Doyle Sides with Illegal Alien Advocates
My gut tells me this veto will bite Governor Doyle more than any other.
Governor Doyle today vetoed Senate Bill 567, which would create an unnecessary, expensive, and inefficient obstacle for Wisconsin citizens in need of public services under Chapter 49.
"I am vetoing this bill because it will create unnecessary confusion with federal law set to go into effect on July 1,2006 - and because it could deny needed services to many eligible American citizens," Governor Doyle said.
Unlike vetoes of the tax freeze or the right to carry, Doyle has no cover on this one. No way to obfuscate. As important, he has far less time to build his case.
As the battles rage over our borders, amnesty, guest workers, a fence, etc, Governor Doyle now finds himself at the center of this controversy.
And he's on the wrong side of the issue, to boot. He and Kathy Falk. Nice company.
For the most vulnerable Democrat governor in America, facing a tough reelect in just a few months, this is a formula for, well, defeat.
I would have loved to be a fly on the wall when the Governor finally told his political team he was indeed going to veto this.
Good luck Xoff.
Ok, not really.
12 Comments:
You see Fraley, if you were out to spark debate or discussion or to persuade in some honest way, you'd address Doyle's given reasons for the veto.
Unless of course you don't quarrel with his reasoning but are bashing him because he didn't pander.
Its really difficult to understand why you bother with this childish blog.
anon #1, It's a free country. If you don't like what you read here, don't bother looking.
I like looking here for the same reasons that people drive slowly past accidents on the freeway.
Thisd is anon #1. I am certainly not suggesting that Fraley doesn't have a right to (1) repeatedly demean and embarrass himself and (2) attempt to dumb down the discussion of virtually every important political/policy issue to the point of childishness.
I only point out that its a serious waste of an opportunity to add value to discussion.
What intrigues me about Fraley's blog, and so many of the other conservatives' blogs - - McBride, Sykes, Wagner, Wigdeson, etc, et al - - is how many angry or sarcastic posts are about Black or other minority people or leaders.
These are racist in that they either reflect disproportionate negativity towards minorities, or that they stir the pot in the community against minority leaders or issues.
Deal with it, Brian.
Tough talk from somebody without the courage to give their name
Jim Doyle. Howard Dean. Russ Feingold. Kathy Falk. Peg Lautenschlager.
If your actions make you a target for scorn, ridicule or commentary, I really don't give a rip what color your skin is.
Deal with it, brave anonymous commentator.
A brand new anon.
Why do you permit anonymous posting if all you do when you hit some meaningful criticism is essentially say "your post requires no response because its anonymous."
Kathy's comment is also odd. either the post has something useful, insightful or interesting to say or it doesn't. Your comments about "Tough talk" and "Courage" don't mean anything.
Seems to me that you are protesting a bit too much, Brian. You DO post a lot of angry rants about black officials. Maybe you don't realize how that appears.
Also, Fraley seems to jump all over petty, meaningless stuff to belittle black elected officials. He can be aggressive with the white folks too but usually over actual issues.
So, are black politicians supposed to be free from critical analysis, or even petty sniping? Should they be held to a different standard?
The point that people are making is that you hold them to a different standard and treat them differently.
Post a Comment
<< Home