On Walker's editorial board.

Ahem:

Democrats in the state Senate threw a temper tantrum Thursday - essentially they took their ball and went home.

Actually, they didn't go home. They apparently went to Illinois, just out of reach of their obligations.

An editorial board unable to grasp beyond the specious arguments of the lowest-common-denominator of the right.  This bodes well.

The Walker plan is deeply divisive. We're not supportive of some aspects of the bill, either, including those that will make it nearly impossible for unions to negotiate. And we think that police and firefighter unions should not be excluded as they are now. But public worker benefits need to be reined in, and Walker is right to target them.

"make it nearly impossible for unions to negotiate" : "some aspects of the bill" :: The Sun : some aspects of humanity's survival on earth

It is to the board's credit they are opposed to the collective bargaining eradication as well as police and firefighter exclusion, but the manner in which they marginalize these legitimate concerns about the direction and integrity of the Governor's office removes any credit and does so with haste.

This marginalization deserves scrutiny.  To not make note of the selective targeting without a mention of motive is nothing short of puzzling.  Not because a pro-Walker piece would dare to be selective of matters decidedly anti, but because the pro-Walker piece is selective.  Do they find the support of those unions in Mr Walker's election bid to be incongruous to their exclusion from the bill?  Do they believe their exclusion to be justified or coincidental, and that no impropriety exits?  That the relationship between Walker and these unions are a non-issue?  An answer of affirmative to these questions cannot come from a person with appreciation of 2 + 2 = 4.

Granting the editorial board that cognizance--and this is without even tackling the concern of the state-unions that gave up higher wages for better benefits that are now being thrown out--the next question becomes whether the board is driven by anything other than ideology.  The putting lipstick on the pig of impropriety suggests not.

One leading Democrat - Obama was his name, as we recall - put it well after winning the White House in 2008: "Elections have consequences," he told Republicans at the time. Indeed they do. The Democrats' childish prank mocks the democratic process.

Totalitarianism: a political system where the state, usually under the control of a single political person, faction, or class, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

There's been no negotiation on 'the bill' remotely resembling anything in the galaxial neighbourhood of good faith.  Senate Republicans will summarily reject without review any amendments offered by Senate Democrats.  Senate Republicans will introduce no amendments of their own, only those from Mr Walker. To say the action taken by the Democrats "mocks the democratic process" shows either an inconceivable ignorance to both the democratic process and totalitarian rule or an unabashed ideology.

The invoking of 'Obama' also misfires.  The hallmark of Mr Obama's presidency, the health-care bill, is full of what Wisconsin Republicans are unwilling to make even one of: concessions.  To name a few: no public option, no federal money for abortion, no ability for consumers to obtain less expensive prescription drugs from Canada and Western Europe.  Elections absolutely have consequences, but totalitarian rule is not now, ever or will be one of them.  As the Senate filibustered Obama-backed legislation as a means of negotiation, so now do the Democratic Senators of Wisconsin shack up in Rockford, Illinois.  In Illinois not because of ideological opposition but because of championing and defending civil rights and the democratic process in the face of a burgeoning totalitarian Wisconsin regime.¹

Oh, but wait, they didn't show up to work so they're whiny, petulant, cowardly, paycheck-stealing children.

¹ - Unless one considers civil rights and the democratic process to be ideological concerns as opposed to self-evident liberties all of humanity are entitled to.