FightingBob.com readers talk back
We want to hear from you. If you would like to comment on a specific article, click on the "comments?" link on the article page. If you'd like to send us a general comment, question, compliment or criticism, just send us an e-mail.
May 31, 2008
Response to GarveyBlog "Buckle Your Seatbelt!"
"Scabs" are a scapegoat for a systemic problem that pits the poor against the poor, she should have apologised. There are no winners here.
Yes, I'm sure the "Company" had ringers, just for press opportunities, but by and large strike breakers are more desperate for a job and money then the workers they temporarily replace.
Good for Barbara. She said what any Democrat would say to those on the picket line trying to save their jobs and fighting for economic justice--shame on the scabs hired to break the union.
In your blog you say ”Ah, but the story doesn't end there. Some scabs, probably sent out by the company to talk to the media, complained that they were called scabs and, (say it ain't so) the "Lieutenant Governor "is apologizing for using the word "scabs." She called it "An absolutely inexcusable mistake." She should have called them "replacement workers." Whoa Nelly!”
As described in “Illegal Immigrants = Scabs”, "Scab workers, like illegal aliens, quite often are in desperate need of money - so desperate that they are willing to cross picket lines, facing extreme consternation, and even bodily harm. Yet despite their often desperate situations, scabs receive little sympathy. Why? Because, in seeking financial betterment for themselves, they are causing untold damage to the careers of others, undermining the balance of power between labor and management, and ultimately worsening conditions for all workers, themselves included. " --Karen Rybold-Chin
[permalink]
May 14, 2008
May 2008
Response to FightingBob.com article “The Orwell Court”
May 20, 2008
I sent this article to an attorney friend who wrote back that this is leftist propaganda. If that's the case, what would be writings from the right? Gospel?
Why are neocons and others listing so heavily to starboard so sure of themselves and so quick to put down anyone who disagrees? --Charles McEniry, Stoughton, WI
--------------------
May 19, 2008
I was just doing a little bit of research on ethanol for my campaign website and inadvertently came across your online magazine. La Follette has always been one of my heroes. Keep up the good work. --John Murphy, Candidate: Representative in Congress, Pennsylvania, District 16
--------------------
Response to GarveyBlog “Edwards and Super-Doopers”
May 17, 2008
CORRECTION: EDWARDS MADE THE ENDORSEMENT IN GRAND RAPIDS, MI., NOT FLINT.
My son was in the second row and was able to shake both Obama's and Edwards hands after this event. Great turnout for Obama in Jerry Ford country.
We enjoy fightingbob.com here in Michigan. Keep up the good work. --Bob Nelson, Grand Rapids, Michigan
--------------------
Response to GarveyBlog “Golf or no golf?”
May 16, 2008
Are you bracing yourself for a pre-election Iran fiasco? Reread Bush's comments of the past few days whilst rubbing elbows and other body parts with the Israeli prime minister and those in charge of Saudi Arabia.
If Bush cannot sway the electorate with words of fear, he surely will try it in a more physical manner.
By the way, where is VP Dick during all this? He comes and goes like a weasel. Like Bush, he is undoubtedly up to no good. --Charles McEniry, Stoughton, WI
--------------------
Response to GarveyBlog “Golf or no golf?”
May 16, 2008
I think it was Bill Clinton who gave up golfing, not George Bush. I can't remember where I read that but I think it was Yahoo news. --Laura Chern
---------------------
Response to GarveyBlog “Edwards and Super-Doopers”
May 14, 2008
Shame on MSNBC! John Edwards ended his endorsement speech for Barack Obama at 7 p.m. Wed, just in time for Chris Matthews and “Hardball.” Did we get a chance to hear Obama’s replay? Not on your life. Instead we were force fed with 15 minutes of nonsense banter from Matthews, Pat Buchanan and Andrea Mitchell, all of whom want us to believe that Hillary Clinton still has a chance to secure the Democratic nomination. Apparently, they didn’t want us to hear what Obama had to say. Could it be that they all three hate to be upstaged? Is it about ratings? We deserve better. --Sam Hall
--------------------
Response to GarveyBlog “Welcome to Red State Wisconsin”
May 13, 2008
Don't forget to mention that many people haven't a clue that it is possible to vote absentee ballot. During 2000 election, I met 2 cops in Budapest who were returning from Serbia. Neither had any idea that they could have voted absentee.
If we want people to vote, let's also start educating them on civic duties. It's more than ID's. It's about lighting a few fires beneath the electorate to inspire them to get to the polls.
Another weakness in our election process is how poorly informed voters are on candidates and issues. Too many vote based on snippets of spin found in ads.
Apathy also sets in when many do not believe that their vote matters.
Change attitudes and perhaps voting patterns will improve. --Charles McEniry, Stoughton, WI
--------------------
Response to GarveyBlog “Oh my God!”
May 9, 2008
The super who could do the most good in ending the divisive endgame of this campaign is Tammy Baldwin. I have voted for her in each of her elections and will continue to do so. Her signal to Senator Clinton to end what has become a destructive campaign would be huge. --Mark Johnston
--------------------
Response to FightingBob.com article “Walking contradiction”
May 9, 2008
I read your colorful article in the Capital Times. I think you have it right this time. We need metropolitan government in Milwaukee. --Shel Lubar
--------------------
Response to GarveyBlog “One-horse race”
May 8, 2008
If McCain chooses Condeleeza Rice as a running mate and the oil companies drop the price of gas just before the election and McCain dies in office, you may get to see your woman president who also happens to be black.
Let's hope the electorate is smart this time around and votes for Obama. --Charles McEniry, Stoughton, WI
--------------------
Response to FightingBob.com article "Walking contradiction."
May 8, 2008
Firemen don't have to be fond of fire, sir... --J. Gravelle
--------------------
May 7, 2008
What is happening politically in north eastern Wisconsin easily mirrors the electoral process in every other state. The rhetoric never changes. How can we change the frame of these clichéd arguments, so Democrats can more easily win over the voters.
Take for instance the race in Green Bay between former Republican Alderman Chad Fradette and incumbent Democrat Sen. Dave Hansen.
Fradette said he wants to restore "common sense" to state government. That would require him to vote with the Democrats. Take for example a Democratic "common sense" proposal to increase the hospital tax.
"Common sense" would require state Republicans to lift their opposition to a hospital tax that even state hospitals and business organizations fully support. In fact, a poll of 400 likely voters found that 75 percent support a proposed hospital assessment. More than half of those who vote Republican supported the assessment". That's just "common sense" to the electorate.
Maybe challenger Fradette could explain the "common sense" approach the Republicans used to be in session only 27 days over the last 15 months, considering tax payers paid them full time salaries and benefits. That's second from the bottom of any Assembly or state House in the country. Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch declared the two-year session a success. "Common sense" would tell me we're getting ripped off.
Perhaps Fradette could use a little "common sense" explaining why Senate Democrats were wasting our time pushing universal health care reform, dramatically reducing our out of pocket spending on premiums. Only in the Republican mind, hell only in the U.S., would it be horrific to force people to have health care. "Common sense" would tell you otherwise.
Fradette even criticized the capital city, Madison, because it's politically liberal. Someone made a big mistake voting it the best in the country numerous times. "Common sense" would tell us Green Bay should be so lucky.
Fradette criticized Democrats for voting "to increase corporate and oil taxes." Since around two thirds of the states major corporations don't pay any taxes, "common sense" would anger enough taxpayers to say, "Hell yea, they should pay their fair share."
And when it comes to promising college tuition benefits to injured veterans at state schools, Fradette should ask his fellow right wingers why they didn't provide the state funding to back up their sentiment. "Common sense" would say that was pretty shameful.
Sen. Dave Hansen isn't off the hook either. His response "We protected the environment, we've grown jobs … worked on improving health care … worked hard to help middle income families and seniors…we protected the taxpayers" are cereal box slogans. Juxtapose the "worked on improving health care," with "while Republicans do nothing to prevent families from going broke, skipping check ups and suffer diseases that could have been prevented."
"Common sense" is the frame Republicans can't defend against. Use it, promote it, breath it, live it and say it. --John Peterson
--------------------
Response to GarveyBlog “Ah, the end is near”
May 6, 2008
Very little has been said about low wage workers and the poor. How are they doing during these tough economic times? The candidates seem to go where the money and votes are. Minimum wages are bad enough when times are good, but when the bottom falls out of everything and prices skyrocket, low wages do very little to instill hope. So, why aren't we concerned with those on the bottom
ALSO:
Here's a plausible summer scenario:
Hillary loses her nomination bid and Obama is the one to run against McCain. Somehow McCain gets his federal gas tax holiday. A total surprise to all intelligent beings and especially to Hillary's elite economists, gas drops the amount of the tax and holds steady for the duration. Oil wants an oil friendly president, which McCain would be. By making McCain the good guy, all of a sudden Obama becomes the fool. The election is a squeaker but won finally by McCain.
Impossible? Nothing's impossible with money and power in the right places. Oil has both.
As an aside, don't be surprised if the solution to alternative energies and fuel comes out of China. It would not surprise me that they solve energy and then hold the rest of the planet captive with it. US industry lives too long in its past and we Americans just don't seem to care much. --Charles McEniry, Stoughton, WI
--------------------
May 5, 2008
Thanks George!
Over the weekend, the 2nd tier 8th Congressional District caucus was held in Green Bay to select 6 delegates to the national convention in Denver (3 Obama, 3 Clinton).
When Barack Obama's keynote electrified the 2004 national Democratic convention, our daughter, Jennie Sykes-Schwenk, turned to her husband Charles and said, "If he ever runs for president I will do everything in my power to see that he is elected". We don't doubt that Barack's speech elicited many similar responses.
When Obama announced his intention to run, true to her word, Jennie started to pitch in. Her dining room table soon became "Obama Central" in Green Bay. She spent countless hours organizing friends and neighbors. When Obama came to speak in Green Bay, Jennie was asked to warm up the crowd of 6,000 at his rally and she did a bang- up job. When Obama's organization asked for volunteers to help with voter registration, Jennie was ready to hit the street running. At Obama's national web site, in the voter registration section, the state map of WI has two stars to click on. One in Madison and the other in Green Bay. The Green Bay contact? Jennie's home address.
She was encouraged by local leaders to seek the nomination for delegate to the national convention. She filed papers and formed a small coalition with two other Obama supporters to gather support. In Green Bay this past weekend Jennie and her coalition - an 18-year old high school student senior, and a working mom - overcame some strong odds. Not one, not two, but all three won the nominations through a series of exciting votes. They are headed to Denver in August.
Jennie now needs to raise money to attend the Denver convention. No easy task for a stay at home mom with a husband who holds two jobs - a special education teacher in the Green Bay school district, and by night a shelver at a local Home Depot. Charles, like Jennie, is determined to see her get to Denver, so much is their commitment to see a Democrat - a Democrat by the name of Barack Obama - prevail.
My wife and I received our "stimulus" package last week. We had already decided that the money would be set aside for use as emergency funds. These days the need for emergency funds is becoming painfully important. However, today we decided that part of our "stimulus" package will be given to Jennie to help offset her travel expenses to Denver. Of course we are greatly enjoying the irony of Bush stimulus package funds being used to send a delegate to the Democratic national convention in August. Thanks George! --Tom and Carol Sykes, Appleton, WI
--------------------
Response to FightingBob.com article “Ethanol’s corn pone politics”
May 4, 2008
I really liked John Ertl's article which I read in the Wausau City Pages. If he revisits the topic in the future he might want to include the lowered fuel economy experienced with ethanol added which makes it more of a double edged sword. Thanks again --MJG
--------------------
Response to GarveyBlog "A dog for all seasons."
May 1, 2008
While I love dogs, I am a Catholic and cannot growl enough when someone calls the pope a dog of any sort, even picking up nicknames from the past.
We don't need anti-Catholicism and anti-pope cant masquerading as critically indignant thinking.
The right answer to clerical abuse is both accountability and transparency... on an individual level. Fair charges within the law, fair prosecutions, transparent punishments to include jail as the law and circumstances may warrant, for abusers and those who cover up.
Or would you suggest that the Republican president of the U.S. or the Republican leadership of Congress be pilloried for what Congressman Foley did when it is clear they knew and covered up his sexual overtures to pages? Especially as the GOP did its hypocritical best a la Gingrich or Hyde to pillory the philandering of a Clinton...
Sexual problems are rather universal and not just catholic or clerical.
Let's have commentary that leads somewhere beyond retrograde categorizations, even to accountability but with malice toward none. --Michael Ceurvorst
--------------------
Response to FightingBob.com article “A dog for all seasons”
May 1, 2008
Your piece on Ratzi is spot on.
Please excuse the question if you have info about what I am going to ask because I did not read all the info you have there.
Do you address the issue of business and foreign policy as it applies to both Wisconsin and the Progressive movement?
I was supporting Russ to run for Prez this year...glad he didn't in the end...and I appreciate the Senators stand on his efforts in Africa, however I still do not feel the Progressive movement in America does enough to build bridges to business and foreign policy, especially as it applies to Africa. Unless of course you feel the way the first Clinton handled Rwanda is correct foreign policy.
My feeling is we need to learn how to talk the talk with these two issues if we have any hope of taking back our America. Thanks --Bill Quam
[permalink]
April 2008
Response to GarveyBlog “The Reverend Wright”
April 30, 2008
I'm saddened by the whole Reverend Wright affair. I'm politically paranoid enough to suspect that he use his National Press Club appearance to JUMP in front of the bus. Obama, like most Americans had no choice but to reject his words. Remembering my own "extreme" views on various topic, I will continue to respect the work he has done within his parish and community and be grateful.
What I am not grateful for is the media's coverage. I wrote the letter below last Thursday immediately after seeing Andrea Mitchell interviewed on MSNBC. Note Thursday, the day before the interview aired.
Letter to the editor:
Dear Editor: When a citizen seeks election and wins a place in government, from city council to president of the United States, he or she becomes, by definition, a politician. Public service is fundamental to the maintenance and perpetuation of our democracy.
Sadly, today the word "politician" has two commonly applied definitions (according to my computer's dictionary). The first reads, "A person who is professionally involved in politics." The second is, "A person who acts in a manipulative and devious way, typically to gain advancement." Apparently one can choose to be either or both.
In Reverend Wright's interview with Bill Moyers, which aired April 25 on PBS, the reverend described his own profession as that of minister and he contrasted that to Sen. Obama's profession of politician. It could not have been clearer that in using the descriptive term "politician" he was defining Sen. Obama's calling or occupation. See definition No. 1 in the above paragraph.
Yet news reporters and commentators repeatedly chose to "hear" the second definition and immediately began to express opinions and ask questions based on the "manipulative and devious" definition. In doing so they were and are willfully diminishing and denigrating the Reverend Wright and Sen. Obama. I expect this from the likes of Pat Buchanan, an effective spokesperson for the right, or Rachel Maddow on the left (my personal favorite).
But it was disappointing and depressing when respected broadcast journalist Andrea Mitchell did it on NBC. She threw a large bucket of cold water on my hope for this nation's media professionals. If we cannot trust journalists such as Mitchell to not spin for the Clintons, we are in trouble. --Dick Vander Woude, Verona, WI
--------------------
Response to GarveyBlog “The Reverend Wright”
April 28, 2008
Even if Reverend Wright had been reading a phone book from the pulpit instead of making remarks about American foreign policy, we would’ve been offended by him anyway. Why? It’s the tone. It’s that slightly unhinged fanatical-sounding preacher-style, one that favors soliloquisms (“I’m not divisive, I’m descriptive”) one that favors simple moral equivocation (My church fought against slavery, the other church held slaves). In modern times, we find that style itself too divisive, too much in love with the sound of its own voice. It makes us suspicious. Today, if you want to carry on with poetic, over-the-top bravado, you have to rap, not preach.
What we prefer is the more muted, kid-driven, ironic tones of YouTube videos, a self-depreciating, self-mocking voice that doesn’t take itself too seriously. Watching one, we ask, “Is the video being sarcastic? Is it sentimental? Is it a big joke?” The answer is all three.
Why this preference? In America, we believe that everything we’re told about the important issues is manipulated dishonestly, slanted towards a hidden agenda. Therefore, if anyone talks with hubris, using a loud, strident tone, we don’t listen. We assume we’re being sold swampland.
For these reasons, it makes us nervous that Mr. Obama would sit at the knee of someone so brash and one-sided in his rhetoric. However, what should be clear by now is that Obama, a younger man, realizes the limits, not only of that style of communicating, but also, of a fundamentally one-sided view of life. My guess is that he’s tried to sit down with Rev. Wright and point out that you can’t go through life as if there are still Whites-only signs in storefronts. But how to make that point without disrespecting the sacrifices of his pastor’s generation? That’s Obama’s dilemma.
Obama’s choice of church has value. It’s great to go to a church with dynamism, with palpable vibrancy. It’s good to go through life “all fired up,” as he says. But Obama is not a rote follower. He’s perfectly capable of listening respectfully to the voice of a trusted elder, while not swallowing whole everything he hears. If a church is emotion-driven, you’ll often hear an us-against-them attitude in many of the sermons. And like many intelligent leaders of his generation, Obama has sifted through the voice of those more experienced, taken what’s good, and left behind what no longer works. This is a skill that will serve him well as President: No sacred cows. Let’s see what gets the job done. --Madyson Tomey
--------------------
Response to GarveyBlog “I have more votes!”
April 24, 2008
If delusion is a prerequisite to the position of president of the U.S., she's there. Just as "W" proclaims things then proceeds as if they're true, Hillary can. Michigan and Florida voting? Nothing but Altered Reality I'd say. Mix that with a heavy dose of Entitlement and you've got a seamless transition.
Enjoy you on WOJB ! --Jan and Patrick Herriges
--------------------
Response to FightingBob.com article "Ethanol’s corn pone politics"
April 24, 2008
It will soon become common knowledge that Corn ethanol is a failure. That's what happens when politicians are allowed to subsidize technologies they know nothing about.
Cellulosic ethanol, on the other hand, may approach the efficiency of sugarcane ethanol if an enzyme or bacteria is found to convert the cellulose to sugars at low cost. Also we may be able to produce a liquid fuel that burns in today's vehicles. Butanol I beieve is such a fuel. --Russ
--------------------
Response to GarveyBlog “Oh Canada!”
April 22, 2008
Yes, yes, the price of oil is keeps going up as does the cost of gas, food, clothes and everything else we take for granted. The lifeblood of being alive or so it seems is oil.
There's one thing which is not being address: the poor, those at the low end of the wage scale, forgotten outcasts all. Have you ever thought how they are doing or what they are doing to survive these challenging times? Most Americans can perhaps get by with less, but when you already have less, how DO you get by? And what are the rest of us doing to make sure they do? --Charles McEniry
--------------------
Response to FightingBob.com article “A dog for all seasons”
April 22, 2008
I am not a papist.
The article by Robert Weitzel seems inappropriate for the fightingbob.com website. It is a hateful rant and does little to resolve any issues nor does it educate. --Charles McEniry
--------------------
Response to GarveyBlog “On to Pennsylvania”
April 21, 2008
Caucus Candidate - 90% of Barack Obama's delegate lead is in the unfair caucus process. Obama's scant 12 delegate lead in primaries turns into a Hillary lead of 46 if Michigan and Florida were included. The national primary vote total is a virtual tie.
The states carried by Hillary have 53% of the US population while the states carried by Barack have only 34% of the US population, including both primaries and caucuses. With winner take all, like you have in the Electoral College in the general election, this race would long be over in favor of Hillary Clinton.
The only place where Obama has a significant delegate lead is in the caucuses. Obama is carrying the leisure class limousine liberals and young people, especially college students. These people can easily take time off their jobs or schoolwork to spend an evening or a day at a caucus.
Hillary's people are the working class and middle aged or older women. The working class people can't make it to caucuses if they're working multiple jobs, Saturdays, or swing shift. Women can't make it if they're taking care of the kids or house. Elderly are two thirds women, and many of them miss caucuses because their eyesight doesn't allow for driving in the dark.
Obama wants to claim the nomination using discrimination against Michigan and Florida and discrimination against the working class, women, and older people to win with a lead in delegates that wouldn't even be there with a fair process. He's using his limousine liberals in the national press to whitewash his anti working class, anti small town leanings, with a wife and a preacher who are ashamed of America.
While Chicago is all the buzz with daily reports of the Tony Rezko trial, Obama's closest mentor and fundraiser, the national media ignores this blockbusting slumlord to declare the race over. Obama's neighborhood work consisted of blockbusting with Rezko to drive working people out of their homes. --Bob Reuschlein
--------------------
Response to GarveyBlog “Oh, no, not the truth! Please.”
April 15, 2008
I know, I know. This week’s target is Obama, but that will pass. People will realize that essentially all he said was that when a person is down, he or she reaches for what’s familiar. He didn’t exactly call someone Macaca or lie about landing in a helicopter under gunfire. In any event, we the voters will never let Hillary near the prize, and here’s why.
That voice. That shrieking, hectoring, lecturing, altogether unflattering tone she uses when she’s upset, or when she senses the upper hand and is coming in for the kill. So why should Hillary’s voice matter so much to us? Because of what it signals.
A near-majority of young men today were raised in single-parent homes, in which mom was both mom and dad. Many young men and boys today have very little experience with a male authority figure exercising reasonable and consistent authority over their lives. A man issuing a challenge, “Why don’t you try getting up early and running some laps. You might like it,” or a man laying down an ultimatum, “It’s either school or a job, you pick,” is as unfamiliar to many young men as a foreign language. What is familiar to us is the Hillary-tone, that stressed-out mamma “I am not your doormat” tone that channels, “I’ve told you a dozen times to take out the trash.”
Men in our society have been raised to let the women in their lives do everything, then feel guilty about it, then feel hemmed in and stifled and complain about it. Women who speak up about it are told, “There you go complaining again. Can’t you do more than just complain?” And all of that is what many of us hear in Hillary’s tone. Hillary’s scolding voice is a symbol of one of our greatest national failures: to raise a generation of men who will take care of business. The movies we see today, the romantic comedies written by men, are signaling to the women the terms in which we will let them remain in our lives: Do Everything For Us. There’s the Jack Nicolson’s As Good As it Gets character, that unbearable but a supposedly charming curmudgeon who plants a kiss on Helen Hunt and says, “You make me want to be a better man.” Our inner Hillary Clinton responds, “Why can’t you be a better man without such prompting? You don’t hear me implying that unless you pick up after me, I’ll fall apart.” Then there’s last year’s “Knocked Up,” in which the successful up-and-coming beautiful TV anchor falls for the pothead. How? Why? We aren’t told. We see him step up to the plate and act responsible exactly once, and thus we are charmed. Then there’s this week’s “Smart People,” which revives the Nicolson character, a middle-aged grouse whose unbearable pomposity has earned him a tenured professorship at a prestigious college, as well as a love affair with a beautiful physician who is more than willing to take him with all his flaws.
That Hillary-voice, that hectoring tone, is the reality check. It’s what men honestly get when they act like those characters in those movies. It’s the reminder that you can’t treat someone like a doormat for half a lifetime and expect a charm school queen as a result. Why is it, in interviews, that Hillary always seem to cut people off? Because she’s so used to hearing Bill say, “But honey…” at which point, Hillary jumps in “Don’t ‘but honey’ me. You have to grow up.” Yes, she sounds perpetually angry, ill-tempered, and what’s that word Obama used recently? Oh yeah. Bitter. --Madlyn Pickering
--------------------
Response to GarveyBlog “Oh, no, not the truth! Please.”
April 13, 2008
Hate to say but Obama gave Hillary an opening, and she is mostly right even if she too is an "elitist".
What Dems cannot understand is how lower income people would ever vote for the GOP but that shows how out of touch they really are. Look at the candidates and leadership, from County level (at least here in Door Co.) all the way to the national and you see the upper 2/5ths of the income brackets calling the shots.
When Michelle Obama tries to identify with working mothers by telling about how hard it is to afford $10,000 for piano and ballet lessons I guess you have to wonder what planet they live on. Especially if your husband lost his job and you are working three part time jobs. At least the GOP offers them a tax cut and doesn't put them down for going to church. Not hard to figure out.
Obama has to realize that outside of his bathroom he has no private space left. Not in the age of the cell/computer/camera/phone!
Tell me, why DO all these upper crust Dems do such stupid things if they are supposed to be so smart? Maybe that is the defining mark of their elitism. The idea that they are too smart to do anything stupid. As usual, --Tom Hermann, Egg Harbor, WI
--------------------
Response to FightingBob.com article "Death by faith"
April 13, 2008
Excellently written. I wonder how the same people that advocate the freedom to not give medical treatment, based on a supernatural maybe, to a child who is a citizen of this nation, then turn around and want to deny a free woman the right to not be pregnant after natural sex? They call her immoral because she's not ready to be a parent, and then claim as their excuse a belief in a god for not giving life saving treatments to a free living citizen! Who are the immoral ones? --Andre Ryland
--------------------
Response to FightingBob.com article "First, motivate all the lawyers"
April 12, 2008
I guess Foley & Lardner wasn't so "conservative" that it couldn't produce Lisa Neubauer, just appointed by Doyle to the court of appeals. You know, the Democrat married to the ex-party chair; the couple who has given over $8000 to Doyle? But I suppose it's easier for you to just demagogue things and stick a label on something to suit your purposes. All that aside, it’s plain stupid for a supposedly knowledgeable lawyer to try and saddle the J.C. with blame for not regulating election ads. And if it makes you feel better to write off Butler's loss to a single ad, go ahead and stick your head in the sand, rather than look at the judicial philosophy that got him in trouble with enough voters to swing the election. Keep running more crappy campaigns and it will just mean more conservative victories in the future. --Greg
--------------------
Response to GarveyBlog “Quite a weekend!”
April 10, 2008
It is apparent that the people at this CAFO conference do not understand the economics of farming.
EXAMPLE ONE: Two farms- FARM ONE 400 acres, FARM TWO 10,000 acres.
Farm One buys a ton of fertilizer pays $450/ ton because he buys 60 ton per year/pays full retail price per ton.
Farm Two buys a ton of fertilizer pays $415/ton because he buys 1000 ton per year. $5.00 /ton above the cost that the same supplier to both farm pays wholesale.
EXAMPLE TWO:
Farm One ships his milk out pays $00.65 / cwt or more to his milk hauler
Farm Two ships his milk out pays $00. 20/cwt or less to his milk hauler because of the large amount he ships every day and the hauler only has to make one stop to fill his truck.
Size of farm under good management has made it possible to survive, where even under good management the smaller farm fails. This is unfortunate but it is a fact of life in this economic climate. --Rodger F. Meyer Sr., Elk Mound, WI
--------------------
Response to GarveyBlog “Cost of War”
April 10, 2008
The cost of "the" war is always mind boggling but so, too, is what good that money might have accomplished has the Bush regime chosen a different tack. Prices continue to inflate. The wealthy can afford the higher costs. In fact, recent news items suggest that the wealthy are getting richer in spite of the poor economy. Meanwhile, the people at the lower end of the pay scale suffer most as they eke out meager livings, struggle to put nutritious food on their tables, juggle paychecks to cover the rent, manage car payments by foregoing insurance, etc.
At least Bush has his dirty little war. Perhaps it's time for the electorate to have its own dirty little war by ousting the Bush thinkalikes and bestowing our power to govern on those who are less self-serving. --Charles McEniry, Stoughton, WI
--------------------
April 10, 2008
A message to Hillary Supporters
Why not pick a winner?
It’s crass, its opportunistic, and it certainly isn’t the Democratic party’s forte, but hey, let’s be different this year. Let’s forget the Hillary mantras: “She always bounces back, she’s down but not out.” Instead, let’s look at the facts: Hillary is under funded, not gaining in popularity, and has trouble with her staff. This is hard to accept, because if we Dems acted on our firmest principles, we would go with Hillary. In many ways, it’s her turn. She’s worked hard for this, and let’s face it, it’s time for a women Prez.
Traditionally, in presidential picks, we Democrats are all about principles. In 1972, America was against the war, so we picked the most sincerely anti-war candidate. In 1984, Reagan had spent four years gutting the federal government, so we picked a candidate who was honest and upfront about raising our taxes to undo that damage. In 1988, we believed with Michael Dukakis in the principle of high politics, that the lies being spread about him would come to naught. He assured us that Lee Atwater’s transparent fabrications would not be swallowed whole by the voting public.
In the three elections noted above, Democrats lost by record landslides.
One can make all kinds of arguments for the rightness of voting for Hillary. She’s a long-suffering hard worker. She’s earned her stripes, enduring humiliation from Bill and 15 years of mudslinging from the conservatives. And there’s no doubt that whatever rain falls on her campaign, she comes back slugging. She’s a tough bird, and certainly, no quitter. She’s a true Presidential candidate in the tradition of Adley Stevenson and Hubert Humphrey, a fighter ready to go down in flames for the cause. And in that same dignified tradition, when Hillary has to break the sad news to her supporters (whether that moment comes in August or November), she’ll congratulate them on a game well played, tell them to keep their chin up, and thank them for giving it all they’ve got.
Now, somebody tell me…. Why do we have to go through all that again? We have this other guy. He’s dazzling, he’s photogenic, Hollywood-ready, and everyone who meets him likes him. Everyone that meets him falls for him. He rises to his challenges with style and grace. Yeah, style, I know. Kind of odd for us. He turned that Reverend White thing into an opportunity to say that he identifies with whites who feel cheated by affirmative action and are tired of being called racists for wanting safe neighborhoods. I’m thinking, “How did he do that? How did he turn that around?” He’s so capable, it’s nauseating and I want to find fault with him just for that. We don’t get guys like this very often. It’s not natural for us Democrats. He’s…what’s that word again? Oh yeah. A winner. He already acts like a President. My guess is people will start calling him President Obama right around October. Wanna hear something worse? In business schools, they’re already studying “The Obama Brand.” Kinda makes your skin crawl, but you know what? He’ll win, and all that “bring people together” stuff he talks about? He’ll probably be able to pull it off, at least in the short run. For us Democrats used to getting the tar beat out of us election after election, running with a winner will feel strange. But just this once, let’s treat ourselves. --Aggie Fitzgerald
--------------------
Response to GuestBlog “The road to progress”
April 3, 2008
Thank you and everyone at Fighting Bob for running my piece. I am now sending it around the country to my many retired NEA family staff friends. --Dick Vander Woude
--------------------
Response to GarveyBlog “WMC 51%, Wisconsin 49%”
April 2, 2008
If anyone really thinks the Supreme Court race was about crime or strict constructionism they have their heads in the sand.
WMC doesn't care anymore about those two issues than a pig cares about Sunday.
The race was about liabilities and lawsuits involving business. Nothing more, nothing less.
The fact that Butler and his supporters failed to make that point over and over shows that the liberals are playing with paint ball guns and WMC et. al. use live ammo. GET A CLUE HERE FOLKS.
Politics is not a finishing school for fine young gentlemen. We may abhore and decry these negative campaigns but if you aren't ready to put one of theirs in the morgue for everyone of yours they put in the hospital you are going to lose. At least that is the way the game is now being played.
So thanks for nothing Butler and supporters. Your weakness gave WMC strength. On their own, faced with the truth, the public might well have said no thanks to the WMC candidate. --Tom Hermann, Egg Harbor, WI
--------------------
Response to FightingBob.com article “Death by faith”
April 2, 2008
I always enjoy the columns by Robert Weitzel. Thanks. --Laura Chern
[permalink]
current
--------
May 2008
February 2008
January 2008
November 2007
August 2007
May 2007
March 2007
December 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
November 2005
April 2005
February 2005
January 2005
October 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003