Was the 2008 Election Actually a Coup d'état?

1. 67

   AnnCeeposted 13 years ago

   With all that is going on in Wisconsin in opposition to a freely elected governor attempting to improve the economy of his state one has to wonder. 
   
   Taking into account the amazing access union leaders have had to Barack Obama one has to wonder. 
   
   Considering the participatory community organized nature of the Obama campaign one has to wonder. 
   
   With the president of the United States coming out firmly against state's rights one has to wonder.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "... one has to wonder."
      
      ... No they don't.

      replyreport
   2. 62

      I am DB Cooperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "in opposition to a freely elected governor attempting to improve the economy of his state"
      
      This is an opinion. The governor entered office with a surplus less than 2 months ago and he quickly enacted a tax-cut and spending plan that has the state in the red. He may have done this because he thought it was the best thing to do for the state's economy, or he may have done it so he could use the financial situation as leverage to break the unions, which generally support liberal politicians. I don't know which it was, I can't read his mind.

      replyreport
2. 0

   ryankettposted 13 years ago

   How can you overthrow a president that had finished his second term?
   
   A Coup d'état is a sudden desposition of a government, that term does not make sense when applied to an election in a democratic country.
   
   Even Egypt cannot be described as a Coup d'état due to the lack of internal involvement.

   replyreport
3. 75

   barryrutherfordposted 13 years ago

   A drovers Dog could have beat Bush in 2008 even though has was unable to run a third term

   replyreport
4. 60

   knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

   "Was the 2008 Election Actually a Coup d'état?" Every presidential election is a coup d'état.

   replyreport
5. 77

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   It seems that what is going on in WI, IN, OH, etc. is more a reflection of the 2010 elections than the 2008 election.
   
   I hate to constantly use CA as the counterpoint example, but in this case it works. We are also hemorrhaging red ink in our state. We have incredibly powerful unions -- state workers, teachers, prison guards, etc. Governor Brown has stated publicly that he is in favor of MORE participatory government. He has no intention of union busting. He'll beat up plenty on the unions, but won't strip them of their right to collective bargaining.
   
   What if -- just for arguments' sake -- the Wisconsin unions agreed to everything the governor is asking?

   replyreport
   1. 67

      AnnCeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I believe Governor Walker is intent on getting rid of collective bargaining for public employees.   That won't happen easily.

      replyreport
   2. 64

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That would effectively put them out of business which is the governor's objective and of the Koch brothers who are pulling the strings from behind the curtain. Walker is the Kochs' pulltoy.

      replyreport
   3. 74

      Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "What if -- just for arguments' sake -- the Wisconsin unions agreed to everything the governor is asking?"
      You mean like they did?
      Well, they agreed to everything except the loss of their collective bargaining rights. But that's not good enough for the Gov. and the Bros. Koch, apparently. .

      replyreport
6. 67

   AnnCeeposted 13 years ago

   Maybe coup is the wrong term.  I suspect though, that this administration is not serving the American people.  They are owned by the unions and who knows who else.  Union leaders have had unprecedented access to this White House.  What the Democrat reps in Wisconsin are doing is against the will of those they were elected to represent.
   
   Is it a coup if a government is taken over by a force that no longer represents the electorate?

   replyreport
   1. 79

      kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Nope, its just an ill informed electorate electing someone in who is ill suited to represent them
      
      Then again I don't think there was an option that would be well suited to representing the average person

      replyreport
   2. 74

      Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "Maybe coup is the wrong term."
      
      Definitely coup is the wrong term. The correct term is "election." That's when the people all get together and vote on who they think should hold various political offices. The person who gets the most votes is the one that wins, with a few notable exceptions.
      
      "Is it a coup if a government is taken over by a force that no longer represents the electorate?"
      
      That depends. Did said force get elected? If so, no. Did said force violently overthrow the elected government? If so, yes,
      
      Sheesh, don't you have access to a dictionary? Try your nearest public library.

      replyreport
7. 77

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Hate to say it, but every government is owned by someone.
   Is being owned by the unions any worse than being owned by corporations?

   replyreport
   1. 64

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Unions have been powerful in a number of states and cities, but their influence nationally has declined greatly to the detriment of our democracy which is now more of a corporate oligarchy.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      logic,commonsenseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Very little difference.  The unions are more likely to use violence to get their way is all.

      replyreport
   3. 67

      AnnCeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, I think so.  Democracies always die.  Look at Venezuela today.
      
      The unions want Participatory Democracy.  The idea is that the time is right.  Technology, as used in Egypt recently for example, will make the participation of the mob possible.
      
      “A democracy is always temporary in nature: it simple cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”
      
      http://www.apatheticvoter.com/Article_D … racies.htm
      
      
      The unions that represent public employees have discovered the power of "voting themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."  They are breaking cities and states and the country.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         DTR0005posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         AnnCee, you may not believe this, but some of things you post are eerily similar to opinions expressed in "Mein Kampf." I am name calling here - it's just an observation....

         replyreport
8. 60

   knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

   Have that many considered the reason that all these government entities are going broke, like the Wall Streeet gangsters that did a mafia bust-out on the US and the world, and who are all flying high with no one going to jail except for Madeoff who was a small time grifter in comparison. That and the Military Industrial Complex.

   replyreport
9. 77

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Ah yes, the Koch brothers.... the Wizards of Oz.
   I WISH we could pay no attention to those men behind the curtain!
   
   One thing that really bothers me, however.
   Where were the actuaries in all these states (and the federal government) predicting the pension liabilities??? The health care liabilities are a bit trickier, of course.
   It's not like we woke up one day and said, "OMG, we have promised all these pensions and health benefits and now we can't pay for them."
   I think it's grossly unfair to the workers who worked 20, 30 or even 40 years expecting their government to honor their commitments.
   At the same time, NEGOTIATION is and always has been necessary on both sides.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      logic,commonsenseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      So why aren't the Dems back in the state capitol in Wisconsin, negotiating?
      Why aren't the Dems in the Senate negotiating to prevent a government shutdown?
      
      As far as pensions go, the states should have had the brains to realize that most state pension plans are not and never have been sustainable.  I know people who are in state employ and they have incredible pension benefits that are far and above what I and my peers in the private sector receive.
      That said, if they promised it, they should pay up.  Just need to quit promising it.

      replyreport
   2. 52

      Row Rowposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      LOL...the Koch brothers.
      
      How come everytime I watch PBS they are supporting the liberal programming?

      replyreport
10. 77

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    I wholeheartedly agree with you logic,commonsense.
    It's more of a "how the heck did we get HERE?" situation.
    The private sector moved off defined benefit pension plans back in the 1980s. I guess that was not a cue to the public sector to follow suit...
    
    Living in the state capital, I see the "system" in action (or inaction) every day. Believe me, I am all for radical reform of  public employees compensation -- in fact, I would like a top-to-bottom productivity audit of all state departments to determine how many unnecessary JOBS there are. Not just reviewing the $ paid and promised to these people, but are all these workers really necessary (already know the answer to that one, but nobody asked me!).

    replyreport
    1. 59

       logic,commonsenseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Yeah, I have intimate knowledge of what state workers do and the overabundance of unnecessary state workers.  They spend a lot of time writing and copying their resumes', making posters and fliers on taxpayer copiers on taxpayer paper, protesting their employer.
       The problem is not just the unions, it is the people who manage the state government, regardless of party.

       replyreport
11. 77

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    I hear ya.
    The biggest puzzlement to me is that it is virtually impossible to fire a state worker. You have to do something really, really egregious to be terminated. Otherwise, you are like tenured and they can't touch you. Having many, many state worker friends, I have heard some horror stories that would make even the most hard-core Democrat cringe!
    And you are right. It is not party-specific. One of the biggest wastes here is that every time a new governor comes in, he cleans house. All the cush "appointees" get ousted and new people get those jobs (favors for party loyalty). There are so many questionable departments here -- and what do the "deputies" of these departments really do, besides collecting 6-figure paychecks? They go to conferences all over the place.
    I would say, nice work if you can get it -- wish I could score one of those positions.
    But honestly, now matter how bad the economy has gotten or my own financial situation, I simply cannot picture myself working for the state. A certain amount of contempt prior to investigation is at work here, I acknowledge.
    But I know I would be frustrated to spend 8 hours a day watching time being wasted on a massive scale.
    Don't mean to offend any hubbers who happen to be government employees. These are my own, personal opinions.

    replyreport
12. 60

    knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

    Maybe like that defining moment, as when Reagan busted the Flight Controller's Union.

    replyreport
13. 77

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    The fact that this scenario seems to be being replicated in other now Republican controlled states is suspicious. If the unions are willing to accept concessions, then it's NOT about cutting costs or balancing the budget. It's about demolishing the Democrats by busting the unions.
    Diabolical.

    replyreport
    1. 74

       Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       "It's about demolishing the Democrats by busting the unions.
       Diabolical."
       
       Exactly.

       replyreport