@R Denis --- I guess you missed the point and it has nothing to do with fiscal conservatism. The question that I am asking is whether some of the more recent populist groups are wolves in sheep's clothing.

I tend to be a bit cynical of extreme views, especially when espoused by individuals and groups that portray they are the honest and sincere ones and that they are truly independent of political control and influence.

May I also point out that much is said of "fiscal conservatism" -- yet BOTH parties have yet to demonstrate that they are willing to actually practice it -- other than trying to gore each others' oxes -- making cuts that affect their opponents, while opening up the piggy bank to their friends and backers.

If you are willing to accept the protestations of these populist groups that they are truly independent and not controlled or supported by politicians or their surrogates -- please feel free to enjoy your bliss.

Dave,
Nice to see that you are still one of a kind and proud of it.Your point is valid.It seems that the populist movements on both sides of the spectrum are being directed by special interests,people are just too gullible to understand it.

Pure BS. The efforts here and across the state was an uprising of ordinary people, including the We Are Wisconsin group. Here in the North Shore, it was virtually all volunteer with only one paid staffer.

We paid just about all the expenses. We spent thousands of hours on this.

A little scary on the right that vast numbers of people have had enough, and they are finally willing to do something about it. TGFSW!

If anything will break the back of the undemocratic Citizen's United ruling, this is it.

Contrast this with the inaptly named Americans for Prosperity, which has to bus their geriatric base everywhere and pay for venues and AV set-ups.

Happen to notice the number of recalls against Democratic state senators? The right doesn't have the energy or the motivation to do it In fact last round to gather most of their signatures, they had to hire people, not that have "the help" is foreign to them.

Keith, you're too close to the issue with your little group to have the proper perspective.

On the other side, as well, is the "Recall Walker" movement, which, locally, is a classic example of a "grassroots" effort (again, the degree to which that is true is debatable) that's grown into a vehicle for opportunistic politicians and special interests to gain power via the overreaching use of a faulty state law.

"Occupy", due to its reliance on demonstrations and disruptions without much else in the way of focus, and that becoming the face of the movement up 'til now, probably hasn't endeared itself to anyone in a way that's of political use at this point. If the Democrats could figure out a way to harness the spirit of it in a less "in-your-face" fashion, it may be useful to them. Masses of disaffected people who fancy themselves victims or an evil overlord are, essentially, the party's target demographic. If the rough edges can be smoothed out a bit, you're essentially looking at the left's "Tea Party".

@JRH....A good dose of skepticism and cynicism is in order when evaluating any movement. These popular movements are unique in as much as they are not directed at the plutocracy but the supposed oppressive forces of liberalism. Look at all the scape goating that has been going on to divert attention away from the true picture of wealth and control.

Not if we have anything to do with it.

Hey Keith why dont you get a job at Culvers so you can pay back your loan to the Village of Shorewood, man up and take care of your debts.

Do you even have a job Alfred?

@Keith -

You don't have to crash our party - we have a spot reserved just for you!

They don't have to. They don't need anybody. They have billions.

They don't have people. They have puppets.

Most intelligent people who belong to unions know what they get for it. There is no accident that the shrinking of the middle class and the decline of unions is directly proportion.

The first act of fascism is to ban the unions.

No Kieth, the first act of facism is creating unions. The act of forcing someone one to join a union just to work somewhere then demanding they pay dues to belong so that the union hierarchy can manipulate elections and politicians is pure facist and communism.

@Brian Dey...No Brian, the first act of fascists is to destroy unions. I give as examples Benito Mussolini, Fransisco Franco, and Adolf Hitler. Fascists embrace a close relationship with business and the two forces enter into a cabal for mutual benefit. Oh, by the way; all three fascists that I mentioned were also brutal dictators.

Soviet and Chinese style communism also eliminated any collective movement that they couldn't control. Your continued diatribe against unions put you squarely in line with both fascists and communists. Embrace it my friend.

@Lyle and Keith -

And what did the fascists replace the unions with - their own 'union.' Either you were inside or you were out. It was that simple.

Lyle- If that is true, then why do unions force participation. If it is so righteous (collective Bargaining), why do they need open ballots, forced membership and forced union dues. Sounds like communism to me. Sounds facist the tactics they used to form unions as well.

@JRH...What you are describing is not a union but a political party.

@Brian Dey...Your obsession over unions is dysfunctional. You have left all level of rationality and reality when it comes to union bashing. You seem to be able to tie all the social ills of society to unions. You sure you don't suffer from paranoid schizophrenia and delusions of grandeur?

@Lyle -

In all honesty, is there a difference?

Lyle- Just as I thought, you can't answer the question (as usual). Just attack the person questioning that which you know you can't use all your psycho-babble. I've got no time for you and your crap anymore. At least until you answer a question directed to you without the "I'm Lyle Rubble and I know all" attitude. Good day...

@Brian Dey....Forced union membership is in the best interest of the employees. Of course not all public employee unions have forced membership. Of course you already know the functions that unions provide being an ex union member yourself, even though it was a private sector union. Like any other organization it needs money to operate, thus the reason for union dues. In your past capacity and hoped for future capacity as a RUSD school board member, all you could envision was breaking the unions so that there wouldn't be any challenge to your policy decisions.

Unions became targeted to be broken because they traditionally contribute to Democratic candidates. To gain an unfair political advantage, the Republican Party needed to cut off the money supply to the Democrats. Hence, demonize public unions and break them.

Finally, if one chooses to have a union to represent them, then full membership is necessary to stand with solidarity.

As far as my analysis of you, I didn't diagnose you but shared observation of your on-line content. If union membership was ever reinstated in RUSD, the union would be forced to challenge you as being someone who could not bargain in good faith. To support such allegations, your record is recorded in the Patch blogs and threads.

Lyle- Who says it is in their best interest? As a former union member, I've seen it protect some pretty pathetic employees. I've seen it bankrupt a company, and I watched as 400 employees lost their jobs. I don't think those 400 employees have a very good opinion of their union leadership.

As far as how I bargained, and I was a key negotiator according to the past executive director of the teachers union and was always open, transparent and honest about my feelings toward the unions, yet we still were capable of negotiating a very fair contract.

And as far as if I'm elected back on to the board, my first responsibility is not to the employees, it is to the public that pays for the district and students that attend it. As far as negotiations, as a board member, I am duly sworn to uphold the federal, state and local laws. As they are under contract until August 2013, I am bound by that contract. If they continue to be organized after that, then I will be bound in negotiations by Act 10, which is the current law.

Last Lyle, the teachers unon down here has had a very poor reputation, thus all teachers get lumped into that collective sum by the public. They created their own image. I've reviewed their contract extension and they have not been very forthright with the community again, so their black eye continues. But as an employer, I know the value of good employees. My goals are met with goeed employees and in my company, they are rewarded. No union needed.

@Lyle -

What good do public sector unions actually serve? The employees are already protected against abuses by both state and federal law. And they have a seat at the table just like everyone else through their duly elected public officials. If they want to start a lobbying group, more power to them. But the traditional union model doesn't work effectively or efficiently in the public sector because the public sector doesn't profit. It only leads to abuse and corruption, as we've seen. That's why great labor loving men such as FDR and JRH warned against public sector unionization. There's an inherent conflict of interest as all the members are also taxpayers!

As to Brian Dey - thank heavens that there is a RUSD Board candidate that is willing to espouse the truths that he does about the union corruption that has plagued the district for decades! He has my firm support and I stand with him in his candidacy!

Vote DEY for RUSD Board of Education!!!

You're right, Brian. I find the disdain for Conservative activism by the left to actually be amusing. They hate that we are finally fighting the battles they wage with the same weapons.

For every Koch Brother there's a Soros or John Doerr. For every AFP there's about five Regressive university-based organizations designed to out-yell us on the right.

@Bren -

The Tea Party movement is as astroturf as the Recall Walker movement in this state. How else do you explain guys like Rand Paul and Mike Lee being elected? People vote - not money.

Now, if you really want astroturf, take a look at One Wisconsin Now, Wisconsin Jobs Now, the DPW, etc. - all pure astroturf!

Bren, where you are mistaken is that the TEA Party is organized as a movement. Yes, many are disenfranchised Republicans, that have seen the Beltway Boys give up on principle to appease the left. But there are many that are Democrats that are fed up with the hard left the DNC has taken since Pelosi and Reid were in charge. The TEA Party is comprised of many ideas, many independent agendas, but two common themes; TEA stands for taxed enough already and many of us are tired for paying for everybodyelses social agenda that has nothing to do with the charge of the federal government. Second, we are firm believers of the Constitution and have seen both parties run astray from it. Since the Dems have been hijacked by the likes of Georrge Soros, Arianna Huffington and Warren Buffet and an extreme liberal agenda, the TEA Party has become the counter and has no central leader, just a central idea. Soros wants to keep everybody under government wraps so he can get richer, same with Buffet. They are frauds and are the 1% you should be scared of most. I don't need the Koch Bros. to tell me why I'm fed up with the federal government. All I needed was see a radical extremeist by the name of Barrack Hussein Obama to get elected on the Soros agenda to make up my mind. And the NY Times? Really???