The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Koch Whore: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=24600)

classicman 02-23-2011 05:21 PM

Koch Whore: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker
 



classicman 02-23-2011 05:25 PM

Quote:

According to Wisconsin state senator Tim Carpenter (D), Governor Scott Walker “will not talk, will not communicate, will not return phone calls.” That gave one liberal blogger an idea: “Who could get through to Gov. Walker? Well, what do we know about Walker and his proposed union-busting, no-bid budget? The obvious candidate was David Koch”–whose PAC donated about forty grand to Walker’s campaign, and who personally gave a million to the Republican Governors Association. So, posing as Koch, the blogger phoned the governor’s office, got through, had a twenty-minute conversation with Walker–and recorded the whole thing.
Quote:

Highlights:

Walker and his allies plan to pass a rule holding that if state senators don’t show up for two consecutive days when the senate is in session, the chief clerk will block direct deposit and force senators to pick up their checks in person. The clerk plans to have the checks locked in the desks of legislators on the floor of the senate. “Beautiful,” replies faux-Koch.

The governor is investigating whether the unions are paying to put up the fourteen Democratic senators who have left Wisconsin, which might constitute an ethics-code violation “and may very well be a felony.” Misunderstanding the governor’s point, faux-Koch responds: “They’re probably putting hobos in suits. That’s what we do.”

“The other thing,” Walker says, “is I’ve got layoff notices ready. We put out the at-risk notices. We’ll announce Thursday, and they’ll go out early next week, and probably about five to six thousand state workers will get at-risk notices for layoffs. We might ratchet that up a bit too.” To which faux-Kock says: “Beautiful, beautiful. Gotta crush that union.”

Walker remains unfazed, going on to describe his plan to lure the fourteen Dems back to Wisconsin. While promising faux-Koch he won’t “cave,” Walker says he’s going to tell the Democrats he’s willing to sit down and “talk, not negotiate”–but only if all fourteen Democrats ”come back and sit down in the state assembly.” They “can recess it…but they’ll have to be back there.” Why? “We’re verifying it…but legally, we believe, once they have gone into session they don’t physically have to be there. If they’re actually in session for that day and they take a recess, nineteen senate Republicans could then go into action and they’d have a quorum because they started out that way.”

Walker reassures faux-Koch: “If you heard that I was gonna talk to them, that would be the only reason why…. Hell, I’ll talk to them. If they want to yell at me for an hour, I’m used to that. But I’m not negotiating–”

Faux-Koch: “–Bring a baseball bat. That’s what I’d do.”

Walker: “I have one in my office. You’d be happy with that. I’ve got a Slugger with my name on it.”

Faux-Koch: “Beautiful.”

Later, faux-Koch suggests they plant “trouble-makers” among the protesters, and Walker counsels against it–but not before admitting that “we thought about that.”

Near the end of the call, Walker shares a touching moment just before “we dropped the bomb.” Earlier this month, the governor and his cabinet were dining at his residence. Walker produced a photo of Ronald Reagan, explaining that the late president “had one of the most defining moments of his political career…when he fired the air-traffic controllers. To me that moment…was the first crack in the Berlin Wall and the fall of Communism. Because from that point forward, the Soviets and the Communists knew that Ronald Reagan wasn’t a pushover.”

“Well, I tell you what, Scott, once you crush these bastards, I’ll fly you out to Cali and really show you a good time,” faux-Koch replies.

“That would be outstanding,” Walker says. “We’re doing the just and right thing for the right reasons and it’s all about getting our freedoms back.”

Link

smoothmoniker 02-23-2011 09:52 PM

Ah, but union political contributions ... those are as pure as the driven snow, right?

Do you really think a conversation between the union bosses and the dem representatives would be much different?

classicman 02-23-2011 10:13 PM

Not at all smooth. I'd love for them all to be recorded and played publicly.

Uday 02-24-2011 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker (Post 713080)
Ah, but union political contributions ... those are as pure as the driven snow, right?

Do you really think a conversation between the union bosses and the dem representatives would be much different?

Is this that thing I hear about, "moral relativism"?

piercehawkeye45 02-24-2011 11:44 AM

This is issue is just stupid. I've listened to both sides and have come to the conclusion that if everyone just stopped yelling and attacking each other they will realize that they could easily come to an agreement.

All the teachers I've talked too said they are willing to give up pay and benefits as long as they keep collective bargaining. Maybe I've missed something but I thought republicans were (more or less) for less government spending and less government control (getting rid of collective bargaining gives the government more control). Both sides seem too busy convinced the other is out to screw them over to listen to each other.

Scott Walker, and others, are just trying to make a statement by holding their ground and Wisconsin education will suffer.

smoothmoniker 02-24-2011 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uday (Post 713137)
Is this that thing I hear about, "moral relativism"?

Nope. It's that thing you hear about, "Hypocrisy".

Happy Monkey 02-24-2011 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 (Post 713148)
Maybe I've missed something but I thought republicans were (more or less) for less government spending and less government control (getting rid of collective bargaining gives the government more control).

They are more against unions than they are against "government control". And they aren't against "government control", they are against Democrats. Unions tend to support Democrats, except for police and firefighters, which he exempted. But they recognized that union-busting damages them, even if not (for now) aimed at them, so they're supporting the protests.

smoothmoniker 02-24-2011 06:46 PM

The unions made themselves political. Now, they're fair game for politics.

tw 02-24-2011 11:46 PM

This Wisconcin Governor wants to destroy all unions except three. Exempt from his bills are three unions who endorsed him for Governor. This is not what an honest leader does. This is a classic example of self serving corruption by the Governor.

His bills are examples of a politican working for a poltiical agenda and his own glory. Not working for his state and citizens.

If he really wanted to after the problem, then previous politicians who gave away the state would be forced to pay for all their mismanagement. And put before the national press to apologize for being so corrupt. We don't hold the actual criminals to task. Because spread sheets are only reporting ten years later what those previous governors and WI State Congressmen did.

kerosene 02-25-2011 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 713237)

His bills are examples of a politican working for a poltiical agenda and his own glory. Not working for his state and citizens.

And this is something new?

Uday 02-25-2011 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker (Post 713150)
Nope. It's that thing you hear about, "Hypocrisy".

Classicman is a union supporter?

As your friend Uday understand it, moral relativism is define as:

"moral relativism is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments is not objective."

So is okay or not so bad for Governor Walker to be a crook, because unions are also crook. So it is a matter of what side you are on, not anything to do with principles?

smoothmoniker 02-25-2011 05:51 PM

Nope, both are wrong. It's hypocrisy to only point out the wrongness of the other side.

Uday 02-25-2011 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker (Post 713346)
Nope, both are wrong. It's hypocrisy to only point out the wrongness of the other side.

So is morally wrong to talk about one person without mandatory equal time for others?

ZenGum 02-25-2011 08:53 PM

KOCH!


Jim, where are you?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:22 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.