Archive for the ‘Wisconsin politics’ Category
Scott Walker Tape Surfaces: “Divide and Conquer” Strategy Clear from Day One
Folks, it is official. Scott Walker is a liar.
You see, when Walker was campaigning in 2010 for Governor of Wisconsin, he never told the public that he would eliminate collective bargaining for public employee unions. Nor that he intended to use a “divide and conquer” strategy. But due to a video that surfaced a day ago, that is indeed exactly what Walker intended all along. In this recording, Walker used the words “divide and conquer” clearly to one of his biggest fund-raisers, Beloit (WI) billionaire Diane Hendricks; she, of course, approved of this.
This recording was made in January of 2011, a few weeks before Walker “dropped the bomb” and announced that his “budget-repair” bill would have a provision in it to strip public employee union members of their collective bargaining rights.
And lest anyone complain that this somehow is a “gotcha” moment — well, Walker did this to himself, talking with a real, Republican backer. Since he uttered those words, Ms. Hendricks has given over $500,000 to Walker’s campaign, so it’s obvious what Walker intended.
Please see this link from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel for further details:
While Walker now says he “doesn’t remember” what he said back in January of ’11, and now just wants to “move forward,” this is a typical politician “non-denial denial.” None of us should believe it.
Democratic opponent Tom Barrett, the current Mayor of Milwaukee, astutely analyzes why Walker said such a thing. In this quote from the above-cited Journal-Sentinel article:
Barrett said that he first heard about the video Thursday night while driving home from Wausau and was “flabbergasted at his language.””If you want to know when Scott Walker is really telling the truth, it’s when he’s talking to billionaires and when he thinks he’s talking to billionaires,” Barrett said. “He says one thing to the public, but to people who give him $500,000 or to people he thinks are giving him $1 million to the Republican Governors Association, his message is completely different.”
All of this is important because Walker insists that he does not want to make Wisconsin a “right-to-work” state. “Right-to-work” states make it harder for existing unions to operate, and almost impossible for new unions to arise, due to its onerous provisions against such practices. Or as the recently surfaced video says (quoting from the above article):
In the conversation on the video, Hendricks was seen asking Walker about right-to-work legislation. “Any chance we’ll ever get to be a completely red state and work on these unions – ”
“Oh, yeah,” Walker broke in.
“- and become a right-to-work?” Hendricks continued. “What can we do to help you?”
“Well, we’re going to start in a couple weeks with our budget adjustment bill,” Walker said. “The first step is we’re going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and conquer. So for us, the base we get for that is the fact that we’ve got – budgetarily we can’t afford not to. If we have collective bargaining agreements in place, there’s no way not only the state but local governments can balance things out . . . That opens the door once we do that. That’s your bigger problem right there.”
So that just goes to show you, folks. Walker’s intentions — that is, to break unions — were clear from the moment he took office. Any denial to the contrary is just nonsense; worse than that, it shows Walker’s mendacity in full measure.
So don’t fall for the Walker “non-denial denials.” Because they just don’t make sense.
Wednesday Early AM Recall Musings
Folks, I’m still working hard on an edit that’s nearly completed, so I don’t have a lot of time available to blog. That said, I watched the election returns this evening and noted the following:
The total amount of votes in the Democratic primary recall race for Governor cast for the four real Democrats was 665,436; the total amount of votes cast for the one real Republican in the race, sitting Governor Scott Walker, was 626,538.
One thing is clear; anyone who cast a vote tonight in the Democratic primary is likely to vote for anyone other than Scott Walker. Tonight’s winner, current Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, knows he has a good-sized coalition in place that’s ready and eager to vote against Walker on June 5, 2012.
Other than that, Mahlon Mitchell easily won his race in the Democratic primary recall race for Lieutenant Governor, so he will be taking on current Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch on June 5. And former state Senator John Lehman, D-Racine, easily beat “fake Democrat” Tamra Varebrook, advancing to the June 5 election against current state Senator Van Wanggaard. (All four Democratic challengers easily won their May 8, 2012, races for state Senate.)
These elections show that many people want to change course in Wisconsin. We don’t like extremes here on either the D or R side; instead, we like moderates. Yet we’ve seen little moderation from the current crop of R politicians that was voted in during the 2010 election season, which is why so many people went out and signed recall petitions. (Simply put: they didn’t listen to us, so it’s time to boot them out and get someone in there who will.)
No matter how the Rs try to spin it, remember this well: the way Scott Walker and his R cronies behaved in 2011 is why so many voters went out and voted in the various primaries. And that bad behavior is what’s going to get at least a few of these Rs recalled on June 5.
Monday Odds and Ends
Today’s post contains a number of quick updates. (Ready, set . . . go!)
First, Milwaukee Brewers SS Alex Gonzalez, after being placed on the 15-day DL on May 6, 2012, found out that he tore his anterior cruciate ligament (ACL); Gonzalez will now be out for the entire year. This might not seem so bad, except for the fact that Gonzalez is the third Brewers player to go down with a season-ending injury, joining first baseman Mat Gamel and pitcher Chris Narveson on the long-term disabled list.
Second, the Wisconsin recall primaries are tomorrow, May 8, 2012. Please get out there and vote; remember that in the 21st district, the only real Democrat is former state Senator John Lehman. In the gubernatorial primary, the four real Ds are Tom Barrett, Kathleen Falk, Doug LaFollette, and Kathleen Vinehout.
Third, I’m attempting to broaden my horizons regarding digital publications, as I’ve joined a workshop toward that end. While I still hope to find a publisher (or at least an agent) this year, it’s important to learn everything I can about e-publishing in case I do decide to go that route.
That’s about it — now, I’d best get back to editing (as a non-fiction manuscript I’ve been working on with two writers is due to be turned in later this week).
Scott Walker in Tight Race in WI Governor Recall
Folks, today a new poll was released by the Marquette University Law School (yes, they do polling, too) that says that if the election were held today, Scott Walker would lose (by a point) to Democratic candidate Tom Barrett. Walker would win according to this poll against Democratic candidate Kathleen Falk, 49% to 42%, and would beat Democratic candidates Douglas Lafollette (the current Secretary of State) and state Senator Kathleen Vinehout of Alma by a margin of 49% to 40%.
As for how all four Democratic candidates do against each other? This poll says that Barrett leads with 43%, followed by Falk with 21%, Lafollette with 8% and Vinehout, the least-known candidate, with 6%.
Here’s a link to the article about the poll at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
Now, here’s my take about this poll: I distrust it. Why? Because the Marquette University Law School poll has a known bias that helps Republican candidates look better in polling than they actually tend to do.
For that matter, Falk, a former Dane County Executive, distrusts it also. Here’s what she said in the Journal-Sentinel article sourced above:
. . . Falk questioned the poll’s findings when she talked to reporters during a campaign tour of Union Cab, a taxi cooperative in Madison.
“The establishment naysayers have predicted this whole year incorrectly,” she said. “They said this recall would never get off the ground.”
I’m with Falk on this one, because I don’t think this poll accurately reflects Wisconsin voters. Falk is likely being undercounted, as the TV ads have tried to make her out to be a “Madison liberal” when she’s clearly a moderate in the Hillary Clinton mode, and assuredly Vinehout is, as she has a huge stronghold in Northern Wisconsin (the area she serves) that apparently hasn’t been polled whatsoever. And if two of the four candidates being polled aren’t being adequately reflected, what does that say about the entirety of the poll?
As for the political TV ads we’ve seen thus far in Wisconsin, they’ve been heavily negative against Falk and Barrett. This is mostly because Walker can spend all sorts of money (he’s raised $13 million thus far, with 2/3 of that money coming from out-of-state interests) and neither Falk nor Barrett can match it as the two, between them, have raised $1.75 million. (Vinehout and Lafollete, who both are “alternative” candidates with strong grass-roots appeal, certainly can’t.)
But for that matter, I don’t understand the barrage of political advertising thus far. As it stands, this is an election that’s likely not going to be decided by big-money interests. Everyone in Wisconsin knows what Walker did, and has firm opinions on it, which is why there are very few “undecideds” in the sense of knowing whether or not they approve of Walker.
Where the indecision comes in — and where the big-money ads may come into play — is this: does Scott Walker deserve to be booted out of office after less than two years in the Governor’s chair? Some of those who don’t like Walker may be indecisive about getting rid of him, precisely because this is a historic move that’s never before happened anywhere in the United States, much less Wisconsin.
My guess is that the 900,ooo-plus that went out to sign petitions recalling Walker have the most to say in Walker’s recall election, to wit: if they go out and vote, en masse, to get rid of Walker, he will be out on his ear. Which is why now, we’re starting to see news reports on Milwaukee-area TV stations of a more reflective Walker. On these TV “spots” (mostly on news reports), Walker insists that even if he is recalled, he’s done everything right. This belief that Walker somehow is right and everyone else is plain, flat wrong is why Walker should be recalled.
Wisconsin voters must get rid of Scott Walker, no matter who the Democratic candidate is. Because if we don’t, we will have no opportunity whatsoever to have a responsible Governor who actually listens to Wisconsinites, as Walker himself has already shown us that he’s not listening to anyone and isn’t about to start doing so, either.
So on May 8, 2012, go out and vote for the candidate of your choice in the Democratic primary. Then, regardless of who wins (it’s likely to be either Falk or Barrett, which I would’ve believed no matter what the Marquette University Law School poll said), go out on June 5, 2012 and support that person. Because if we do not get Walker out, things will only get worse — not better. Guaranteed.
WI Recalls and Redistricting, 2012 Edition
Tonight, Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen (R) has appealed the largely-favorable ruling the three-judge federal panel gave regarding the 2012 redistricting process to the United States Supreme Court (otherwise known as SCOTUS). Van Hollen did this despite saying last month that the federal judges had “vindicated” the 2010 maps, which were drawn by the WI GOP in a highly partisan and divisive process.
But tonight, Van Hollen is singing a different tune. His pro-appeal reasoning, as given by tonight’s Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article, is this:
“While some view the adverse portion of the district court decision as being inconsequential, I disagree,” Van Hollen said in a statement. “Any time a federal court rejects a state redistricting statute, and decides to redraw or adjust a legislative district, it is a serious matter and appropriate for appellate review.”
Um, excuse me?
Don’t you realize that by appealing this order, this allows the whole ruling to be appealed? Meaning the Democrats could, theoretically, still prevail?
Well, even if Van Hollen doesn’t get it, the Democrats in Wisconsin sure do. Doug Poland, an attorney for the Democrats who filed suit, said last month that if the state was silly enough to appeal the ruling, he would do whatever he could to get the entire ruling overturned in order to obtain a better outcome. (He said it in a much gentler fashion, and he didn’t say the appeal by Van Hollen was “silly.” I did, and am, because it is.)
Mind you, Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) understands that this is a frivolous waste of time; he says in tonight’s Journal-Sentinel article (the first one referenced above) that:
“Does their appetite for wasting taxpayer money on protecting their own political interests ever end?” Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) said in a statement. “It must be the first time in history anyone has appealed their ‘vindication’ to the Supreme Court.”
Then, the Journal-Sentinel pointed out how much this redistricting court case has already cost the state of Wisconsin:
Republican lawmakers have committed $400,000 in taxpayer money to Michael Best & Friedrich and the Troupis Law Office for their work on redistricting. Separately, Gov. Scott Walker hired Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren to assist the Department of Justice with the litigation. That firm’s contract with the state caps its fees at $925,000; as of February, it had billed the state $288,000.
In addition, the plaintiffs are seeking about $690,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs from the state because they prevailed on their argument on Assembly Districts 8 and 9. The panel has not yet said whether it would award those fees.
So, did you get all that? The WI GOP won, but they’re not happy; they want it all, or they’ll take their ball and go home. (Me, I just wish they’d leave the ball and stay home.) That’s why they’re appealing this ruling, which largely went their way, to SCOTUS.
My take? I find this shameful, as it’s a shocking waste of money (in a state soon-to-be-former Governor Scott Walker says is “broke”). I also echo the often-made comments of political commentator John Nichols, when he’s said on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” (and elsewhere) that the WI GOP are comprised of “very bad winners.” (My best paraphrase, that.) And I firmly agree with Rep. Barca; what on earth is wrong with these people? They win and still don’t like it?
Otherwise, there’s a hint of good news amidst a lot of bad regarding the four state Senate recalls. Here’s the link to that Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article, written by long-time political analyst Craig Gilbert:
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/147967755.html
Gilbert states that only former Senator John Lehman (D-Racine) is within striking distance of his opponent, current Senator Van Wanggaard (R-Racine). (Lehman appears to be within the margin of error, as the recent poll Gilbert used said that Wanggaard leads, 48-46.) The other three Senate districts, including the district vacated by Pam Galloway, have Republicans leading the Democratic challengers by wide margins. (See this link to the Daily Kos article that references this data for further information.)
Due to former Senator Galloway’s abrupt resignation (possibly to get a stronger candidate in there as she would’ve lost her recall race), the WI Senate is currently divided equally, 16-16. That means if Lehman can beat Wanggaard, the Ds will control the state Senate, 17-16; further elections in 2012 should help the Dems cement their lead.
And as I’ve said here before, we have recalled a Republican before in district 21, so it’s certainly not uncharted territory for us to recall another one.
Gubernatorial Candidate Kathleen Vinehout Visits Racine
Yesterday, I heard Wisconsin Democratic candidate for Governor Kathleen Vinehout speak at the Labor Center in Racine, WI. Vinehout is one of four candidates running to oppose incumbent Gov. Scott Walker (R) in a well-publicized recall election; Vinehout is probably the least-known Democratic candidate, as she represents Alma in the state Senate (a small border town in western Wisconsin).
While Vinehout may be little-known, she’s a woman of accomplishment; she’s been a state Senator since 2006, was a dairy farmer for ten years, and taught at a university for ten years. This means she has ability in both the public and private sector, something we badly need in Wisconsin; she also is articulate, friendly, and knowledgable.
Vinehout is the first candidate aside from Tom Barrett (mayor of Milwaukee, who ran against Walker in 2010 and lost) to visit Racine as far as I’m aware; former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk sent her husband to represent her, but she, herself, has not visited Racine, nor has current Secretary of State Douglas Lafollette. Vinehout being willing to come to Racine when it’s at the southern end of the state — very far from her home in Alma — showed a lot about her character and willingness to get to know every aspect of the state she wishes to represent as Governor.
I was impressed by what I heard from Vinehout; she believes she can roll back the worst of what Walker and the radical Republicans in our state house have wrought, and the way she speaks makes it clear that a razor-sharp intellect is behind her friendly, capable exterior.
To my mind, Vinehout has everything the next Governor of Wisconsin needs. She understands what’s going on in Racine — we need economic development, we need more money for our public schools, and we need, most of all, hope and optimism. And it seems to me that Vinehout, despite being the least-well funded of all four candidates, is willing to “go to the mat” for Wisconsin’s people, which also is a very big plus; we know this because she’s a member of the “Wisconsin Fourteen” who stood up to Walker and the radical Rs last year and because she’s visiting as many areas of the state as she can despite being a “grass-roots candidate” (meaning she has passion behind her, but not a lot of money).
I’d encourage anyone who believes in progressive principles to seriously look at Kathleen Vinehout’s candidacy. Check out her home page at http://kathleenvinehout.org/, or look her up at Facebook — you’ll be glad you did.
Local and State Politics: Turner to retire, Mason to run; also, a Dem. primary in Wanggaard Recall Race
The Racine Journal-Times is reporting tonight that my long-time Assemblyman, Robert Turner (D-Racine), is going to retire. Turner represented District 61 for twenty-two years; his initial plan was to run in the newly-moved District 66, but that has now changed. Here’s a link to the story:
Turner has been an outstanding Assemblyman, and I’ve deeply appreciated his service to the 61st District and to Racine (as he also served on the Racine City Council from 1976 to 2004). I’d been looking forward to casting my vote for Turner in District 66; as of a week to ten days ago, Turner’s plans were to run in this new district, but this has obviously changed.
The only good news about all this is that Cory Mason, currently the Assemblyman for the 62nd district, is going to move. This will allow him to run for the District 66 seat; because Mason has been an extremely responsible, and responsive, legislator, I know I’ll still have a quality person to vote for.
There’s good reason for Mason to move into District 66, you see — his current district was re-drawn to make it much more difficult for Mason to win. Only 10% of his previous constituents would’ve stayed with him; the rest would be all new. (This, most likely, is why Mason had been considering a run for Lieutenant Governor.)
Take a look at this map (also available at the Journal-Times link above):
As you can see by the map, only one district — the newly-moved 66 — has much of an urban presence. The other three districts that have any portion of Racine County all have a significant rural presence, meaning they’re more likely to be able to be won by Republicans (or right-leaning Independents) than by Democrats.
This re-drawing of maps — most properly called “redistricting” — is what I’d been talking about for the past few months with regards to that three-judge Federal panel. They, and they alone, had the authority to force the state Legislature to re-draw the maps in a more fair and equitable manner; they did not choose to do so, though they did admit that what the Rs did amounted to unethical, immoral, and improper behavior. But nothing rising to the level of illegality could be proven, which is why only Assembly Districts 8 and 9 (in Milwaukee) will have to be re-drawn even though much of the rest of the map is a mess, too.
Moving on, former Senator John Lehman (D-Racine) will have a challenger in the upcoming Senate recall race for District 21, which means a Democratic Primary will have to be run in May. (See this link, also from the Journal-Times, for further details.) This challenger is Andrew Mielke; he’s 28, not a registered Democrat, and didn’t sign the petitions to recall Governor Scott Walker, Lieutenant Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, or Van Wanggaard. But Mielke insists he isn’t a “fake Dem” in the same sense as the six obviously fake Democrats who ran against the Democratic opponents in 2011’s recall races in order to give the state Republicans six more weeks to raise money and try to either retain their seats (four of the six incumbent Rs held their seats) or knock off some Democrats (all three D incumbents held their seats); he says his social views are progressive, and that the reason he’s running is because the people of Racine deserve a Democratic choice in the recall election.
The Democratic Party of Racine has endorsed former Senator Lehman, and said they’re not going to change their minds; they also said (paraphrasing from the Journal-Times article from March 22, 2012) that they’d really like this guy Mielke to get in there and register as a Democrat if he really is one. (Seems fair enough to me.)
I’ve never heard of this guy Mielke, and I’m reasonably active in local and state politics; I go to some area meetings (would go to more if circumstances allowed), I’ve met many people who wanted to recall Walker, Kleefisch, and Wanggaard, and I’ve also met people who didn’t think Wanggaard, etc., should be recalled but weren’t happy with him, either. This latter category seems to be the one Mielke is in, which is why it’s so odd that he’s running for office; as he’s completely unknown to Racine-area voters, it’s unlikely he’s going to do very well, especially as Lehman was a very good Senator (and before that was a very good Assemblyman).
Whether Mielke is a “fake Dem” or not, it really doesn’t matter; all Mielke is doing by entering the race now is to give Wanggaard six extra weeks to raise money in order to try to retain his seat. This is a crucial election for Wanggaard, because if he does retain his seat, this is the one and only shot voters have to get him out; he’ll be ensconced until 2014 if he’s retained.
Complicating matters further is the whole redistricting issue I’ve discussed above, as it also applies to the state Senate districts. Wanggaard will have a much safer seat to defend in 2014, providing he doesn’t get recalled in 2012. (Lehman, should he run and win, would most likely have to move in order to stay within the boundaries of the new District 21 as most of the city of Racine will be enclosed in the new District 22 along with most of the city of Kenosha; District 22 is presently held by Bob Wirch, D-Kenosha, who plans to run again for re-election.) So this is also the one shot Racine voters get to tell Wanggaard what we think of the terrible redistricting “process” — one that caused nearly all R legislators, including Wanggaard, to sign “non-disclosure” (read: secrecy) agreements so the public wouldn’t know what they were doing until it was too late and couldn’t be changed.
Wanggaard doesn’t seem to like to do the public’s business in the light of day, which is why you should vote to oust Wanggaard in June when we’re finally able to recall him. Regardless of party affiliation, we deserve transparency, openness, and honesty in our government at every level. Wanggaard didn’t provide that, which is why he must go.
Still Waiting for Federal Judges’ Ruling in WI Redistricting Lawsuit
Believe it or not, folks, the three-judge federal panel has still not come out with a ruling on the Wisconsin redistricting case. The longer they stay out, the more complex things are likely to get; right now, candidates must register to run in the proposed new districts by early April, but if the judges’ ruling says that the redistricting done by the Wisconsin GOP legislators is unconstitutional, all bets are off regarding candidates, their districts, and filing for elections in the fall.
So every day the federal judges delay their ruling is another day that the legislators have to wonder, “Which seat am I supposed to run for again?”
This isn’t a trivial issue, folks; using my own Assembly district as a model, right now I am in district 61. My Assemblyman is Robert Turner, a highly respected legislator — and a Democrat. But the re-districting “drew” me into a new map; I’m now in district 66. Robert Turner says that is now going to be his district (providing the maps hold up), per his office’s correspondence; you can see where this could be a major problem, considering how many districts got changed (including the district numbering), right?
I haven’t a clue what most of the legislators plan to do if the new proposed district maps get struck down by the federal judges; I do know that if the judges uphold the maps, there will be likely be further lawsuits, which will further cloud the issue.
Of course, if the judges strike down the new districts, the Wisconsin GOP is very likely to immediately appeal to the United States Supreme Court, which is bound by law to take the case in an expedited fashion. So either way, it seems to me the federal judges lose — but the Wisconsin voters, like me, lose even more.
As always, I’ll keep you posted.
WI Recall Election Dates Set
Folks, it’s official: the 2012 Wisconsin recall elections have been set on the calendar for May 8, 2012 and June 5, 2012, the dates the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (GAB) wanted. The Senate elections are likely to all take place on May 8 unless the Wisconsin Republicans again run “fake Democrats” to primary the Democratic candidates in the four Senate races up for grabs, as they did in 2011. All four Senators being recalled are Republicans; two of the four being recalled are Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, and my own state Senator, Racine’s Van Wanggaard.
The recall petitions that were turned in to recall Governor Scott Walker and Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch haven’t yet been certified by the GAB, so it is unclear at this time whether or not Walker and Kleefisch will be among those who will have to run in elections on one or the other of these dates. There will definitely be a Democratic primary — a real one this time — for the gubernatorial contest, as there are three Democrats who have declared they’re running for Governor: former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, Democratic state Senator Kathleen Vinehout, and Secretary of State Douglas LaFollette. That would mean, tentatively, that it’s likely Walker will have to defend his seat on June 5. (It’s possible that Kleefisch may have to defend her seat sooner than Walker, which will be really interesting.)
Now, let’s take a moment to consider the difference between 2011 and 2012 with regards to the recalls.
In the 2011 drive to recall the Republican Eight, recall petitions had to be delivered no later than April; elections were set for June, July and August. Two Republican Senators, Mary Lazich and Glenn Grothman, were not recalled; signatures were not able to be filed against them.
In the six other recall elections pertaining to the original Republican Eight, most were artificially delayed by the Republican maneuver of entering “fake Democrats” into the primaries against the real Democrats running against them. This tactic allowed the Rs to raise more money, as under Wisconsin law, any incumbent may raise unlimited money to defend his (or her) seat. This sizable monetary advantage helped four of the six who were recalled, as they retained their seats. Only Dan Kapanke (R-La Crosse) and Randy Hopper (R-Fond du Lac) ended up losing their seats (to Democratic challengers Jennifer Shilling and Jessica King, respectively).
In 2012, the Republican incumbents have had nearly a year to raise money, and since November 15, 2011, have been able to raise unlimited amounts of money to defend their seats. This has given them a significant advantage over their 2011 brethren. This huge monetary advantage is one reason why I wish the GAB had prioritized the Senate elections. **
There’s no excuse for the elections to have been set so far after the petitions were hand-carried in on January 15, 2011. The GAB surely could’ve set the Senate recall elections earlier, as they worked far more speedily last year to schedule nine Senate recall elections (the three Dems who were recalled and had to stand for new elections were retained); this time, they only had four to deal with. So why the delay?
At any rate, the recalls have been scheduled, at least for the state Senate; we’re now on the clock. Keep watching this space, as I’ll give you whatever updates I can as soon as I receive them.
————————
** I am well aware that over 900,000 signatures, the revised and corrected total, were turned in to recall Walker, and over 800,000 to recall Lt. Gov. Kleefisch. The four Senators, between them, amassed around 65,000 signatures to force their recall elections. That’s why I used the term “prioritized.” (Hold your fire.)
Barb Caffrey's Blog 