We have to try harder, the other guy has the money.
“A Governor” “of the United states”, not “The Governor of the United States”.
He is not “A Governor”? Yes, he is.
His Governorship is not of the United states?
“of” Preposition: 1.Expressing the relationship between a part and a whole: “the sleeve of his coat”.
Help me out on how you parced the sentence. Missing comma threw you?
You know, if you’re going to play the pedantic snot card, you really got to watch your spelling.
Yes sir.
Nor eat at a place called “Mom’s”. Trusting naked bus drivers is, of course, right out!
:mad: I don’t trust clothed bus drivers! What are they hiding?!
The only naked professional I trust is naked organ player.
What’s a stripper gotta do to catch a break around here?
You know, I’m actually quite sick and tired of reading this line about how Walker is “buying” the excuse. In last year’s recall election, Democrats and their backers outspent Republicans $23.4 million to $20.5 million in the summer’s recalls. The advantage for Democrats also was seen in outside spending, as they generated $18.6 million compared to $15.9 million for Republicans (though I suppose Democrats outspending Republicans is okay!).
Anyway, we all know that Democrats have the money to spend. The issue here, however, isn’t Walker raising $30M or whatever it is; the issue is that Barret can’t seem to raise any kind of real funding which is odd considering (1.) the recall was brought about by Democrats and (2.) Democrats spent a hell of a lot of money in last year’s recall elections. So, again, instead of bitching, whining and moaning about the amount of money Walker is receiving, perhaps you should ask yourself why Barret isn’t receiving the same level of backing from the supposed majorities who want Walker out.
Excluded middle.
There are other possibilities. Walker could be using the fund to pay for the defense of an aide that has not yet been named, but is being investigated. That is permissible, is it not? See http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/guideline/24/1281_legal_defense_funds_pdf_97449.pdf
Let me help. The article says (with answers provided by me):
Gov. Scott Walker and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett will face off tonight in the second – and final – debate of the Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election campaign.
Barrett wanted more debates.
Walker did not. In fact, in the first debate last week, Walker was barely present – declining to ask a question of Barrett, failing to respond to challenges from his opponent or questions from journalists on the panel.
Why is Walker so disinclined to debate? Apparently, the Republican governor, who has raised $31 million, compared to Barrett’s $3.9 million, prefers to let his attack ads do the talking.
But Walker will face one more round of questions tonight. And it will be harder to avoid them, as one of the state’s ablest broadcast journalists, Mike Gousha, will be asking them.
In case Gousha runs out of questions, here are a few he could toss Walker’s way:
- In October 2010, you told the Oshkosh Northwestern newspaper’s editorial board that you would work with public employee unions and respect the bargaining process. Now you have said that you and your aides began developing legislation to strip away collective bargaining rights immediately after your election. Did you lie to the Northwestern’s editorial board?
A: No.
- In February 2011, you told the people of Wisconsin in a televised address that you were forced by a fiscal crisis to introduce a budget-repair bill that created dozens of new political positions for your cronies, proposed the sell-off of state assets and attacked the rights of public employees and teachers. Now, we learn that the drafting of elements of the legislation began months before the “crisis” developed. Did you lie to the people of Wisconsin?
A: No.
- In April 2011, you told the U.S. Congress that you began developing your anti-labor legislation in response to actions by the unions. Now, you acknowledge that the legislation was being drafted before you had any interactions with the unions. Did you lie to the Congress?
A: No
- In April 2011, in the same sworn testimony to Congress, you said that you had not spoken to anyone about using anti-labor legislation to punish or undermine political foes. Now we have a videotape showing you speaking months earlier to your largest political donor about using a “divide and conquer” strategy to undermine your political foes and to make Wisconsin “a completely red (Republican) state.” Did you lie to the Congress about this as well?
A: No.
- In last week’s debate, when asked about health care programs (such as BadgerCare), you suggested that you are expanding them and providing them with unprecedented support. Yet, under your administration, more than 60,000 Wisconsinites have either been stripped of coverage or denied access to coverage for which they qualify. Did you lie in response to that question in last week’s debate?
A: No.
- Throughout the current campaign, you have been asked to answer basic questions about who is funding the criminal defense fund that has been established to help you respond to the John Doe inquiry into illegal actions by your aides and campaign donors. You have suggested that you cannot answer these and other questions related to the probe because of constraints placed on you by prosecutors and by state law. But veteran prosecutors and the state Government Accountability Board have suggested that you have a good deal of flexibility when it comes to answering these questions. Did you lie when you said you could not answer even basic questions relating to the John Doe probe?
A: No.
- Throughout the current campaign you have been harshly critical of the use of the recall process to hold you to account. Yet in 2010, your campaign produced a video in which you hailed the recall campaign that cleared the way for you to become Milwaukee County executive as a hopeful expression of direct democracy. Did you lie in that video about your attitude toward recall elections? Or are you lying now that it is you who is being held to account by the people?
A: No.
And now a proposed question for his opponent:
Who are you again?
And if he answered the questions that way there were seven more lies.
The best line in the debate: “I have a Police Department that arrests felons,” Barrett said. “He has a practice of hiring them.”
Gotta admire the style, though. Direct and concise, without citation or proof or any of that other flowery rhetorical baggage.
“It is simplicity that makes the uneducated more effective than the educated when addressing popular audiences.”
– Aristotle
Yes, what a zinger. I guess people all over the state will be lining up to vote for Barrett now?
Of course people all over the state will be lining up to vote for Barrett, and for Walker. You need to work on your material, it’s lame as an infected compound fracture.
Well, I suppose the context – that because of the “zinger,” people who otherwise would not have done so are now planning to line up to vote for Barrett – was lost on you.
That’s ok. I will happily concede to you unquestioned dominance in the field of humorous campaign quips. I’ll take the lead spot in “Accurately predicting winners of elections.”
Walker will win. On balance, I’m happy to be lame in quips if that’s the payoff.