Bill Clinton is off to Wisconsin

It could make a difference.

I've written very little on the Wisconsin rebellions and subsequent recall battle, the reason having to do almost entirely with my immeasurable disgust with average Wisconsites. What the hell were they thinking when they voted in Republican Scott Walker to begin with? "Why, we didn't know he was a monstrous perfidy and wholly owned instrument of sinister special interests when we did that," they answer--although by 2010 it wasn't exactly a state secret that virtually every Republican pol was a monstrous perfidy and wholly owned instrument of sinister special interests.

That Walker entered office and thereupon instantly demonstrated what a sniveling worm he in fact was, was hardly surprising. Wisconsites quite literally got what they asked for. Shocking.

But their shocking opacity hasn't ended there. Not by a long shot. No, despite blockbuster revelation after blockbuster revelation, splattered all over their local and our national news, of Walker's exceptionally disgraceful unsuitability for the state's highest office, he's done no worse than run about even with Tom Barrett, and generally ahead. This is not only incomprehensible; it's inexcusable.

Perhaps they'll redeem themselves next week. If not, they'll forever stand--or rather crawl--as politics' poster boy for that swinish admixture of both democratic gullibility and unpardonable apathy.

Comments

[majii]

Apathy and early 'disappointment' in President Obama is supposedly what kept them from the polls in the midterms, but I think they were following the usual pattern wherein voters tend to think midterm elections aren't as important as national elections, so many of them didn't bother to vote. The problems they have with Walker are of their own creation and they have no one to blame but themselves for electing the blockhead.

[Marc McKenzie]

"The problems they have with Walker are of their own creation and they have no one to blame but themselves for electing the blockhead."

Agreed. And yet, somehow, I feel that some are going to use this recall as a "factor" in the November elections, and that it will be damaging to President Obama.

No, it's no damage to the President. The fools that chose to stay home in 2010 because they were "disappointed" have no one to blame but themselves for the wave of GOP maniacs who took over not just Wisconsin, but the House.

And if the people of Wisconsin still do not care enough to vote out Walker, then they should not blame Obama, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, or the Democrats. Blame yourselves--you put this jerk in there, despite all the signals he gave that he would govern the way he has been.

[japa21]

Then we obviously also blame the people of the United States who elected Geg W. Bush twice. And forget the "the elections were stolen" crap. Even if they were, the people of the United States must be really stupid to let it close enough to be stolen.
Sorry, but I am tireed of statements about disgust with the people of Wisconsin, Kansa or any other place. It is not a single homogeneous group of people.
At least differentiate between the people who voted for Walker or didn't vote and those that voted for Barrett.

[ren]

I have to chime in with japa21 here. I was traveling abroad in 2005 and was the target of immense scorn for us Americans having been so foolish and blind to have installed W. for a second term. My protestations that I, and half of my voting countrymen, were far more horrified than they fell largely on deaf ears. And if Mr. Romney wins in November, I'll again be pleading with overseas friends "Don't look at me...I didn't do it!"

[Robert Lipscomb]

I prefer to address the lede, Bill Clinton's grovelling at the feet of Wall Street. Unlike most progressives, I do not recall the Clinton years as some golden era liberalism. It was a full blown capitulation to Reaganism. I suspect that most of the lefists who rant against Obama's failure kneel at Clinton's feet.

It appears that Obama is a 2-1 favorite to win the election. If he does, he will use the next four years to pass some relatively modest legislation, veto knucklehead legislation, write executive orders and issue regulations that will (as the GOP rightly rants) prove Obama to be the most progressive president since LBJ.

And in a few years when the next Democrat president is elected, the lefists will berate him for not being like Obama. Some will even foolishly hold up Clinton as a benchmark.

The DLC is dying but not dead.

[Marc McKenzie]

@Robert: History backs you up. FDR, Truman, Johnson, and yes, even Carter, were constantly criticized for not being progressive enough, not being liberal enough when they were in office.

Today, these men are considered shining examples of liberalism. It wouldn't surpprise me to see the same thing happen to President Obama.