...seem like the perfect time for the Wisconsin GOP to start pushing a constitutional amendment to remove the recall power from the Wisconsin state constitution?No. See, that's peachy keen until you've got the malfeasing scoundrel from the other team in the governor's mansion, and then what do you do? You'd be in the same position that Bay State inmates found themselves when they stripped the governor's power to appoint senators, only to find they'd foisted the "Kennedy Seat" by their own retard.
Gratuitous politics of the vindictive "Nyah nyah nyah!" sort will come back to bite you in the butt every. Single. Time.
24 comments:
...only to find they'd foisted the "Kennedy Seat" by their own retard.
I see what you did there.
Get rid of the fillabuster that that dastardly other side of the aisle keeps using! WE'D never need... uh... that.
Hmm. I was thinking more along the lines of this:
If you face a recall election and win, it resets the clock on your term in office.
I normally content myself with lurking, but this was worth a voiced agreement. So. Much. This.
Impeachment is fine when the office was clearly abused (e.g. criminal behavior), but isn't so keen for bad performance. When you get a Gov. Grey(out) Davis, it's really nice to have recall power.
But what would changing the law accomplish anyhow? It's not like Walker can be re-recalled prior to the next election. And assuming he wins that election (and isn't VP, which I don't honestly see happening), it'll be that much harder for people to muster up the support for yet another recall petition.
The system worked. It was ugly and inconvenient, but it worked. And after the dust has cleared, those who pressed for recall are in a notably weaker position.
So ... why change?
(Man, I needed that vent.)
Now now Tam. When you're in MA, you just change the rules to suit your whim. I mean, with 90% control of the government by one party, it's not like there's going to be any opposition no matter which way you flop...
Sigh... More of that, if my side does it thats ok, but if the other side did it that would be evil.
I was inclined to agree that Wisconsin needs to ditch this law, but I must say that hooper has convinced me otherwise:
The system worked. It was ugly and inconvenient, but it worked.
I don't live in the state so my opinion does not (and should not) count for anything but I think the recall should go.
There needs to be a system in place to remove the governor if he commits a crime but the idea that immediately after an election, the losing side can collect signatures and get a do-over is a prescription for creating a banana republic.
In the case of Grey Davis, I think there was a good argument that the people of CA should have had to live with their bad decision because stupid should hurt. How else do you learn? Anyway, was Arnold any better? CA is still going over a cliff financially.
The system worked to our advantage this time but it is still a bad system.
I hate getting foist upon my own retard. Does often create the opportunity for a learning experience, though.
Since there have been a grand total of three (didn't fact check this, but it's what I heard on NPR this morning) governor recalls in the United States in the entire history of the nation, I don't think we need to trip over ourselves hurrying to "Do Something! TM" about the "abuse" of the recall system.
The fact is, this recall of Scott Walker was nothing but a good thing for everyone involed. The aggreived got their say, and were told that their grievances were not enough to justify removing Walker from office. Walker's policies were reinforced as being the will of the people of Wisconsin. Walker's allies get a big, fat "nyah nyah" ability that they didn't have before... I can't see how anyone lost here.
Especially the public workers, who were faced with a question of taking some cuts, but still getting something in their retirement, or not taking any cuts and getting nothing once the state went bankrupt, and chose "C", which was not an option, which was that they take no cuts and still get 100% of their pension. Their understandable outrage over the situation lead them to not clearly understand the situation, so they were actually agitating to get nothing, even though they didn't really understand or realize that.
Walker essentially saved their butts, by at least making sure they got SOMETHING. You'd think they'd be thanking him, but they still don't have the clarity of mind to understand the reality here. All they see is a cut to their pension, and they blame Walker for that.
If they want to do something useful with their constitution, they should ban strikes against any government entity in that state, and any collective bargaining by any government entity in that state.
Reminds me of the endless stupidity about the filibuster in the Senate (especially as typified in the Times).
When the Right Team is in the minority, it's a precious part of Senate tradition that prevents the wicked majority from imposing its will without enough of a lead to prove it's worthy.
When the opposite case obtains, it's wicked oppression of the will of the majority - and, new in this last round, "against the spirit of the Constitution" somehow*.
(* Those saying this have evidently never read it, or they'd know it says Congress can set its own rules however the hell it wants.)
The recall has been the best thing to happen to Wisc conservatives evah.
King-radio-host Mark Belling laid it out Hr 1 of his show the day after the election.
Seriously, we now have the name and address of every retard that wanted to recall Walker because they signed their name and address to a public doc. Media signed, closet liberal school board members signed, etc. We have THE List of 900,000 miscreants. Ought to be handy for future elections, eh.
The liberals picked a fight, woke the giant sleeping sheep up [BAAAA-AAAAAHHHHHH], and bankrupted themselves getting their asses kicked all while showing they can be beat in every other state too.
Anonymous, that list would only be marginally effective at rooting them out, since a significant chunk were proven to be falsified or flat out made up.
As for having their names and addresses, that's the kind of bullshit intimidation that union cowards want with card check and the like.
The blowing of their money, however, cracks me up. Now they'll have to openly court Soros and Hollywood to finance their near-future political manipulation.
Anonymous - be a bit careful with the whole "we have their addresses" bit. Sounds a bit threatening to me, and to the hand-wringing lilly-livers on the other side of the debate from you, it will be spun as such without question. I know that if someone on the internets started bragging about having my address and that I needed to act accordingly, I'd be checking to make sure my powder was dry.
I do live in WI. The only change I would like to see is if you want to do a recall, great! Pay for it!
Goober:
They did it to us, so they can lump it.
I would encourage every employer in that state to use said list to vet employees. Stop feeding the Democrat Monkeys.
"Why was the libtard unhappy?
"He couldn't recall..."
This notion--axing recall, to make sure "they" don't use it against "us"--is part of the reason many feel there's little difference between the two branches of the one political party in the US of A today.
Drang, as long as the Stupid Party is still being called "the party of no," there is at least the distinction of one party being toddlers having tantrums for another suck on the bottle of Kool-Aid and the other party attempting to act like responsible adults.
Buzz,
The Stupid Party is only the "Party of No" when the Evil Party is in the big chair. From '01 to '06, they were the party of "OH HELL YES!" to every suggestion that crossed their desks.
To my view, those years are what earned them the "Stupid Party" moniker, along with their associated shift to "the middle."
With construction jobs and tax revenues still rolling in from the subprime bubble, they weren't about to stand up to the fearsome Frank-Dodd-Waters hegemony and shut it down. Like drunken sailors or a kid finding a twenty on the boardwalk, there was going to be some candy eating, inevitable cavities be damned.
And if Mitt gets elected they will go right back to the party of "Oh, hell yes!" I would reather O win and have to fight it out with a Republican controlled House and Senate.
"""And if Mitt gets elected they will go right back to the party of "Oh, hell yes!" I would(sic) reather O win and have to fight it out with a Republican controlled House and Senate."""
As much as I'd like to see this, I don't think it would happen: it's highly unusual for a President to be elected, and not have reps and senators come in on the coat-tails. With Clinton it was a little bit different, because there was a third party candidate when he ran; unfortunately, I don't see a viable third-party candidate doing the same for us this year.
With respect to this post, while it annoys and amuses me at the same time to see Democrats complain about the rules every time it doesn't go their way (one prominant example is Democrats complaining that Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral college one election, and Democrats hoping Kerry would get Ohio, and win the electoral college but not the popular vote the next election). The fact remains, though, that rules are rules, and while a single rule change might create fundamental change, ultimately we know what they are...and ultimately, the people voting are the ones in charge, and if they aren't doing the right things, all the rule-fiddling in the world isn't going to fix the system!
"Ultimately, the people voting are the ones in charge, and if they aren't doing the right things, all the rule-fiddling in the world isn't going to fix the system!"
Having said this, I don't think it hurts to look at the rules every once in a while, and decide dispassionately whether or not one needs to be changed. I'm mostly "meh" when it comes to recall elections, although I'd like to see the repeal of the 17th Amendment.
Recently, I got a mailer from Orin Hatch, who is being challenged by one Dan Liljenquist, that said "OMGZ! Dan wants to take your Senator Vote away!!111!!1" Um, Orin, I don't think this argument is going to work with me. I want to see that happening.
And even if I didn't want to see it, I don't see Dan removing the Direct Election of Senators anytime soon. We have this thing called an "amendment process", and such a proposal isn't likely to get through it...
Post a Comment