View Full Version : Republicans Are Imploding in Wisconsin

03-16-2012, 08:56 PM
Republicans Are Imploding in Wisconsin
Class Warfare Exists (It's only class warfare when you fight back.) (http://www.classwarfareexists.com/republicans-are-imploding-in-wisconsin/)

There are five Republicans up for recall in Wisconsin on June 5th; make that four – one of them just resigned. Having already seen two Republican state Senators recalled last year by the people of Wisconsin – state Senator Pam Galloway has decided to resign her position for what she is characterizing as “sudden health problems” in her family. This decision has repercussions – the Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel reports :

Galloway’s resignation will cause the Republicans to lose their Senate majority. Republicans would hold 16 seats and Democrats would hold 16 seats. It marks a dramatic change from a year ago, when Republicans held a commanding 19-14 majority in the Senate. It was narrowed to 17-16 in August when Democrats gained two seats in recall elections.

The new, 16-16 split will be brief, and one side or the other should take control in May or June, when recall elections are expected to be held for state senators. Control of the Senate will again be up for grabs in November, when half the senators will be up for election.

Of course – just six days ago – tens of thousands protested on the Wisconsin capital to show that the anger and animosity towards Governor Walker and the Republicans who supported his extreme agenda was not gone. A recent poll from PPP (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_WI_030112.pdf) – showed that President Obama had a commanding lead in Wisconsin over Mitt Romney – 53 – 39. In 2004 – Wisconsin had the smallest margin of victory in all of the states in the U.S. when John Kerry barely beat George W. Bush.


Newly revised jobs figures show Wisconsin with the biggest decline in total jobs in the US over the past 12 months. Bureau of Labor Statistics--Jobs Report (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.t05.htm)

Gov. Scott Walker To Use Foreclosure Settlement Money To Balance His Budget, Not Help Homeowners
By Pat Garofalo on Feb 10, 2012 at 10:45 am
Think Progressive (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/10/422744/walker-settlement-budget/)

PolitiFact: Scott Walker Enacted "the biggest cuts to education in state's history" Politi Fact (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/feb/19/kathleen-falk/recall-candidate-kathleen-falk-says-governor-scott/)

Brian Williams challenging Governor Walker for his education cuts and forcing him to defend his position. This is the sound of Walker realizing his talking points aren’t working: YouTube (http://youtu.be/awd1xoAe-Mc)

Wisconsin ranks 46th in job growth (courtesy of Philadelphia Fed) Fed Data (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Av9MH4ivi9Q3dFdpVVFzeUpMVE5uRWwyTk1BZU5OW mc#gid=0)

03-17-2012, 10:53 AM
Must admit, it's happening to a well deserving party up there, whatever else may be said.

Note to the Koch bros: place your puppet governors in states without recall provisions, for longer lasting puppeteering.

If your puppet governor lasts for 4 years, seek immediate political professional advice.

03-17-2012, 02:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When you make sweeping, generalized, and untrue statements like "That was done to Bush and you guys cheered" you are wrong. Some people did, some didn't.
</div></div>Kind of tough having a war if someone isn't fighting back don't you think?

With the boycott of Rush being a great example of capitalism at work, I also agree that these recalls are a great example of our Republic at work. If the people feel they made the wrong decision and are having buyers remorse then this is how you should go about business. A bad example would be throwing an Occupy party and rape people or piss on cop cars.


03-17-2012, 04:06 PM
If municipal councils kan die, then states kan die.
If states kan die, then the usofa kan die.
Death iz good. Its the american way.

Krappynomicysts are a bit like Dr Kevorkian, except that Kevorkian and hiz patients agreed, whilst the usofa duzzen even suspekt.
Mutant Catholics are kumming. Jesus better kum quick.

03-18-2012, 05:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With the boycott of Rush being a great example of capitalism at work, </div></div>.

How did you work that out?

Tell me how Capitalism forced sponsors to abandon Limbaugh, despite the fact that he reaches a huge audience?

When Limpdick crossed the line and slandered a private citizen just because he didn't agree with her, did the sponsors say,

"WOW, this is too much? We need to drop this guy?"


It was only when PEOPLE spoke up that they changed their mind.

What you just witnessed is something that the internet has done. Its given everybody a voice.

The power of the individual/collective voice was what caused sponsors to drop Limpdick, not Capitalism.


03-18-2012, 12:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How did you work that out?

Tell me how Capitalism forced sponsors to abandon Limbaugh, </div></div>Well we knew you were a mental midget, it just took some time for you to catch on and figure it out yourself. Capitalism and advertising sales go hand in hand. If the advertiser does not want their product associated with Rush after his inflammatory remarks they remove their advertising dollars. They are doing this for the simple fact that they feel this relationship will be tarnished in the view of their customers who may choose with their wallets to boycott any company that chooses to continue to partner with Rush. The company decides they don't want to lose this business so in the interest of their own shareholders they decide to break this relationship with Rush and hold back their advertising dollars.

From here on out, it is best that you leave the "thinking" up to those you quote.


03-18-2012, 06:34 PM
I think you are both right. Yes, it was a business decision (capitalism), but it was also one taken in response to pressure from social media campaigns and boycotts.

That is also why many of the advertisers cloaked their withdrawal of advertising as a "suspension" of advertising. It makes it more palatable for that segment of the public that supports Limbaugh. And it gives the advertisers the flexibility to resume advertising when, and if, Rush decides to tone down some of the more offensive commentary.

03-18-2012, 09:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is also why many of the advertisers cloaked their withdrawal of advertising as a "suspension" of advertising.</div></div>I have not caught on to this type of wording, "suspension" but then again I might have blown over it. You are right it does make it more palatable for the public that supports Limbaugh but then again isn't that just another capitalistic approach? They are trying to save their hide by appealing to everyone. The only reason is the bottom dollar. None of this has anything to do with politics or "democracy" as qtip is saying. It all rests on money and mitigating whatever fallout there might be due to this association.