How exactly is/was it hypocrisy when Van was forced to be a member of the union when he worked for the police force? I could see calling Van a hypocrite if he had been given a choice to join the union when accepting employment with the police force and actually chose to become a full fledged member, but that is just not the case here. So let’s get real, shall we?

Additionally, Van’s priorities are different now, as are the expectations upon him. When he was a member of the police force, he worked for the executive branch of government and enforced the laws, however, as a state senator, he now works for the legislative branch of government and enacts the laws – a very big difference. And via his admission that he would have included police and fire employees within the scope of the BRB, Van has proven that he understands such difference and has prioritized appropriately without any predisposed bias merely because of his previously held positions.

This is something that is highly commendable for a politician to do, and quite frankly, I wish we had more like Van! And he’s also a politician that stands firm in his convictions and apparently knows how to lead others in getting the best results possible under the circumstances.

Recall the REAL hypocrite Cory Mason and leave Van Wanggaard alone!

Calling him a hypocrite is being kind.

Tbone & Scott- Perhaps it's not hypocrisy, perhaps it is actually seeing that the unions with their lavish benefits and extravagant, hugely generous pensions, were the reason this state was going broke, and seeing as that we were already in the top twenty of state taxes, thouught it was time to rectify the error of his ways! And dare I say, Mason is the biggest suck up to the unions because he is not a good enough lawyer to earn a living so he panders your vote and you are rewarded by hi loyalty. In the real world we call that carpetbagging, racketeering and bribery. Oh yes, those are the honorable traits of the Democratic party.

Van is a good man and is doing the right thing for Wisconsin. The stranglehold by public unions on Wisconsin's finances needs to be broken. Public employees are overpaid, overcompensated, and retire too early, it is NOT sustainable. Getting costs under control is priority number one, so that the tax base of private business may be rebuilt.

Van is not a hypocrite - he has direct experience from being a member of the public employee unions. He knows how they operate and abuse their privileges and political power. What Van is concerned with is building a healthy Wisconsin - the old paradigm is unsustainable. Sour grapes by the public employees was an unintended unfortunate consequence - Perhaps there was a belief that the public employees, after witnessing their neighbors losing their jobs, businesses closing down, and costs being shifted to employees in private enterprise, that there would be some understanding and empathy. Instead we witnessed that the greed and avarice of the public employees knows no end.

Sandy Springs: The City That Outsourced Everything: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8qFvo2qJOU

It still amazes me that anyone can justify recalling a guy over a single vote cast in the legislature...

@Cow-You and I both brother. What happened to democrocy? I thought that is why we hold elections? If one side or the other does not like something they try again during the next election cycle. I thought it was about the people not a small group of legislators who disagree? If Im not mistaking it was the people who spoke during the last election. Its really sad what we have become!!!! Spoon fed brainwashed union supporters who think there unions really care!!!! Give me a break all they care about is loosing their union dues and the possibility of this State becoming a right to work state period!!!

Brandt is insincere. Since when did he care about the plight of the union worker? Where was he for the last 30 years as the union-owned health insurance company (WEAC Trust) fleeced the taxpayers by charging double market rates? Oh, yeah, it was "bargained." Accumulated sick days? Stacking overtime? Ridiculous work rules? Free pensions? Was anything out-of-bounds, Randy? Apparently not if it was "bargained." Just because it was bargained, doesn't make it right.

And how did we bargain, anyway? With a gun to our heads, basically! And who represented the taxpayer at the table? NOBODY! Act 10 finally gives the taxpayer a seat at the table. It is disengenuous for Mr. Brandt to cry foul now, when he ran the newspaper with the biggest megaphone in town. Where was his voice during decades of colossal screwing, fraud and abuse?

Teachers' unions were long limited in Wisconsin from negotiating anything - money or benefits - beyond the relatively modest QEO, or Qualified Economic Offer, set beforehand by the Legislature at little more than 3 percent. Also, unlike all other unions, public employees were not permitted to use the most powerful weapon of labor unions - the stike. It's really silly to suggest that public employee unions came to the negotiating table from a position of overwhelming strength that couldn't be resisted. In reality, their bargaining position was always rather weak.

It's also ridiculous to claim that "the taxpayer" wasn't represented at the bargaining table. Taxpayers - the voters - elected the very people who sat across the table from the union negotiators, so, of course, the taxpayer was represented - by the people they freely elected in election after election. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

It's also useful to note from this article that Sen. Wanggaard plans to strip police and firefighters of their collective bargaining rights as well.

I'm sure all his friends and former co-workers appreciate the fact that now that he's safely got his, he's willing to deny them the same. I don't even care which side you're on, that's low in anybody's book.

... not to mention his double-dip salary and double-dip pension as a state Senator. Funny how he's called for sacrifice from everybody - except himself!