Capper tries to convince of a recall by asking, “Is Walker malfeasant?” and devoting the rest of his post to citing actions by Walker that show that he is.
He was responding to a post by the Journal Sentinel editorial board against capper’s call to recall.
While we disagree with Walker’s stand this week that he’s not going to ask for federal stimulus money – and have disagreed with him on some other issues – disagreement is not a reason to have someone recalled. That’s what elections are for.
I can understand why capper and his friends dislike Walker. And I really have no horse in this race except Walker’s conservatism, since I live in Waukesha county. And they are certainly free to seek a recall.
But I just wonder if they could exert their influences in a better direction.
First of all, Walker has been re-elected twice. I’m sure liberals wonder why, but obviously his politics resonate with Milwaukee voters. Unless they can show real malfeasance, the recallers are doomed to failure.
Secondly, if the items capper listed are the best they can come up with, I don’t think they’ve proven their case for malfeasance, even by the definition capper linked to. Malfeasance to me means wrongdoing or gross negligence. I don’t think these items would show that. Oh, to the recall enthusiasts they do, but not John Public.
As the MJS said, disagreement is not a reason to have someone recalled.
But, hey, knock yourselves out. You won’t have Bush to kick around anymore.