The crap I read in The Arizona Republic

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I have previously posted about The Arizona Republic's long and sordid history of anti-unionism. The anti-unionism of the Arizona Republic.

Today the newspaper continues this practice with an unsigned editorial opinion about the lessons from the Wisconsin recall election. Battle is over in Wis., And the unions lost. It reads as if it was written by Robert Robb, perhaps Doug MacEachern in his less vitriolic state of mind.

The opinion essentially "borrows" talking points from the newsletters sent out by right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Goldwater Institute, frequently praised by these writers. (The lack of proper citation to source materials is technically plagiarism, but there are no journalistic standards these days).

Let's take a look at what Wisconsin's leading newspaper, the Wisconsin State Journal, had to say about the recall election for a proper perspective. Recall results could usher in rise of moderate Republicans:

The GOP still controls the state Senate, but that doesn’t mean a power shift isn’t taking place at the Capitol.

Democrats on Tuesday fell one win short of taking the three seats needed to seize control of the Senate. But any relief felt by Gov. Scott Walker and Republican leadership was tempered Wednesday as the mathematics of passing new legislation settled in.

* * *

Republicans will have a narrow 17-to-16 Senate majority. That means the assembly line of legislation that has marked Walker’s short tenure as governor is probably over.

That’s because moderate Republicans — essentially pushed aside the past six months — could now be the most powerful and important people in the Legislature. Or as Sen. Robert Wirch, D-Pleasant Prairie, said Wednesday: “(Sen. Dale Schultz) was an outcast in his caucus, and I think with this election he becomes a king maker.”

* * *

[Previously] the GOP controlled the Senate 19-14. That, along with their healthy majority in the state Assembly, meant Republicans could pass legislation practically untouched by the opposition.

* * *

“For a long time the Republicans did not have to pay much attention to the minority party, but that is about to change,” said Joe Heim, UW-La Crosse political scientist. “When you have to worry about someone jumping ship, you tend to start making more deals.”

* * *

most agree the new math could bestow newfound clout on Republican Sens. Mike Ellis of Neenah, Luther Olsen of Ripon, Dale Schultz of Richland Center, Sheila Harsdorf of River Falls, and Robert Cowles of Green Bay. Any one of them could stand in the way of legislation — or at the very least, alter it.

“No doubt about it; it puts more power in their hands,” said state Sen. Tim Cullen, D-Janesville. “If they insist on moderating future legislation — and I hope they do — they’ll accomplish about all (Democrats) could have if we had retaken the majority.”

Olsen said the new majority, if it holds, means any one Republican — whether moderate or extreme — could stop legislation.

As I said in my analysis, Sen. Dale Schultz is now the most important man in Wisconsin. He has 16 new best friends after Tuesday.

Schultz was the lone Republican to vote against [Gov. Walker's budget repair] bill. For the past few months the longtime Republican and former majority leader has lobbied for more bipartisan cooperation at the Capitol. He and Sen. Cullen toured each other’s districts recently in a bipartisan barnstorming tour.

The importance of this should not be underestimated. As stated at the Daily Kos: Wisconsin's new de facto Majority Leader: Dale Schultz:

[W]ith his Republican Party now clinging to a 17-16 majority in the state Senate, Schultz is now going to be the most popular man in Madison, and de facto majority leader of the Wisconsin Senate, simply by virtue of not being a Scott Walker Republican.

Consider this: If Walker tried to pass something like his last budget again, Democrats would have enough votes in the state Senate to kill the bill outright. There would be no running to Illinois to deny quorum, no protracted battle of several weeks; the Senate could vote, and with Jessica King and Jennifer Shilling to go with Schultz and the 14 incumbent Democrats, they would have a functional majority.

So even as a Republican, Schultz, not Republican leader Scott Fitzgerald, is the most powerful man in the Senate—he is the balance of power in Wisconsin, and if he's interested, he could team with Democrats to form a majority coalition, or even switch parties outright.

* * *

Even if Schultz did form a coalition with Democrats, it's not as though a lifelong Republican becomes a movement progressive overnight. Nevertheless, it seems his possibilities for career advancement, at least in the short term, are much better with Democrats than with Republicans. And if Schultz really does seek a moderate, bipartisan approach to governance, becoming de facto majority leader is his best shot to ensure that approach actually takes place. Schultz was in fact majority leader before, until 2006, when the Democratic wave swept the Republicans out of leadership. Perhaps he's interested in having the job again.

If he actually did switch parties, he'd again enjoy the title and the big office and all the perks that go with actually being majority leader (one suspects Democratic leader Mark Miller would happily give Schultz the title if it meant the majority).

This is real political analysis. Not the copy-and-paste conservative talking points crap that The Arizona Republic too frequently publishes as editorial opinion.