PEOPLE FOR BLOG

Who is David Barton?

Last night, The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell had an exclusive on People For's new Right Wing Watch: In Focus report on the Right's favorite sham historian, David Barton. People For Senior Fellow Peter Montgomery went on the show to discuss Barton, and what he means for American politics. You can watch the clip here:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

PFAW

Independents Align More Closely With Democrats on Social Issues

Conventional wisdom tells us that Independents swing elections. Logic tells us that the two major parties should be trying to court as many Independents as possible. So why are Republicans emphasizing a legislative agenda that falls out of synch with the priorities of most independent voters?

According to recent polling data compiled by CQ Weekly, the views of Independents align more closely with Democrats than with Republicans on social issues such as funding Planned Parenthood. Interestingly, Republicans are pretty evenly split on the issue, and independent voters are in favor of continuing funding. The majority of Independents also believe that gays and lesbians should be allowed to legally marry and that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

Why, then, are Republicans actively alienating Independents by threatening to shut down the government over issues that they oppose? As noted in the CQ article, One House, Two Agendas [paywall], even Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who manages communications strategy for Senate Republicans, fears the consequences of this shift in priorities:
 

“Our focus needs to be on reducing spending,” Alexander said. “We can’t preach the whole Bible in one sermon, so sometimes we have to take it one step at a time.”

Alexander’s views are reflected in the opinions of more libertarian-minded tea party groups. Last November, several tea party leaders and gay conservatives sent a letter to lawmakers asking them not to become distracted by the concerns of social conservatives.

“The tea party movement is a non-partisan movement, focused on issues of economic freedom and limited government,” they wrote. “We urge you to stay focused on the issues that got you and your colleagues elected and to resist the urge to run down any social issue rabbit holes in order to appease the special interests.”

In a recent essay describing a growing coalition between fiscal and social conservatives, PFAW Foundation’s Peter Montgomery explains how the Tea Party, supposedly concerned only about the size and scope of the federal government, is being co-opted by the Religious Right:

Now effectively in the employ of the libertarian David Koch, who founded Americans for Prosperity and chairs the board of its foundation, [Koch political operative Tom Phillips] has deep ties to the evangelical Right, most notably with Ralph Reed, former executive director of the Rev. Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, who now heads a new entity, the Faith and Freedom Coalition. Reed and Phillips go way back; the two were partners in Century Strategies, the political consulting group through which Reed played a role in the Jack Abramoff bribery scandal. Now, it seems Phillips is partnered with Reed and other Religious Right leaders in a much greater conquest: a merger of the Religious Right and the ostensibly secular Tea Party movement to create an electoral juggernaut that will determine the outcome of the 2012 Republican presidential primary.

Republicans continue to force extreme social issues on the American people, and independent voters are finding it less and less palatable. Hopefully, they’ll get the message.

 

PFAW

NOM’s Gallagher Invited to Share Anti-Equality Myths with House Committee

This morning, Rep. Trent Franks, chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, called a hearing on “Defending Marriage” to examine the Obama Administration’s decision to stop defending the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” in courts.

Franks is pretty, um, far to the right, so it’s no surprise that one of the three witnesses he called to the hearing was Maggie Gallagher, chair of the National Organization for Marriage.

As Justin wrote earlier, Gallagher hit a bunch of the big themes of the Religious Right’s anti-gay activism, but she also dwelled on one argument peculiar to the anti-marriage equality crowd: that marriage exists solely as a structure for procreation:

If we accept, as DOMA explicitly does, that this is a core purpose of marriage, then treating same-sex unions as marriages makes little sense. If marriage as a public and legal institution is oriented towards protecting children by increasing the likelihood they are born to and raised by the man and the woman whose union made them, then same-sex couples do not fit. If same-sex couples “fit” the public definition of marriage, then marriage is no longer about responsible procreation. Same-sex marriage cuts marriage as a public idea off from these deep roots in the natural family. Over time the law will re-educate the next generation that these ancient and honorable ideals underlying marriage no longer apply. Gay marriage, as Judge Walker ruled in wrongly striking down Prop 8, is based on the idea that neither biology nor gender matters to children. Same-sex marriage repudiates the public’s interest in trying to see that children are, to the extent possible, raised by the man and woman whose bodies made them in a loving single family.

The argument that marriage exists solely for having children is, needless to say, flimsy – and has been pretty well demolished in a few marriage equality trials. I’m just going to share this extended exchange from last year’s Proposition 8 trial, in which Judge Vaughn Walker reduces the lawyer defending Prop 8 into babbling incoherence as he tries to defend the marriage-is-only-for-procreation argument:

THE COURT: And my point was that there are a number of heterosexual couples who do not naturally procreate, who require the intervention of some third party or some medical assistance of some kind.

MR. COOPER: Yes, your Honor. And it is not those opposite-sex couples either that the state is concerned about in terms of -- in terms of the threats to society and the natural concerns that society has from irresponsible procreation.

THE COURT: What's the threat to society of people choosing to have medical assistance in order to conceive children?

MR. COOPER: There isn't one there, your Honor. I mean, it's -- it is the -- again, it's irresponsible procreation. The procreation that comes about casually. And often again, as the Eighth Circuit put it, often by accident, unintentionally, unintentionally. The opposite-sex couple where one of the partners is infertile, for example, or the same-sex couple can't unintentionally procreate, but for reasons that we discussed earlier with respect to the opposite sex but infertile couple, allowing them to marry isn't something that is inconsistent with the purposes of -- the core procreative purposes of marriage and, in fact, in certain respects it advances those purposes and it would just not be possible or realistic, as case after case has said, for the state to try to implement its policy on a more narrow or fitted basis.

And, your Honor, with respect to -- and you asked a question about this in your written questions. Even with respect to the opposite-sex couple where one of the partners is infertile, encouraging that couple to get married, trying to channel that couple into marriage furthers the procreative purposes and policies underlying the traditional definition of marriage in the sense that if that couple gets married, then it -- then all of the social norms that come with marriage to encourage that couple to stay together and to be faithful to one another operate to society's benefit in the sense that the fertile member of that couple will be less likely to engage in sexual relationships with third parties and raise anew a threat of some type of unintentional or what I have been referring to previously as irresponsible procreation.

THE COURT: Why don't those same values, which are values to society that you have described, apply to lesbian couples and gay couples? Coming together, supporting one another, taking care of one another, looking out for one another, being an economic unit, being a social unit, providing love, comfort and support for one another, why don't all of those considerations apply just as much to the plaintiffs here as they apply to John and Jane Doe, to use the names that Reverend Tam used.

MR. COOPER: Those purposes, your Honor, are – we haven't suggested there is a distinction among gay and opposite-sex couples with respect to those considerations. There is a distinction, however, with respect to the fundamental procreative purpose, responsible procreative purpose of marriage; and that is that the gay couple, unlike the opposite-sex couple where one of the partners may be infertile, doesn't represent -- neither partner in the – with respect to the same-sex couple is -- again, assuming homosexual sexual orientation -- represents a concern about irresponsible procreation with a third party.

To summarize, Cooper, when pressed on the issue, ended up arguing that opposite-sex couples should get married so they don’t go around “irresponsibly procreating” with people they aren’t married to…but same-sex couples aren’t in danger of irresponsibly procreating, so they don’t need to get married….and that somehow, if gay couples were to get married, they would drive heterosexuals away from marriage, resulting in them having babies out of wedlock.

To be clear, this is the primary argument that opponents of marriage equality have in their toolkit.
 

PFAW

Support Marriage Equality? You're a Bigot!

It seems that the religious right is resorting to that old schoolyard taunt to yet again attempt to portray themselves as the victims of the fight for marriage equality.

I am rubber, you are glue…

In her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board of the National Organization of Marriage, warned members of the panel that Americans must brace for the impending scorn they will receive for standing up for “religious liberty.”

In a lovely bit of circular reasoning, Gallagher bemoans the intolerance of the pro-equality community:

The great animating idea behind same-sex marriage is this: there are no relevant differences between same-sex and opposite-sex unions, and if you see a difference there’s something wrong with you. You are like a bigot opposed to interracial marriage.

If you want to see what this big new idea, embraced by law, means, ask yourself: how do we treat bigots who oppose interracial marriage? If we—and the law—accept the core ideas driving same-sex marriage, we will also have to accept the consequences for traditional faith communities, for those Americans who continue to believe that marriage is the union of husband and wife.

Apparently, there is a new type of bigot: The bigot-bigot. Strangely, Gallagher is trying to claim that supporters of marriage equality are actually bigoted themselves for thinking that treating gay couples as second-class is inherently bigoted. Around and around we go.

PFAW

“Raising Everyone’s Taxes” *

The Washington Post today reports on a growing rift among Republicans, between those who are becoming willing to close a few corporate tax loopholes to help close the budget deficit and those who are sticking with their pledge never to ever raise taxes by a single cent on anyone or anything. In an interview, Grover Norquist, the pro-corporate powerhouse who has convinced 41 senators and 237 members of the House to sign his no-new-taxes-ever pledge, unintentionally cut to the center of the issue:

“This is a fantasy on the part of the liberal Democrats that the Republicans would be stupid enough to repeat 1990 and throw away a winning hand politically,” Norquist said. “Why would you elect a Republican Senate if they just sat down with Obama and raised everyone’s taxes?

What Norquist and his buddies in Congress are hoping that Americans don’t catch on to is that when they’re talking about efforts to “raise everyone’s taxes,” they’re talking about a very small – and very rich – subset of “everyone.” Last year, President Obama cut taxes on the vast majority of middle class Americans. The tax hikes that are now on the table in bipartisan budget talks aren’t taxes on “everyone” – they’re reductions of the enormous tax breaks already enjoyed by big corporations and the closing of loopholes that let huge companies like G.E. get away without paying any taxes at all.

What some Republicans in Congress are beginning to admit and what voters are beginning to realize in greater numbers is that when Norquist talks about “raising everyone’s taxes,” he’s leaving out a pretty important asterisk.

PFAW

As Students Standup To Anti-Gay Bullying, The Religious Right Pushes Back

People For the American Way’s Michael Keegan writes today in the Huffington Post about right-wing activists who are trying to stop school officials and lawmakers from developing bullying-prevention strategies that address anti-gay harassment and violence, erroneously warning it would lead to “homosexual indoctrination” and “reverse discrimination.” Keegan writes:

Today, students across the country will take a vow of silence to protest anti-gay bullying and harassment in schools. The Day of Silence, an annual event organized by GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network), is meant to draw attention to the "silencing effects" of anti-gay harassment and name-calling in schools and to be a way for students to show their solidarity with students who have been bullied.

But all this silence has made the religious right very uncomfortable.



The religious right's campaign against anti-bullying programs, documented in a new report by People For the American Way, has been raging since school districts first started trying to recognize and confront anti-gay bullying. And it has since the beginning focused on the same set of myths.



The anti-anti-bullying effort shows the staggering extent of the religious right's campaign to prevent the recognition and acceptance of gay people in all parts of society -- and their desperation as more and more Americans, especially young people, want their gay friends and family members to enjoy equal rights. The Day of Dialogue's marketing is slick and its content carefully focus-grouped, but its true message is clear: as clock ticks on the religious right's anti-gay agenda, the Right's leaders know that intolerance, exclusion, and polarization can start at an early age, but they've "got to be carefully taught."

Find out more about the religious right’s latest anti-gay campaign in the new PFAW report, “Big Bullies: How the Religious Right is Trying to Make Schools Safe for Bullies and Dangerous for Gay Kids.”

PFAW

Walker Admits He Never Campaigned On Union-Busting

If Gov. Scott Walker wonders why there is such a negative reaction to his union-busting efforts in Wisconsin, he needn’t look very far: a poll by the non-partisan Wisconsin Policy Research Institute found that nearly six in ten Wisconsinites disapprove of his plan to dismantle the collective bargaining rights of public employees. If so many people in Wisconsin oppose a central tenet of Scott Walker’s social and economic policy and still elected him, the Governor surely made a very persuasive case on the campaign trail. Or did he?

Today, before the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee hearing, Gov. Walker admitted, for the first time, that he never campaigned on ending collective bargaining rights for public workers. Walker tried to claim that union-busting was part of the “range” of solutions he campaigned on (a Politifact-certified lie), until Rep. Gerry Connely (D-VA) pressed the issue and asked him if he ever “explicitly” campaigned on this particular proposal--to which Walker answered, “No.” Gary Sargent at the Washington Post has the video.

Note to future pols: if you plan to do something really extreme once in office, you may want to mention it once or twice beforehand.

For more info on the corporate interests driving the actions of the Committee and Governor Walker, check out our fact sheet, Anatomy of a Koch-a-Thon: Sham Budget Hearings Brought to You by the Koch Brothers

PFAW

Attacks on Mosques Spread Through U.S.

Last September, in the heat of the mis-named “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy and the hubbub over Terry Jones’ first, aborted, Koran-building spectacle, People For’s Michael Keegan warned of the “careful mainstreaming of Islamophobia” in American life:

Some anti-Park51 crusaders, even Sarah Palin, denounced Jones' dangerous publicity stunt. But the fact is that his actions would attract little attention, and do little harm, if they weren't taking place in the context of widespread and loud Islamophobia encouraged and implicitly condoned by prominent political leaders. Leaders such as Palin could pretend to be tolerant by denouncing Jones' clear extremism, while all the while continuing to push subtler, more pervasive strains of Islamophobia. The suggestion, made by Palin, John Boehner, and by Jones himself that the Koran-burning event and the building of the Islamic Community Center had some moral equivalence is treacherous indeed, implying that somehow the practice of Islam is itself an offensive act. It's this sort of insidious notion -- passed off as a legitimate argument -- that creates the growing level of distrust of Muslims in our society.

The outcry against the Park51 Islamic community center in lower Manhattan set the tone for what has become virulent and widespread anti-Islam sentiment among many leaders on the Right, which has led to an increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes. In March, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that one-fifth of all anti-Muslim hate crimes since Sept. 11, 2001 had occurred in the ten months since the Park51 controversy had erupted.

The mainstreaming of anti-Muslim rhetoric has also contributed to a rash of attacks on American mosques. The ACLU is now compiling data on mosque attacks in an interactive map – they have so far chronicled incidents in 21 states:

 

PFAW

Obama: GOP Budget Changes “the Basic Social Compact in America”

President Obama, in a speech on the budget this afternoon, ripped into the GOP budget plan created by Rep. Paul Ryan, which would decimate Medicare and Medicaid, as well as programs like Pell Grants for higher education, in order to pay for continuing tax cuts for corporation and the wealthy. The GOP’s proposed cuts, Obama said, “paint a vision of our future that’s deeply pessimistic.”

Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can’t afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can’t afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. Think about it. In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined. The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. And that’s who needs to pay less taxes? They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that’s paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs? That’s not right, and it’s not going to happen as long as I’m President.

The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. As Ronald Reagan’s own budget director said, there’s nothing “serious” or “courageous” about this plan. There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill. And this is not a vision of the America I know.

Last week, People For’s Michael Keegan wrote about the GOP budget’s call for “shared sacrifice without the sharing”:

The new Republican majority was swept into power with promises of "fiscal responsibility"... but backed by the bank accounts of corporate America. As a result, the "fiscal responsibility" they're proposing requires great sacrifices from ordinary Americans while letting large corporations and the wealthiest continue to benefit from the status quo. When these pro-corporate politicians talk about the need for "shared sacrifice," they're talking about individual Americans giving up education, clean drinking water, and cops on the streets. When they say they'll never raise taxes, they don't mean protecting middle class Americans from tax hikes --nobody's proposing to raise taxes on working families -- they're talking about letting multinational corporations keep their tax loopholes and letting the wealthiest sliver of Americans keep their massive, supposedly temporary, tax breaks.

PFAW

Voucher Provision in Budget Bill Shows the Mendacity of the Right

If you were negotiating in good faith in order to make budget cuts for the current year – cuts that were so important to the nation's welfare you were willing to shut down the entire federal government over them – then what sort of provisions would you insist on, regardless of the opposition from the president and the other party?

Surely not a provision adding $100 million to the deficit for a five-year period that won't start until after the current fiscal year ends. Yet that's exactly what Republicans demanded be inserted into the 2011 budget bill. In addition to reviving the discredited private school voucher program for the District of Columbia for the rest of this year, it separately authorizes the program for five years beginning in 2012.

This has nothing at all to do with the 2011 budget or deficit reduction. It has everything to do with advancing a right wing ideological agenda to funnel taxpayer money to churches and to privatize public education.

Republicans were willing to threaten Americans throughout the country with the crippling shutdown of our federal government just to advance their right wing agenda however they could.

That's not deficit reduction; that's integrity reduction.

PFAW

PFAW urges you to contact Congress tomorrow on Equal Pay Day

Equal pay in America needed to be put back on track after the devastating Ledbetter ruling, and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act answered that call – but it wasn’t the last word. The Paycheck Fairness Act would move us even further forward by providing the tools necessary to enforce equity in the workplace and prevent further disturbing incidents like the one that befell Lilly Ledbetter. It strengthens the remedy, enforcement, and exception provisions of the existing Equal Pay Act. It engages the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Labor in a number areas including technical assistance, data collection and review of existing data, and the provision of wage discrimination training to government employees and individuals seeking their assistance. It supports negotiation skills training for women and girls and general public awareness regarding the means available to eliminate pay discrimination.

Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT3) and Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) are expected to reintroduce the Paycheck Fairness Act tomorrow in honor of Equal Pay Day. Ask your Representative and Senators to support this important legislation. Be sure to thank them if they’re already cosponsors.

According to the National Committee on Pay Equity, tomorrow:

[S]ymbolizes how far into 2011 women must work to earn what men earned in 2010.

Equal Pay Day was originated by the National Committee on Pay Equity (NCPE) in 1996 as a public awareness event to illustrate the gap between men's and women's wages.

Since Census statistics showing the latest wage figures will not be available until late August or September, NCPE leadership decided years ago to select a Tuesday in April as Equal Pay Day. (Tuesday was selected to represent how far into the work week women must work to earn what men earned the previous week.) The date also is selected to [avoid] religious holidays and other significant events.

Because women earn less, on average, than men, they must work longer for the same amount of pay. The wage gap is even greater for most women of color.

In addition to NCPE, National Women’s Law Center, the American Association of University Women, and the American Civil Liberties Union are among the many good resources for information and action. I would also encourage you to check out MomsRising. Then visit our web site for a fact sheet and letters to the House and Senate.

PFAW

GOP May Shut Down the Government Over Family Planning, Clean Air

The Hill reports that Democrats and Republicans in Congress have reached an agreement on the amount of money to cut from next year’s federal budget, just before tomorrow’s deadline for avoiding a government shutdown. Great news, right? Not so fast: while Congress has agreed on an amount to cut from the deficit next year, House Republicans are still willing to hold up the budget and shut down the government over funding to Planned Parenthood and clean air programs:

“The numbers are basically there,” Reid said. “But I’m not nearly as optimistic — and that’s an understatement — as I was 11 hours ago. The numbers are extremely close. Our differences are no longer over how much savings we get on government spending.

“The only thing holding up an agreement is an ideology,” Reid told the Senate’s presiding chair. “I’m sorry to say, Mr. President, my friend the Speaker and the Republican leadership have drawn a line in the sand, not dealing with a deficit we know we have to deal with.

“The two main issues holding this matter up are the choice of women, reproductive rights, and clean air,” Reid said. “These matters have no place in a budget bill.”

Any member of Congress who says his or her primary goal is to reduce the deficit and improve the economy should have to explain this. A government shutdown would be disastrous for the economy. It would hurt Americans, and it would almost certainly result in lost jobs. That House Republicans are willing to inflict economic suffering just so they can make a point about contraception and lend a hand to corporate polluters shows just how little they actually care about the deficit or about job creation.

 

 

PFAW

Vitter and Paul Ramp Up Their War Against Latinos

Earlier this year, Senators David Vitter and Rand Paul introduced a constitutional amendment to eliminate one of the key advancements in liberty in American history: the citizenship provision of the Fourteenth Amendment, a necessary reform that was made possible only at the horrendous cost of four years of bloody war. Correcting the mistakes of the past, Americans guaranteed the promises of liberty and equality available for all who were born here. The senators' proposed constitutional amendment was a shameful statement that those who adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had made a mistake.

Even though both senators had also (falsely) claimed that the Fourteenth Amendment did not confer citizenship on people born here to undocumented immigrants, their introduction of a constitutional amendment suggested a recognition that writing millions of Americans out of the Constitution would effect a fundamental change in our nation's character.

However, as Andrea Nill reports in Think Progress, Vitter and Paul have managed to take their hostility toward millions of Latinos to the next level:

This week, the two senators addressed the legislative dissonance by introducing a bill that's essentially a carbon copy of Rep. Steve King's (R-IA) birthright citizenship proposal in the House. Vitter and Paul, along with Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Jerry Moran (R-KS), say their legislation "requires the federal government to limit automatic citizenship to children born to at least one parent who is a citizen, legal resident, or member of the military."

Yet, rather than seeking two thirds of Congress and three-fourths of all the states to amend the Constitution, they now simply seek to redefine it by amending the Immigration and Nationality Act. ...

Since it’s highly unlikely their proposal will get very far, it raises the question of what Vitter and Paul’s goals really are. It’s one thing to argue in favor of a constitutional amendment. The arguments behind it are still beyond questionable, but at least they are based on a general agreement that the 14th amendment has been rightly interpreted throughout the past century. When people start arguing that the Constitution has been misread for over 150 years, it undercuts the legitimacy of the millions of Latino and Asian citizens who at some point in their family tree had citizenship conferred to them through an immigrant family member who came to the U.S. during periods when most foreign residents lacked formal “legal” status. Given the fact that Vitter and Paul waged two of the most blatantly racist campaigns last year, I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s exactly what they’re trying to accomplish.

As we have reported, legislative efforts to exclude millions of people who were born here from the rights of citizenship are flatly inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment's plain text and its history, buttressed by over a century of case law.

PFAW

Stewart Grills Huckabee On His Praise For David Barton

Cross-posted from Right Wing Watch

A few weeks back, we captured video of Mike Huckabee being introduced by David Barton at the Rediscover God in America conference in Iowa, during which asserted that he wished every American would be forced - at gunpoint - to listen to Barton's teachings.

Last night, Huckabee appeared on "The Daily Show" and Jon Stewart ended up dedicating nearly the entire interview to questioning Huckabee about his support for and praise of Barton and his pseudo-history:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 3
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

During the discussion, Stewart mentioned a few of Barton's more outrageous claims by name, which we first reported here - specifically Barton's claims that Jesus opposed the minimum wage and the Estate Tax and that God set the boundaries of nations.

For more examples of Barton's absurd statements and intentional misuse of history, take a look through our archive of posts about him.

PFAW

The Story From Wisconsin: Big Defeat For Walker

A lot of people are feeling pretty good in Wisconsin right now, but Governor Scott Walker probably isn’t one of them.

Last night, his hand-picked successor to become Milwaukee County Executive (the office Walker left when he became governor) was crushed by a 22 point margin. And this morning Joanne Kloppenburg declared victory over State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser, a conservative activist who tied himself to Walker’s agenda.

While Wisconsin judicial elections are officially nonpartisan, Prosser is well known as a Republican who was quickly associated with Scott Walker. People in the state then began to realize that electing Joanne Kloppenburg to the bench to replace Justice Prosser would shift the 4-3 conservative majority to a 4-3 liberal leaning court, thereby affecting how the highest court in the state might rule when Walker’s law inevitably arrives at their doorstep for review.

In no time flat, the election took on huge significance as the contest turned into a referendum wherein voters could express their favor or displeasure with Walker’s anti-collective bargaining legislation while affecting the ideological bend of the court that will likely be the final word on the legality of Walker’s law.

With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Kloppenburg scored a 204 vote victory. Close? You bet, but that’s cold comfort for Scott Walker and the Wisconsin GOP who might be feeling a twinge of regret for pushing their extreme anti-worker agenda.

One would think that other Republicans would learn some lessons from this defeat and tap down their extremism a bit. In Washington, at least, that doesn’t seem to be happening.

PFAW