The fact that Wisconsin's Scott Walker now enters the record books as--you've heard this line, I'm sure-- "the first governor in US history to survive a recall election" got me to thinking.
Just so you know, I'm no fan of recall elections. We elect people to serve a constitutionally prescribed term of office and absent impeachable offenses, i.e., high crimes and misdemeanors, they ought to be allowed to serve out that full term...even if and when I disagree with them passionately. Happily, most of us feel the same as recall elections are pretty rare in our history.
However, so rare are they that when they do occur, it's telling. Something must be very wrong indeed. As a result, and as the record shows, they always end with the replacement of the incumbent.
Until now...and this is telling too.
Walker not only won yesterday, he won by a larger margin than he did in 2010. Given the historical record, this just doesn't make sense. In Wisconsin, what exactly was the "something" that was very wrong?
It's this: The Left is maniacal. It will stop at nothing, and I do mean nothing, to achieve its ends. Had it been victorious in Wisconsin, you can be sure that in short order similar recall election movements would have sprung up all around the country.
Perhaps, we must hope and pray, this is the beginning of a momentous backlash. I'm telling you, this is huge.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm not very savvy about politics etc., but must say that the whole idea of recall elections makes me squirm. It reeks of sour grapes somehow (absent misconduct of course, and by misconduct I don't mean implementing policies the other side doesn't like). There's a whole "egg on their faces" quality about this that is, well, very satisfying.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. While I can't say that I oppose them categorically, the circumstances should be extreme by definition and, thankfully, they usually are.
ReplyDeleteThe logic against referenda is similar, but, regrettably, that practice is gaining a foothold.