"Our intent with these changes was to encourage a deliberative process with state agencies in developing policy and legislation," said spokeswoman Laurel Patrick. "This allows for robust debate with state agencies and public employees over the merit of policies and proposed initiatives as they are being formed, while ensuring materials related to final proposals, as well as information related to external stakeholders seeking to influence public policy, would remain fully transparent."
So confused since essentially this would have done the exact opposite...it's like the whole Iraqi Army Spokesperson meme all over again.
OG_slinger wrote:"Our intent with these changes was to encourage a deliberative process with state agencies in developing policy and legislation," said spokeswoman Laurel Patrick. "This allows for robust debate with state agencies and public employees over the merit of policies and proposed initiatives as they are being formed, while ensuring materials related to final proposals, as well as information related to external stakeholders seeking to influence public policy, would remain fully transparent."So confused since essentially this would have done the exact opposite...it's like the whole Iraqi Army Spokesperson meme all over again.
I'll give the devil's advocate explanation of how this was supposed to be a positive thing:
In this time of severe partisan divide where compromise is a dirty word, having debates and deliberation out in the open will force the different parties (lets be honest, mostly the Republicans) to hamper the debate by always insisting on 100% what they want and never giving an inch. If they are actually productive and useful then soundbites and quotes from that process would cause them to lose their next primary, so the are forced to be enormous assholes to defend against that.
If, on the other hand, this sort of stuff was secret, then they could actually be productive, reasonable adult human beings, and get something done by working together across party lines, without producing evidence of that reasonableness that would hurt them in the next election cycle.
Note that I think that it's a bad idea. I think that it's attacking the symptom, not the problem, and doing so in a way that will help foster even worse problems later on. But for anyone wondering what possible justification there could be for such a statement, that's what it is.
If you'll recall, just prior to the government shutdown there was a bipartisan "super committee" that was deliberating in secret to try to make a plan that both parties could agree to. The justification for that being secret was exactly the same. The Republicans could theoretically propose tax increases, the Democrats could theoretically propose service cuts, and no one would know at the end what individual people had agreed to what parts of the proposal, and then the finger pointing could be spread around everyone involved instead of more singularly.
Frankly, that just convinces me of Walker's guilt.
If something can be done about Walker, please let Gov. Branstad be taken with him.
One of Scott Walker's staff lied? Who could have seen that coming?
A bill to exempt political crimes from John Doe investigations has now passed the Wisconsin Assembly.
A state Assembly committee voted on party lines Thursday to advance a bill that would alter the scope and implementation of John Doe investigations in Wisconsin. Prosecutors have used John Doe provisions to investigate Gov. Scott Walker's campaign twice.The bill would limit the scope of crimes that can be investigated in a John Doe probe to the most severe felonies and some violent crimes, meaning campaign finance and ethics violations could no longer be subject to a John Doe.
The idea that any group would actually vote to make it harder to expose political corruption and they somehow survive that process by appealing to the voters on the "likability" of a single targeted politician (in this case, Walker) is still completely staggering to me.
[quote="Demosthenes"]
A bill to exempt political crimes from John Doe investigations has now passed the Wisconsin Assembly.
A state Assembly committee voted on party lines Thursday to advance a bill that would alter the scope and implementation of John Doe investigations in Wisconsin. Prosecutors have used John Doe provisions to investigate Gov. Scott Walker's campaign twice.The bill would limit the scope of crimes that can be investigated in a John Doe probe to the most severe felonies and some violent crimes, meaning campaign finance and ethics violations could no longer be subject to a John Doe.[/quote
The idea that any group would actually vote to make it harder to expose political corruption and they somehow survive that process by appealing to the voters on the "likability" of a single targeted politician (in this case, Walker) is still completely staggering to me.
IOKIYAR
So when you have a statewide conspiracy what are your options? Appealing to the federal courts? I'm not sure where their jurisdiction would come in though if elected officials are all choosing to ignore the laws that they created.
When Andrew Jackson was faced with South Carolina threatening to nullify Federal tariffs (and laws) it deemed not in its interests, he asked Congress to authorize military action. He was a big fan of South Carolina, but valued the Union more, and he said that he'd go with the troops, and once he crossed the border, he'd hang the first insurrectionist he saw, and continue on as long as necessary.
The South Carolinians backed down before the use of force was authorized, but Jackson felt that the whole crisis was contrived, and predicted that the next big disunion crisis would be over... slavery.
(Traditionally, the Army and National Guard are called out in cases where the State authorities are resisting Federal obligations. It has happened a number of times, including the Civil War and several small insurrection attempts.)
I have several co-workers, if not friends, predicting a civil war in the near future. I can only imagine what would happen if Obama threatened Wisconsin with the military. Especially with the governor up for President.
I'm surprised at how awfully he's campaigning right now. It seemed to me that playing The Game was the only thing he actually excelled at, mostly thanks to lacking any kind of conscience.
Maybe it's like moving from (American) college football to the pros? Sure, he could game the system REALLY well at the state level, but now he's up against competition that's been doing the same thing as him for years and can react faster on top of it.
And mind you a state the size of Wisconsin. It makes you wonder how much he'd get away with in CA or NY.
Maybe it's like moving from (American) college football to the pros? Sure, he could game the system REALLY well at the state level, but now he's up against competition that's been doing the same thing as him for years and can react faster on top of it.
Even when you draw as much attention as Walker did, a lot of people just plain don't pay much attention to state-level politics. Some of the things you can get away with in a statehouse look laughably amateurish when the whole world is paying attention.
To me, Walker has always seemed to be a guy with a whole lot of ambition, a lack of scruples (probably inspired by the certainty that God/Reagan was guiding him), and not a lot of natural intelligence. You can go pretty far with that combination; it turns out that critical thinking can be a bit of a hindrance in politics. You just can't go as far as Walker wants.
In today's NYT: The Revenge of Scott Walker
Thoughts, Dimmerswitch? And the contrast with this really resonates with me right now:
Robinson: I think that in our earlier history—the Gettysburg Address or something—there was the conscious sense that democracy was an achievement. It was not simply the most efficient modern system or something. It was something that people collectively made and they understood that they held it together by valuing it.
(from President Obama & Marilynne Robinson: A Conversation—II)
In today's NYT: The Revenge of Scott Walker
Thoughts, Dimmerswitch? And the contrast with this really resonates with me right now:
Robinson: I think that in our earlier history—the Gettysburg Address or something—there was the conscious sense that democracy was an achievement. It was not simply the most efficient modern system or something. It was something that people collectively made and they understood that they held it together by valuing it.
(from President Obama & Marilynne Robinson: A Conversation—II)
The idea that any elected official could vote for a bill that makes them unable to be investigated for multiple corruption crimes makes me wonder how the entire population doesn't rise up and ask them what the hell they're doing.
Pages