Sarah Palin nails it.........on the Wisconsin Recall results

[Guest]

"Obama's goose is cooked"

This is what Sarah Palin had to say in the aftermath of the disastrous loss for the Democrat machine after Gov. Scott Walker won his governorship again, despite massive amounts of money and effort from the Democrat machine and all the pressure the Unions could bring to bear.

“I think that the Democrats there understand that the president’s no-show represents the fact that Obama’s goose is cooked,”

This is what Gov. Sarah Palin told Greta Van Susteren last night. She was referring to President Obama’s decision not to campaign for Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.

Obama didn't want to be contaminated with Barrett's loss after it became clear in polls that he had little chance of pulling off a win, despite last minute desperation allegations of a Walker "love child" out there somewhere.

Palin also said “More and more Americans realize that what Wisconsin has just manifested via this vote … is the complete opposite of what president Obama and the White House represents today.”

Wisconsin election: Sarah Palin: (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77097.html)

Scott Walker opponents hit below the belt with apparently false 'love child' rumor | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/04/walker-opponents-hit-below-the-belt-with-apparently-false-love-child-rumor/)

[Guest]

"Obama's goose is cooked"

This is what Sarah Palin had to say in the aftermath of the disastrous loss for the Democrat machine after Gov. Scott Walker won his governorship again, despite massive amounts of money and effort from the Democrat machine and all the pressure the Unions could bring to bear.

“I think that the Democrats there understand that the president’s no-show represents the fact that Obama’s goose is cooked,”

This is what Gov. Sarah Palin told Greta Van Susteren last night. She was referring to President Obama’s decision not to campaign for Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.

Obama didn't want to be contaminated with Barrett's loss after it became clear in polls that he had little chance of pulling off a win, despite last minute desperation allegations of a Walker "love child" out there somewhere.

Palin also said “More and more Americans realize that what Wisconsin has just manifested via this vote … is the complete opposite of what president Obama and the White House represents today.”

Wisconsin election: Sarah Palin: (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77097.html)

Scott Walker opponents hit below the belt with apparently false 'love child' rumor | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/04/walker-opponents-hit-below-the-belt-with-apparently-false-love-child-rumor/)

It is all about the money is the message I got from the Wisconsin loss for the Democrats and the unions. Debt and controlling it was the most important point. The 2nd was that money talks louder than anything else.

[Guest]

It is all about the money is the message I got from the Wisconsin loss for the Democrats and the unions. Debt and controlling it was the most important point. The 2nd was that money talks louder than anything else.


And if he had lost and Barrett had won I bet your post would read different.

Something like, This is just a preview of what is to come in November and how strong and popular the unions are.......Hmmmm?

[Guest]

Richie,the people voted and decided to keep Walker. That's fine all was above board. But you can't be satisfied.with a win....you again come up with a half-truth or a little lie.You lead people to believe the big bad Dems were the only side to spend massive money when the TRUTH is the Reps outspent the Dems about 7-1in money. Please look up the "massive" amounts of money spent and where it came from on BOTH SIDES.

[Guest]

Richie,the people voted and decided to keep Walker. That's fine all was above board. But you can't be satisfied.with a win....you again come up with a half-truth or a little lie.You lead people to believe the big bad Dems were the only side to spend massive money when the TRUTH is the Reps outspent the Dems about 7-1in money. Please look up the "massive" amounts of money spent and where it came from on BOTH SIDES.

I might add that NONE of this was remotely necessary. This was simply and only a big blow from the unions and nothing more. It was a terrible mistake to undertake this and they were advised by every corner NOT TO DO IT, but they did.

I always try to go back to the seed and in this case it was totally something that came out of the union, was totally union backed and made a political issue. YES.....what a waste....I relate it to the WH wasting an entire year on a disaster of a health bill instead of tackling real problems.

This whole debacle, in my opinion, lies at the feet of the unions !

[Guest]

Richie,the people voted and decided to keep Walker. That's fine all was above board. But you can't be satisfied.with a win....you again come up with a half-truth or a little lie.You lead people to believe the big bad Dems were the only side to spend massive money when the TRUTH is the Reps outspent the Dems about 7-1in money. Please look up the "massive" amounts of money spent and where it came from on BOTH SIDES.

If people were "lead to believe" something I didn't say, I don't know how to comment on that. It wasn't my intention. Gov. Scott Walker was on defense.

This whole affair was concocted by the Democrats under the demands of their Union constituency. The Democrats were on offense, in this affair.

It was they who poured money into trying to portray Gov. Walker as some sort of public fiend. They used every backhanded tactic they could think of and portrayed this as a crystal ball, a foretelling of the coming elections in November.

"The people would make their voices heard" they proclaimed in all their "Occupy Wisconsin" hoopla.............. and, sadly for them, in that they were correct.

This was Democrat engineered, Democrat driven; and democratically a total "crash and burn" for the Democrats and especially for the Unions. This was folly for the Unions and sadly (I really mean this) will resonate beyond this election in a demonstration of Union weakness and vulnerability that the Unions in this age can ill afford.

[Guest]

IMHO this was not about who spent the most money but rather a harbinger of things to come. Voters have seized up the issue of "entitlements" whether that be for corporate America via bailouts, etc. individuals who continue to live on the dole and public unions that have over capitalized at taxpayers expense. Voters are quite aware that we face the same problems as Greece, Italy Spain Potrugal, etc if we continue down the road of economic irresponsibility. voters know Congress won't do it unless they receive a serious warning. Wisconsin results was one such notice and as momentum increases, and it will, the narrative will become more focused concerning financial responsibilities by all of us.

[Guest]

the WI results simply reflect what the people desire and bought.....an end to out of control spending.

No different than when the people in the 2007 election bought what Obama was selling.

With one big difference. Walker did what he said he was going to do and delivered on what he promised.

It has more to do with Americans are sick and tired of business as usual politics which Obama and the current congress represent.

As for the money sing song of the day....could those you are opposed to spend enough money to make you vote for them?

The other issue the media is silent on is the number of cross over votes by those who are fed up with Obama and are not party first no matter what followers.

btk

[Guest]

Obama has a 7 point lead over Willard in WI. WI is blue !!!!!

It is curious nobody seems to notice that in WI the Rethugs LOST the State Senate.

Basically, if Walker had any kind of agenda going forward, it i s DOA. From today forward and until he is up for reelection, Walker is a lame duck.

[Guest]

Obama has a 7 point lead over Willard in WI. WI is blue !!!!!

It is curious nobody seems to notice that in WI the Rethugs LOST the State Senate.

Basically, if Walker had any kind of agenda going forward, it i s DOA. From today forward and until he is up for reelection, Walker is a lame duck.

Obama's still ahead in the blue state of Wisconsin by a reported 7 pt. margin according to exit polling?

Is this the same state of Wisconsin that he won by 14 pts. in 2008?

I wouldn't claim the Senate yet with a margin of 800 votes. The Republicans won 3 of the 4 seats on the ballot with the last one up in the air at this point. Still even if it turns out the way you like, it's a hollow victory.

[Guest]

Obama has a 7 point lead over Willard in WI. WI is blue !!!!!

It is curious nobody seems to notice that in WI the Rethugs LOST the State Senate.

Basically, if Walker had any kind of agenda going forward, it i s DOA. From today forward and until he is up for reelection, Walker is a lame duck.

Obama, Romney Polls Show Candidates Tied In 3 Swing States (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/obama-romney-polls-nbc-marist_n_1558671.html)

polling 6 days ago had the boys even in iowa, colorado and nevada - wll states where obama won in 2008. hmmmmmmmmm

coralway - you often cite recent polling - do you REALLY believe ANY polling done at this time REALLY matters?

[Guest]

...in the aftermath of the disastrous loss for the Democrat machine after Gov. Scott Walker won his governorship again, despite massive amounts of money and effort from the Democrat machine and all the pressure the Unions could bring to bear....Not a big deal here, Richie. Walker won the election fair and square.

But to imply that he did so while overcoming a 'massive' effort by the Democrats is a wee bit disingenuous. The facts are that those contributing to Walker's campaign--who are unknown because of the Supreme Court decsion--outspent his opponent, buying mostly attack ads, to the tune of 7-to-1.

If you want to argue about the results of the election, from a money perspective, it wasn't really a fair fight.

[Guest]

Not a big deal here, Richie. Walker won the election fair and square.

But to imply that he did so while overcoming a 'massive' effort by the Democrats is a wee bit disingenuous. The facts are that those contributing to Walker's campaign--who are unknown because of the Supreme Court decsion--outspent his opponent, buying mostly attack ads, to the tune of 7-to-1.

If you want to argue about the results of the election, from a money perspective, it wasn't really a fair fight.

You miss my point. I don't care about how much money was spent DEFENDING Gov. Scott Walker.

The Democrats and the Unions picked this fight. They set up the battlefield.

They put everything they had to bear in beating Walker like a drum.

They failed miserably and are "bloody" and reeling, no matter how you or anybody wants to spin it.

The Unions, in a very public way, showed their enemies how weak they are.
This did nothing but hurt the union cause. It's going to be harder to bluff anyone anymore.

The money is the least of it. The Democrats crashed and burned.

[Guest]

You miss my point. I don't care about how much money was spent DEFENDING Gov. Scott Walker.

The Democrats and the Unions picked this fight. They set up the battlefield.

They put everything they had to bear in beating Walker like a drum.

They failed miserably and are "bloody" and reeling, no matter how you or anybody wants to spin it.

The Unions, in a very public way, showed their enemies how weak they are.
This did nothing but hurt the union cause. It's going to be harder to bluff anyone anymore.

The money is the least of it. The Democrats crashed and burned.Elections these days are often the result of how much money you raise and spend. Or how much someone else spends in your behalf. You're right; Walker's opponents "put everything they had" into winning the election. It turned out that what they had was nowhere near enough. Walker's supporters and donors from outside Wisconsin outspent his opponent 7 to 1. Mostly in attack ads. To analyze the results of the election without taking that into consideration might feel good...but it's inaccurate.

[Guest]

Elections these days are often the result of how much money you raise and spend. Or how much someone else spends in your behalf. You're right; Walker's opponents "put everything they had" into winning the election. It turned out that what they had was nowhere near enough. Walker's supporters and donors from outside Wisconsin outspent his opponent 7 to 1. Mostly in attack ads. To analyze the results of the election without taking that into consideration might feel good...but it's inaccurate.

Can you provide a politically neutral source that supports this assertion? Please include the monies spent by the Democrats in putting this measure on the ballot and the cost to Wisconsin for the strikes and 'sick-outs'.

[Guest]

Obama, Romney Polls Show Candidates Tied In 3 Swing States (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/obama-romney-polls-nbc-marist_n_1558671.html)

polling 6 days ago had the boys even in iowa, colorado and nevada - wll states where obama won in 2008. hmmmmmmmmm

coralway - you often cite recent polling - do you REALLY believe ANY polling done at this time REALLY matters?





Yes, absolutely. And, obviously, so do the candidates as both campaigns have full-time, highly compensated pollsters who give the candidates polling results state by state on a daily basis.

[Guest]

Can you provide a politically neutral source that supports this assertion? Please include the monies spent by the Democrats in putting this measure on the ballot and the cost to Wisconsin for the strikes and 'sick-outs'.
Politico.com, which covers politics in general, on a pretty much bi-partisan basis....on several occasions leading up to the Wisconsin election...."the media buys in Wisconsin for pro-Walker ads are outstripping ads for his Democratic opponent by 7 to 1."

As far as quantifying the cost of the strikes and demonstrations, certainly you must be kidding. What's that got to do with the effect of advertising on he outcome of elections anyway?

[Guest]

You miss my point. I don't care about how much money was spent DEFENDING Gov. Scott Walker.

The Democrats and the Unions picked this fight. They set up the battlefield.

They put everything they had to bear in beating Walker like a drum.

They failed miserably and are "bloody" and reeling, no matter how you or anybody wants to spin it.

The Unions, in a very public way, showed their enemies how weak they are.
This did nothing but hurt the union cause. It's going to be harder to bluff anyone anymore.

The money is the least of it. The Democrats crashed and burned.I must not be on the mailing list for the GOP talking points for the day. In watching Jeb Bush interviewed on "Morning Joe" this morning, he used exactly that same argument you made in an earlier post...exactly, almost word for word.

Riche, you're not Jeb Bush, are you?

[Guest]

I must not be on the mailing list for the GOP talking points for the day. In watching Jeb Bush interviewed on "Morning Joe" this morning, he used exactly that same argument you made in an earlier post...exactly, almost word for word.

Riche, you're not Jeb Bush, are you?

RichieLion does often seem to get most of his talking points from various Republican websites. Breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/)

[Guest]

I personally do not believe that the more money spent party is the eventual winner. Of course after an event like WI it is the argument of the day.

Can any amount of money spent on ads and commercials incent any of you to vote for the opposition?

If the end result is that because one spend more they ultimately reach more people and hence increase voter turn out, then what is wrong with that....nothing.

And last year when Obama had over a $100 million in his re-election war chest there was never a word about the un-fairness of spending too much.

It is just a convenient red herring to keep the spot light off the fact that the people are fed up with what is going on politically....fed up with talk and no action....and there certainly is never any discussion about the Dems who are crossing over because you know what....they are in the pot with the rest of us getting screwed, they just happen to have a D behind their name.

I would like to hear more about why the people voted like they did VS the how much was spent smoke screen.

btk

[Guest]

I must not be on the mailing list for the GOP talking points for the day. In watching Jeb Bush interviewed on "Morning Joe" this morning, he used exactly that same argument you made in an earlier post...exactly, almost word for word.

Riche, you're not Jeb Bush, are you?

I never heard Jeb speak on this issue, or really anyone else for that matter. It's nice to know I'm on top of things, if what you say is true.

The ramifications of this futile fight isn't hard to deduce.

[Guest]

Not a big deal here, Richie. Walker won the election fair and square.

But to imply that he did so while overcoming a 'massive' effort by the Democrats is a wee bit disingenuous. The facts are that those contributing to Walker's campaign--who are unknown because of the Supreme Court decsion--outspent his opponent, buying mostly attack ads, to the tune of 7-to-1.

If you want to argue about the results of the election, from a money perspective, it wasn't really a fair fight.


I am not sure I understand this logic AT ALL !!!!

In 2008, Obama set all time record for getting and spending funds in the Presidential election. McCain, as I recall went broke at the end of the primary.

Yet, Obama was voted in NOT BECAUSE OF MONEY AT ALL. I am not suggesting that he was voted in because of money but I am struck by the opposite logic that is applied to Wisconsin and the 2008 election.

I mean, if money decides it in your mind totally, then lets just count our nickles the night before the voting or keep good track of it and just declare a winner, OR as you are suggesting money does it sometimes when your candidate wins, it was not money !!!

I guess I am just confused.

This entire thing was union motivated and anyone who has followed it unbiased and totally knows it. It was all about the unions...they are the ones who got the signatures......listen, the politicians themselves didnt want it...it was a loser coming in. This was all about the unions.

If everytime and election is lost the only reason is the money.....gee..that sure does make it easy.

I just do not buy this logic. Lots of money spent....lots of money from outside....but actually, fund raising and getting the money is often a precursor to who has the best message (or chance if you will)

[Guest]

.... This was folly for the Unions and sadly (I really mean this) will resonate beyond this election in a demonstration of Union weakness and vulnerability that the Unions in this age can ill afford.

With the middle class shrinking, how on earth were working people in Wis. convinced to cut down other working people, to the joy of those that control these working people? As an old farm girl, I can see that the chickens are already coming home to roost about the lives of working people. In time we will see that union or nonunion, it will make no difference, this is bad for all working people. And sadly too many of us who are okay financially don't care about coming generations of working people.

My son was the last person hired for his job when there was a union. He is a full time employee with a decent wage, health benefits for his family and other benefits. How his fellow workers were convinced to leave the union, causing it to fold up, I cannot imagine. What pressure they must have been put under, there too it was a matter of turning worker against worker, to the betterment of the pockets of the company owners. What I learned from him is that now, EVERY employee who is hired is part time at minimum wage and NONE of them receive health benefits or any other benefit. This is building a strong America? We should be ashamed of what we are doing.

[Guest]

I am not sure I understand this logic AT ALL !!!!

In 2008, Obama set all time record for getting and spending funds in the Presidential election. McCain, as I recall went broke at the end of the primary.

Yet, Obama was voted in NOT BECAUSE OF MONEY AT ALL. I am not suggesting that he was voted in because of money but I am struck by the opposite logic that is applied to Wisconsin and the 2008 election.

I mean, if money decides it in your mind totally, then lets just count our nickles the night before the voting or keep good track of it and just declare a winner, OR as you are suggesting money does it sometimes when your candidate wins, it was not money !!!

I guess I am just confused.

This entire thing was union motivated and anyone who has followed it unbiased and totally knows it. It was all about the unions...they are the ones who got the signatures......listen, the politicians themselves didnt want it...it was a loser coming in. This was all about the unions.

If everytime and election is lost the only reason is the money.....gee..that sure does make it easy.

I just do not buy this logic. Lots of money spent....lots of money from outside....but actually, fund raising and getting the money is often a precursor to who has the best message (or chance if you will)

I do understand the post that was quoted--simply to not just look at the spending of one side but to look at the spending of both sides--but I don't understand this response. Can you make it clearer?

Speaking of McCain, its important to see why he might have been broke after the primary. It is rare for me not to vote Republican, and the ONLY reason I didnt was because of his running mate Sarah Palen. I could not even count how many Republican women said the same thing. Maybe just maybe THIS is why he was broke after the primary?

[Guest]

I do understand the post that was quoted--simply to not just look at the spending of one side but to look at the spending of both sides--but I don't understand this response. Can you make it clearer?

Speaking of McCain, its important to see why he might have been broke after the primary. It is rare for me not to vote Republican, and the ONLY reason I didnt was because of his running mate Sarah Palen. I could not even count how many Republican women said the same thing. Maybe just maybe THIS is why he was broke after the primary?

What I was trying to respond to was the emphasis put on the spending and the money and quotes such as this as a reason for the results.....

"If you want to argue about the results of the election, from a money perspective, it wasn't really a fair fight. "

"...The 2nd was that money talks louder than anything else."

Using this kind of logic, then why is that logic not applied to the 2008 Presidential election as Obama spend a record amount of money and dwarfed what McCain spent. I am not suggesting that is why he won, just questioning how that logic is applied in such a "selective" manner.

[Guest]

so you voted against Palin by voting for Obama. Maybe that satisfied your prejudice against Palin for what ever reason. But just look at what you decided to help get elected.

Maybe this time you will vote against Obama by voting for the Romney team. Right thing to do (this time) for the wrong reasons.....again.

btk

[Guest]

Obama has a 7 point lead over Willard in WI. WI is blue !!!!!

It is curious nobody seems to notice that in WI the Rethugs LOST the State Senate.

Basically, if Walker had any kind of agenda going forward, it i s DOA. From today forward and until he is up for reelection, Walker is a lame duck.

Romney has now leaped into the lead. Obama "is melting, he's melting"

Election 2012: Wisconsin President - Rasmussen Reports™ (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/wisconsin/election_2012_wisconsin_president)

[Guest]

Romney has now leaped into the lead. Obama "is melting, he's melting"

Election 2012: Wisconsin President - Rasmussen Reports™ (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/wisconsin/election_2012_wisconsin_president)

Obama still has the lead in most of the polls. RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html)

[Guest]

Obama still has the lead in most of the polls. RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html)

my post was in reference to Wisconsin, the "formerly blue state", that liberals pointed out was still an "Obama State" even though Scott Walker kicked Democrat behind up and down Main St. Milwaukee.

Obama's losing ground everywhere though, and across all demographics. By November...................

[Guest]

my post was in reference to Wisconsin, the "formerly blue state", that liberals pointed out was still an "Obama State" even though Scott Walker kicked Democrat behind up and down Main St. Milwaukee.

Obama's losing ground everywhere though, and across all demographics. By November...................






LOL - well ok - if you say so ........... WI is blue, has been for the last 5 presidential elections, and will certainly stay blue. Had we listened to Scotty in '08, the old guy would be POTUS now, and The Wasilla Quitta would be in charge of the Senate.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Wisconsin: Romney vs. Obama (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/wi/wisconsin_romney_vs_obama-1871.html)