Generally I'm against the idea of recalls. This may confuse some of my friends who know that I have stood with them on the subject of recalling a number of Senators from "the other side" but if they look at the events leading up to this during late January and my posts regarding them, they will understand that this was the basis of elected representatives completely ignoring the wishes (and the polite but somewhat desperate PLEAS) from constituents to compromise or at least slow the process down. In some cases the threat to recall was used as a last resort.

On the other side there is the (feigned) outrage of the right-wing over 14 State Senators "fleeing" the state in order to deny a quorum on the vote to strip Public Employee Collective bargaining units of most of the bargaining rights. I've seen some pretty outrageous comparisons claiming that these Senators leaving the state were tantamount to "soldiers abandoning their posts in a time of war"...(really?) and that they were "cowards". The most disingenuous claim I've seen is the one that says that the Republicans never did this when Doyle "rammed a $1Billion tax increase down our throats".

(for the record the $1Billion tax increase they seem to be talking about was closing the loophole that allowed Wisconsin corporations to "headquarter" in Las Vegas and avoid paying Wisconsin taxes)

True. The Republicans didn't leave the state when the legislature rammed the budget through at 4AM (OI think it was that early in the morning)...but then again, no Governor, including the devil-incarnate Jim Doyle, ever tried to simultaneously take away collective bargaining rights and strike a death-dealing blow to the opposition party like this bill was designed to do. If Doyle "forced a budget down their throats" they would still live to fight on another day. If, on the other hand, the Democrats simple accepted their fate as dictated by SB11, then all Union Dues became voluntary, every year the Union would have to stand for a recertification election, dues could not be deducted from paychecks and automatically forwarded to union accountants, and, "fair share" would have been immediately eliminated which would have made a huge dent in Union dues collections. In other words, voting for SB11 was a suicide pact.

Face it: The stripping of collective bargaining rights was designed to break the unions, rob them of their membership dues and ultimately deprive the Democratic Party of their donations. For the first time in my memory, one party has gained complete power and USED that power to permanently wipe out the opposing party FOREVER. That's what the stakes in this battle were. It has NOTHING to do with balancing the State Budget.

In short, the 14 Senators saw this as an existential threat to not only the existence of public employee unions bnut alsot to the Democratic party itself. They could march into the Republican controlled Senate, debate for one hour, be allowed no amendments, no compromises would be entertained and then be lead into the veal pen for slaughter. They had one, constitutional, desperate move left: deny a quorum.

They knew damned well it would result in Right-wing (faux) outrage and more than likely recall positions. But when your choices are to take your chances with a recall or swallow the poison pill.....well....which choice would you make?

Do I agree? No. But I don't see where they had much choice.

Walker hasn't learned yet that opposition solidifies and strengthens when you make all the choices for the other side "existential". That is, when you give your opponents only the choice of being "hung with a new rope or old rope?"...they will take neither and fight you tooth and nail to keep from being hung at all....no matter how futile or costly the fight.

You see...they have absolutely nothing to lose.

When your opponents have nothing left to lose, they become extremely dangerous. That's what the recalls are all about. They seek to take back at least one house of the legislature in order to keep Walker from making every legislative issue "existential" for the Democratic Party.

There is a way to avoid making every choice "existential". Generally speaking it involves the judicious use of power as opposed to the arrogant use of power. Having dinner one night with an old, soon to be retired southern State Senator and one of the finest gentlemen I ever met, I recalled one of my moronic, callow, political triumphs to him on and detailed how I had left my opponent "ruined" on the political battlefield. The old gentleman asked, "...and how did you allow him to preserve his honor?" I had not done anything like that and I said so. He took a slow puff on his pipe and said, "Then you weren't a politician, you were a bully." He went on to say that the key to politics was to remember who you worked for and whether "destroying" your enemy was really working for your constituents or yourself; for their good or your own ego gratification. Besides, the other person has a constituency also and you shouldn't disrespect their choice. So the answer is always, use the law, procedure, public opinion, whatever you have at your disposal to back your opponent into a corner, but in doing so, ALWAYS, ALWAYS ALWAYS, paint an honorable way out for him to take to avoid humiliation.

There was always a certain genteel nature to southern politics and with few exceptions it was practiced here until the last couple of election cycles. Somebody threw away the rule book for orderly discourse in the public arena and replaced it with the theory that if one guy brings a knife to the fight then you bring a gun and if he brings a gun you bring more guns....in other words, endless escalation of the stakes, the rhetoric and eventually violence.

Paint your opponent into a corner? Yes. Do it honorably, cleverly and well. But paint an honorable way out.