AWOL Dems Need To Be Remembered In Next Election
by Big Dog on Mar 4, 2011 at 16:20 Political
Elections have consequences as we have all been reminded since Obama was immaculated. The Obama, Pelosi, Reid cartel was fond of throwing its weight around and supporters agreed with what they did because, as they told us, elections have consequences. Obama told GOP leaders that he “won” which was his way of saying that is why things had to be done the way he wanted and why the opposition really did not have a seat at the table.
Well, elections do have consequences and the country has been seeing them unfold under the Obama regime. The November 2010 elections were the result of those consequences and the new set of consequences is that Republicans made huge gains at the federal and state level and now things are going to be done the way they want.
But Democrats, who told us about elections having consequences (you know, sit down and shut up), are not taking kindly to what happened. In a handful of states Democrats are fleeing in order to avoid the consequences of having lost. They do not want certain legislation to pass so they are abandoning the jobs they were elected to do in order to thwart the will of the people. As a Maryland Republican put it (when referring to a MD Democrat who was absent over a bill most Democrats support):
“As Republicans in Maryland, we get beat up on constantly. The trick is to be smarter, work harder and find ways to achieve as many victories as you can. But you can’t just leave because you’re not going to win.” Washington Post
You can’t just leave because you are not going to win. Suppose the federal politicians were able to walk out to keep votes from happening. Can you imagine how Democrats would have acted if it happened during the vote for Obamacare?
Elections have consequences and so do actions. The actions of Democrats led to their historic defeat in 2010. And now the actions of Democrat lawmakers who have gone AWOL should cause them to lose their jobs in the next election (if not sooner).
These people should not be paid and any privileges they have as lawmakers should be revoked.
And when they return they should be apprehended.
Most importantly, they should be fired in the next election.
As an aside, I find it interesting that Democrats called House Republicans in Wisconsin cowards after a vote on a bill. What does that make the Senators who fled to avoid their duties? To Democrats they are heroes.
Go figure.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never sublit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: awol, cowards, Democrats, lies, Obama, wisconsin
Ah, if only.
Of course, I would be willing to bet that almost all of the districts of those Democrats are 100% gerrymandered to ensure they will remain Democrat — and the supporters of those Democrats are quite happy with their actions. I predict not a one will be voted out at the next election.
The truth is Walker’s actions have made the GOP even more unpopular there so I doubt it’s going to cause them much pain at the polls next time around. The people love their unions, what else is there to say?
Frankly I’m surprised you aren’t cheering and cheering the fact that no business is being taken care of. I thought you guys liked it when government shut down and didn’t function. Or is it just disappointing that Walker is having so much opposition to his union busting?
–“All the historical arguments we’re hearing in support of unions – every last one of them – are related to the relationship between labor management in the private sector. Not the relationship between well-paid government workers and THEIR employer – which is YOU the tax-payer.”
–“Government unions negotiate with politicians over taxpayer money, putting the public interest at odds with union interests and, as we’ve seen in states such as California and Wisconsin, exploding the cost of government.”
–“Unions such as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the National Education Association (NEA) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) give hundreds of millions of dollars to Democrats — some $171 million in 2010 alone. They give almost nothing to Republicans.”
–“the people of Wisconsin – as well as most of the people in America – just voted for people who would take on the unions. In some cases, the candidates in question (like Scott Walker) were crystal clear about this during their campaigns. They were voted in to do this job for the taxpayers – but the media can’t wrap its pretty little head around that fact.”
–But leave it to Democrats to turn this into a complete circus and attempt to play the victim and make everyone else out to be victims.
Has this escaped you–Adam?
Elections have consequences and so do actions.
One would think so… but they don’t.
Our patriarchs gave us the tools to keep good government by removing those who demonstrate poor character, a lack of integrity and bad behaviour.
Unfortunately, for us, our representatives are inflicted with the same flaws and refuse to utilize those tools for fear that they will be next.
This is funny because the majority of people polled agree with Walker. The people who pay the taxes agree with Walker. The only people who do not are union members and they are over sampled in polls.
Make no mistake, the people who pay the bills like it. Public sector unions need to be busted. As a taxpayer I demand the right to directly negotiate with public employee unions or I demand the right to collectively bargain with government over which (if any) taxes I will pay.
Let’s see the polls you’re talking about.
Here are two for you to start with: One, Two.
If you have evidence that unions are over sampled in those two Rasmussen polls then show it. I’m half way expecting you to rail on Rasmussen’s liberal bias and lack of credibility. You throw a lot of sources on the trash heap just because it contradicts your world view.
No, I do not discount grpups that disagree with me. I discount the ones that have shown by deed that they ignore things unfavorable to Democrats. I have pointed them out before but YOU ignore the evidence because you like what they say.
Your poll shows:
“In addition to the usual partisan and demographic breakdowns, it’s interesting to note that Walker, now engaged in a budget battle with unionized state workers, receives a total approval rating of 46% from households with private sector union members. However, among households with a public sector union member, only 19% offer their approval. Among all other households in the state, opinion is nearly evenly divided—49% favorable and 51% unfavorable. ”
The rating goes down for houses with school aged children but let’s face it, teachers had them walking in the protests.
The poll shows one thing, the divide is partisan. Republicans strongly approve and Democrats strongly disapprove.
When private and public union households are removed the poll is evenly divided at 49-51. That just about compares with the percentage of people people who pay taxes vs those who do not.
Interesting eh? Those who pay the bills oppose and those who sponge do not.
I think Walker is doing quite well considering nearly all the protesters were bused in and all the money unions are spending to demonize him. They need to spend their money on the teachers instead…
Typical liberals, they want everyone to pay for them. Screw you unions. From now on we the people who pay your salaries want to bargain with you directly.
I’m still failing to see how a majority of people polled agree with Walker or that unions were oversampled.
“Interesting eh? Those who pay the bills oppose and those who sponge do not.”
The only thing interesting is your logic. You cannot simply argue that since the breakdown percentage is the same as those who pay income taxes and those who do not then it is those who pay income taxes that like what Walker is doing and those who don’t who dislike him. Nice try though.
I think it is you who cannot understand. I never said the breakdown of one was the same group as the other. I only stated that the breakdown percentages were nearly the same and that it was interesting. I then indictated that the people who support Walker are the ones paying the bills and the people who don’t support are not paying the bills.
The absolute breakdown is even, all other groups depends on what group you ask. You are asking me to show you oversampling on a poll that is even. The polls that have shown huge support for unions have been oversampled. You can’t take a poll you want that does not show anything and ask me to show oversampling from the poll that does not show the results in question.
Get it? This is why you fail to see.
“I never said the breakdown of one was the same group as the other.”
…
“I then indicated that the people who support Walker are the ones paying the bills and the people who don’t support are not paying the bills.”
You don’t see the conflict there? You’re arguing you never suggested the groups are the same but then turning around for a second time and saying they are the same group. How else are you concluding those who support walker are those that “pay the bills” and those who don’t are those who “sponge” anyway?
“You can’t take a poll you want that does not show anything and ask me to show oversampling from the poll that does not show the results in question.”
Except that I’m showing you where a majority of folks do not support Walker and where you yourself have suggested unions are not oversampled. But I’m not surprised. You think when there are more Democrats than Republicans in a poll then the Democrats are “oversampled.”
How can you say a majority do not support him when the split is even?
And once again, this is not a poll that shows that a majority is against him. The poll that came to that conclusion oversampled those who reported to be in a union by about 2:1
How can I say a majority? Because I don’t throw union members out of the sample group. You could throw out any demographic from a poll to find the numbers you want to see.
You agreed that Rasmussen didn’t oversample union members so why throw them out except for the fact that it proves your statements are false?
The truth according to the two Rasmussen polls: A majority of Wisconsin voters disapprove of Walker’s job (57% to 43%) and a majority oppose weakening weakening collective bargaining (52% to 39%). There is no split there.
Or maybe next time we talk about support for the health care bill you’ll let me get away with throwing out all the Republicans.
I did not throw anyone out of the poll. The overall polling shows an even split.
As I stated before and you are obviously too dense to comprehend, I did not say anything about the Rasmussen poll. I said that polls that showed overwhelming opposition to Walker were oversampling union members. THEN, you brought in this poll. I never said anything about it, you brought it in.
And I don’t know the split because you have to pay to get all that information.
Then I must make the point that you have no presented your polls to make your case. I have presented polls to make mine. Let’s have it.
But let me make it very clear so you can understand, I do not care if the polls show that 100% of the people oppose what he is doing, he won and that is all that matters.
He won the election and he gets to do it his way no matter what.
Just ask your lord and savior Obama.
Walker won and he is doing exactly what he ran on and it does not matter who likes it.
Once again, it is a matter of politics. Walker said what he would do when running and now he is doing that. The people who voted for him support that and that is all that matters.
“Among those who voted for Walker last November, 77% approve of his performance, with 67% who Strongly Approve. As for those who voted for his Democratic opponent, Tom Barrett, 93% disapprove of how Walker is governing, including 88% who Strongly Disapprove. ”
The people who disapprove did not vote for him, shocker.
And whenever we discuss Obamacare you always spin it. The bill has not been favored since it was introduced and it still has high disapproval. If you think opinion polling is a reason for Walker to stop then you should demand repeal of Obamacare.
But you will find a way to spin it (note to Adam, whenever the law did well, Democrats were oversampled).
I don’t believe Walker campaigned on this plan as he has said and you are repeating. I do think though that we should expect that when you elect a Republican then you are electing a pathetic pro-business anti-worker conservative that masks his or her mentality behind a guise of concern for deficits and moral values. I hope Walker fails but in general this should be a wake up call to the state to throw this bum out.
“when you elect a Republican then you are electing a pathetic pro-business anti-worker conservative”–
You and every other Dem just don’t get it–and probably never will–when you are pro business–you are also pro-worker and you are also pro-consumer.
“You and every other Dem just don’t get it–and probably never will–when you are pro business–you are also pro-worker and you are also pro-consumer.”
What I don’t get is how you can be that naive, Victoria. Your side lives in a fantasy world where you think that if left alone the market would create large companies that would protect workers’ rights, protect consumers, and protect the environment. The bad companies that pollute, have crap working conditions or produce products that poison or kill our families would all go out of business. I’m not even sure naive is the right word for such lunacy.
The reality is that big business generally cares about profits and nothing else. The problem is big business has become such a large part of the conservative movement in America that you can no longer tell the difference between lobbyist spin and actual reality. Every politician and pundit and wonk feeds you the same nonsense over and over.
I may agree that overall big business worries about the dollar and nothing else but I would argue that consumers are what makes or breaks a market. The market is controlled by supply and demand and the consumers are the ones making choices of which items are in demand and which are not. Those that poison or kill families with their products or have nasty working conditions (probably most of which are in other countries importing such goods to ours because they can get away with that crap without an EPA hanging on their every deed – but I digress) would likely go out of business or have to change their ways in order to be successful in a consumer-driven market.
I cannot believe that someone who thinks that health care is a right and “entitlements” are a good thing can accuse anyone else of living in a fantasy world. That is the pot calling the kettle. A fantasy world is where everything you could want or need is provided to you — free of charge no less — by the almighty government and those “nasty” businesses and working souls who pay all the taxes are keeping everyone else down…blah, blah, ad nauseam.
I think all these people – teachers and politicians – need to get back to work and understand that it is time for a change in the way these unions are doing business and their monopoly on our money and their back-door BS needs to end. Every day this crap goes on wastes more of our money that they do not deserve. Argue on the points if you must but I feel like it is time to make some serious CHANGE in the way this kind of stuff is handled. Start firing people, fining people, cutting off services — whatever they can to get back to the point that the state is broke and things are going to have to change if they want to continue working. Maybe they should not change their benefits and fire 40% of the teachers to pay for the other 60%. That way everyone wins, right? NOT!
“A fantasy world is where everything you could want or need is provided to you — free of charge no less — by the almighty government and those “nasty” businesses and working souls who pay all the taxes are keeping everyone else down…blah, blah, ad nauseam.”
I’m not sure I’ve ever met a person that wanted everything we need provided by the government and funded by our tax dollars. Healthcare? Yes. Education? Yes. Environmental protection? Yes. Consumer protection? Yes. Even Thomas Paine argued for tax dollars to be used for the common good.
I don’t hate business by any means either. Business is good. I run my own business. That’s America. I just don’t fall in line with folks who believe that business has the interest of the workers or consumers in mind and that removing market restrictions will let the consumers decide who rises and who falls in industry.
I’d rather not have to say “Uh oh, my young child has been poisoned by Salmonella! Boycott Skippy! I hope enough of us busy, busy folks get together somehow and shut down that toxic company! Power to the free market!”
I feel it’s much more feasible to vote in elections a couple of times every few years and elect individuals who head agencies like the FDA that help make sure Unilever does the right thing and the recall goes forward without haste.
“I think all these people – teachers and politicians – need to get back to work and understand that it is time for a change in the way these unions are doing business and their monopoly on our money and their back-door BS needs to end.”
I understand a certain level of anti-union sentiment. We’re not a developing nation anymore where organized labor is absolutely necessary to protect workers rights. But pretending unions are to blame for budget shortfalls or that what Gov Walker wants to do will even put a dent in any deficit is a joke. This is why it stinks of union busting and everyone that isn’t rabidly anti-union sees that.
I’m not anti-union, I’m anti BS. I think unions, particularly in this case, are not necessary and really waste valuable time and money. Teachers should not have a union – they should certainly be smart enough to bargain and negotiate contracts and terms for themselves. End of story.
If you’ve never met anyone who wants everything provided for them by the government, perhaps you should have looked more closely. I remember during the last presidential election a woman declaring that she was not going to have to worry about her mortgage or food or putting gas in her care because Obama would take care of it.
It is not the government’s job to provide for our health care. It is an individual’s job to provide for their own health care just like they should provide for their own food, shelter, etc. These are not the unalienable rights that were bestowed upon us by our Creator. If you want that stuff it’s up to you to get it. If you (and anyone like you) feels that people deserve health care, then you are free to take YOUR OWN money and provide the same for those souls living without it. You have that right. It’s your money. The government does not have the right and should not even try to take my money to provide this service to another person. Completely outrageous.
The government agencies do not prevent Salmonella from getting in your Skippy. If they did, there would be no need for recall because it wouldn’t happen in the first place. The FDA, Dept of Ag, Dept of Education, EPA, and most other ridiculous agencies do not do what they are intended to do and what they do they do not do well. As you see, we still have E-coli outbreaks even with the FDA up everyone’s butt. The Dept of Education sucks up money for administrative costs that should be going to our schools and to educating our children (even though I don’t personally think education should be publicly funded). Where is the outrage in that waste? Why do kids have to bring with them the supplies that should be provided to them by the school by way of our tax dollars? It’s out of control spending and waste on things that don’t matter and no thought about what does.
“FDA that help make sure Unilever does the right thing and the recall goes forward without haste.”
Boy you are living in a fantasy world!!!!!
I guess I’m not seeing the error in that sentence. Enlighten me.
Yes, with the government looking it over we would not have lax oversight at oil rigs, oh wait. And with the FDA and Ag dept’s we would have no foodborne illnesses, oh wait…
Salmonella in peanuts, mad cow disease, tainted fruit, those depts are on the ball, are they not?
Come with me, Big Dog, on a journey. A journey into the mind of a liberal…
Yes, there are oil rig disasters. Yes, there are illnesses from food. That just goes to show the need for even MORE government! If we spend just a little more on those departments, there will be no more illness or disease! And after all, just think about how much WORSE it would be if those departments didn’t exist. Why, without the FDA, these illnesses would be a LOT worse.
I am with you Ogre. I can see it, all we need to do is spend more money and we can eliminate poverty. We have spent 12 Trillion dollars, see how that has worked…
I guess we need to spend a little more.
“Why, without the FDA, these illnesses would be a LOT worse.”
And that is wrong how?
Yes, and gun laws have not stopped 100% of gun crimes so they’re useless too, right? I say that sarcastically myself but I do I know you believe that and you say it with a straight face.
The big business that is so much a part of the Republican party gave a lot of money to Democrats. Sort of like Wall Street…
Where is Michael Moore on this one?
Yes, all but one gun law is useless. The only law we need is the one that says if you use a gun illegally (as in committing crime) you go to jail.
All others are worthless and a waste of money.
The without the FDA sentence you used was a sarcastic remark. How exactly would it be worse without the FDA? They approve drugs that cause problems and then have no liability in the issue. If they approve them then that agency should be culpable.
And do we know it would be worse without the FDA? How did we survive before them?
Many didn’t survive without the FDA. That was the point. You won’t find a perfect government entity but the FDA doesn’t pretend to be anyway. If you really have to ask yourself would we be better or worse without the FDA then you aren’t thinking hard enough and you need to brush up on the history of food and drugs before the early 1900s.
I know a lot about the drug aspect and I know we have a department of agriculture. We do not need one of them.
The FDA needs to be held accountable for its mistakes.
And we we had problems back then for many reasons and not the lack of an FDA