March 4, 2012
While the Wisconsin State Journal (WSJ) prattles on about its so-called independent agenda, neither the WSJ nor the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has said much about the incredible fundraising opportunity given to Scott Walker because the recall process is now in slow-motion. (Recall targets are permitted to raise as much money as they want until the recall process morphs into an election.) Walker has received 50 donations (legal bribes) over $10,000 and one for $500,000. Democrats are in the same boat, but they have little money available for politics. Big, bad WEAC is hurting and so are AFSCME and SEIU. Add up all the money "big bad labor" could donate to a Democrat and it would not amount to pocket change for the Kochs.
So what's the delay, GAB? Walker says he will not contest a single signature, so what's left before the process is complete? A cynic might conclude that the powers that be are stalling to dissipate the momentum of the million who signed petitions calling for a new governor, and to give more time for Koch-inspired fundraising.
More than 30,000 canvassers stood in the cold on street corners and bus stops, urging people to sign the recall petitions. And they did! Incredible! More than one million people signed! Never before had that happened, and it might never again, particularly if nothing results from that explosion last February. Get the horse out of the barn and saddled up.
The WSJ seems to take in stride the incredible threat that the Koch boys will take over our state while warning that union support for Falk might doom her candidacy.
Be careful of pollsters.
Who is Charles Franklin? He is now described as "a longtime pollster and Marquette University Law School political scientist." Really? He once, not long ago, was engaged with the Bradley Foundation's Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. Then he became a Marquette law school University pollster. Is he paid to be at Marquette?
Recall that the Bradley Foundation's front WPRI entered into a Faustian deal with the University of Wisconsin Political Science Department. UW was to do the polling but WPRI had total control--when to poll, questions to ask, spinning results. And agreeing that Wisconsin's Open Records would not apply. I am not kidding. After Fighting Bob.com made an open records request that was granted by the UW, the profs at UW Poli Sci changed the deal. Polling would no longer be done on UW time or equipment and a new group would be formed with at least one major player, Poli Sci prof Charles Franklin. Franklin then supposedly became a professor at Marquette Law School and his new poll is now the Marquette Law School poll.
Franklin is a go-to source. First he was on sabbatical; then he was on leave, and today's WSJ describes his role: "Charles Franklin, a long-time pollster and Marquette University Law School political scientist."
post a letter about this blog »
It is about time WEAC, AFSCME and SEIU have been controling elections for 40 years and screwing over the tax payer. Now it is time for the tax payers.
-Mark | Slinger WI | March 4, 2012
The semi-literate letter from SW on the previous blog entry, and the boiler plate rightist talking point letter from Mark on this one, are consistent with the pattern of compensated commentary paid for by ultra-right sources. This was discussed and exposed on a couple of radio programs a year or two ago. Although I don't recall the details, the gist of it was that people who were willing to call talk shows, or post comments to blogs, could be well paid for it if they agreed to repeat the active ultra-right talking points of the moment.
I suggest that FightingBob.com is under no obligation to help such depraved trolls enrich themselves. You have discretion not to publish letters. I suggest that when letters come in from the likes of "SW" and "Mark," especially when they are the very first to be received, and you post them on the blog, you are indirectly subsidizing these wankers.
While I don't advocate refusing to print their opinions, I think it would be a sensible policy to strip them of the comfort of internet anonymity. Let's see who these wingnuts are. I could never understand why the internet is a place where all kinds of abuse and invective and slander can can be spouted with utter impunity.
When I send a comment or a letter on-line, I sign it with my real name, just as I used to do when writing to the newspapers. And those who are old enough may recall that the Capital Times used to print not just the names of newspaper letter writers, but also their complete street addresses.
Or, just to show who's in charge, you could require disclosure of real names from the hecklers and trolls, while still continuing to let "friendlies" use nicknames or pseudonyms. That would be fine with me, as a concession to the not-unfounded paranoia of the times.
Yet I can't shake the thought that using one's own name is one of the best--and easily the simplest--of the ways to show the strength and sincerity of one's beliefs. It can also help others to gain the courage to stand up and speak out. Does anyone recall "the only thing we have to fear?"
-Oliver Steinberg | St. Paul, MN | March 4, 2012