Whereas various liberal commentators and left-of-center bloggers have contended, to borrow the mild language of CNN’s Roland S. Martin, that Governor Walker seeks to “to end the collective bargaining rights of the various public employees“, that Republican, in fact, in the words of Ed Morrissey proposes only “to limit collective bargaining to wages only — not policy and work environment issues — and to end the ‘closed shop’ in the government sector.”

Walker is not, as some have suggested, trying to bust unions, but merely standing up for the state’s taxpayers against public employee unions.  And those unions, as Michael Barone reminds us, siphon money from taxpayers and into the hands of the Democrats:

Follow the money, Washington reporters like to say. The money in this case comes from taxpayers, present and future, who are the source of every penny of dues paid to public employee unions, who in turn spend much of that money on politics, almost all of it for Democrats. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party.

It’s Barone, read the whole thing.  Would the Democrats and their media allies be fighting so hard if Walker and his fellow elected Republicans weren’t challenging a mainstay of Democratic campaign finance?  There is, as I noted before, a clear conflict of interest when public employee unions engaging in politicking.

Let’s hope that the media firestorm generated by Governor Walker’s modest proposal will cause us to promote an open debate about such politicking.  Recall that in the California gubernatorial race last fall, much ado was made of Republican nominee Meg Whitman pouring tens of millions of her own funds into her campaign, but little reporting was done about the tens of millions public employee unions poured into the campaign of her opponent (and his Democratic allies). (more…)

My, how the MSM give into left-wing spin, with Yahoo! offering this headline, “Prank call adds to Wis. governor’s woes: A candid chat with a “billionaire donor” turns into a PR nightmare as the tape goes viral” on its home page.  ”The call,” AP writer Ryan Foley contends, “also revealed Walker’s cozy relationship with two billionaire brothers who have poured millions of dollars into conservative political causes, including Walker’s campaign last year.”

How much tilting of the news to the favored narrative can we find in one sentence?  Not until later in the article do we learn that the Koch’s PAC only gave “$43,000 to Walker’s campaign” while David Koch “gave $1 million to the Republican Governors’ Association, which funded ads attacking Walker’s opponent in last year’s election.”  (Seems Mr. Foley got the message that the Kochs are now high on the approved left-wing list of conservatives to demonize.)  His line makes it sound like Walker received millions in their billionaires’ largesse.

“Cozy relationship” with those billionaires?  Huh?  If the relationship were so cozy, the governor would have recognized that the prankster was not David Koch.  The call, Michelle Malkin notes, shows “that Walker is not in deep, dark cahoots or collusion with Koch. If he were, he would have caught on quickly.” And despite Foley’s spin, consistent with the blather on the left-wing blogs, Walker, Jim Geraghty reminds us, “simply explains why he’s approaching the issue the way he is, and pretty much shrugs off the ‘zany’ comments from the faux-Koch, like, ‘you’re not talking with these Democrat bastards, are you?’”

Over at Verum Serum, John does find one comment in this 20 minute call that gets ”close to embarrassing” when “the crank caller suggests putting some ‘troublemakers’ in the crowd. Gov. Walker says we ‘thought about that’ but then goes on to say that he’s hoping there is no trouble so that the media gets tired of covering the protests.”

Ann Althouse finds that Walker ignores the “over-the-line things the Koch impersonator said“, going on instead “with his standard points, which is probably the standard strategy that most politicians use when people interact with them.” (more…)

I don’t want to debate the “right” or “wrong” of the Obama Administration’s latest gymnastics over gay rights issues.

The Justice Department announced Wednesday that, at Obama’s direction, it would not defend the Defense of Marriage Act in a court case where it’s being challenged.

Spokesman Jay Carney said Obama has always opposed the Defense of Marriage Act as “unnecessary and unfair.”

But I would like to offer this provocative question:

Should a President who both knowingly signs a law that is unconstitutional (Obamacare) AND who refuses to defend a law (DOMA) passed by Congress and signed by a President that he deems to be unconstitutional be charged with impeachment?

And they told me that if I voted for McCain, there would be an Imperial Presidency.  They were right!

Discuss…

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I didn’t feel much feeling like  blogging yesterday.  Fortunately, I chanced on one blog post and one column which, I believed, well addressed some of the problems of the day, decided to excerpt them and so provide fresh content for you, our readers.  George Will’s column provided a nice synopsis of the situation in Wisconsin.  While I found mosth of his material to be insightful and enlightening, I chose to quote only one paragraph because, I believe, it zeroed in on the problems posed when public employee unions’ politick.

Unfortunately, instead of addressing the concerns George Will raised (and with which I, by quoting, sympathized, our critics (well, all but one initially) who chose to chime in in the comment thread, refrained from addressing his point.  They weren’t interested in taking issue with his argument showing perhaps why there is no conflict of interest posed by public employee unions providing political assistance to those they are electing to, among other things, set their salaries.

They ignored his concern and instead focused their attacks on us, Governor Walker, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and a number of other individuals and institution from the standard left-wing catalogue of approved demons.  And at least one woman misrepresented the facts.

Instead of addressing they point of the post, all the critics save Cas (and later aj), responded either by repeating the standard liberal talking points on Wisconsin or by hurling insults.  Now, I won’t defend those more supportive of my views for responding to ad hominem with ad hominem.  Indeed, I have criticized them for such language in the past and do so again now. (more…)

You got to love the cheek of Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton), one of ring-leaders of 14 truant Wisconsin Democratic Senators who’ve fled the Badger State for the Land of Lincoln.  (Guess they must like the tax rates there, considering the number of tax increases Wisconsin Democrats passed when they ran the state legislature).  This guy flees the state so as to prevent a vote on one issue, yet whines that a committee chairman won’t let him vote on another.

Poor baby!

Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin), the chair of the chamber’s Committee on Transportation and Elections (on which Mr. Erpenach serves), ”refused to let him vote because he and the 13 other Senate Democrats left the state Thursday“:

Senators routinely participate in committee meetings by phone and are allowed to debate, offer amendments and vote on measures. But Lazich said she wasn’t allowing Erpenbach to vote because he had an invalid reasons for being absent.

“I won’t extend courtesies for unethical behavior,” Lazich told Erpenbach.

“Do you want the headline to be, ‘Republicans won’t let Democrats vote,’ even though we’ve allowed that many, many times?” Erpenbach said.

Emphasis added.  Skipping out to avoid voting on one issue seems a pretty invalid excuse for not being in town to vote on another issue..

Oh, and Jon, you got the headline wrong.  It’s not that Republicans won’t let Democrats vote.  It’s that Democrats have fled the state so Republicans can’t vote, even though Wisconsin voters elected them to run the state legislature and to serve in the governor’s mansion.  What cheek, saying Republicans won’t let him vote when he flees the state expressly to block a vote scheduled by majority Republicans! Oh, some Democrats today just don’t realize how silly they sound! (more…)

Just watched Governor Scott Walker’s talk to the people of his state (and given the ink this story has generated nationwide) the American people as well.  I think it’s well worth your time:

I liked how he began, saluting the state’s public employees, then went on to compare they benefits they receive to those of private sector employees.  Starting at 5:16, he takes on the problems posed by collective bargaining for public employees and why he seeks to limit its use in his state.

On the whole, his delivery was sound, but he did eat a few words.  His speech was, in many ways, Reaganesque with his effective interweaving of personal anecdotes, yet he lacked the Gipper’s velveteen voice and avuncular manner of delivery.  And he acknowledge that Midwestern “trait” of passionate, but civil debate.

I agree with Ann Althouse (my source for the video) who “thought Walker did an excellent job of articulating his side of the controversy.”  (Via Instapundit.)

“Isn’t it good,” Michelle Malkin asks, “to see Republicans playing hardball with delinquent Democrats?”  Indeed, it is, Michelle.  Indeed, it is.  And let’s hope this is how Republicans start treating Democrats who believe election returns should only result in a governing agenda when they win.

If you hadn’t heard already, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel is reporting that state Senate Republicans plan to withhold Democrats’ pay, well, that is, those Democrats who don’t show up to do the job to which they were elected (which is the Badger State is none of them):

Senate Republicans voted Tuesday to make Democrats hiding out in Illinois come back to Wisconsin to pick up their paychecks.

The Senate Committee on Organization voted on a 3-2 party line vote, with Republicans voting in favor and Democrats against, to change Senate rules so that senators who miss two consecutive floor days can no longer have their paychecks dropped automatically into their bank accounts. The vote was taken by paper ballot, which allowed Democrats to cast their votes from out-of-state.

Democrats who have already missed two consecutive floor sessions will now have to come to get their paychecks directly from Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) on the floor of the Senate.

Love it.  Let’s hope Republicans across the country take heed to what Wisconsin Senate Republicans are doing.  If the Democrats try to undermine their efforts at real government reform, they need to pull out all stops (as provided by the provisions of their state constitutions and the rules of their respective legislative chambers) to combat these obstructionist tactics.

Now, here’s an issue where I dare say some of our liberal critics will agree with me (at least, I hope they will), that is, in opposing the policy one leading Democrat supports.

Instead of calling the Senate into session the week before the continuing budget resolution expires, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Mt. Crumpit Nevada) has decided to ignore his federal responsibilities to wade into state politics.  He’s called for limiting the freedom of Nevadans and Americans who travel to the Silver State.  And he wants to make it easier for men to exploit (and police to incarcerate) women who elect to practice the world’s oldest profession:

Sen. Harry Reid on Tuesday called for “an adult conversation” about prostitution in Nevada, saying it is an impediment to economic development because it discourages businesses from moving here.

“Nevada needs to be known as the first place for innovation and investment – not as the last place where prostitution is still legal,” he said in a speech to the Nevada Legislature.

Yup, he wants to ban prostitution.  Allahpundit reminds us that

. . . local lawmakers weren’t thrilled at the sight of the U.S. Senate majority leader strolling into the chamber to lecture them on an issue that pales in significance to the state’s crushing unemployment rate (the highest in America) and massive deficit. As for his anecdote about businessmen passing on Nevada due to the brothels, the current lieutenant governor claims he’s never had someone tell him that before. (more…)