The Los Angeles Times has taken time out of its busy schedule to let the folks in our fair flyover state know that they know better than we do when it comes to recall elections.
In an opinion run this week, the paper notes that the 2003 recall in California that sent Gray Davis home and the Governator out of the maid’s pants and into the state house was a bad outcome. They also note that:
Recallsmake it nearly impossible for state leaders to get anything done because they go into campaign mode rather than legislating mode. They worsen partisanship and, Davis’ recall notwithstanding, they are usually a waste of time and money.
Elections have consequences, and sometimes your side loses. Recalls are a useful tool when a politician commits misconduct, but that’s not the case in Wisconsin. Democrats should accept that and move on.
In other words, from a sample of one, the folks in L.A. have determined that recalls are a bad idea and that Wisconsin should just let Governor Deadeyes do as he sees fit. Move along, Democrats. Nothing to see here. Please disperse.
Allow me to retort.
Yes, elections have consequences and we know that. It doesn’t take the Almighty Gods of Journalism ™ to tell us that. We’re dealing with the consequences of an election right now. Thanks for reminding us.
And the line about recalls making it impossible for state leaders to get anything done is really stupid. When someone is doing something that does nothing but create damage, you probably want to stop him. Or are you the type of folks who let your kid jump out of a moving car or shove a firecracker in a cat’s ass because you don’t want to curtail his sense of self-expression?
It’s also refreshing to know that the L.A. Times views the only area in which a recall should be used is during the case of misconduct. I wonder where the editorial board draws that line. Is it fucking the maid? Is it being an alcoholic? Is it dropping the “N” word on someone? Seems like these are the things that draw the most attention from the media when someone in some position of authority does them.
Or is it malfeasance of an epic level? Is it an attempt to plow under the other political party through actions that are so egregious that they merit lawsuits and massive protests? Is crushing public workers as you pad the pockets of the rich? Is it pulling off the election version of bait-and-switch, in which you appear to stand for vanilla politics to win and then decide to go all rocky road on our asses? Seems to me these things are precisely what a recall should be used for. It also seems to me these things fit Scott Walker to a T.
Just because you fucked up and elected an action movie hero with ZERO political experience as backlash against an OMG MEEEN TAXY DEM AND HIS CAR TAX, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t recall this nub-head. That your piece fails use sources or research to provide a deep argument smacks of an arrogance bred from a paternal sense of massive egotism. In other words, “We know better. We did that once.”
It is offensive that the Times felt it necessary to “set us straight.”
But it is not nearly as offensive as Scott Walker has been to the state of Wisconsin.