@Bob McBride...It figures that you would support such a move.

Yes it does Lyle, because I don't support frivolous recalls anymore than I support frivolous recounts, frivolous lawsuits, frivolous days off from teaching to bang buckets in Madison, frivolous road trips to Illinois to avoid work, etc.

Big waste of time and money. Unless we can secure a promise that we'll be getting the big buck influx like last time. Then I'm all for it as a cottage industry.

I assume you're against it to the point where a Walker recall can be launched and, if successful and some deserving Dem like Lena Taylor, for instance, assumes the office, you'll reconsider and support such a move yourself.

Bob McBride...Even if Walker were to be recalled and a Democrat like Senator Taylor would be put in the office, I still wouldn't want to change the recall law. It's vigorous enough and after the last experience I don't think people will be as quick to jump into a frivolous recall.

I'm not really buying that, Lyle, but I guess we'll see...or maybe not.

@Bob McBride...You are forever the classic cynic.

I've never been poorly served by my cynicism.

If you're gambling that your sides recent actions won't be met in kind, due to the fact that Republicans ordinarily don't go in for that sort of thing, I wouldn't put a lot down on it.

@Bob McBride...Cynics are incapable of taking true risks and use their cynicism as a defense mechanism. That aside, I'm not worried whether the Republicans are going to pursue recalls or not; tit for tat is usual in politics. As far as I'm concerned the recall provisions are sufficient and a little threat to hold over a politician's head is a good thing. If we make it more difficult for recall, then politicians will feel even more insulated and as usual will get away with their usual mischief. The recall is the only present means for shedding ourselves of the unethical and immoral.

Thanks for the 2 bit analysis.

We'll see if you feel the same way about it if and when recalls are launched against Democrats for pursuing their platform. I've got a feeling (cynic that I am) that you won't.

Great! politicians want to make it harder to hold them accountable; Just what we don't need. Maybe it should be easier and more frequent; that will keep them on there toes.

I'am sure you think that way Nate, but according to the poll your one of the 7%. The free thinkers say ", Leave it alone ".

Actually you teapublicant's started the recall talk,and ran fake candidates which drove up the cost. Now you're worried about the cost in time and money ? If Walker hadn't started this nonsense in the first place this would be a non issue.

Well we had one in our area, Randy, who was and is doing the will of her constituents (those that elected her to office) and she faced a recall because the minority that didn't get their way had a hissy fit. Show me any elected official, anywhere, whose entire constituency is happy with the job they're doing and I'll show you a banana republic notorious for its "disappeareds".

@Bob, when you have enough of the electorate willing to sign the recall petition, that's a sign that the elected representative needs to be more attentive to ALL of his or her constituents. No one is happy all the time, but this recent episode showed a total lack of discussion or compromise. Time for a little wakeup call about how much of a mandate the GOP-held legislature really has.

Randy,

Signing a recall petition isn't a commitment. Some people will sign anything to get you off their front stoop. You also don't have to have voted in the last election to sign a recall petition. The fact that 25K petitions were signed says more about the lengths to which "progressives", when they don't get their way, are willing to go to attempt a do-over than it does about how many of the people who actually voted in the original election actually were dissatisfied with Darling.

And as Darling won the recall election, it amounted to a big waste of time and money, instigated by a bunch of sore losers.

The laws need to change, lest this become SOP from this point forward every time the Democrats don't win the day. We can't afford it, and you'd think that those who continually complain about the extremely reasonable cuts that have been instituted in the public sector would at least see the irony in burning up what are limited taxpayer funds, all for naught. But they won't.

@Bob McBride " Some people will sign anything to get you off their front stoop."

In that case, you need to blame the potential voters who were happy with Alberta Darling but signed the petition simply to get someone off their front porch.

And it wasn't 'all for naught' in two districts. I consider it money well spent. I pay taxes too, you know.

And yet, Randy, you're okay with a system that can force a recall by simply annoying people to the point where they sign something to get you to go away. Any means to an end for you as long as you get your way. Which in this case amounts to two seats that change nothing in the overall picture and still leave you complaining about Walker and the Republicans.

If you got any lumps of coal from Santa as a kid, I'll bet it's because you put them on your list.

Bob, I thought you said you like the recalls for the money they brought into the state.

Dennis you get an F in reading comprehension.

Would there have been any chance of that even happening had you guys not been sore losers and launched the recalls in the first place? Nope. You started the ball rolling, you can expect a response in kind. Taking into account the total costs involved in all your shenanigans, the cost of the fake candidates is peanuts. Don't like it? Accept elections for what they are and take a shot at it again next time - in the time honored tradition.

But since your side can't be counted on to use that kind of reasonable restraint or act appropriately, "pass this amendment, now!"

Many Repubs fail to acknowledge it was the Repugs who started the recalls -and the Democrats followed with their own (Bob McBride for one).

@Morninmist... I googled 'who started collecting the first WI recall petition', when the 'who started the recalls' question was proposed, on an earlier post, and I can't confirm it either way;it did lead me to a site that called for a Walker recall on January 18th, just two weeks after inauguration day. Can you definitively clear this up?

Jay,
I do not know about the site you say called for Walker's recall Jan 18th. That is news to me.

I have read in several articles that Republicans wanted the Dem 14 recalled. This started when the Dems were out of state (it was punishment along with fines). I will try to find some documentation.

..................
Jay Sykes

6:18am on Monday, September 26, 2011

@Morninmist... I googled 'who started collecting the first WI recall petition', when the 'who started the recalls' question was proposed, on an earlier post, and I can't confirm it either way;it did lead me to a site that called for a Walker recall on January 18th, just two weeks after inauguration day. Can you definitively clear this up?

Barb,
That's some mighty fine "I have a very good education" elitist talk you're spouting. It's obvious you consider yourself part of the "elitist superior being culture" -- just the conservative elitist superior being culture. You could use some anger management. Here's to you too. But I actually mean it.

Ohhhh Mira, I'll be sure to get on that Anger Management thing right away because you sound like you know what you're talking about. (See what I mean about elitists?)

Barb doth protest too much, methinks.

@Barb, you aren't discontent because Walker's agenda (supported by Darling) won't cost you money -- or so you think. But enough of your fellow voters in your district thought otherwise -- enough for a recall. The millions were really spent to make sure Darling held her seat. It was amazingly close considering the political makeup of your district.

Two other districts replaced their Republican senators. This is significant.

No wonder you fawn all over darling, you are both arrogant!!

What was accomplished was the fact that Darling got a wake up call, along with other R's. She's afraid to rubber stamp anything Walker pushes now. That's a victory in itself. The recalls also brought into the state around 44 million dollars. That's good for the state. Walker all of a sudden started talking about working with the Dems, which he wasn't willing to do before. Again , thanks to the recalls. I would say that the money was well spent.

Well spoken Mira.

Another great post.

You have absolutely no clue the process that it takes to get these recall laws changed.

Kristinabs
Have you heard this lovely song?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYpYIEVhMI8

Scotty We're Coming for YOU video.
Scotty, We're Coming for You

For abandoning their jobs for several weeks, which, frankly is at least a logical reason to try to remove someone from their position. Most people who do that wouldn't be around long enough for show of hands by those who thought it was or wasn't a good idea. Only in government can you go AWOL and not be held accountable for it. Even with that being said, it's the party that had the more logical reason for utilizing recalls that's calling for an end to the ability to launch them arbitrarily.

Certainly it makes more sense than recalling someone just because they're doing what everyone expected them to do. Unless you're a Democrat who thinks that if you don't get your way the first time around, you deserve a do-over.

Well, I imagine that the Repups are trying to limit our freedom for recalls because we took away two of their seats. They are smarting over that and this amendment is their revenge.

BTW--Republicans tea party folks forget they are ones that started the Senate recalls in the first place.

Great post Ray.

Really this is the best you have, a tiny little jab? Some of try very hard to get allong with one another and to find ways that our system more fairly refflects the opinions of all. Some of us just sit arround trying to insult. Guess which one you are.

Have you seen this?
Only 3 so far that we know of.

http://illusorytenant.blogspot.com/2011/09/archer-removed-from-fraud-commission.html

Right on the nose! Campaigns should be limited in scope. What I mean is there should be no campaigning earlier than, say, 1 month for local elections, 2 months before regionals, 3 months before state elections, etc. etc. In that way, we do not get so heart sick from chronic lies punted back and forth. Also, there should be a cap on how much one can spend for running to make those with less money or less sponsorships from the likes of the Kochs, able to compete. At the rate things are right now, unless you have access to millions, forget about running. And we actually miss out on very good people whose interests maybe purely altruistic and not self aggrandisement like the bunch of them have.

John,

You are aware that we have regularly scheduled elections, correct?

I'm a Republican and I'm perfectly comfortable with the possibility and high probability that we'll have a Democratic governor who'll pack those appointed positions with loyalists, just as Walker has done, and just as Doyle did with the positions he was able to appoint people to. There's no guarantee that a civil servant is going to be any more capable or ethical or unbiased than is a political appointee. They just give off less of a scent.

We don't need to be able to recall people, simply because we don't like the policies (none of which are irreversible) they put in place. The change makes sense. I'm not afraid of Democrats. I realize they can be replaced at those regular election cycles if the public so chooses, just as can Republicans.

Same as it ever was.

@Bob McBride -- yes we do need the right to recall before the end of the term if a runaway legislature is ramming through changes they did not campaign on. Why give them three more years to finish the job?

Randy that's an opinion, not a fact, and we shouldn't be able to launch recalls on opinions. Using the logic you used to formulate your opinion, Obama should be impeached for taking over GM. He never said he would do that when he was campaigning.

You folks on the left have a real problem with the perspective thing.

Again, the overreaching is an opinion. To go back to the same example I used with Randy, I know a lot of people who feel Obama overreached considerably by taking over GM. We can't continue to have a system that essentially allows for open-ended do-overs. The privilege was abused at an enormous cost to taxpayers, and that privilege needs to be curtailed so that we don't go through this foolishness in the future.

The whole concept of elections being bought assumes a stupidity on the part of the electorate that, frankly, I don't believe exists to a degree such that it can sway elections. Frankly, it's a bit of an elitist attitude.

For instance, I'm going to guess you don't feel you're much influenced by the partisan advertising, where a good portion of that money is spent. Do you assume others are?

You're not going to eliminate the money by attempting to regulate it away. Instead, you'll essentially drive it underground or make its sources less transparent, as has happened as a result of McCain-Feingold.

Again, it's this attitude of "I'm smart, other people apparently aren't and can be easily influenced by advertising done by special interests, otherwise they'd vote like I do". Just because someone doesn't think like you do, doesn't make them wrong and you right.

I know people who feel Obama overreached simply by running for President. Or that he overreaches by putting on his pants in the morning. I try to ignore people like that.

Randy, according to your logic both those reasons would be perfectly justifiable ones for launching a recall effort against him. Then again, if folks did that and showed up on your doorstep repeatedly, interfering with your ability to ignore them, you could probably just sign their petition to get them to leave you alone.

No, I'm quite capable of holding my own against people who show up on my doorstep and try to persuade me to do something I don't agree with.

Sorry, John, not buying it.

I'd rather let the ads run as is without some watchdog group deciding whether or not to pursue a particular candidate or group based on a "falsehood". That's the problem. Who decides the degree of falsehood, who decided whom is taken to tasks for these presumed falsehoods? You, because you're politically "involved"? A panel of the "politically involved"? Welcome to never ending litigation.

I have more faith in folks than you do. In fact, I'd say most of the people I've met who fall into the "not involved" category are more capable of evaluating an issue based on what it's truly about than are those who are so involved and so partisan that they can't see the forest for the trees.

You worry about people spouting talking points - those tend to be people who are already predisposed to be on one side of the equation, and they have counterparts on the opposite side of the equation doing the same thing. It all balances out.

You'll never get the money out of it. You'll never be able to temper the message for very long, particularly with all the different venues for those messages now available. Effectively censoring a message because someone has decided it might incorrectly influence the less "involved" or those defined as apathetic or intellectually challenged is not a path I think we should be going down.

You don't think that additional security is necessary for the Republicans being stalked and threatened by those opposing their politics? I'd favor increased security for members of any party who were being treated like that...

Temper, temper there DWF. If this recall succeeds and you get all your cronies in, you'll be calling for the same changes I am yourself. Cut the crap.