Thursday, March 10, 2011
The Tea Party Management Style
As I wrote in an email not long ago (and I promise to stop quoting myself...soon):
"Walker has always been controversial. He was deeply unpopular with Democrats when he was County Exec in Milwaukee. He took a lot of fire. He didn't care.
"He doesn't care now. He's getting national attention, he's a hero to the Right. It really is excellent news for him, as far as I can see. And I don't see him as being in a position of weakness. The Dem Senators are not going to become Illinois residents; they have to come back at some point. And every day they're away, he can say Democrats are shirking their duties. "Not being on the job" is pretty much perfect for the Right's critique of the labor movement anyhow.
"[recent actions] just confirm what the Rs have been saying. They have the votes. They will stick together. They've seen it work in DC, they're going to stick together in Madison. I would love to see some of them peel off, but don't see any signs it will happen."
As it turns out, one R Senator did peel off. But the hardcore partisan actions of Walker and crew did get them what they wanted. Whether that will have consequences down the road is another question.
My take: being governor is different than being county exec. The latter job is low profile, the public pays little attention to it. That has changed dramatically now that Walker has taken his damnthetorpedoes approach to Madison.
In any case, expect more of the same. This guy is no Barack Obama, he's not going to have beer summits or health care roundtables. He's not going to reach out to the other side, unless it's to smack them upside the head. Compromise is not his style. Some people will dig that. Some won't. We'll have to see how the people of Wisconsin take to the Tea Party style of management.
Blast from the past...
Mod Lang, Nov. 1, 2010.
Monday, March 07, 2011
Bill talks about education
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
A Man Hears What He Wants to Hear
"It's a numbingly familiar pattern in media coverage. The conservative movement that's been attacking climate science for 20 years has a storied history of demonstrable fabrications, distortions, personal attacks, and nothingburger faux-scandals -- not only on climate science, but going back to asbestos, ozone, leaded gasoline, tobacco, you name it. They don't follow the rigorous standards of professional science; they follow no intellectual or ethical standards whatsoever. Yet no matter how long their record of viciousness and farce, every time the skeptic blogosphere coughs up a new "ZOMG!" it's as though we start from zero again, like no one has a memory longer than five minutes.
"Here's the basic question: At this point, given their respective accomplishments and standards, wouldn't it make sense to give scientists the strong benefit of the doubt when they are attacked by ideologues with a history of dishonesty and error? Shouldn't the threshold for what counts as a "scandal" have been nudged a bit higher?"