On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > As Matt Rothschild noted at the beginning of this thread, many people > saw recalls as inappropriate unless Walker [no relation to the > Sandwichman] actually had been caught committing malfeasance.
Funny you should say that. Actually Walker is facing charges of criminal misconduct. Didn't seem to make any difference. http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/05/30/492317/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-transfers-160000-in-campaign-contributions-to-mysterious-legal-defense-fund/?mobile=nc > Of course, the killer is that the pro-Walker forces has much more power > (i.e., money) and it seems a better strategy. > No matter what people are voting for or against, money and strategy can and > do play a major role. Yeah, money and power matter. But they have their limits. No amount of money and power can keep genuinely unpopular figure in power. Ask M. Qaddafi or H. Mubarak. The fact is - and this is a bitter fact to accept - Scott Walker really is popular and really does enjoy broad public support. The public really does like the unions less than they like the Koch brothers. And it is not all because of propaganda. See Doug's article. >> When asked to choose between two sides one representing public unions >> and the other representing corporate interests, the people of >> Wisconsin chose the corporate interests. > > For the vast majority of voters, the choice wasn't stated this way. > Maybe "objectively" it was so, but "subjectively" it was not. Sorry I don't buy this. Of course, this recall election was presented in exactly this way and everyone understood that this election was exactly a referendum on exactly this point. -raghu. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
