Sunday, August 20, 2017

Scott Walker Refuses To Condemn Trump — 'Bold Leadership,' Indeed!

Walker's past comments show a willingness to take the low road against political adversaries, cowardice to condemn allies when necessary

Gov. Scott Walker, who briefly ran against Donald Trump during the 2016 Republican primary, is taking a weak stand against the comments made by the president regarding violent white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Trump suggested that “many sides” were to blame for the violence that occurred in Charlottesville. Several examples serve to demonstrate that is not the case — in one instance, an African American was beaten by several white supremacists with pipes.

In the most notable example, Heather Heyer, a 32-year-old woman who was protesting the presence of white nationalist in Charlottesville, was killed by a supremacist who purposefully drove his vehicle into her and more than a dozen others.

Walker spoke out against the bigotry, but stopped short of being critical of the president’s reactions.

“My comment on this is I denounce the bigotry and hatred and I’ll let the president and his team speak for him,” he said last week.

That’s a cop-out that shouldn’t be seen as acceptable to the people of this state.

In fact, a poll out today shows that most Wisconsinites don’t approve of Trump’s conduct in office. Only 34 percent give him passing marks, while 56 percent say they disapprove of his time as president so far.

With numbers like those, Walker should be less afraid of speaking against the president. But again, Walker shows a preference for keeping his thoughts to himself when it could hurt someone in his own party.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “there comes a time when silence is betrayal.” In the case of Walker’s silence on Donald Trump, that time is now. Walker is betraying his constituents by refusing to say anything, critical or even supportive, of the president’s words.

Indeed, his silence on Trump is even more pronounced when you take into consideration how much he criticized the president before him, Barack Obama. One instance sticks out to me in particular — when Walker suggested that he didn’t know if Obama loved America or not.

“You should ask the president [at the time, Barack Obama] what he thinks about America,” Walker said in 2015. “I’ve never asked him so I don’t know.”

Walker's comments came in response to Rudy Giuliani suggesting at that time that Obama didn't love the country. Walker refused to denounce Giuliani's comments, instead deferring by saying we should ask Obama personally — again, a cop-out that shows he puts his party before country on questions like these.

Walker proved that he was willing to take the low road when he made those comments about Obama. And this past week Walker proved that he’s willing to take the cowardly way out of condemning a president worthy of criticism, solely because Trump happens to be part of the same political party as he is.

That’s hardly bold leadership that Walker frequently claims he possesses.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Right-wing blog Wants To Replace Statues Of "Fighting Bob" With WHO??

Wisconsin Governor fought for countless reforms, and was ahead of his time on several issues

An editorial on Right Wisconsin, a conservative-based blog in the state, is apparently advocating that we should remove the statues of Robert "Fighting Bob" La Follette, beloved governor and U.S. senator from Wisconsin’s Progressive era, from the state Capitol building and U.S. Capitol.

A bust of La Follette’s head sits in the Capitol in Wisconsin, while a full-sized statue is in the National Statuary Hall in DC.

The editorial from Right Wisconsin is making light of recent Confederate statue removals (by cities themselves or by force from citizens) and trying to suggest there is an equivalency somehow in removing figures that are from the past. That is a false equivalency, to say the least — La Follette stood for empowering the people, while the statues being removed elsewhere in the country stood for keeping entire races of people defined as second-class citizens.

But brushing aside the subtleties of Right Wisconsin’s byline-less editorial, it would be wrong to remove La Follette’s likeness for other reasons. Namely, because they wish to replace him with statues of William Rehnquist, who served as Chief Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States and was a Wisconsin-born jurist.

While that is a high honor worthy of recognition, replacing La Follette with Rehnquist would be a slap in the face of what Wisconsin stands for, and what Americans across the nation support overall.

La Follette backed huge reforms long before they were implemented. He was an ardent critic of big businesses crafting backroom deals with lawmakers, and fought against similar corruption within the government. He stood for women’s suffrage, saying early on that the right to vote for all women “will result in a more enlightened, better balanced citizenship, and in a truer democracy.” He also fought for protections of rights regardless of skin color, and was invited to speak by civil rights leader W.E.B. Du Bois in Atlanta about the fight for equality.

And he vigorously fought for electoral reforms, including implementing the primary system of selecting candidates and instituting the 17th Amendment, giving voters the right to select their own U.S. Senators through a direct vote.

What about Rehnquist? His record on rights is much, much darker. As a clerk for Justice Robert H. Jackson in the 1950s, he wrote a memo defending the “separate but equal” doctrine for keeping Jim Crow laws legal. Rehnquist also was part of the 5-4 majority that halted vote counting in Florida during the 2000 presidential recount. And although he later supported the rule, he was a vocal opponent of the necessary Miranda statement that all police officers must give to suspects they arrest.

Now, you tell me who deserves a spot in the National Statuary Hall: an individual who stood for expanding individuals’ rights, or one whose record included efforts to limit who could take part in American society? My vote goes to "Fighting Bob," and I think most Wisconsinites would agree we should keep his statues right where they are.

Tuesday, August 1, 2017

Measure the good vs. the bad with Foxconn deal, and you'll understand the skepticism

Mitch Henck complains about complainers, and I give my thoughts on that

Local commentator Mitch Henck doesn’t get why people are upset with the new Foxconn deal that was recently brokered by the state and the tech company.

“Alright, would you rather have the jobs not be here?” Henck asked rhetorically in his latest video column. “Understand that jobs are very vital, and we need them. [The state] is bringing up to 13,000 jobs" as a result of the deal, he argues.

Henck is fine to defend the deal if that’s his opinion, but he makes a lot of assumptions throughout the video. The idea that 13,000 permanent jobs could be created is a fiction. In fact, that number is only estimated by the company itself to be around 3,000 jobs to start with the potential to bring more in the future.

Much has been said, too, of the billions of dollars we’re giving away in tax incentives to Foxconn. The $3 billion in tax incentives isn’t even all of it — according to state Senator Kathleen Vinehout, the company will also forgo paying local property taxes for the next thirty years.

And concerns abound about the environmental impact of Foxconn’s arrival. A new bill in the state legislature this week would give the company tremendous leeway to pollute their surroundings — including potentially waiving the need for an Environmental Impact Statement.

Henck’s argument is that this deal is all about jobs, jobs and jobs, and that we should be grateful for the plans that Gov. Scott Walker has laid out for us to get those jobs. But there has to be a measured approach to the impact that the Foxconn deal will have for whatever area they locate to, as well as the rest of the state.

I liken it to this: if a new pill allowed balding men to regrow their hair, but came at the expense of losing their toes, would it be worth it? Some might actually make the sacrifice. But others would understand that toes, while the smallest extremities on the body, provide a very important role for the rest of the body when it comes to balance.

In other words, the sacrifices that get made may not be worth the impact of the overall goal. A man who constantly falls over all of the time may not be attractive, even with a full head of hair. And a company that may provide for thousands of jobs may not be worth it if comes at the expense of local governments or creates environmental hazards.

Scott Walker has failed to create jobs in any other way. And bringing more jobs to the state is a positive move. But if the only way Walker can do so is at the expense of the financial and physical health of the people he serves, then it’s hard to consider that a success, in my book.