Recently Brandt made it sound like he knew every single person circulating the petitions personally, so I have to wonder if he traveled all over the state with the petitions to meet those submitting sheets from the above listed localities.

Honestly, there should be more accountability on the recall committees to weed out CLEARLY invalid signatures, especially those coming from CLEARLY out-of-jurisdiction. By not doing this, Brandt makes the entire recall effort look like nothing more than a giant clown show.

In all reality, it will be very close as to whether or not a Wanggaard recall will be triggered or not. In either case, the recall has displayed the amount of cheating that the recall committees were willing to do in order to try and trigger a recall. Not weeding out CLEARLY invalid signatures just doesn't make you look good in my honest opinion, but rather makes it look like you're so desperate that you're willing to cheat. Especially since the recall committees did a media tour bragging about how carefully they supposedly vetted the signatures in order to obtain an accurate count.

So, why weren't the CLEARLY out-of-jurisdiction signatures weeded out by the recall committee AND where did they come up with their 24,000+ figure when the sheets submitted only contain 23,598 lines, with even less lines actually filled in by a signature?

Could Mr. Brandt please answer these questions?

funny how my name is not on the recall list and I signed mine name on Nov. 16, 2011 at about 3:15pm at the labor center in Racine, and I've lived in the city of Racine all my life

Heather A -

I apologize for making it personal and retracted and re-worded my previous comment accordingly.

Thank you for catching me in a rare slip-up, and I promise to do my best not to let it happen again.

Now if only we could stop all the negative personal comments made about Walker and Wanggaard on the Patch boards.

@Hoffa - you are a gentleman and a scholar. Thank you!

I, too, wish we could leave the personal out of it all the way around. Whether you agree or disagree with a bill or a stance, then say you agree or not, offer solid evidence to support your view and leave it at that.

Has anyone done an article on the bills that Sen Wanggaard has authored and showing the bi-partisan support they have had? I must have missed it if they did...

@Cynthia - I've not done a list, no, but I do write stories when some of the bills are passed and what the votes are on them.

Wanggaard may very well be recalled, but that doesn't change all of the irregularities surrounding the petitions submitted, despite your personal claims of having carefully vetted them, does it? I'm just saying that given your previous assertions, I didn't expect the level of irregularities that we've seen so far and continue to see with these petitions.

Wanggaard will once again defeat Lehman by at least a six-point margin, as Lehman has nothing positive to run on, while Wanggaard already has a solid record of bi-partisanship. In fact when Lehman announced his candidacy, all he did was trash Wanggaard and Walker, while offering no unique solutions of his own, right?

Lehman presided over the worst job loss the state has experienced since the Great Depression. Not to mention that his only offered solutions are to raise taxes, increase the size of government, and spend more money. You guys lost on that platform last time, remember? What makes you think it will all of a sudden work for you now?

It's very telling WHO the left wants running WI. They are being played by the unions to control our Government. Taxes would have to be raised 17.7% to cover union demands....

WI added 1.7 Billion to Medicare and didn't raise taxes... Yet they want to be like IL who cut Medicare and raised taxes... Also they Can't fund their pensions and they are a mess...

You know darn well that dems doing the budget in Wi would have been the same way... Taxes raised and Medicare cut... Dems would have also cut education and done a massive layoff, they have done this in their past budgets. They would also be left with a large deficit. MN would not have been paid back, transportation fund and DR fund would still be sitting in the courts with the money not paid back. WI credit rating wound have been downgraded and the business environment would be further in the toilet.

WI made many positive moves this past year and SHE defiantly is moving FORWARD.

@jt 'john' -

If you really want to know my sentiments on the issue you raise, see the comments to Denise's piece which focuses on the mortgage crisis. You can find it here:

http://mountpleasant.patch.com/articles/discussion-did-we-learn-our-lesson-in-this-mortgage-crisis

I'm trying to find a current 2012 article that talks about "walkers current claim that he will raid the wisconsin retirement".

As far as the foreclosure relief lets see how much if any actually makes it to the state. I have qualms about that whole foreclosure relief. Beginning of the nightly news, interview of Andrew Ross Sorkin author or Too Big To Fail, take on this "relief". http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/vp/18424748#46334363

What unions were busted and when did Gov. Walker say he wanted to 'bust' unions?

@Rees -

The problem isn't with union money or corporate money being involved in supporting certain candidates, it's about either the perception or the reality of the matter that the money is used to buy political favoritism from those candidates, correct?

After all, if big labor or the Koch Bros are giving money to certain candidates merely because they agree with and support the candidate's platform/ideologies, then there's no issue, right? It's only when that money is either actually used or perceived to be used to buy political favoritism from the candidate once they are in a position of power, correct?

So, wouldn't the obvious solution be blind campaign funds, wherein it is never ever revealed to anyone, and especially the candidate, from whom or where the money supporting them is coming from? Wouldn't that return things to being solely about the issues and the candidate's platform/ideologies/solutions to those issues?

I'd be all for something like this, as it would adequately preserve everyone's freedom of speech while eliminating the problem that the current system's policy of full public disclosure causes, right?

So let's do it!

Rees I am very well aware of how Act 10 was passed.... I researched every law used.... How long it took... who tried to compromise... and who the cowards were....

What unions were busted? Do you realize that over 27 States either limit or ban collective bargaining privileges? They still have unions.............. tell me again.... How did Act 10 'bust' unions?

@Rees -

But how do you do that without trampling on our freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment? Remember, it guarantees your opportunity to speech, period - not for the outcome equality of speech. Suggesting that it should somehow be 'outcome equal' is a huge shift away from the traditional intention of that freedom and a dangerous slippery-slope precedent to set, don't you think?

Also, money doesn't vote - only people can. Ventura won in Minnesota spending less than $300k, while both his opponents spent millions, remember? The voters have to be held accountable for being able to think for themselves instead of allowing themselves to be dictated to by a commercial.

If you see a problem, blame the junkies, not the dealers, as without demand, all the supply in the world is good for naught.

@Rees -

It's arguable as to whether or not it was intended for corps or any non-individual entities to be entitled to free speech protections, as those entities routinely engage in speech all the time, do they not? If we started limiting their speech, where would it stop? What if the party in power enacted legislation which said that activist groups couldn't publicly release speech that bad mouthed the Koch Bros?

When it comes to our Constitutionally protected freedoms, isn't it best to error on the side on inclusion as opposed to exclusion, as the framers intended?

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that we did exclude entities from engaging in political speech and that only individuals could so. The Koch Bros, George Soros, Warren Buffet, etc. are all people aren't they? And just because they are wealthy doesn't give us the right to limit their speech, does it? Remember, equal opportunity for speech, but not equality of outcome.

I still think that blind funds are the way to handle it, as it eliminates the stink without limiting individual rights.

The dealer could give someone all the drugs in the world, but if the person was resistant to ingesting the drugs, then it would all be for naught, right? The real control and problem lies in the demand, not the supply. Shouldn't we exercise self-control and demand personal responsibility from ourselves and our leaders instead of constantly blaming others, pointing the figure, and passing the buck?