Cynical Politicking

Tiassa

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...
Valued Senior Member
Cynical Politicking

The idea of cheap, cynical political maneuvering is hardly a partisan trend. But we'll start off with this tale about Governor Rick Scott (R-FL):

Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) has offered the political world a valuable lesson: if you need a campaign prop, don't use a dog.

Shortly after winning the GOP nomination in 2010, Rick Scott announced to the world through Facebook that his family had rescued a Labrador Retriever.

And, with help from his Facebook friends, Scott gave it a name: Reagan.​

It was just a few months before the gubernatorial election, and Scott seemed to think this was a smart idea. Adopting a dog -- a rescue dog, at that -- made the Republican look compassionate, and naming the dog "Reagan" helped him pander shamelessly to his base. It was a big p.r. win, which rewarded Scott with lots of positive attention that he sorely needed after a rough GOP primary.

So what's the problem? As it turns out, no one has seen Rick Scott with his dog since the day before he took the oath of office. Asked about the dog, the governor's aides initially refused to discuss the matter. Aides to the governor's wife also ignored requests for information.

You can probably guess where this is headed.

It took several days, but eventually, the governor conceded that he got rid of the dog about a month after taking office. Apparently, Reagan "barked like crazy" around the governor's photographer and made people in the mansion uncomfortable, so the lab was sent back to All Pets Grooming and Boarding, a business in Naples.

(Benen)​


Man's best friend? Apparently not a two-way relationship for the Scott family.​

Some are probably already aware that, technically, I am a "cat person", but that should not be taken to mean I don't like dogs. Indeed, I adore our canine friends ... well, okay, I don't like small dogs, and, it's true, that is in large part because I find them annoying. However, nothing says that if I ever invite a canine friend to live in my home it has to be a Lhasa Apso or Shih Tzu or anything like that.

But, at the same time, I don't see why constant barking has to be a problem. To the one, my cousin took her golden retriever to some sort of behavioral training, and it's had a remarkable effect. But even before that, the dog responded well to me—even before the training, she was perfectly content to lay quietly on the floor and let me use her as a pillow while we watched TV—and I found that it barked a lot when it was being ignored. To the other, one cannot devote every second to their canine friends, and I can testify to this because I have a neighbor with two dogs who give alarm barks if I so much as raise or lower the blinds on the back windows. The whole of their training is to lean out the back door and yell at the dogs to shut up. Which, of course, works until the next time someone opens their blinds, or steps out onto their back patio, or whatever.

As such, I doubt the Scotts ever really made much of an effort to integrate Reagan into the family. That's a puppy of a particularly enthusiastic and vibrant breed; it has a voice, and with so many people coming and going, it will certainly speak its mind.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "A dog is not a campaign prop". The Maddow Blog. January 15, 2013. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. January 15, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/01/15/16525278-a-dog-is-not-a-campaign-prop
 
I kind of find this a sad story, just from the perspective of thinking of the dog thinking it had found a new loving family only to be discarded as no longer needed as a political pawn. I think that most Americans are very attached to and love their pets very much, so this same shameless politicking that helped him into office may equally help to quickly carry him out again come the next election. In general I suspect that most people would have seen through such a blatant attempt to curry favour with a pet loving electorate but forgiven him for doing so because, after he was helping give a home and family to a lovely in need dog, but I just can't see them forgiving him for getting rid of it when they also realise how he just used it to manipulate them.

I for one really hope he doesn't get away with it, it sends out a horrible message and how long before they, the polititians, turn to adopting children as political props, just where would they draw the line, I mean is anything sacred anymore?, Well you certainly have to wonder.

I think also it says something about people in general, that we are so easy to manipulate and perhaps we all need to look deeper into things before making our minds up, otherwise we will continue to be used in such an unsavory manor.
 
Well, it's Rick Scott, after all ... what do we expect?

Gorlitz said:

I for one really hope he doesn't get away with it, it sends out a horrible message and how long before they, the polititians, turn to adopting children as political props, just where would they draw the line, I mean is anything sacred anymore?, Well you certainly have to wonder.
Click to expand...

I know. But the thing is, at least for me, that it's Rick Scott. There's no point in seething at him, since all this episode does is reinforce my opinion that he's a worthless, antisocial scoundrel. No news, or, what killed the dog, y'know?

As for Reagan's fate, the Scotts returned the dog to whence it came, a grooming and boarding business in Naples, Florida.
 
The poor dog barked because he was neglected! Labs need a lot of physical activity, socializing and affection. A dog isn't a garment to buy because it looks good on you, then leave in the closet.
 
I fully agree with the OP and the responses. I personally have a 'rescue dog' and two 'rescue cats.' And a stray cat as well, that adopted me. ;) The dog requires more attention, of course, but the cats respond to it as well.

Besides, getting back to the OP, I literally DESPISE **ALL** politicians, regardless of their party affiliation! As much as I hate lawyers, I dislike politicians even more (and most of them ARE lawyers, too).
 
A business opportunity?

Madanthonywayne said:

I'm sure he's just being boarded there for a while...........until the next election.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, but puppies are cuter. Reagan will be fully grown by 2014.

Of course, they have "rental" dogs in some cities, that are literally intended for singles to rent and walk through the park or around town in order to meet other people. Or, wait, was that just a joke in a television advert?

Point being, maybe the "rescue rental" will be a cottage industry for our American political campaigns by 2020.
 
It is somewhat sad. Poor dog. I never heard of this "story" about Rick Scott. And I happen to be in the area. Hopefully they don't have another pet. And that dog goes to a good home. The dog whisper may have been a help. Or some training.
 
Update: "Reagan" Alive and Well

Update: "Reagan" Alive and Well

Mike Marino of The Florida Times-Union offers the good news:

The made-for-the-front-page mystery of Reagan the dog has been solved.

Reagan, a rescue yellow lab adopted by Gov. Rick Scott's family during the 2010 campaign and returned shortly after he took office, is living on a horse farm under his prior name, Pluto, according to WTSP in Tampa.​

The blog entry for PolitiJax notes that the question of why the Scotts changed the dog's name remains unanswered, but I think it also qualifies as a no-brainer. Additionally, the Scotts have brought a different dog into the home, named Tallee.
____________________

Notes:

Marino, Mike. "Rick Scott's returned dog, Reagan, found living (again) as Pluto". PolitiJax. January 16, 2013. Jacksonville.com. January 17, 2013. http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blo...-returned-dog-reagan-found-living-again-pluto
 
The dog did not like the photographer and barked at people. Say the dog bit the photographer, becauise he gave off the fear vibe, would this have been better?
 
wellwisher said:
The dog did not like the photographer and barked at people. Say the dog bit the photographer, becauise he gave off the fear vibe, would this have been better?
Click to expand...

Sorry but if this was me then I would have changed the photographer, the dog is or should have been a member of their family, where as a photographer is an employee, also I don't think they should be allowed to own another pet after this. But great to hear Reagan/Pluto is ok. :)
 
Happy Medium Schnauzer?

Gorlitz said:

Sorry but if this was me then I would have changed the photographer, the dog is or should have been a member of their family, where as a photographer is an employee ....
Click to expand...

And it's possible there is a middle ground in which the dog feels more integrated to what's going on around it. As Jeeves noted, labs are very social, and it's possible the dog's barking was nothing more than, "Hey, what's goin' on? Can I be a part of this? I want to be part of this!"

And there is no guarantee, here, that the photographer was entirely rational in his assessment. I came across a story the other day about a pro athlete, a 260 pound basketball player, if I recall, who is ailurophobic.

One need not be completely phobic in order to misinterpret a dog. To the other, I wasn't there, so ... right.
 
From Virginia, With Love

From Virginia, With Love

My mother recently commented to me that it seems as if the Republicans are actually going out of their way to be ridiculous. She is hardly a newcomer to politics, but over the last couple years she has come to realize that the twenty-first century is a league of its own compared to the days she remembered when Republicans were still outwardly sane.

I mention this because today a redistricting plan in Virginia finally failed.[sup]1[/sup] As a case for sunlight as disinfectant, the outcry from Democrats and Democratic sympathizers seems to have struck a chord. At what point does the irony in the following description make your head want to explode?

President Obama held his public inauguration ceremony on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Virginia state Senator Henry Marsh, a 79 year-old Democrat with a long history in the Civil Rights movement, traveled to Washington in order to see the nation's first black president inaugurated for a second term.

His absence left the Virginia Senate in Republican hands, by a count of 20-19. They took advantage of the moment to attempt to redistrict the state. Presuming a certain degree of entrenchment within the districts, the 20-20 split in Virginia would have tilted to favor Republicans by as much as 27-13.[sup]2[/sup]

Republicans pointed out that their redistricting plan would have created a new district with a majority black population; they did so by carving blacks out of Sen. Marsh's district.[sup]3[/sup]

On MLK Day.

And at the end of the day, the Virginia state senate adjurned in memory of General Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson.[sup]4[/sup]​

And if that doesn't seem absurd enough, Virginia Republicans later that week sought to reallocate the state's electoral college votes. The irony of this scheme is that, with 51% of the vote in Virginia, President Obama would have won only 30% of the state's electoral votes.[sup]5[/sup]

Take a moment to think about those numbers.

Thirty percent for fifty-one percent? Reduce the fraction.

That comes out to a Democratic vote for Obama being effectively worth three-fifths of a Republican vote for Romney.

Gov. Bob McDonnell quickly announced his opposition to that plan; clearly he did not want to trade down from Governor Ultrasound to Governor Three-Fifths.

We need not wonder why.

The only thing I don't get about my mother's suggestion that this is all intentional grandstanding and provocateurism is the question of what the GOP thinks it would be getting out of such an approach.

It would be like Congressional Republicans getting together to consider communications and outreach to women and minorities, forgetting to include any women on the panel, and then convening at a location commemorating a former slave plantation. I mean, that would be crazy, right? Oh ....[sup]6[/sup]

Well, okay, so they did that, too.

But this degree of ironic toxicity cannot possibly be intentional, right? I mean, come on, right?

So, what exactly is going on with Republicans these days?
____________________

Notes:

[sup]1[/sup] Benen, Steve. "When re-redistricting fails". The Maddow Blog. February 6, 2013. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. February 6, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/02/06/16872073-when-re-redistricting-fails

[sup]2[/sup] Conaway, Laura. "Virginia Republicans move for permanent majority". The Maddow Blog. January 21, 2013. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. February 6, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2...ginia-republicans-move-for-permanent-majority

[sup]3[/sup] Cain, Andrew. "Va. Republicans push through rewrite of Senate districts". Richmond Times-Dispatch. January 21, 2013. TimesDispatch.com. February 6, 2013. http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/s...cle_1e6faf38-e5db-5b37-b3ae-63f544108f03.html

[sup]4[/sup] Kurtz, David. "A Footnote To The Virginia Senate Story". Talking Points Memo. January 21, 2013. TalkingPointsMemo.com. February 6, 2013. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/01/a_footnote_to_the_virginia_senate_story.php

[sup]5[/sup] Benen, Steve. "A fraction Republicans should try to avoid". The Maddow Blog. January 25, 2013. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. February 6, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/01/25/16701216-a-fraction-republicans-should-try-to-avoid

[sup]6[/sup] Berman, Russell. "GOP pledges outreach to minorities, women". The Hill. January 18, 2013. TheHill.com. February 6, 2013. http://thehill.com/homenews/house/277925-gop-pledges-outreach-to-minorities-women
 
Tiassa said:
Gov. Bob McDonnell quickly announced his opposition to that plan; clearly he did not want to trade down from Governor Ultrasound to Governor Three-Fifths.

We need not wonder why.
Click to expand...

Well there also seems some talk of him having a real chance at the presidency next time around, certainly can't see him wanting to get caught up in anything that looks at all dodgy if he really does have genuine ambitions in that direction.
 
Memo to Reince Priebus

To: Reince Priebus (Chairman RNC)

re: Cynical politicking​
​

Perhaps it was one of those occasions when it was time to actually listen to Newt Gingrich.

Matt Stout explains this setup, which ought to be the stuff of legends:

The Republicans need to ditch their “anti-Obama” attacks and offer positive solutions if they want to win back the White House in 2016, especially against potential presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich told GOP members today as they huddled in the Hub.

“I don’t think we beat Hillary Clinton in a personality fight because the media will prop her up,” Gingrich told his fellow members in a welcome luncheon for the Republican National Committee’s summer meeting slated to run through Saturday in Boston.

“I think we have a chance next year and in ‘16 to offer a vision of a future,” he said. “If she has to be defending the prison guards of the past and we get to offer the pioneers of the future ... I don’t think she can win that campaign.”

Gingrich, in an event dubbed “Becoming the Party of Breakout,” addressed more than 100 Republicans as part of the kickoff to the four-day event, emphasizing the need to address technology and new ideas to shake up the Republican Party.

“We are caught up in a culture where as long as we are negative, as long as we are vicious and as long as we can tear down our opponent, we don’t have to learn anything,” Gingrich said, noting many Republicans who oppose the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, can’t offer an alternative. “It’s a very deep problem. Breakout means you have to do the homework.

“We have to get beyond being anti-Obama.”​

Now, think about this for just a minute. It's kind of an obscure moment, like Germany warning the U.S. against a path to war in Iraq. Well, sort of. I recognize we stumble close to Godwin's garden, there, but the point isn't to go tiptoeing through the deadly dasies.

The former Speaker of the House staked his career on an anti-DNC and anti-Democratic-president agenda. Well, again, sort of. It is arguable whether it was the ethics scandal or the electoral disappointment in '98 that brought him down; the likeliest thesis asserts that the ethics scandal destroyed him, while the '98 election provided the opportunity to do it without opening the ethical chamber of horrors. Of course, maybe it was the worst showing by an opposition party in the congressional midterm in sixty-four years that did him in.

Which is sort of the point.

Come on. Whatever nits we can pick about Newt, I would think this is one subject toward which he is eminently qualified. Among Republicans, he is not only a legitimate expert on this point, he is perhaps the legitimate expert on this point.

Which, of course, means his fellow Republicans will ignore him.

The meeting is one of three the RNC will hold this year to huddle with members.

Coincidentally, Obama is vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard as the rival party meets in the state. Asked if he was OK with the president taking a holiday amid several high-profile problems, Priebus said he’s “not going to get into that” — before then getting into it.

“I think he has a lot of work to do, he’s the king of golf and vacations and I guess it’s par for the course,” he said. “I don’t think he cares that much.”​

Wow.

As sound bites go, that one has some teeth, except it doesn't. Clearly, it's an offhand response to a question that really shouldn't be coming up, except that it already has.

Just for the record, though:

Like most presidents, Obama invariably will be criticized for taking time off for a vacation — and, in this case, to a wealthy enclave in deep blue Massachusetts.

But Obama has taken far less time away from the White House than his predecessor, George W. Bush, who spent weeks at a time at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Obama has taken 87 days off, compared with 399 days for Bush at a similar period in his presidency, according to CBS News’s Mark Knoller, who keeps detailed records of presidential travel.

(Viser)​

Meanwhile, Steve Benen adds that President Reagan's number of vacation days at this point was in the neighborhood of one hundred eighty.

And he also suggests, well ....

The RNC chair is complaining about the president taking eight days off, but Congress is in the middle of a four-week break. When they return, House Republicans have arranged their schedule so that they only have to work nine days in September.

To borrow Priebus' rhetoric, Congress "has a lot of work to do," but doesn't seem especially interested in doing it. I suppose that means House Speaker John Boehner and his caucus don't care that much?​

Four and a half to one. Really, Reince? You want to go there?

So much for the Party of Breakout.

No, really. This is the road to disaster. Listen to Newt, Mr. Chairman. Don't hang your Party out to dry again. Remember that Michael won 2010, and then they fired him. You think you can lose twice and hang on to your job? Or will they give you a promotion?

You want high cheese? You think you can throw brushback? They're invoking 1998 already. And even your own side is showing signs of being unnerved.

Michael exploited the Tea Party outrage; you tried to reproduce that success. But here's the thing: It was a different phenomenon after its 2010 victory. It seems the GOP missed that transformation. Republicans lost 2012 because they brought nothing new to the policy table. What even your own side's strategists are seeing is obvious, so how can you miss it?

You need policy. Substantial policy.

Not cynical politicking.
____________________

Notes:

Stout, Matt. "Gingrich tells GOP gathering: ‘Get beyond being anti-Obama’". Boston Herald. August 14, 2013. BostonHerald.com. August 15, 2013. http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio...lls_gop_gathering_get_beyond_being_anti_obama

Viser, Matt. "With second-term return, Obama firmly establishes Vineyard as First Family refuge". Boston Globe. July 16, 2013. Boston.com. August 15, 2013. http://www.boston.com/2013/07/16/obamavineyard/WGuRG3CruBqYoWGgFB3xeM/singlepage.html

Benen, Steve. "'The king of golf and vacations'". The Maddow Blog. August 15, 2013. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. August 15, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/08/15/20036540-the-king-of-golf-and-vacations
 
(guffaw!)

For the Sake of the Party ....

I have to admit that I didn't see this one coming.

It was, all in all, a quiet bit of scandal; the former vice chairman for the Republican Party in the New York borough of Queens fell from grace when he was allegedly caught taking twenty-five thousand dollars in exchange for finagling a Democrat, state Senator Malcom Smith (D-Queens) into the GOP mayoral race. With a trial set for the players in June, Tabone has come up with one of the best excuses for continuance I've ever heard.

(And let me make clear, by "best", I mean something along the lines of "most entertainingly and fantastically ridiculous".)

Rich Calder plays it up for the New York Post:

Claiming key GOP campaign strategies could be “exposed” before this year’s gubernatorial and legislative races, a Queens Republican operative wants his federal corruption trial delayed until after November’s elections ....

[Tabone] claims state GOP candidates seeking office could be “unfairly” undermined if the request isn’t granted by Karas, a Republican appointed to the federal bench in 2003 by George W. Bush.

“The necessary witnesses to such a trial may include the Republican Party chairmen of the state and county Republican committees in New York,” Tabone’s lawyer, Deborah Misir, wrote Saturday in a letter to Karas. “Subjecting the Republican Party, its officials and internal political strategies to intense scrutiny, while sparing the Democratic Party, would unfairly undermine Republican Party candidates in the general election.

“Questioning of party official witnesses will directly impact federal and state elections being held in New York by selectively exposing Republican Party strategy, the negotiation of cross-party endorsements for Republican candidates,” she added. “In short, it could devolve into a political circus aimed at the Republican Party and its federal and state candidates.”​

To the other, Sen. Smith's request for continuance is only mildly less farcical; the Queens Democrat wants his trial delayed because it will screw up his re-election campaign. There's a certain logic there, however tenuous: I'm not convicted, yet, so this shouldn't screw up my campaign.

Good luck with that, Senator.

But Tabone's request is even more bizarre. Apparently, if Tabone's corruption trial goes forward, the entire party is endangered.

Basically, Tabone is claiming it unfair that Democratic Party officials who had nothing to do with this won't have to come in and describe their campaign operations: "Questioning of party official witnesses will directly impact federal and state elections being held in New York by selectively exposing Republican Party strategy, the negotiation of cross-party endorsements for Republican candidates".

Well, right. But the Party officials involved were Republicans. The Democrat? He's just a candidate with a problem. Apparently, however, Tabone is the face of an entire political party with a problem.

The United States government, it would seem, finds these requests a hoot. I am less certain, of course, how the Republican Party feels about Tabone trying to take them down with him: It'll hurt the party unfairly if people hear how shot through with excrement we are!

But, see, that's the thing. If Democratic Party officials had been involved, they, too, would be on trial, and their party secrets at risk. The players are apparently Spring Valley Mayor Noramie Jasmin and Deputy Mayor Joseph A. Desmaret, both Republicans; Jay Savino, formerly the head of the Bronx Republican Party; Councilman Dan Halloran (R-Queens), who Savino rolled on in his plea deal; Vincent Tabone, the Republican operative from Queens; and state Sen. Malcom Smith (D-Queens).

There's a reason the court will want to hear from Republican Party operatives. But, you know, that would be unfair, because if the public hears all this dirt before the election, it will hurt more than just one candidate. Or something.

It's creative, at least.

Actually, no, it's not. It's just silly.
____________________

Notes:

Calder, Rich. "GOP operative asks judge to delay trial until after elections". New York Post. February 17, 2014. NYPost.com. February 17, 2014. http://nypost.com/2014/02/17/gop-operative-asks-judge-to-delay-trial-until-after-elections/
 
Koch-y Cynicism

Just Another Day in America: Nothing to See Here

​

Charles Babington for Associated Press:

Several big corporations have reaped millions of dollars from "Obamacare" even as they support GOP candidates who vow to repeal the law. This condemn-while-benefiting strategy angers Democrats, who see some of their top congressional candidates struggling against waves of anti-Obamacare ads partly funded by these companies.

Among the corporations is a familiar Democratic nemesis, Koch Industries, the giant conglomerate headed by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. They and some conservative allies are spending millions of dollars to hammer Democratic senators in North Carolina, Alaska, Colorado, Iowa and elsewhere, chiefly for backing President Barack Obama's health care overhaul ....

.... Federal records show that Koch Industries received $1.4 million in early retiree subsidies. That's considerably less than the sums many other employers received. A Koch Industries spokesman said he had no comment on Reid's latest criticisms.

The Koch consortium may be the loudest "Obamacare" critic among the subsidized employers. But many others accepted the subsidies while heavily backing GOP House and Senate candidates, most of who call for repealing the 2010 health care law.​

United Parcel Service, Union Pacific Railroad, Altria Client Services (tobacco industry), AT&T, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Southern Company Services, Lockheed Martin, CSX, KPMG, Deloitte.

Then again, there is also this piece of Koch-y irony:

The Kochs and their allies show little sheepishness about denouncing a federal health law that benefited them. In fact, the Koch-related group FreedomPartners is spending more than $1 million on ads criticizing Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado and Rep. Bruce Braley of Iowa, Democrats running in tight Senate races.

Their alleged wrongdoing? Accepting campaign donations from health companies that benefit from "Obamacare."​

What makes the Koch issue so brazen is that it is so direct; they've laid siege against the law, whereas the question for most of the other companies is a bit murkier, albeit no less cynical. The longer list is generally companies that "steer most of their political donations to Republicans".

Then again, these are capitalists. There really isn't anything surprising about Babington's report.
____________________

Notes:

Babington, Charles. "Many 'Obamacare' Critics Accepted its Subsidies". Associated Press. April 8, 2014. Hosted.AP.org. April 9, 2014. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...TH_CARE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
 
Cynicism on the Last Frontier

The Occasional Conspiracy Theory?

This is one of those questions of narrative. To start with a basic notion of a headline, "Alaska Dems Kill Minimum Wage Hike". It would, in fact, be an accurate headline.

But wait! There's a conspiracy theory explaining just why they did that. Oh, and there's also a punch line. Steve Benen dissects the conspiracy theory:

This isn't as confusing as it may seem.

Progressive activists have worked to get a minimum-wage increase on the statewide ballot, and the issue is currently slated for a vote in August. But if the state legislative session runs long, even a little, Alaskans would vote on a minimum-wage increase in November. Republicans are eager to avoid this – it would mean the possibility of more progressive voters turning out on the same day Sen. Mark Begich (D) is up for re-election.

By approving a wage hike through the legislature, Republicans would kick the issue off the ballot, making the ballot referendum moot.

Some of you are very likely thinking, "So what? If low-wage workers are going to benefit, who cares whether the increase comes from voters or legislators? Democratic turnout strategies are less important than the economic impact of a higher minimum wage."

But it's not that easy. If a minimum-wage increase is approved by voters, it's locked into statewide law for at least two years – state lawmakers can't simply repeal what the public has done through a referendum. But if Alaska Republicans approve a minimum-wage increase now in order to keep the issue off voters' ballots, they can simply return to the issue next year and undo the increase, repealing their own law that they don't really support anyway.

And why would Democrats fear such an elaborate trick? Because it's exactly what Alaska Republicans did in 2002 to keep the issue off the statewide ballot.

Alaska Dems didn't vote against the minimum-wage bill because they oppose an increase; rather, they oppose what they see as a ridiculous game that would ultimately end in no increase at all.​

I mean, come on, really? How does that saying go? "Fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again!"

But this is what it comes to?
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Alaska GOP pulling a fast one on minimum wage". MSNBC. April 15, 2014. MSNBC.com. April 15, 2014. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/alaska-gop-pulling-fast-one-minimum-wage
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top