It signifies that people are pissed off at Walker because they feel he did not explain his intentions before getting elected and because they feel he’s going after an important right, partly for politically motivated reasons. Those are some nice talking points, though.
Looks like it isn’t just Walker who’s being recalled:
The tea party has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility. What they’re preaching is fiscal insanity. When you’re deeply in debt, lowering your income is not the solution.
“The” Tea Party, or any Tea Party, or even an individual Tea Partier, could open the bidding by saying which government benefit or tax break that they themselves benefit from should be cut. You want to lead - lead by example. I’ll wait here in a comfy chair.
Obama better keep his government hands off my Medicare!
Yeah, it’s not on any platform or mission statement.
The sad truth is that a dependent and entitled populace will almost always vote to give itself more. Just look at Congress. That’s a pretty good example. Congress is an entitled population that can vote to give itself more. And they always do. And if you try to take something away from them. . . they’ll fight back. It’s very natural. And what we’re seeing is the natural progression of such a trend within the voting block in the US. And it’s a very natural to try to take advantage of this politically. Which is what the liberal politicians do.
I think we should end almost all military occupation of foreign lands to start.
*Subject to 27th amendment.
Where do you benefit from military occupation of foreign lands?
It sounds like you don’t believe in democracy.
A fair point.
But, basically you’re trying to goad me into making my own point. My main point is that no one wants to give up anything. So, if I say I there’s nothing I could give up, then I’ve made my own point.
But, strictly monetarily speaking, I am a net contributer. I pay taxes. And I don’t get any direct benefit payments from the federal or state goverment. . . . the biggest thing I could give up would be our Mortage Interest write-off. . . and I’ll go ahead and make my own point: I wouldn’t want to give that up. But, we could and I might be willing to if I thought there was a going to be a balanced contribution that made sense.
The US is not a democracy. It’s a representative repubic. And what I’m decribing is exactly the effects of a straight democracy. I think the founding fathers understood this. And I do think that only people who pay taxes should get to vote.
A reminder: people with low incomes don’t pay income tax, but they pay a number of other taxes. In any case we’re drifting off topic from Scott Walker.
Sure. That way there could never exist a voting block, that would be free to vote themselves more and more and try to destroy those that want to curb their greed.
Where does this (wrong) talking point come from exactly? I used to think it was just one of those trivia points that know-it-alls like to repeat, but it’s trotted out so frequently on the American right now, and with such similar wording each time, that it has to originate somewhere.
And such similar misspelling, too. “The Merkin Re-Pubic: with landing strips for all!”
I am interested in your ideas, sir. And would like to subscribe to your (full-color, glossy paper, lots of pictures free) newsletter! 
This is akin to saying, “Mr. Ed is not a mammal. He is a horse.”
A representative republic is a type of democracy. A different type is a Direct Democracy. This article gives a nice overview.
Meanwhile, you’re making a mistake that I think too many on both sides make: rather than really paying attention to what the best among your opposition have to say, you’re caricaturing their arguments into something so silly that you’d never need to take it seriously. I encourage you to stop doing that, and instead to pay attention to the best reasons proffered by liberals for the policies they set forth.
My best guess about where it comes from is really pathetic, so I hope I’m wrong: I think it comes from Republicans who are trying to marginalize Democrats. If they can convince everyone that their party AND NOT the opposition party is the one named after our system of government, maybe they’ll seem like the folks who should lead the country, not the opposition.
If someone has a less depressing suggestion for why this wrong talking point came about, please let me know.
That sounds plausible, since that is one reason why they often insist on calling the opposing party the Democrat party rather than the Democratic party, since they do not want to more closely associate the party with a democracy.
I want to hear more about Scott Walker squirming in this thread guys!