Just how much of a threat is Scott Walker to the liberal agenda? We already know that the Left is willing to use police state banana republic tactics to take down the governor of Wisconsin. But now we see another sign of their desperation: They have sent Michelle Obama to Wisconsin.
From the National Review blog: “Michelle Obama: Beating Scott Walker ‘Just As Important’ As 2012 race.”
First Lady Michelle Obama told Wisconsin voters that defeating Republican Governor Scott Walker is “as important as” her husband’s presidential elections.
“And we all need to be as passionate and as hungry for this election as we were back in 2008 and 2012,” she said at a voter mobilization rally after telling voters to go to Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke’s website.
“In fact, we need to be more passionate and more hungry, because races like this governor’s race here in Wisconsin will be even harder and even closer than those presidential elections. But they are just as important.”
The race has major implications for 2016, as the Washington Examiner’s Byron York recently noted.
“One is that a Walker victory would validate and solidify [his collective bargaining reforms], while a loss would undermine it…”
York’s other reason is that a Walker victory makes him a viable presidential candidate in 2016. Frankly, I doubt that a Walker Presidency is the reason Michelle Obama was tasked to oppose him in Wisconsin or why she said that his defeat is as important as her husband’s elections in 2008 and 2012. I think York is right about collective bargaining.
The truth is that Walker has only begun what needs to be done to destroy the barbaric legal fiction of collective bargaining. And Liberals consider even his first steps to be a horrible threat to everything they believe in.
Collective bargaining is posed as a way for workers to have an advantage over their customers–who in this case are employers, purchasers of labor. But it is really merely a contrived legal advantage over other workers, making them have fewer options. As I wrote earlier, the way unions feel about workers who will work for lower pay is similar to how late nineteenth-century railroad colluders felt about the railroad owners who undercut their prices by offering lower fares.
Public unions are much worse because the unions are not negotiating with the people who pay them. They are negotiating with politicians who make agreements that won’t have to be fulfilled while they are still in office. The taxpayers are put on the hook for debts made to fulfill union demands. The politicians get votes and other benefits for making the unions happy.
Naturally, Liberals can’t stand anyone who would end their ride.