The Standoff in Wisconsin is Over . . .

by Pejman Yousefzadeh on March 10, 2011

And it’s about time.

I have no problem whatsoever endorsing the actions of the Wisconsin Senate Republicans. Just because Democrats didn’t feel like showing up to vote on the issues of the day does not mean that Republicans ought to indulge the other side in their desire to shut down the government. The standoff has gone on long enough, and barring the implementation of extraordinary measures, it would not have ended anytime soon.

There is some talk about how the vote may have been illegal. If it was, then Democrats can show up to the Senate, make their case that the vote was illegal, and a re-vote can be held–this time, with the fiscal provisions included in the bill. Yes, the Republicans will win the vote rather easily, but elections have consequences–as Democrats remind us whenever they are the ones who win elections.

  • Dperl99

    “The standoff has gone on long enough, and barring the implementation of extraordinary measures, it would not have ended anytime soon.”

    Bull^&%t

    The republicans could have taken the major financial concessions the union made, shelved the roll-back of collective bargaining and moved on (as large majorities of Wisconsinites seem to have wanted). But if course that would not have accomplished the goal, quite clearly stated yesterday, of making it harder for Obama to win Wisconsin in 2012 and busting the unions.

    You can support the bill and rolling back collective bargaining rights of public unions if you want, but to somehow claim that this was the only way out of the standoff is absurd.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Axel-Kaspar-Edgren/635450085 Axel Kaspar Edgren

    I think democrats leaving for Illinois and Walker splitting the bill are two equally “fair” decisions. It’s not illegal, just against “the rules”. He won this one and I can’t hold it against him.

    Of course, I dearly hope the democrats and unions do everything to get the kind of revenge that leaves Walker and his vile supporters regretting this victory for the rest of their lives.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Axel-Kaspar-Edgren/635450085 Axel Kaspar Edgren

    I think democrats leaving for Illinois and Walker splitting the bill are two equally “fair” decisions. It’s not illegal, just against “the rules”. He won this one and I can’t hold it against him.

    Of course, I dearly hope the democrats and unions do everything to get the kind of revenge that leaves Walker and his vile supporters regretting this victory for the rest of their lives.

    • Pejman Yousefzadeh

      See, it’s stuff like “vile” on this comment, and “cowardly” on another, that got you banned.

  • Jeffry House

    The Bill which passed reduces the power of public sector labour unions which endorsed Democrats. Significantly, it omits police and firemens unions from this
    reduction. These are both groups which supported the Walker/Republican campaign.

    Translation: There is no principle at work other than using electoral victory to hurt your opponents. It would be bad enough if Walker had campaigned on this
    platform and won. It is utterly undemocratic that he kept this provision secret from the voters until they were unable to reject it.

    • Pejman Yousefzadeh

      The Bill which passed reduces the power of public sector labour unions which endorsed Democrats. Significantly, it omits police and firemens unions from this reduction. These are both groups which supported the Walker/Republican campaign.

      Total hogwash.

    • Pejman Yousefzadeh

      The Bill which passed reduces the power of public sector labour unions which endorsed Democrats. Significantly, it omits police and firemens unions from this reduction. These are both groups which supported the Walker/Republican campaign.

      Total hogwash.

  • Phil Hart

    “Elections have consequences.” That would be a fair point if Walker had campaigned on his union-busting plan, which was the heart of the standoff. But he did not.

    http://politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/22/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-he-campaigned-his-/

  • Phil Hart

    “Elections have consequences.” That would be a fair point if Walker had campaigned on his union-busting plan, which was the heart of the standoff. But he did not.

    http://politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/22/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-he-campaigned-his-/

    • Pejman Yousefzadeh
    • Pejman Yousefzadeh
  • Anonymous

    “elections have consequences”

    So do recall elections.

    • Pejman Yousefzadeh

      Knock yourselves out.

  • Anonymous

    That’s funny. Had Democrats done anything in such a manner during President Obama’s first two years in office, you would be screaming bloody murder.

    What is it that you call someone like that? Hypo….hypo….hyposomething.

    • Anonymous

      Do we know each other? If not, in what parallel universe are you qualified to tell me how I might behave in a hypothetical situation?

Previous post:

Next post: