"With Gov. Scott Walker hinting that he may move to end the city's longtime residency rule for public employees..."

"... Mayor Tom Barrett went on the offensive Friday, saying he's certain property values would drop if the requirement goes away."

"People in [the southwest and northwest sides] of the city are concerned about their property values," Barrett said. "They should remember when their property values go down that it was Governor Walker who did that to them if he proposes this. I'm still hoping he doesn't propose this."

Isn't that the wrong reason for requiring residency? You want to use people — deny them free choice — in order to bolster the real estate market? I can see not wanting the city to hollow out as people escape to the suburbs. You don't want Milwaukee to turn into Detroit, but what about the real people who work for the city? If they want to live too far out in the suburbs, their only option is to give up their jobs?

Note the big effect on who teaches the schoolchildren of Milwaukee. And then one of the reasons you might not want to live in Milwaukee is that you don't think the schools are good enough. A vicious circle there, no?

From the comments at the link:

I am considering moving out of Milwaukee. I own a $200,000 house and my taxes are almost as much as my mortgage. How can you even consider making someone pay almost $7K year for a $200k house and I can't even send my kids to the public schools. Don't even get me started on crime.... clean up the city and you won't have to hold employees hostage!

On the other side, also from the comments:

If you draw a city paycheck, the city has every right to require you to contribute to the local tax base by living there. If that's simply too much to bear, there are other places to work. No one is forcing anyone to work for the city of Milwaukee.

"Your safety. It's no longer a spectator sport. I need you in the game. But are you ready?"

"With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option. You could beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. But are you prepared? Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family. We're partners now. Can I depend on you?"

Says Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke Jr. in a new radio ad (which you can play here).

Predictable pushback. From the office of Tom Barrett (the Mayor of Milwaukee who challenged Gov. Scott Walker in the recall election and lost):

"Apparently, Sheriff David Clarke is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie."

And from Jeri Bonavia, executive director of Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort:

"What (Clarke's) talking about is this amped up version of vigilantism.... I don't know what his motivations are for doing this. But I do know what he's calling for is dangerous and irresponsible and he should be out there saying this is a mistake."

Tommy Thompson is 11 points ahead of Tammy Baldwin in the Senate race in Wisconsin.

Tommy didn't win Tuesday's GOP primary by much. The old man had to fight off a handsome newcomer — Eric Hovde — and a lot of negative advertising was thrown around. But he's nevertheless way out in front of Baldwin already. This was utterly predictable, as is his ultimate victory over Baldwin in November.

The excitement in Wisconsin will have to be of the presidential political kind. Obama will have to show up here, and I wonder how much he will bother to help the predictable loser Baldwin. Remember, Obama did not stop by Wisconsin to try to help the Democratic challenger to Governor Scott Walker in the recall election last June. I think he didn't want his lack of magic to show and knew Tom Barrett was going to lose. But now Obama faces his last election — or so he says.* The polls showing Baldwin's dreary prospects are and will be much worse than what the public saw about Barrett. (But I believe Obama was looking at internal polls that show Barrett doing far worse than what the public saw before the recall election.)

Now, Obama needs to come to Wisconsin. These 10 electoral votes matter... a lot. They could determine the outcome of the presidential election. He must come to Wisconsin. Will he stand by Baldwin and promote her lost cause? It's a risk! It's not just the problem of getting loser on him, which we know from the recall he has an aversion to. It's that Baldwin is a lefty liberal, whose career has been based in Madison, and Obama needs to win voters from those parts of the state he's avoided in the past. He likes to show up for adoration in Madison and Milwaukee, but he won't win Wisconsin that way, and showing up in Madison/Milwaukee pushing Tammy Baldwin is not the way to talk to the rest of Wisconsin.

The rest of Wisconsin — including many Democrats — are going to vote for Tommy Thompson. Obama must talk to these people. Think about it:

Tommy has coattails!

Mitt Romney might win the presidency riding on Tommy's coattails.

It's all about Wisconsin, baby.
_______________________________

* I'd like to see him show his commitment to American politics by running for Governor or the Senate after he leaves the presidency. (But in/from which state? Is he going to go live in Illinois when he's done being President? I doubt it.)

What if you support a political candidate and his campaign — without your permission — sticks its yard sign in your yard?

Oh, how painful it was for Adam Schabow when — twice! — Tom Barrett's people stuck their sign in his yard! He hates Scott Walker, but the presumption and the intrusion was just very horrible for him.

"I wanted a 'Recall Walker' sign. 'Cause mine got stolen a couple of weeks earlier. The whole thing was very convenient for me. But they didn't know that. So they shouldn't've been messin' around on my lawn."

Even liberals say get off my lawn.

IN THE COMMENTS: Pogo wrote:

His lawn?
"His" lawn??

There is nobody in this country who got a lawn on his own — nobody.
You grew some grass out there? Good for you.

But I want to be clear. You moved your grass seed on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired lawn care workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your house because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything on your lawn — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.

Your lawn?
Hardly!!

"More than 5,300 violent assaults have been misreported since 2006..." in Milwaukee.

"An internal department audit shows that 20% of aggravated assaults were underreported as lesser offenses that didn't get counted in the city's violent crime rate during that time."

"This is the highest error rate I have ever heard of," said Samuel Walker, criminology professor at the University of Nebraska-Omaha. "A genuinely independent audit of the department is necessary."

Mayor Tom Barrett praised the department for being transparent about flaws in crime data.

"While there were errors in total crimes reported to the FBI, the Police Department's analysis shows crime trends previously reported are correct," Barrett said. "Milwaukee is a safer city."

Barrett, you will remember, was the Democratic Party's candidate in the recall election against Scott Walker.

"Obama says he was too busy to campaign in Wisconsin recall election"... or did he?

Headline writers keep paraphrasing him like that, but let's look at the quote:

“Well, you know, the truth of the matter is that as President of the United States, I’ve got a lot of responsibilities. Uh, I was supportive of Tom and, uh, have been supportive of Tom. Uh, obviously, uh, you know,  I would have loved to have seen a different result."



He doesn't say that he didn't go because he's "got a lot of responsibilities." I'll accept that "I've got a lot of responsibilities" is pretty close to "I'm busy" (but not exactly the same, because you could have a lot of responsibilities and do them efficiently and quickly, and you could also be failing to meet your responsibilities).

What I'm not seeing is an assertion that being busy was the reason for staying out of Wisconsin. After the bland expression of support for Tom Barrett, the next line is not "I would have loved to have visited Wisconsin for the campaign." It's "I would have loved to have seen a different result." That subtly accommodates what we suspect was real reason for staying out of Wisconsin: He knew the result was going to be a Barrett loss and he was sorry about that and unable to change it.

Watch the clip. It does sound weak and pathetic, but I think it's incorrect to make it seem as though he didn't care enough or want to bother with Wisconsin.  I think you can tell that he's really sad about what happened, and he feels — and felt — powerless to affect it. This man is not projecting the energy and confidence he should have at this point in his campaign.

Whatever happened to those robocalls telling people who'd signed the Walker recall petitions they didn't have to vote in the recall election?

Everyone was talking about them on June 5th, the day of the recall election. The talk was of reports that some people said they got these calls. Now the election is over, and no one is talking about it anymore. Did anyone ever record one of these phone calls and put it up on YouTube? And where has all the outrage gone?

So I'll stir up outrage right now about the reports, dumped on the public on election day. Were the reports fake? If they weren't fake, where is the evidence? If they were real, who made these calls? Actual Walker supporters or Walker opponents?

Since the reports were made in a manner and at a time when it served the interests of Walker opponents, I always suspected Walker opponents of either faking the reports or generating the calls to cause the reports. I'm even more suspicious now that the subject has been dropped. If the calls were real and really made by Walker supporters, the opponents who claimed they got the calls or claimed they heard complaints about the calls would have an interest now in laying out the evidence. The silence is telling.

Scott Walker says "The mayor could have had $50 million more, it wouldn't have made a difference."

"I think if you ask most voters today, everybody knew what was at stake. Everybody knew where I was, they knew what the mayor offered. There was no confusion. One of the positive things I looked at, this was one of those few elections where it wasn't based on some goofy sidebar issue. It wasn't based on some personality issue. It was fundamentally, here's where this side stands, here's where that side stands. Who do you pick?"

Lots more here, including the fact that Scott Walker has got a lot of yard work and painting around the house to catch up with.

My post-recall question: What did Rahm Emanuel say to Tom Barrett to get him to run against Scott Walker?

Here's what things looked like on March 28th, before Barrett declared his candidacy for governor in the recall election:

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel helped raise money for Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett during a luncheon at the Italian Community Center Wednesday – a strong sign that Barrett will enter a likely recall race against Gov. Scott Walker.

Tickets for Wednesday’s luncheon ranged from $400 each to $2,500 for a table. The luncheon was closed to the media, and outside, there were about 75 demonstrators.

Barrett is running for re-election as mayor. He has said he’ll announce whether he’s jumping into the governor’s race sometime between Friday and Tuesday. Earlier this month, Barrett said: “I’m seriously considering that office, but again, I love being the mayor of the city of Milwaukee, so that’s what I’m focusing on right now.”

On March 30 — 2 days later — Barrett announced his candidacy. His message at that point was that he would support collective bargaining, but he wanted to get to a compromise, bringing in all sides. "I'm going to try to heal the state. I'm going to try to restore the trust." This contrasted to what was being said by his rival for the Democratic Party nomination, Kathleen Falk — who'd announced her candidacy back in January. Falk had captured the unions' endorsement by pledging to veto any budget that did not restore public unions' collective bargaining powers.

Now, I think the polling numbers showed all along that Scott Walker was going to win the recall election, so something else was at stake that drove Emanuel to Milwaukee to propel Tom Barrett into the race. The real interests had to do with the national Democratic Party and the fall elections.

Here's something David Blaska wrote back on March 19 —  before Emanuel came to Milwaukee, but with the fundraiser planned. Blaska noted that Emanuel had unsettled the unions in Chicago:

Rahm... criticized his predecessors’ deal with the teachers union. Bill Daley and schools chancellor Arne Duncan (now U.S. Secretary of Education) gave the union “hefty” pay increases and a shorter school day in return for some union love. Says the new mayor, “I know what the teachers got and I know what the politicians got. But I don’t know what the kids got.”

Mayor Emanuel got legislation giving districts greater authority to fire teachers, reform tenure, pay for performance, and lengthen the school day and school year. He’s also a big fan of charter schools. His new school chancellor, Haitian-born Jean-Claude Brizard, worked with school reformer Joel Klein in New York City.

Meanwhile, in Milwaukee, Barrett was no big friend of the unions:

The major downside to a Tom Barrett candidacy is the same as his strength: public sector labor bosses hate him. Barrett tried to take over Milwaukee public schools; despite a Democratic governor and both houses of the Legislature, they could not beat the teachers union. Barrett has also used Walker’s “tools” to balance his budget. He actually wanted greater pension and health insurance leverage vis-a-vis his police and firefighters, although those unions are specifically exempted from Act 10 reforms.

“With Emanuel set to appear in Milwaukee for Tom Barrett on March 28, it is clear that Barrett is poised to become Obama’s pick to unseat Walker,” claims The Badger Democracy blog.

In “Why would Tom Barrett run for governor ... again?” Badger Democracy says it “examined the role Rahm Emanuel played in Free Trade policies (NAFTA), union busting, and privatization from his years with Bill Clinton to Barack Obama to the Chicago Mayor’s Office. Does Tom Barrett represent the energy and power of this recall movement? How many times has Barrett marched with teachers and firefighters? How many times has Barack Obama actually stood with Labor in Wisconsin ...?”

Blaska’s Bottom Line: next time someone asks why can’t Republicans elect a moderate, turn the question around on them. Why can’t Democrats elect a moderate?

But Barrett got the Democrats' support in the primary, knocking out Kathleen Falk who would have wedded the Democratic Party's image in Wisconsin to the unions. And Barrett proceeded to avoid talking about collective bargaining, making his issue some vague blather about healing and trust. That is, he ended up with a generic non-message of the sort that has worked for Barack "Hope and Change" Obama.

So what did Rahm Emanuel say to Tom Barrett? Was he conveying the message that you are Obama's pick, and we need to do this for the sake of the party's future? And this includes losing, because we know from the polls that you are going to lose. And, after today, we are not going to help you. In fact, although you are Obama's pick, you are picked for the purpose of keeping this pro-union message off of the President. He will not appear by your side in Wisconsin. He might do fundraisers just over the border in Minneapolis, making a show of shunning you. We'll throw you a tweet of support — in less than 140 characters — on the eve of the election. This is all understood.

In that light, Barrett stoically did what he was supposed to do. He lost, and he did it in a way that allowed much of the media — which is substantially pro-Obama — to interpret the June 5th election as a crushing loss to the public sector unions but somehow nevertheless good news for Obama.

Now, let's look back to that Badger Democracy ("Progressive Truth in Journalism for Wisconsin") item that Blaska linked to (above). That was written on March 15th:

For over 14 months, this struggle has begun and continued without the support of Barack Obama and his Administration. He was not on the ground with us marching against Act 10 – in fact, many of us have pleaded  for his support since this struggle began. Now, facing an election, Obama needs Wisconsin as a critical battleground state. His obvious intention – to link his campaign with the energy and power of the Wisconsin grassroots movement with Tom Barrett as the capital “D” Democratic candidate.

The "energy and power" maybe, but not also the lefty politics.

Does Tom Barrett represent the energy and power of this recall movement? 

No, but that was the point. To capture the energy, but launder out the left-wing issues and ideology. Barrett was to be exploited by the Party as a firewall, allowing Party insiders to use the energy of the Wisconsin protests without getting burned by issues and attitudes that scare off mainstream American voters. (The Party was struggling with a similar problem with respect to the Occupy Wall Street movement.)

How many times has Barrett marched with teachers and firefighters? How many times has Barack Obama actually stood with Labor in Wisconsin or against job-killing free trade bills? When has Rahm Emanuel honored the negotiating process of collective bargaining? The political actions of these candidates speaks volumes about who they are, and what they represent.

Exactly.

If Tom Barrett were to decide to drop out of the Milwaukee Mayor’s race to run for Governor because people are overwhelming in their demanding that action, so be it. If he were to win a competitive primary, so be it. But – if Barrett intends on running as a pawn to the Obama Administration and beholden to that corporate money; and using the grassroots momentum for that political end – it will serve no good for the people at the heart of this movement or Wisconsin itself, and we all lose the potential to change the politic in Wisconsin for the benefit of the people.

Ask yourself the question – what does this movement represent, and do the actions of Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, and Tom Barrett embrace those beliefs?  

Responses are welcome. Solidarity.

Here's my response: They owned you.

California voters have "buyers' remorse" over over a $68.4 billion high-speed "train to nowhere."

"The project is still $54.9 billion short of what is needed, raising fears that the state will be unable to find the funds to finish later sections, and could be left with a futuristic rail line linking minor cities and farming communities."

A new poll shows almost three fifths would oppose the bullet train and halt public borrowing if given another chance to vote.

Almost seven in 10 said that, if the train ever does run between Los Angeles and San Francisco, they would "never or hardly ever" use it.

Not a single person said they would use it more than once a week, and only 33 per cent said they would prefer the bullet train over a one hour plane journey or seven hour drive. The cost of a ticket, estimated at $123 each way, also put many off. Jerry Brown, California's Democrat governor, has championed the project as a way to create jobs and is backed by unions.

Democratic governor... backed by unions... Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, we rejected the Democratic gubernatorial candidate who wanted the high-speed train. We rejected him in November 2010, and we re-rejected him yesterday.

Here's Tom Barrett in October 2010, just before his first loss to Scott Walker, touting high-speed rail — "a defining issue" — where "Wisconsin was the biggest winner" — bigger even than California — in getting an offer of federal money to pay for a leg of a rail system.



And here is one of the most effective political ads I've ever experienced, the ad from Scott Walker, in late summer of 2010, rejecting the high-speed rail:

"The Whupping in Wisconsin: Seven Key Conclusions."

'It's time to reflect. My own instincts are to enjoy the security of knowing things have not been upset. We're not going back. Peace has arrived. It's a beautiful morning. Or, as Meade just said: "It's morning in Wisconsin." But if the recall election had gone the other way, there would have been lusty gloating and aggressive interpretation of what it all means. What a stern repudiation of conservative politics it would have been!

So I want to look at some things like Erick Erickson's 7 conclusions. (The parentheticals are my reactions.)

1. "[D]efense of public sector unions is now a non-starter..." (This was known after the primary, when Barrett defeated Falk. Then Barrett had nowhere, really, to go. But he tried, with vague themes like bringing back "Wisconsin values" and making it possible for neighbors to speak to neighbors. The whole idea of the recall stopped making sense. )

2. The "coalition of disaffected independent voters, tea party activists, and Republicans held together." (Disaffected? I'd say the independent voters — e.g., me — coolly assessed the situation in Wisconsin and decided it's best to keep going in this direction.)

3. "[T]he Republican Party’s use of technology in its GOTV efforts really paid off.... The Democrats handed the GOP a marvelous gift of a recall that went on and on and on. By the time everyone got to the gubernatorial recall, the GOP had its GOTV tweaked perfectly." (Interesting. I kept hearing about how amazing the Democrats were on getting out the vote. The GOP never contacted us. We got 2 in-person visits from Democrats in the days before the election — in addition to Dem robo-calls — but on election day, we got nothing. I think one of the individuals who encountered Meade at the door — I never answer the door — figured out we were people who shouldn't be gotten out.)

4. We can discern that "Barack Obama is extremely nervous." (He was nervous and he showed it. That tweet-only contact with Wisconsin was an embarrassing display of nervousness. It made me think of that old 2008 theme: He voted present.)

5. "[E]xit polling does not work well for recall elections." (I'd say exit polling is so deeply defective that it should be ignored. I saw CNN using exit polling to make a show out of the night, to push ratings. They have these spiffy displays, to show numbers, which John King purports to explain to Wolf Blitzer, but the numbers are — I will presume from now on — bogus. It's like finding out "American Idol" doesn't count the phoned-in voters. No. It's worse. At least "American Idol" contestants are actually singing. But John King explaining the meaning of things that are not real? Why are we watching that? Is that independently entertaining? I can imagine a reality show where contestants are given ridiculous and false factoids and then they are judged by how much we enjoy their efforts to explain them. Actually, I used to play a little game like that with my sons when they were little. It was called "What if you had to argue...?")

6. "Barack Obama is still the favorite" in Wisconsin. (Is he relying on the exit polls?! I think the Obama people are completely freaked out now. And the better Walker does over the next 5 months, making things work — or making us feel that things are working — without the static or protests and recall and with economic numbers improving, the more the people of Wisconsin may get the impression that Romney can do things like that at the national level and save us from the depredations of liberal policy.)

7. "MSNBC is consistently the most entertaining news network in America when things go badly for the left.... I was actually concerned that Ed Schultz might have a medical episode on live television last night. It was … surreal." (I didn't watch much MSNBC. I get my fill of lefty acting-out in real life here in Madison. But maybe it is a fun TV show. Lord knows the CNN attempts at explaining nonexistent things are useless.)

Erickson has an 8th item, but he won't fully commit to it as a conclusion: "Anger does not win elections." (Anger... what exactly are we talking about? Dumb rage is unappealing, but some kind of fervor is needed. I think Barrett was a bad candidate because he was basically bland on the issues, he claimed he would restore good feeling, but he would rear up with angry talking points intermittently. This doesn't convince people that it's worth ousting somebody who's in the middle of doing a job that seems to be working and who seems reasonably steady and competent.)

2 new ideas about why Barack Obama didn't come to Wisconsin to campaign for Tom Barrett.

From Tobin Harshaw:

The first is that Barrett in recent weeks has attacked Walker for becoming a "rock star" in the national conservative movement, and may have felt that bringing in his own party's rock star would have undermined that effort.

The second, and more likely, is that Barrett made his criticisms of Walker's job-creation record -- not collective-bargaining rights -- the focal point of the race. Given Friday's May jobs report that showed national unemployment on the rise and the fewest jobs added in a year, perhaps the "efficacy" of a presidential visit really was called into question.

Voter suppression by "Walker allies" or last-minute, uncheckable smear by Barrett people?

Salon reports:

With both sides counting on dramatic turnout, Tom Barrett’s campaign is charging Scott Walker supporters with dirty tricks. In an e-mail sent to supporters last night, Barrett for Wisconsin Finance Director Mary Urbina-McCarthy wrote, “Reports coming into our call center have confirmed that Walker’s allies just launched a massive wave of voter suppression calls to recall petition signers.” According to Urbina-McCarthy, the message of the calls was: “If you signed the recall petition, your job is done and you don’t need to vote on Tuesday.”

Last night I talked to a Wisconsin voter who says she received just such a robo-call. Carol Gibbons told me she picked up the phone and heard a male voice saying “thank you for taking this call,” and that “if you signed the recall petition, you did not have to vote because that would be your vote.”

There's a dirty trick in here somewhere, but whose? Somebody said she received this junk? Prove it. Who was it from? All the Barrett campaign is on the hook for saying is that they've heard reports from people who say they've gotten these calls. Why would Walker people do this? They aren't the desperate ones.

Urbina-McCarthy’s email requested donations to fund a new round of phone calls to all recall petitioner signers to make sure they know they still need to vote. 

Oh, they raised money off this completely deniable allegation?

Reached over e-mail, Barrett spokesperson Phil Walzak said, “If true, this shows the desperation of Walker and his right wing allies in the final hours of the campaign, and the depths to which they will sink to maintain their grip on power at the expense of the people and values of the great state of Wisconsin.”

This shows desperation, all right, but the Walker campaign isn't the one that's desperate. I love the egregious deniability here: If true... Great intro phrase for the sleazy rumor-mongers of the world.

ADDED: David Prichard — a journalism professor at U.W.-Milwaukee — has this May 2012 article in Wisconsin Lawyer about prosecuting false political speech in Wisconsin:

Wisconsin has three misdemeanor statutes that may be used against people who make intentionally false statements in political campaigns. The statutes prohibit false representations affecting elections, criminal defamation, and giving false information for publication. This article reports how the Wisconsin statutes have been used – and, in some cases, misused – over the past two decades....

Political speech is not automatically protected by the First Amendment. Intentional, calculated lies may be punished; at least 17 states have laws that forbid various kinds of false campaign speech. But the wisest course of action is to save criminal prosecution for the most egregious cases. The statutes discussed in this article should never be used against a sincere critic, a confused or careless partisan, or the perpetrator of a juvenile prank.

"Should President Obama have gone to Wisconsin?"

Asks WaPo's Chris Cillizza:

The majority of Democratic strategists we spoke to over the weekend, however, insisted that the combination of Obama’s personality (and that of his political team) as well as the unique dynamics in the Badger State lessened not only the likelihood of a presidential visit but also its potential efficacy.

“If a recall race becomes purely partisan, there is a strong backlash from independents,” said Steve Murphy, a leading Democratic media consultant. “Obama was smart to stay away, for both himself and Barrett.”

That's too vague. What's wrong with "Obama's personality" (and the "personality" of his "team") that  would have been bad for Barrett?

Another Democratic operative who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about strategy said that polling suggests “Barrett’s problem is is white men, lots of them union members, and Obama doesn’t cut much ice there.”

Thanks, anonymous Democrat. Thanks for the insight. Obama shied away from Wisconsin because of the white men. But I thought it was all about turnout. His lack of ice-cutting with white men wouldn't have prevented him from stimulating the women and minorities.

“Everyone knows how risk averse Obama is,” said a senior party strategist. “At least he’s consistent.”... 

In the end, Obama, like all of us, is shaped by his own experiences. And roughly two years ago, Obama gave in to pleas for him to make a last-minute campaign stop for Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D), who was struggling to hold the seat of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Obama’s trip changed nothing. Coakley lost to now-Sen. Scott Brown (R), and the president had to endure a series of stories about whether he had lost his mojo.

Seen through that lens, Wisconsin looks like a no-win situation for Obama. As one Democratic consultant closely following the race put it: “From his point of view, (there’s) not much to gain and something to lose.”

So, basically, don't help Democrats who need help. Stop by for some win when they are already winning. But I'm not going to criticize Obama for not associating himself with the recall calamity. It's enough to hide the anger that surely must be there about the way the Wisconsin recall is hogging the political spotlight, draining donation money that might have gone elsewhere, and providing a ripe opportunity for advertising the success of conservative policy.

5 reasons why the Scott Walker haters should vote for Scott Walker in the recall.

1. The recall grew out of the protests — the vibrant, passionate protests — against Scott Walker's cutback of collective bargaining rights, and Tom Barrett, by campaigning on anything but union rights, has betrayed the original intent of the recall.

2. Don't reward the Democratic Party for appropriating the protest energy — which had that real, left-wing progressive spirit — and handing it to a bland moderate who stands for nothing much than not being Scott Walker. If this works for them, they'll keep trying to do it, and your movement will always be coopted. You're a protester: Register a protest vote.

3. Scott Walker has been a great foil for left-wing politics, a great arch-enemy. Tom Barrett won't do any of the things you really want, and you'll be stuck more or less supporting him. You'll become middle-of-the-road and deactivated.

4. If Scott Walker loses, it won't be by much, and the people who support him will be outraged and energized. Remember how you felt when he announced his reforms in February 2011? They'll feel something like that. It will be the Tea Party Summer, going into the fall elections.

5. Vote against recall politics generally. This is not a normal way for a democracy to work. You can show some sympathy with the ordinary Wisconsinites who don't like their lives disrupted this way.

"Activists converge on Wisconsin for historic recall vote."

Says Reuters (linked prominently at Drudge):

Political activists converged on Wisconsin on Sunday to join get-out-the-vote efforts two days before a historic recall election for Republican Governor Scott Walker that is seen as a test for November's presidential race.

But as I just wrote in the previous post, I was all over downtown Madison today, and there was NO political activity at all.

But up in Brown County, Wisconsin, Scott Walker and Tom Barrett attended the same event, Brown County Dairy Breakfast, where there was a crowd of 8,000+ people to glad-hand.

Barrett arrived while Walker was still on the premises, and Walker lingered a few yards away talking to attendees while Barrett got in position to serve Dairy Breakfast food, a ritual of Wisconsin politics. The candidates were both on the scene for about 20 minutes.

Barrett was greeted warmly by some of the breakfast-goers — at least one man told him Barrett he was voting for him, prompting Barrett to joke, "Give him a lot of really good food" — but others reacted differently, telling Barrett they were voting for Walker and not shaking his hand when he extended it.

Asked if he got this kind of reaction when he ran against Walker in 2010, Barrett said, "No no, this is a newer occurrence."

Yes, because this recall is an unwelcome intrusion on the people of the state, and we have reason to be angry about it.  Those who pushed for the recall felt angry, after losing the regular election, and this anger took them as far as it did, but it set up a newer occurrence, which was to outrage the people who expected to be left alone until the next regular election.

Democratic Party leaders — including President Obama — sat back and allowed the fury of the protesters to build and channel into a recall. I presume they hoped the grassroot passion would benefit them. But they should have seen where this would go, and they should have cautioned against it. Every creditable candidate — including Tom Barrett — should have said they would not run and no one should sign the recall petition. But the folly was allowed to go on, and now Scott Walker has raked in the millions, become a national "rock star," and stands ready to collect a new mandate.

And now, in the end, the Democratic Party, with its lackluster candidate Tom Barrett, who already lost to Scott Walker in 2010, looks lame and defeated. The more left-wing folk who drove the protests last year have to be irritated that all their intense energy and hard work got co-opted by the Party, which didn't really have any idea what to do with it, but just wanted to use it, because it was there to be used.

Fmr. Gov. Ed Rendell: Democrats "made a mistake" pursuing the recall against Scott Walker.

He's responding to a remark by Joe Scarborough that contains a really annoying misstatement of fact:

"I hate politicians when they're asked, what mistake -- like George Bush was asked after four years, what mistakes have you made? 'I can't think of any.' When Scott Walker comes out and says, 'I messed up. I should have listened first before going out and doing what I did. I won't make that mistake again.' Again, you sit there and, go, 'hey, the guy is comfortable in his own skin.'"

Rendell then says:

"And conversely, our guys made a mistake by not -- at that point -- raising the victory flag. They'd accomplished a lot of what they wanted to accomplish, declare victory. Don't get an election that's divisive, that may have an influence on the presidential election. We made a mistake doing that."

But Scott Walker didn't say I should have listened first. He said he should have explained and won more popular support:

The mistake I made early on is, I looked at it almost like the head of a small business: identify a problem, identify a solution and go out and do it... I don't think we built enough of a political case, so we let ... the national organizations come in and define the debate while we were busy just getting the job done."

He's been very consistent about that. It's Tom Barrett's argument that what the governor ought to do is sit down with everyone, listen, focus, work together, etc. That's not Scott Walker. Walker had a plan, got elected, and put the plan into play. He just wished after the fact that he'd controlled the public discourse better.

"[M]any veterans of the [Wisconsin] protests are discouraged that so much promising grassroots energy sloppily dissipated at the hands of Democrats."

"The movement got co-opted by the Democratic Party." Those are the words of an anonymous Wisconsinite, quoted by Sally Kohn in a Daily Beast article that analyzes what has happened in Wisconsin over the past year and a half. Kohn opines:

But frankly, if the Democrats had succeeded in co-opting such a massive and magnetic grassroots groundswell, the recall campaign in Wisconsin would look dramatically different.

Face it. There's a big difference between left-wing activism and the Democratic Party. Why would left-wing activists care about getting a lackluster Democrat like Tom Barrett to be Governor? It works much better to have the big enemy Scott Walker as Governor. It was so energizing in March 2011. This recall is pathetic by comparison. Lefties should take a cue from the UW Teaching Assistants' Association: Repudiate the recall.

"Nice police department you got there, Mayor Barrett."

Says Instapundit, linking to my post about the man with the pro-Walker sign who was arrested by the Milwaukee police today. He adds:

There’s also some sort of scandal involving the Milwaukee police, isn’t there? Oh, yes, there is: Milwaukee Police Accused Of Performing Illegal Body Cavity Searches.

Oh, and there’s the crime statistics book-cooking scandal.

Plus a policy favoring illegal assaults on gun owners.

Then there’s that whole vote-fraud business.

Tom Barrett at last night's debate: "No one on my staff has ever been charged with a crime."

He looked really pleased and smug when he said that... but it's just not true.

Via Meade, at the Isthmus forum.