Walker now defends Protesters, but backs "Ann Coulter Bill" Punishing Free Speech on UW Campuses

Not many Governors have a calm, detached sociopathic speaking style like Scott Walker, thank god. And while he demands that same low key communication style from his most vociferous opponents, there's still no way he's ever going to change his mind.

Walker is the best argument against career politicians, because guys like Walker see only politics and pure ideological policy as the end game, not good public policy.

The Walker Authority Shredded the First Amendment during 2011 Capitol Protests against Union Busting Act 10: How could the nation forget:

The government is forbidden from making a “law abridging the freedom of speech…or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” … but in 2011 ... Scott Walker, concluded … residents did not warrant 1st Amendment protections ... Walker’s response, typical of a fascist unaccustomed to being challenged, was to have many protesters arrested and fined for exercising their 1st Amendment rights; something Dane County Judge Frank Remington ruled was unconstitutional.

The conservative McIver Institute Director of Communications Nick Novak was angry that the six protestors claimed being arrested caused them embarrassment, created difficulties finding a job, and fostered a negative stigma in their personal records that will follow them for the rest of their lives. The real victims who deserved reparations, according to the belief tank … were “multiple Republican legislators that were harassed in the halls of the capitol and the governor who was routinely compared to Adolf Hitler.”

On Upfront with Mike Gousha, Walker provided his most laughably outlandish moment of hypocrisy yet; defending free political speech and their constitutionally protected protesters. Walker finally reached what was once believed to be an unreachable level of bullshitting, but he did it, and with a straight face to boot:



I hope you're sitting down...

Walker: "Whether it's against me or somebody else say, "I disagree," but disagreeing and even protesting is one thing, if you come into an auditorium where they're having a discussion or a conversation on this, and you want to hold signs up, you want to protest that, you want to rally out front, perfectly fine. But the minute you shut down a speaker, no matter whether they're liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between, I just think that's wrong." To me a university...anywhere free speech should be upheld...but disrupting and shutting down as we've seen here in Wisconsin, but elsewhere across the country, shutting down the ability for someone to actually be heard is not free speech."

Here's a short recap of bill Walker is talking about above, and now backs on our UW campuses:

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R- Rochester, and Rep. Jesse Kremer, R-Kewaskum, proposed legislation (that) would set new rules for free speech and expression on University of Wisconsin System campuses. That includes penalties for people who disrupt free expression on campus by engaging in "violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud or other disorderly conduct" … Students could be expelled under a bill.

That sharply contrasts with his recent comments at CPAC during his infamously flawed run for president:

“I want a commander in chief who will do everything in their power to ensure that the threat from radical Islamic terrorists does not wash up on American soil. If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world.”

But his comments weren't the only ones that trashed the peaceful protests directed at what we thought were accountable elected politicians:

Sen. Ron Johnson (R) of Wisconsin denounced what he saw as "mob rule" trying to thwart the electoral will of the people, citing specficially the "amount of thuggery, the threats of execution" against Republican lawmakers.

University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse viewed the events in the Capitol as a near-total breakdown of law and order. "How do you like this new democracy, that has a mob storming the Capitol and, with the aid of the minority party, blocking the access of the majority party into their offices and into the legislative chamber?" Professor Althouse wrote on her blog. "It looks more like anarchy to me."

To others, this was precisely the sort of situation for which the guarantee clause was created.

"It is hard to recall many moments that more directly echo the concerns of the founders than the situation America faces today, with a mob of protesters, some bused in from out of state by labor unions bent on protecting their financial interests, occupying the state house at Madison and the governor there under heavy guard," states a New York Sun editorial.
Cornell University law professor William Jacobson wrote on his blog, Legal Insurrection ... The appearance of a bullhorn-toting protester on Feb. 27 in a "COPS FOR LABOR" T-shirt showed that "the police union members involved have actively advocated and offered to participate in insurrection against the legal authority in Wisconsin."

But the Guarantee Clause obviously doesn't apply: 

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.-ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4

In reality, the Guarantee Clause would protect us from the likes of Scott Walker:

Cornell University law professor Aziz Rana, author of "The Two Faces of American Freedom," wrote, "the truth about the guarantee clause is that its initial purpose was less a concern with popular protest and far more a worry with potential backsliding by state governments into aristrocratic or monarchical forms of government," says "That would suggest to me that ... peaceful protest combined with local police sympathy and the decision by some legislators to flee to Illinois are not issues that would invoke the guarantee clause." 

Wisconsin Republicans kept the fear mongering myth about protester violent alive, and that there was massive destruction of public property by liberal vandals. Nope, never happened:

The protests were peaceful, on the whole – with only 18 arrests during more than three weeks of steady protests in Madison – but critics question whether Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney, too, was taking sides.

"We are seeing democracy in action, people engaging in their government, making their issues known," Sheriff Mahoney told Time magazine. " I'm very proud that the people of Wisconsin are engaged in their government and shown the rest of the world how democracy works." At one point, he said his deputies "aren't palace guards."

No Vandalism either...according to PolitiFact, the highly publicized cost of repairs, do to protester vandalism, got all the necessary political mileage, despite being a Pants on Fire lie:

By March 7, 2011, the Department of Administration reported that all signs and banners in the Capitol had been removed. Some of the signs are being considered for preservation by the Wisconsin Historical Society or the Smithsonian Institution.

The protesters "have adopted an ownership ethic in the building, treating it with the utmost care and respect," wrote Jason Tish, executive director of the Madison Trust for Historic Preservation and a local field representative for the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

He called the demonstrators "evangelistic about their respect for the building." "The extent of what I saw today is just chips and nicks -- cosmetic damage," he said in an interview. "I don’t see how they (protesters) could have conducted themselves any better." Tish said the building bore the signs of the "accelerated cumulative effects of lots of people going through the building. I saw no intentional damage." The new estimate: $347,500, some 20 times less than the original one. And there are indications that even that could be high.

This smells like an effort to pour gas on the anti-protester fire. The claim was ridiculously high. And that gets a Pants on Fire rating.

We Noticed: 4 Killed in Benghazi...GOP outrage; 49 killed in mass shooting...nothing can be done.

It's still stunning how easily Republicans can get away with a simple moment of silence for the biggest mass shooting in U.S. history, but feign foreign policy outrage against Clinton for the deaths of 4 diplomats in Benghazi. Coincidentally, Clinton just happen to be the Democratic candidate for president.

The actual partisan Republican "report" said something completely different:

Also not buying into the politically motivated attack...

Yet the Republicans callous behavior over 49 Americans mowed down in Orlando deserves just another moment of silence and Paul Ryan's smirk directed at the Democratic Party's "publicity stunt" sit-in to pass common sense gun legislation supported by over 80% of the public:

Republican Entitlement: their own Tax Delinquency's are okay, despite being 5 Times more prevalent than IRS employees.

In what should have been a completely embarrassing moment of elitist thinking and flat out hypocrisy by House Republican (including all WI Republican members except Ryan), oddly turned out to be anything but. They're in charge, and they get to work under a different set of rules than the rest of us. It was a high five moment for Democrats, who decided not to sit back and take it anymore. Roll Call:

IRS STAFF WITH TAX PROBLEMS: The House passed a GOP-drafted bill (HR 1206) that would prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from adding staff until it either (a) vouches that none of its 80,000 employees have a “serious” tax-delinquency not being resolved or (b) reports to Congress on why it cannot provide such a certification. Republicans said it was “hypocrisy” for IRS employees to have their own tax problems.

Real Hypocrisy? The Democrats made an important point to ivory tower Republican political elitists:

Democrats said tax delinquency by congressional staffs is five times more prevalent than at the IRS.

So the Democrats made Republicans vote on it. Republicans didn’t back down though, essentially saying they were special, more deserving, entitled, and aren't subject to the same standards than the people they serve:

The House defeated a bid by Democrats to negate HR 1206 (above) whenever serious tax delinquency on congressional staffs exceeds that at the Department of the Treasury, the parent agency of the IRS. The congressional rate is about 5 percent, compared to 1.19 percent at Treasury and 9 percent in the population at large, according to floor debate on this motion.

Voting yes were Mark Pocan, Ron Kind, and Gwen Moore.

Our elitist father figure authoritarian “leaders” voted in their own self interest; Jim Sensenbrenner, Glenn Grothman, Shawn Duffy, and Reid Ribble.

Ryan in denial on Family Leave, still thinks lazy Americans want another "entitlement." Not insulted yet?

Already fumbling his way through his speakership, Paul Ryan offered up a disconnected word salad excuse he thought let him off the hook over his hypocrisy on family leave and his own desire to have weekends off to spend with his family. The Hill:

When Ryan says "I don't think..." well, that's the point isn't it, he doesn't get it.

New Speaker Paul Ryan dismissed Democrats’ calls for a paid family leave law as another “federal entitlement,” and said his position isn’t at odds with recent remarks that he wants to spend weekends with his young family in Wisconsin.

“I don’t think people asked me to be Speaker so I can take more money from hard-working taxpayers, so I can create some new federal entitlement. But I think the public wants to have members of Congress that represent them, that are like them. Don’t you want your member of Congress to be a citizen legislator who lives with you, among you, who has your own kinds of concerns, who wants to spend time with his children on Saturdays and Sundays?” 

What in gods name is he talking about? While most industrialized countries feel obligated to provide family leave time, Ryan sees that as an "entitlement?" That's how far off the charts Ryan is in the 21st century.

If anything, Ryan admitted his hypocrisy with, "Don’t you want your member of Congress to be a citizen legislator who lives with you, among you, who has your own kinds of concerns, who wants to spend time with his children on Saturdays and Sundays?”

Still not answering, Ryan dug deeper into his denial:

“Yes, Sundays are going to be family days, and Saturdays are family and constituent days. That is what I think most people want in their life is a balance.”

Balance Ryan won't allow them to get with family leave. 

Republican hypocrites demand Clinton apology for saying their "views about women" similar to "some of the terrorist groups."

Who can forget this vilification of American protesters exercising their 1st Amendment right to redress their government:

Walker: “We need a leader with that kind of confidence. If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world."

That was just fine with rank and file Republican voters. There were no objections or apologies. And yes, Walker compared Wisconsin protesters to ISIS.

Fast forward to the following comment from Hillary Clinton defending women's rights:

“Extreme views about women – we expect that from some of the terrorist groups. We expect that from people who don’t want to live in the modern world..." Clinton said to cheers.

So what are our hypocritical Republican "war on women" warriors saying:

“For Hillary Clinton to equate her political opponents to terrorists is a new low for her flailing campaign. She should apologize immediately for her inflammatory rhetoric,” said Republican National Committee Press Secretary Allison Moore.

Do Republicans really want to go there? Of course.

Salon's Joan Walsh went a little deeper into Walker's bizarre comparison that his clueless supporters deny to this day, as shown in these tweets. Just to be clear, many of the protesters weren't in unions and showed up supporting WORKERS in general:

Joan Walsh: Walker himself tried denying that he’d compared Wisconsin protesters to ISIS.  

“You all will misconstrue things the way you see fit. But I think it’s pretty clear, that’s the closest thing I have in terms of handling a difficult situation, not that there’s any parallel between the two.” 

He made a similar argument at the New York event where Rudy Giuliani upstaged him … according to Larry Kudlow, an event co-sponsor:

"Walker argued that when Reagan fired the PATCO air-traffic controllers over their illegal strike, he was sending a message of toughness to Democrats and unions at home as well as our Soviet enemies abroad. Similarly, Walker believes his stance against unions in Wisconsin would be a signal of toughness to Islamic jihadists and Russia’s Vladimir Putin."

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry quickly criticized Walker’s remarks:

"That is a terrible response. First, taking on a bunch of protesters is not comparably difficult to taking on a Caliphate … Secondly, it is insulting to the protesters, a group I take no pleasure in defending. The protesters in Wisconsin … they’re Americans, and as much as we may find their ideas, worldview, and perspective spectacularly wrongheaded, they don’t deserve to be compared to murderous terrorists." 

Republicans provide corruption an extra layer of "Constitutional" Protection.

Pocket constitutionalists love to imagine rights violations everywhere. From nonsensical free speech rights to proposals for constitutional tests for everything, the new incoming pocket constitutional House Republicans have come up with another wacky interpretation that can protect them from the actual law itself. The Hill:

The House of Representatives this week quietly approved changes to ethics rules that government watchdogs fear could help lawmakers obstruct investigations. The provisions from Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) takes aim at the House Ethics Committee and the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), specifying that neither body can “take any action that would deny any person any right or protection provided under the Constitution of the United States” … any person under investigation “shall be informed of the right to be represented by counsel and invoking that right should not be held negatively against them.”

The OCE was created by Democrats in 2008 after they promised to “drain the swamp” of corruption in Washington.

Like Wisconsin Republicans stacking the courts with conservative activists, politicizing election oversight, pushing the constitutional boundaries whenever possible, and vowing to dismantle John Doe investigations, Congress is following suit. The line below, "on constitutional grounds as determined by members themselves," pretty much says it all. Nowadays, anyone can be a constitutional scholar:

Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, said the new language … is troubling because it turns the informal review of a complaint into a more formal legal proceeding … can be delayed and even derailed altogether,” Holman wrote. "The intent of this clause is to provide members with an additional authority to complicate ethics investigations. Even though all constitutional rights already apply to the ethics proceedings as determined by the courts, this clause ... enables challenges to ethics proceedings on constitutional grounds as determined by members themselves," he added.

Republicans have it both ways, no questions asked.

I knew there was a reason why I saved reporter Charlie Pierce’s clip below. For one, the guy clearly articulated the problem we’re seeing with Republican fear mongering and flip flopping positions. 

Having it Both Ways GOP Politics: Republicans are allowed to have it both ways. Like my conservative friend in Milwaukee who doesn't like the Affordable Care Act because government is involved. When I asked him how he would deal with preexisting conditions in the private market, he said government should mandate coverage for that too. Huh? Conservatives have no self-awareness when it comes to their contradictory positions. And don’t confuse their "answers" with actual solutions, because they don’t have any. Politicus USA:

Joni Ernst Goes all Palin, Calls Obama an Apathetic Dictator: MSNBC’s Ben Terris reported yesterday that Joni Ernst’s latest foray in self-contradiction is that President Obama, whom she has previously called a dictator, is “apathetic.”

“We have an apathetic president,” she told a crowd in Newton, Iowa. When the press got to her afterward, she tried to explain, relates Terris, without much success, what she meant: “He is just standing back and letting things happen, he is reactive rather than proactive,” she said. “With Ebola, he’s been very hands off.”

Esquire blogger Charlie Pierce asked her: “What should he have done about Ebola? One person in America has Ebola.”

Ernst: “OK, you’re the press, you’re giving me your opinion.”

Pierce: “It’s not an opinion, only one person in America has it.”
Ernst: “But he is the leader, he is the leader of our nation. So what he can do is make sure that all of these agencies are coordinating together, to make sure he is sharing with the American people he cares about them, he cares about their safety.”

Pierce: “You don’t think he does?”

Ernst: “I don’t know that he does, he hasn’t demonstrated that.”

Pierce: “You don’t think he’s demonstrated that he cares about the American people?”

Ernst: “He hasn’t. I’m done. So anybody else?”

This is the woman who, back in January of this year, was saying Obama should be impeached for acting without the approval of Congress. As Yahoo News reported:

Ernst told a crowd that she believed Obama had “become a dictator” and that he needed to face the consequences for his executive actions, “whether that’s removal from office, whether that’s impeachment.”“He is running amok. He is not following our Constitution, and unfortunately we have leaders who are not serving as leaders right now, they’re not defending the Constitution and they’re not defending you and me.”

MSNBC’s Steve Benen quipped: “Oh, I see. Joni Ernst wants Obama to lead more and lead less. She wants him to be more proactive without Congress and more reactive waiting for Congress. She’s looking for him to do exactly what he’s already done, but Ernst pretends not to notice.” (Ernst) is all too common in a media landscape where Republicans are allowed to lie with impunity, no matter how divorced from reality their comments.

Republican runs to restore office destroyed by Republicans. Dizzy yet?

Republicans hate the office of the Secretary of State so much they stripped it of almost every duty, without going through the trouble of changing the state constitution.

The remaining duties include publishing bills into law and keeping the state seal. Democratic Secretary of State Doug La Follette has served as secretary of state since 1975.

GOP candidate Julian Bradley is all about taking back the office his party spent so much time destroying, mostly because a Democrat has held it so long. Bradley also went on a "Shattering Stereotypes Tour" to prove Republicans aren't the maniacal closeted racists most people think they are because well, he's black. Wow, I'm convinced now. It looks like he caught on to the old liberal trick; we leave racist signs on the ground, and when a conservative picks one up, we take a picture of them waving it around proudly. It works all the time too.

Bradley also wants to pull the GAB under his wing, kind of politicizing it a just little, because that's what other states do. Hey, is that plagiarism (hot word now)? Those independent retired judges need a guy like Bradley to keep them in line with the party philosophy.

Bradley wants to "rebuild" the bridges La Follette burned with Republicans.  Mike Gousha asked Bradley if that didn't just make government bigger again, by adding more duties to the office. Bradley's said his new powers would make the office more efficient. That makes perfect sense.

This whole interview is surreal and an amazing example of having it both ways, but only if you're a Republican. From Upfront with Mike Gousha, this slide show (not a video clip):



Note: Democratic Mayor Tom Barrett also floated plans to retire the office, but not out of retaliation for delaying the publication of Act 10.

The Rabid Hate Obama Crowd wins elections.

I've mentioned by conservative friend in Milwaukee often because he's given me an insight into the conservative mindset. Hating Obama is one of those insights.

Remember when Republicans would accuse Democrats of "hating Bush," a bizarre retort which ended any reasonable debate about policy? What we're finding out now is that it was "projection," an attempt to defend their own "hate" impulse by attributing it to Democrats.

The Hate Obama Crowd: By chance, two situations came up that basically make this point. The breathless nonstop culmination of Obama attacks resulted in one common message; hate Obama. My conservative friend has been saying this for years, to the point where he doesn't even care about Scott Walker, jobs or the consequences of his parties tax cut policies. He's focused on Obama, and just how much he should hates him.

Here's one of many examples that add to that irrational perception. You'll notice how it's okay to attack Obama, but not okay to attack Bush:

Yahoo: “The View's” self-proclaimed Republican co-host Nicole Wallace came out swinging against President Barack Obama Tuesday morning, saying that she doesn't think he “loves people.” Citing an assertion made by political columnist and former psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer that Obama is clearly a narcissist, Wallace insisted such a diagnosis would explain why the President has an “inability to get things done.”

A stunned Rosie O'Donnell  asked Wallace if she was implying that Barack Obama doesn't love people. Wallace simply answered, “yeah.” Wallace defended her former boss while accusing O'Donnell of attacking  President Bush.

Love ObamaCare, Hate Obama: In the short NY Times clip below, you'll notice how Kentuckians who love ObamaCare will still vote Republican. They just hate Obama. Never mind that their traditional vote for Republicans will end their health care. It's scary stuff, and a reality check. There really is no way to appeal to conservatives:

How about that Minnesota: Democratic Party's new Early Voting Laws Embraced by State Republicans!!!

Wisconsin Republicans, two sessions in a row, cut early down dramatically. They don't like it.

But if Republicans hate early voting  so much, why don't they walk the walk and follow their own advice; stay away until election day?

What, No Thank You? This Minnesota GOP post says it all about their strongly held "princibals," and their gratitude for the new Democratic Party passed early voting laws:

Here's their total sell out to early voting and call to action video: