011 2:13 p.m. EST

(CNN) -- The fight over public union benefits and collective bargaining is spreading across the United States. Here is a state-by-state breakdown:

Wisconsin
Thousands of people have protested a proposal in Wisconsin that would eliminate collective-bargaining rights for everything but wages. Fourteen Democratic state senators have fled to neighboring Illinois, depriving the Senate of a quorum and stalling the bill that would reduce collective-bargaining rights. Democrats say the bill is anti-union. Gov. Scott Walker, a first-term Republican, says it's necessary to get the state's fiscal house in order. He has warned that not passing the proposed bill would result in at least 1,500 government employees being laid off in the short term. The governor says it could result in 6,000 worker layoffs in the following budget cycle.

Ohio
A bill to limit the collective-bargaining power of some public-sector workers has sparked protests, with crowds packing the state Capitol in Columbus for a second week. The measure, Senate Bill 5, would eliminate tenure as a consideration when making layoff decisions, require workers to pay at least 20% of their health insurance premiums and institute merit-based pay for some public-sector workers. State workers would still be able to negotiate salaries, however.

Any public employee receiving a salary funded by tax dollars -- including teachers, correctional officers and nurses -- would be banned from striking.

The Senate could vote on the measure as early as next week.

Indiana
Lawmakers have scrapped a "right-to-work" bill that would have prevented private-sector unions from requiring workers to pay dues for representation. House Democrats took a page from the Wisconsin book by walking out on the Republican-supported bill.

Tennessee
A pending House bill would hamper the ability of teachers' unions to negotiate with local education boards concerning the terms or conditions of their service.

Illinois
Lawmakers have introduced a bill that would exempt policymaking employees from the definition of a "public employee" and the right to organize and bargain collectively. State lawmakers had approved a massive tax increase, unveiling a $35.4 billion budget that relies on approving $8.7 billion in new borrowing.

California
Lawmakers introduced a bill that would do away with collective bargaining of pension benefits for the state's public employees. Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown had imposed a statewide hiring freeze across all government agencies.

Michigan
Lawmakers have debated overturning legislation that requires an outside arbitrator to settle labor disputes involving firefighters and police officers.

Alaska
Republican House lawmakers have introduced a "right-to-work" bill that prohibits collective-bargaining contracts requiring employees to join a labor or employee organization.

Iowa
Lawmakers are debating a bill that "prohibits employees of the state, any agency, authority, commission, or board of the state, or any state institution of higher education from collectively bargaining under (Iowa's) Public Employee Collective Bargaining Law."

New Jersey
Republican Gov. Chris Christie, who has gained a national reputation for his hard stance against public-sector employees, has argued that organized labor should have "responsible" collective-bargaining rights. Christie said he wants workers to pay more for their health care, raising their co-payments and premiums to save the state an estimated $323 million. By 2014, the governor would require them to pay for 30% of their medical benefits, up from 8% now.

Read it for real: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/...ss_igoogle_cnn

[SiriuslyLong]

Look at all those States! Don't you wonder why this is happening?

[Havakasha]

i didnt argue that Unions arent under attack in this country. There are always scapegoats during tough economic times (and that is not to say there arent union excesses and corruption just like in all organizations). Unions obviously need to negotiate with state govts (as they were willing to do in Wisconsin) and sacrifice just like everyone else needs to in order to help with the deficit. Dont just single out unions because that is absurd. What about all the money the banks and wall st. have cost this govt? Iraq? etc.

Look at the difference between what is happening in Indiana, Florida and Wisconsin. There are some differences, as i was arguing, you know. Lol.

[SiriuslyLong]

Wow, who hijacked Lloyd's password to this site lol.

Wall St = Federal Reserve, and who created the Federal Reserve? Yeap, Congress. Crazy it is.

[Havakasha]

If one listened to you S&L one would have the sense that faninie and freddie, the Fed. Reserve and the Unions created ALL the ills of the world. Thats extreme and wingnutedness par excellence.

Wall st.also equals many corporations and many individuals (some corrupt and some greedy like everywhere else)

Again i quess its easy for you to ignore the nuances of Indiana, Florida, and Wisconsin in understanding why you were way off in your analysis of Gov. of Wisconsin.

[Havakasha]

I should start calling you a 'dumbass' just like john does. Lol
Dont you look at nuances? Remember what i said?

"Look at the difference between what is happening in Indiana, Florida and Wisconsin. There are some differences, as i was arguing, you know. Lol."

Now look at the following:

Some GOP Leaders Soften Tough Talk on Unions
Published: Thursday, 24 Feb 2011 | 4:53 PM ET Text Size
By: AP

With a wary eye on Wisconsin, Republican leaders in several states are toning down the tough talk against public employee unions and, in some cases, abandoning anti-union measures altogether.

Protesters fill the courtyard and steps outside the State Capitol building on February 16, 2010 in Madison, Wisconsin. Protesters were demonstrating against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's proposal to eliminate collective bargaining rights for many state workers.

Indiana's governor urged GOP lawmakers to give up on a "right to work" bill for fear the backlash could derail the rest of his agenda.

In Ohio, senators plan to soften a bill that would have banned all collective bargaining by state workers. And in Michigan, the Republican governor says he'd rather negotiate with public employees than pick a fight.

That's hardly enough to set labor leaders celebrating. They still face a slew of measures in dozens of states that seek to curb union rights. But union officials say they believe the sustained protests in Wisconsin, Ohio and other states are making an impact.

"It's still too early to tell, but I think the reaction that we're seeing from governors in other states really shows the power of workers standing together," said Naomi Walker, director of state government relations at the AFL-CIO.

The fight over labor rights that has spread across the country reached a boiling point in Wisconsin after Gov. Scott Walker proposed a bill that would end virtually all collective bargaining rights for state workers.

The legislation would force state and local public workers to contribute more toward their pensions and health care as well as strip them of the right to negotiate benefits and working conditions. They would largely be limited to negotiating pay raises no greater than the inflation rate.

Swelling state budget deficits around the country, along with the effects of the Great Recession on private-sector jobs, pay and benefits, have provided a potent platform for conservatives who argue that taxpayers no longer can afford the compensation, pensions and retiree health care that unions have gained from legislatures in years past. Headlines about state workers retiring at age 55 with six-figure pensions and health care for life don't help public employees' image.

Unions and national Democratic leaders have accused Republicans of overreaching in a politically motivated ploy to weaken unions, a core Democratic ally. And they have done their part to fight back, with unions sinking $30 million into a campaign to fight GOP efforts and Democratic activists helping to mobilize demonstrators.

"I think a number of other governors have decided that they do not want the kind of frustration that we see in Wisconsin," said Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the U.S. Senate. "I think they are taking a wise course in trying to solve problems rather than trying to lead a political crusade."

In Indiana, top Republican legislators have declared dead a "right to work" bill that would prohibit union representation fees from being a condition of employment at most private companies. Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels, who is considering a presidential run, had been saying since December that he wanted to avoid a showdown with labor that could distract lawmakers from moving on proposals such as revamping public schools and the state budget.

As in Wisconsin, the clash has drawn hundreds of protesters to the Indiana Statehouse and led most House Democrats to leave the state to shut down legislative business on the union bill and a slate of other issues. Daniels has appealed to the lawmakers to return because "their conscience tells them they should do their duty."

Republican Senate leaders in Ohio agreed to modify a bill that would have banned all collective bargaining by state employees. The GOP change -- albeit minor -- would allow workers to negotiate on wages but still would ban strikes.

Ohio Republican Senate President Tom Niehaus denied the protests had any effect, saying the decision came after listening to hours of testimony. Democratic leaders consider the change "window dressing" and still want the bill scrapped.


"These guys in other states are equally conservative, but they don't want to create an unnecessary conflict which may prove politically embarrassing," said Nelson Lichtenstein, director of the Center for the Study of Work, Labor and Democracy at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
It was still unclear Thursday whether leaders in the Republican-led Ohio Senate would be able to muster the GOP support needed to pass the bill in its current form.

Meanwhile, governors in Michigan and Florida appear to be taking a more conciliatory approach to unions, hoping to avoid the full-fledged brawl in Wisconsin.

"That's not our path," said Michigan's Rick Snyder, who won election on a pro-business agenda. He said he wants cost savings, too, but "I and my administration fully intend to work with our employees and union partners in a collective fashion."

Likewise, Florida Gov. Rick Scott told a Tallahassee radio station, "As long as people know what they're doing, you know, collective bargaining's fine, but be honest with people, be honest with taxpayers. If you're going to give these benefits to people, whether it's pension benefits or health care benefits, let's all be honest about it."

Nelson Lichtenstein, director of the Center for the Study of Work, Labor and Democracy at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said the scope of the Wisconsin demonstrations seems to have caught Republicans by surprise.

"These guys in other states are equally conservative, but they don't want to create an unnecessary conflict which may prove politically embarrassing," Lichtenstein said.