Oh, *Wisconsin*...

Not that I expected a whole lot different, when you picked Barrett to go against Walker *again*. ::sigh, temple rub::

It's not just a matter of developing sufficient fervor around "Throw the bums out!". You've got to develop fervor in favor of the people you're going to vote IN. Walker beat Barrett very handily in the regular election. While plenty of people now had, and still have, a burning desire to get rid of Walker - there's enough people with a burning desire to keep him in place that we needed to bring in the independents and the people who don't care tuppence about unions or Walker's alleged misdeeds as Milwaukee County Supervisor. Barrett wasn't the person to do that, even without the fundraising advantage WI state law gives to recalled incumbents.

I'm reluctant to go on FB and see the responses from a certain subset of Republicans and other conservatives, who will regard this as proof of their moral rightness and a renewed mandate from the voters in favor of anti-union measures - and who would just as ardently be howling about a travesty against democracy if it had gone the other way.


My health's improved slowly, and I should be able to go back to my regular routine today. But damn am I still so tired. x_x

Is it just me...

or is the complaint this guy is making virtually identical to the one liberals raise against anti-anthropogenic-global-warming? I.e., the pro-AGW crowd has actual climate scientists on their side, whereas the anti-AGW side generally has various scientists and experts but in fields not at all related to climate science writing public papers and op-ed columns?

In this case, it's an anti-Affordable Care act article, whose author complains that the pro-ACA brief before SCOTUS has a bunch of economists and health care experts, but the anti-ACA brief has a number of well-known people and various scholars, but none who actually have expertise in the economics of health care; worse, the well-known people who DO have both health care economic expertise and an antipathy to the ACA are conspicuous by their absence.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/103889/conservative-economist-brief-aff-supreme-court-obamacare-mandate