405 replies to this topic

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Ursa Majoris, on 8/10/11 3:35am, said:

I think the argument is that what they did once they had power wasn't what they campaigned on.  They were elected to sort out a budget mess but they decided to go union-busting as well.  The GOP may have tried to bite off more than it could chew.  Perhaps bite sized chunks would have been a better strategy.

I understand what you are saying, but I find it non-responsive to the question I raised.  

If you are suggesting that deviation from campaign promises out to cripple incumbants ability to govern we would have an unwholly mess. I don't know of a single candidate in my lifetime who has not done so. That said, in certain moods I have often thought that each candidate should have to take at least three hard positions during the campaign, and no matter what, short of a voted referendum, they should have to stick to those pledges of be automatically impeached.

My question was whether in equity incumbant winners shouldn't have more time to govern since their terms were in a real way truncated.  I know this cannot happen for practical reasons, it was just a discussion point.

[tosberg34]

Ursa Majoris, on 8/9/11 9:35pm, said:

I think the argument is that what they did once they had power wasn't what they campaigned on.  They were elected to sort out a budget mess but they decided to go union-busting as well.  The GOP may have tried to bite off more than it could chew.  Perhaps bite sized chunks would have been a better strategy.

Give me a break.  I find it ridiculous that someone would actually think that because it wasn't mentioned during the campaign it shouldn't be done.  That's lefty-speak for, "we're sore losers so we are going to try and find anything to get the Republicans on".  Spare me.

What did you think, "we need to fix the budget and close this 3.6 BILLION DOLLAR gap" mean?  Seems like that means everything is on the table to solve the problem.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

gbpfan1231, on 8/10/11 3:39am, said:

Where do you see this?  I still see one behind and now one tied never saw three behind??

Plus the Dems have there day coming so they could also lose one or two???

I get my news from Big John.  Until he calls the race the matter is undecided as far as I'm concerned.

[gbpfan1231]

Ditkaless Wonders, on 8/9/11 9:44pm, said:

I get my news from Big John.  Until he calls the race the matter is undecided as far as I'm concerned.

I will stick with refreshing JSOnline.  Thanks though  

[gbpfan1231]

Ursa Majoris, on 8/9/11 9:35pm, said:

I think the argument is that what they did once they had power wasn't what they campaigned on.  They were elected to sort out a budget mess but they decided to go union-busting as well.  The GOP may have tried to bite off more than it could chew.  Perhaps bite sized chunks would have been a better strategy.

Did the 14 Dems campaign on fleeing the state?

Give me a break.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

gbpfan1231, on 8/10/11 3:48am, said:

I will stick with refreshing JSOnline.  Thanks though  

JSOnline has more than just Packer news?  who knew?

[tosberg34]

gbpfan1231, on 8/9/11 9:49pm, said:

Did the 14 Dems campaign on fleeing the state?

Give me a break.

VERY good point.  Why didn't I bring that up in my post.  

[gbpfan1231]

Ursa Majoris, on 8/9/11 9:35pm, said:

I think the argument is that what they did once they had power wasn't what they campaigned on.  They were elected to sort out a budget mess but they decided to go union-busting as well.  The GOP may have tried to bite off more than it could chew.  Perhaps bite sized chunks would have been a better strategy.

I don't recall (pun intended) Obama campaigning on getting downgraded.  RECALL OBAMA!!!!!!!!

[gbpfan1231]

now only one incumbent is behind.

[Ursa Majoris]

gbpfan1231, on 8/9/11 9:39pm, said:

Where do you see this?  I still see one behind and now one tied never saw three behind??

Plus the Dems have there day coming so they could also lose one or two???

Yeah, they've switched again.  Only one GOPhead behind now.

ETA:  And with that, I'm done here.  There seems to be complete unwillingness to do anything other than yah-boo-sucks.

Edited by Ursa Majoris, 09 August 2011 - 09:58 PM.

[gbpfan1231]

I feel like that guy who was posting play by play during the season last year.  

[Azazello1313]

big picture...does anybody really support this kind of development in politics?  as if politics isn't bad enough with them running for re-election every 2, 4 or 6 years, let's make sure they have to run for re-election, well, pretty much at the whim of the astroturfing operations of the opposing party?  

I can only imagine the wailing and handwringing from the left about the horrible ramifications for democracy if they had to deal with national recall elections available to the GOP during the health care debate.  

[Ursa Majoris]

Azazello1313, on 8/9/11 10:04pm, said:

big picture...does anybody really support this kind of development in politics?

No.

I would rather vote the bums out next time around and repeal their crap.

Edited by Ursa Majoris, 09 August 2011 - 10:08 PM.

[gbpfan1231]

Uh oh - one dem declared winner and now the uber liberal Pasch is ahaed.

[gbpfan1231]

Ursa Majoris, on 8/9/11 10:07pm, said:

No.

I would rather vote the bums out next time around and repeal their crap.

Exactly.  Anyone in favor of these recalls is nuts.  These people  should be dealt with in the next election.

[tosberg34]

gbpfan1231, on 8/9/11 10:13pm, said:

Exactly.  Anyone in favor of these recalls is nuts.  These people  should be dealt with in the next election.

And they will be.  I'm sure at least half of the "Fleeing 14" will be gone.  

[Pope Flick]

Azazello1313, on 8/9/11 8:04pm, said:

big picture...does anybody really support this kind of development in politics?  as if politics isn't bad enough with them running for re-election every 2, 4 or 6 years, let's make sure they have to run for re-election, well, pretty much at the whim of the astroturfing operations of the opposing party?  

I can only imagine the wailing and handwringing from the left about the horrible ramifications for democracy if they had to deal with national recall elections available to the GOP during the health care debate.  

Where were you guys when the Republicans organized the recall of Governor Gray Davis?

Oh yeah..

[bpwallace49]

recalls are a big, big deal. There is a large threshold of signatures and procedure to complete.

you have to REALLY, REALLY piss people off enough to take it that far to a full recall.

This isnt like changing your mind about your netflix queue . . . it takes a lot of work to recall an elected official.

I guess that immediately going after collective bargaining, even after fiscal concessions werer all agreed to (right or wrong) pissed enough people off to really go the distance.

[Ursa Majoris]

Pope Flick, on 8/9/11 10:21pm, said:

Where were you guys when the Republicans organized the recall of Governor Gray Davis?

Oh yeah..

That's the one I was trying to think of and couldn't.  Good catch.

:crickets:

[tosberg34]

Pope Flick, on 8/9/11 10:21pm, said:

Where were you guys when the Republicans organized the recall of Governor Gray Davis?

Oh yeah..

Well, I can only speak for myself and say that I was here in WI, not giving two sh@ts about CA.  Maybe someone else cares?

[Azazello1313]

Pope Flick, on 8/9/11 9:21pm, said:

Where were you guys when the Republicans organized the recall of Governor Gray Davis?

Oh yeah..

that was a joke too.  you will certainly not find any posts where I said it was a good idea.  but that's also a dem governor in the bluest state in the country, so the argument that he really was just a terrible executive is a lot stronger.  

in any case, you didn't answer the question.  do you think this is a good development?  as far as I can tell, your answer is "yes because the republicans did it".

[gbpfan1231]

bpwallace49, on 8/9/11 10:29pm, said:

recalls are a big, big deal. There is a large threshold of signatures and procedure to complete.

you have to REALLY, REALLY piss people off enough to take it that far to a full recall.

This isnt like changing your mind about your netflix queue . . . it takes a lot of work to recall an elected official.

I guess that immediately going after collective bargaining, even after fiscal concessions werer all agreed to (right or wrong) pissed enough people off to really go the distance.

I guess I just still don't get it - so you piss off some people and they gather 20k of signatures and you can fire them for basically doing nothing wrong???  Yep I think this process works.

What specifically did these people do wrong?  What bad things have happened with what has been happening?

Don't give the lame excuse of "he did not tell everyone what he was going to do"  - all of the sudden if something happens that was not in your campiagn it is grounds to basically get fired?  Come on - did the Dems campaign on fleeing the state?  No they did not and even for them I don't think they should get recalled.  People can speak their mind at the next general election.

I know you don't agree (you would if it was 6 Dems and 2 repubs).

[Azazello1313]

bpwallace49, on 8/9/11 9:29pm, said:

recalls are a big, big deal. There is a large threshold of signatures and procedure to complete.

you have to REALLY, REALLY piss people off enough to take it that far to a full recall.

This isnt like changing your mind about your netflix queue . . . it takes a lot of work to recall an elected official.

how much outside money has come in behind this effort?

[bpwallace49]

3 for GOP, looks like two for the Democrats with the Dem leading the last race so far.

Split 3 for each side . . . .

The first Dem incumbent won pretty big a few weeks ago, and two more coming up.

[Big John]

Azazello1313, on 8/9/11 11:37pm, said:

but that's also a dem governor in the bluest state in the country,

Vermont?