The American Spectator

Brian Mc| 3.1.11 @ 7:03AM

I'm no Wisconsinite, just a lowly Iowan but, from where I'm sitting, just one concession to the blithering egotists encamped in the rotunda in Madison will be a victory for socialism and mark the champion of the article unworthy of consideration. This could be a major step towards the breakup of the indoctrination process that has been an albatross to true education in this country for far too long. We will be watching Walker with crossed fingers.

Patrick| 3.1.11 @ 3:07PM

Don't worry about Scott. He's been as tough as nails in Milwaukee County, facing down ultra-liberal super-majorities (lead by a race-baiting, slum-lord, poverty pimp - no wonder I never vote Dem.) for years. If anyone on the Right will buckle, it would be the State Legislature.

Gov. Walker is the real deal. How can he buckle, when every time he's made the hard stand, he's won and won bigger?

Jon B| 3.4.11 @ 11:33AM

Walker is more like Hoover as he's already thrown out 35,000 jobs, and in an age where gas prices are about to sky-rocket, is making major moves away from energy independence jeopardizing a couple billion already invested...

Perhaps his actions will result in at least one small business growth: a new Vacuum cleaner company named "Walker Vacuums-he sucks far more than Hoover!"

Alan Brooks| 3.1.11 @ 4:26PM

You can all be sure Scott Walker hears 'Hail To the Chief' playing in his mind.

Alan Brooks| 3.1.11 @ 10:27PM

"Gov. Walker is the real deal. How can he buckle, when every time he's made the hard stand, he's won and won bigger?"

Walker is a mean motor scooter who will grab the opposition by the short hairs 'n' beat em to a pulp.
For the flotsam n jetsam will be washed away in the cleansing.
Walker will run down to the 10 yard line to vaporize the goal with tactical nukes, incinerating the bad guys with unrelenting harshness.
Walker will deliver the goods and bring home the bacon.
ALL HE ASKS IS DONATIONS FOR HIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION BID NEXT YEAR.
SO FORK OVER THE DOUGH, JOE.

sans| 3.3.11 @ 4:02AM

The Koch Brothers lackey is going to be recalled, impeached or booted out, but one way or another he is going. The next Calvin Cooledge? You've gotta be out of your ever loving right wing wacko minds.

Carol| 3.1.11 @ 7:12AM

Excellent piece, Mr. Lord.

I pray Scott Walker does not give in. I pray he has the strength to ignore those idiots making a mess all over the country with their give me everything attitudes.

I hadn't heard before what Daniels said about tuning out the truth-tellers. Don't run Daniels - WE'VE HAD ENOUGH OF YOU RINOs.

Governor Scott Walker: Hang tough. Millions are on your side and on the side of the taxpayers in your state (the silent majority).

Maybe Scott Walker is the one we've been waiting for!

SeattleBred| 3.1.11 @ 11:13AM

Nicely put, dear lady. I long since abandoned the notion that our beloved country’s ills are politically correctable but I’ll join your prayer of petition. Perhaps we can save something for our grandchildren.

sans| 3.3.11 @ 4:04AM

Maybe you should pray for your selfish self. A lot more milliions are on the side of workers. Not on the side of the sellout to the Koch Brothers. I hope you lose your job and end up in the streets. That's about the same mentality you seem to have. careful what you pray for - it may just come back at you. YOU'VE had enough. You ain't seen nothing yet lady.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.1.11 @ 7:38AM

What a fantastic article!

JimH| 3.1.11 @ 7:53AM

Walker to unions... 'you lose'.

The Bishop| 3.1.11 @ 8:02AM

I am in complete agreement - excellent article. I can't wait to read the upcoming Coolidge biography. How refreshing and inspiring to see a principled leader as opposed to an ego-centric camera fornicator. Stand strong, Governor Walker.

The Bishop| 3.1.11 @ 8:04AM

And that's from a Hoosier who likes Mitch. But Mitch has diluted principle.

sans| 3.3.11 @ 4:05AM

Who is the egocentric fornicator, you tea thug? You people are as wacko as they come. This GOvernor is going nowhere in office - he will be gone this time next year. You can count on it.

Old Soldier| 3.1.11 @ 8:02AM

Coolidge is certainly my favorite President of the 20th Century. No wrong can come from following his lead.

TMc| 3.1.11 @ 8:02AM

I applaud Gov Walker's stand. But so far I haven't heard an explanation as to why this applies only to the teachers' unions and not the police and firefighters' unions. Don't they also get big pensions and lifetime healthcare?

Mike Rogers| 3.1.11 @ 8:31AM

That is a very good question. The short answer has to be pragmatism, besides, hasn't Obama stolen his National Guard? He may not have exactly the same options as Coolidge :(
Since the police declined to clear the tramps and trolls out of the capitol, it may eventually lead to a confrontation with state police over doing their job, but aside from that, I would draw the major distinction as being that the police and firefighters may be expensive, but they do their job - teachers are expensive, and do not do what we pay them for.

Patrick| 3.1.11 @ 3:12PM

When it comes to WI politics, police and fire may be unionized no differently, but they've never had nearly the financial and political pull that the teachers' unions have.

Gov Walker is principled, but not a fool. Public school teachers are the biggest, most powerful lobby in the state, and if their back can be broken, then the rest is only gravity.

Troy| 3.1.11 @ 5:03PM

I think Gov Walker's long range plan is to phase Police and Firefighters into this. This is very wise. He can let this ending of collective bargaining take hold and improve the education system and improve efficiency in the local and state government. Then when the world didn't crumble and he's re-elected move to expand this to police and fire in 3 1/2 years. Very wise.

VBMax| 3.1.11 @ 8:32AM

Good article, but I still ask could Coolidge or even Reagan get elected in today's political environment? Add up all the progressives, the dumbed down youngsters, those on the government dole, the mainstream propaganda machine etc., would Scott Walker have any chance?

chris haynes| 3.1.11 @ 8:54AM

Walker's methods are wrong. He wants to curb collective bargaining, but public employee unions dont get their gains by bargaining, because they cant strike, so they have no "bargaining' power.

Instead, they get their gains by dealing with politicians that they bribe. After Walker, the "negotiations" will change to "wage and benefit study panels". The results will be unchanged.

He also wants to end the "check-off". That only means this. The unions will need to hire bill collectors. Their threat: If you dont pay your dues, you will be fired under the union contract.

If he wants to curb unions power, he has a simple method. Right to work law for public employees

Seapuss| 3.1.11 @ 9:38AM

Chris, you're right that public unions cannot strike (at least not legally) in Wisconsin. However, under current law, the government is required to bargain with the public employee unions "to impasse". Upon reaching an impasse, the dispute goes to binding arbitration, and the arbitrator (most of whom favor unions) decides who "wins". Thus, the government can't simply end the negotiations by saying "no".

Further, a "right to work" provision IS part of Walker's proposed bill. His plan includes a provision that makes one's membership in a public sector union voluntary.

Patrick| 3.1.11 @ 3:14PM

Furthermore, the biggest problem is that half the time, the Union is on both sides of the table. This is a dangerous ethical problem.

No, public sector unions are wrong.

Richard Baker| 3.1.11 @ 10:16AM

Walker is concerned with the FUTURE of Wisconsin even if his critics aren't. The small children who oppose him need an adult to lead. Lord knows we've enough small children in government as it is.

sans| 3.3.11 @ 4:06AM

Keep your preaching to yourself. The immaturity of Walker and you neocons is astounding.

Mimi| 3.1.11 @ 10:24AM

Jeff what a JOY reading this article. Thanks.

For the life of me why on earth should their be unions for PUBLIC workers? They must be outlawed. For any entity to be at the Public dole is a disgrace.... the consequence being interference in the election process is an outrage.

loulou| 3.1.11 @ 10:37AM

Brilliant article. Thank you.

Ned the Red| 3.1.11 @ 10:40AM

"Walker and Cain, On our feet again!"

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.1.11 @ 10:50AM

I watched that interview with Mitch Daniels on Fox News Sunday, and I might be the only one, but I agree with him. We don't have to sacrifice Conservative principles to make this a big-tent party. Mitch wasn't trying to justify some spending program like a liberal, he was suggesting that we find ways to deal with social issues that don't alienate an entire segment of the population into becoming lifelong democrats. I don't think that is sacrificing principle.

You don't have to sacrifice principle, to appeal to the masses. Liberty and Freedom will always be popular ideas. Its a matter of conveying the Conservative message in a way that helps people understand that even though we would take away Medicare, Social Security, etc., that ultimately, we are increasing your freedom to self-determination.

So many "Conservatives" hi-jack the conservative movement with "Social Conservatism", and in many cases, they end up acting no different than progressives. It's their way or the highway, but either way they want control.

There's a simple Conservative answer to every issue we face today, and all of them include limiting government influence and power, and maximizing freedom.

But hey, maybe we should be happy with one house of congress, and always be ready to beg the democrats for a 10 billion dollar cut here and there.

Or.. We can add another 5-10% to our voting base and be UNTOUCHABLE for the next 40 years and really get some things done.

But I guess some people will always worry about what others do in their personal life (like a progressive/liberal/commie) instead of the future of our nation.

George S| 3.1.11 @ 12:46PM

Phil, finding "ways to deal social issues" in a way that will not scare people is a red herring and a creation of the media to plant landmines in the way of another Reagan conservative. It has been wholly swallowed, digested and come out the other end as excrement known as the RINO. We have to have the discipline to resist the temptation to reach out and be inclusive, thinking it is the only way to win elections. Conservatism cannot coexist with Medicare and social security, for example, simply because they account for three fourths of the federal budget. Conservatism cannot coexist with public sector unions because the taxes to sustain them would be never endingly (is that a word?) raised. Conservatism cannot coexist with appealing to the entitlement whims of farmers, ethanol producers, green energy types, carbon traders, or health care consumers because it involves compromising freedoms.

I don't see how you can appeal to freedom - and then make exceptions so as not to lose a voting bloc. I think that if you keep on a fixed course like Coolidge, Reagan and, now, Walker did then the support will be there, without having to sacrifice principle.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.1.11 @ 1:12PM

I disagree. For example, an issue like the government's definition of marriage. The pure conservative viewpoint, in my opinion, is that the government no reason to be involved in this. So how about eliminating the government's involvement in it altogether.

I'm not saying we should compromise on spending and government largesse. I'm saying that we don't have to change our message about social issues. Just like with medicare and social security, our message on social issues can be: That is not the federal governments responsibility to determine these things, so it should be deferred to the states and the people can decide what happens in their own back yard.

But I just don't see how a so-called Conservative can on one hand argue for limited govt power, and on the other hand argue for government to control morals and values.

Let the states decide. In my opinion, there are three things the feds should be involved in. 1) Governing 2) Defense 3) Counterintelligence

Nunya| 3.1.11 @ 1:13PM

George, I agree with you to a certain point. Have you ever asked a wealthy senior citizen why they choose to receive Medicare and Social Security? I have, and the answer was either "I earned it" or "I paid into it", respectively. That may not be every senior citizen, but I'd be willing to bet it's the overall majority (it has been when I asked the questions). While I recognize and agree that massive changes to both need to be made, doing so will almost certainly be the death knell for the candidate that does so. I don't know the exact numbers, but I believe those 50 and over make up one of the largest voting blocs, and those 65 and over are probably half of that group (again, this is just my own estimate, I have no hard numbers). Nobody wants to take a cut in pay or benefits, and even those that don't need the money will fight to keep what they have.

My experience with seniors is that they care much less about "freedom" than those younger than they, and care more about security. In fact, I had a debate with a senior once who had just returned from China, who was commenting on how safe and secure he felt walking around Bejing. When I said that was because of the repressive government, he commented that (in essence), he didn't care because he felt safer walking around there at night than he did in the US. Sad.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.1.11 @ 1:23PM

Very true, and to ignore that the right will, indeed, lose votes over being the adults in this situation and facing up to this debt, is suicidal. We will need to replace these votes, or forget about maintaining power long enough for lasting, real reform.

They can call me a RINO, but I think my views are closer to Barry G.'s than the people calling me that.

Conservatism is not an economic philosophy nor a social philosphy. But as BG said, it does have implications. But if the right can clearly define that it is about individual Liberty and responsibility, we win.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.1.11 @ 1:28PM

Either way, whether we want to include other groups that agree with us on the important stuff, or we want to alienate them over the petty stuff, there's no way we should let anyone but the libs own this mess. The only position acceptable to me is a hard-line on cutting spending and cutting programs altogether.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.1.11 @ 1:15PM

Just like with Goldwater, Barry wasn't Pro-Abortion, he was pro-life, but he could separate his views from governance. And he understood that the government shouldn't have their hands in this.

Every issue should be approached with Goldwater's question: "Are we maximizing freedom?"

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.1.11 @ 1:31PM

BTW, I said nothing that would qualify as an "exception" to an appeal for freedom. If you think the government controlling marriage licenses is freedom, then lets just agree to disagree.

George S| 3.1.11 @ 2:13PM

I am not making this personal, just reiterating a point. The conventional wisdom was that union contracts and the public sector were always considered politically untouchable -- go against them and you lose. What Wisconsin is showing us is that CW is not true. The people are supporting Walker because he is putting into action what people agree with. And he is getting hell for it; not because it is unpopular with the electorate but because the entrenched, politcally powerful and rich interests are waging all out war. Would a similar action against social security cause upheaval? Big time it will. Will it cost votes? Yes, but only if the scare tactics succeed. But reforming social security does not start by cutting people off, it starts by reforming the expectations of the new generation which sends a signal that future liabilities may decrease. It is not a compromise to leave existing recipients alone, nor is it politically a necessity -- it is simply fulfilling a promise that caused generations to take a different course for their retirement.

But the bottom line is that today's way of doing business with other people's money is unsustainable. A President Palin cannot deliver the expectations she would be elected for if she had to spend her entire time figuring out ways to borrow money to feed the never ending entitlement monster. And since printed or borrowed money has no labor backing it, it is only a matter of time until we or our children get hit with taxes that take more than three quarters of our income. That's when it comes crashing down, Constitution and all. Just because politicians keep kicking the can down the road so as not to lose votes. Wisconsin is the first critical step to avoid that... but by no means the last. Only a Coolidge or a Reagan can accomplish that because they were not afraid of offending either factions in their own party or the electorate at large.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.1.11 @ 4:20PM

I agree with your position on Social Security. Sorry, sometimes I speak in absolute terms when thats not what I am trying to convey.

My position on entitlement programs is they ALL need to go. Whether that's in 10 or 20 years doesn't mattter quite as much as them being gone eventually.

As unconstitutional as it may be to force someone to pay into a retirement plan (especially a ponzi scheme like SS), it's ok with me if I'm forced to. But lets privatize it.

I'm 28, I'll give up my Social Security Benefits I've accumulated since beginning work at age 15. Just give me 2% of the 7% that I pay in FICA taxes. Any new entrants into the job market go into the privatized plan and pay half and half. 3.5% to a private account, and 3.5% to pay for the people above age (let's just say 40) years old. Everyone above 40 can live out their Social Security or Medicaid until they die. But as they die, year after year, the entitlement will shrink until its gone.

In fact, I'm fine with incremental cuts on the majority of govt programs. 10% per year, maybe? That way if there is any economic repercussions from laying off govt workers, it can be slow enough for the market to pick up the slack.

My ideal Federal Govt is one that governs, provides defense, and otherwise stays the hell out of the way of the individual states and the people.

P.S. Think about the economic implications of the entire nations retirement savings being privatized and what that means for REAL capital investment in america.

jolizoom| 3.2.11 @ 12:12AM

The problem with incremental cuts on govt programs is that the next guy will restore whatever the last guy cut. How about targeting one agency per year? Or if there is something magical about 10%, then find two or more agencies to add up to 10% of the total budget (the current budget--not next year's wish list) and cut those.

As I understand it, 2010 federal spending was $3.7 trillion, so 10% is $370 billion. We can zero out a lot of agencies for that. So far I've come up with the EPA ($10b), DOEd ($69.9b), IRS (Fair Tax, anyone?) ($12.5b), and I've seen lots of other suggestions for agencies that overreach the constitutional obligations of the feds.

jolizoom| 3.1.11 @ 2:56PM

I understand what you're getting at, but to call the social issues "petty stuff" is a disingenuous attempt to belittle those of us with strong moral positions.

Here is how legalization of SSM turns out: http://www.massresistance.org/.....f_ssm.html

Article IV Section 1 of the US Constitution states: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

A mash-up between the actions of a state such as Massachusetts and Article IV Section 1 equals legalization of SSM nationwide, whether in concordance with or against the wishes of the majority. This is what the current administration's refusal to defend DOMA is leading up to.

At that point you can kiss the Republic goodbye, because those of us who have heretofore been earning a living and paying taxes, will be in jail for "hate crimes" and the government will have no more revenue to maintain even the most basic of government functions.

Shoot! I just found the silver lining again.

May I remind you that in 31 states including California, SSM has so far been rejected by the people, and that in those states where it is being practiced, it was decreed by the legislature, not voted on by the people. You still think we're the minority?

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.1.11 @ 4:31PM

We're not the majority as conservatives. We are the largest minority. 40% conservative, 35% moderates, 25% liberals.

I'm not saying to stop being forthright in what you beleive in, I'm saying they should state precisely what they beleive in, but then defer decisions to the states, LIKE IT SHOULD BE. That way on a national level, nobody comes off as a bible thumper trying to force other to live by their code.

Why doesn't this make sense to anyone?

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.1.11 @ 4:33PM

But, i would like to add, what I'm talking about, is getting 5-10% more of that electorate as Conservatives by projecting the PURE Conservative message of Liberty vs Tyranny. Its a winner everytime.

Obama barely won in an election that was unwinnable for McCain. What happens if we can add another 5-10% to our base? We will be unbeatable. I think they only reason anyone rejects Conservatism is bc they are misinformed on what it means. I think we should inform them, and then live by it. that's all.

jolizoom| 3.1.11 @ 10:14PM

1) DOMA is the utility by which the feds defer the decision to the states.
2) The question isn't whether to live by a code, the question is WHOSE code we must live by. As demonstrated by the Massachusetts debacle, the homosexual rights groups are the ones throwing people in jail and denying rights to those who have opposing beliefs. We "Bible thumpers" tend toward "live and let live", and most sodomy laws have been taken off the books or at the very least, are no longer enforced. We aren't sending people to jail for being homosexual, last I checked. They, however, are sending people like me to jail for holding fast to our moral beliefs.

It boggles the mind why you think we must turn a blind eye in the name of "the big tent" toward those who would maliciously cause us harm. Further, it seems to have escaped your notice that in the one place where SSM is practiced wholesale, there IS no "liberty" for people of faith--there is only the tyranny of the minority.

JP| 3.1.11 @ 3:09PM

Phil,
I understand your attraction Daniels; he does come off as the perfect pragmatist. But, as a Hoosier, I warn you that he isn't quite what his spin doctors say he is.

To begin, Govenor Daniels would be my vote to run any large, complex, public corporation. He is organized, results oriented, knows his place, very capable, and is great with numbers, facts, and statistics.
However, he also suffers from what plagues all business executives turned politician. He has a lot of blue blood in him. He sees himself as an elite whose job is to organize, manage, and plan society. In this respect, he is alot like Bloomberg without the the obsession with health. Daniels made this clear when he said last month that there are ways in which he could make some portions of ObamaCare work. I am sure Daniels was sincere. Contrast Daniels attitudes of ObamaCare with that of other GOP govenors who refused to find ways to "improve it". Govenor Daniels, when it comes down to it, will always find common ground with the Dems on every single issue. He will do what Mark Steyn said most GOP leaders will do once ObamaCare became law -work to make it work.

When it comes down to it, Daniels like so many other GOP leaders are Progressive Lite. They do not have a problem with the direction Obama and others are taking this nation - only the speed. Daniels will look at budgets from a defecit stand point, not a spending point of view. He said as much when he temporairily let be known that he was in favor of a VAT tax. Before the 2008 Recession, he was all for mandatory all day kindergarten and day care, depsite the costs. He avoids things like abortion, the high costs unions cause to the state of Indiana, as well as a host of "social issues". In a sense. Daniels has already signaled to the Dems that they will continue to "own" the culture if he becomes President. Govenor Daniels already has let it be known that he doesn't care much for the Right's cheerleaders (Limbuagh, Hannity, Beck, Fox News, etc...). The fact that he considers these people rivals should give conservative pause. He is making the same mistake McCain made in 2008 by going after the "Independents" before wooing the grass roots.

Govenor Daniels' campaign is almost finished before it even got out of the starting blocks. He shows too much arrogance, too little political wisdom, and his attitudes reflect more of Bush41 elitism to win the primairies. In a poll taken in Indiana in Dec 2010, over 55% of registered GOP voters in Indiana said that Mitch shouldn't run. Not a good sign.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.1.11 @ 3:57PM

I'm a hoosier as well. I wasn't real big on mitch until I saw his interview on fox news. Actually, I'm not big on him now, either. I just liked what he had to say regarding the issue, and I disagree with the assertion that he's willing to bend and be progressive light. I don't think its that radical to drop the PETTY stuff (yes, petty, considering the U.S. Economy can collapse in the very near future) if we don't focus on the important stuff.

Conservatism is NOT a fiscal policy or a social policy. Its just not. Conservatism is rooted in the spiritual freedom of man. And that has fiscal implications. Such as, a man can't be spiritually free if he is not economically free, etc, etc.

I'm a Conservative. To say "I'm a fiscal conservative" is redundant. There's no way to be Conservative with big spending, big taxing government. Conservatism is all about self-determination, and spiritual freedom for your mortal soul.

Personally, my ideal candidates are Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Sarah, Christie, or (yes, im saying it) Walker.

I'm just looking for ANYONE willing to be honest and make tough decisions. Those people are leading the pack.

BTW, why does nobody like Newt? I love newt! And he could he Obama's breakfast, lunch, and dinner in a debate. Not a whole lot of people on the right with as much know-how and political savvy as Newt. he's no fool.

Troy| 3.1.11 @ 5:16PM

As Hosiers, I would like to know what you all think of what Gov Daniels did with the Indiana Toll road? He "leased" this roadway to a Spanish-Australian Global Conglomerate for 100 years. I find this type of thing reprehensible! This is actually selling a public asset, one of the few I think needs to be kept in the Public Trust. As a Owner operator Trucker, we paid for years and years $12.80 to cross Indiana from Lake Station to Ohio. The road isn't being maintained better, but worse now and they have jacked the toll to $30.00. Some people are calling this an"innovative idea". I think it is the selling off of America. And by the way, that road was paid for by the whole American people, not just Indiana!

jolizoom| 3.1.11 @ 10:42PM

"Conservatism is NOT a fiscal policy or a social policy. Its just not. Conservatism is rooted in the spiritual freedom of man. And that has fiscal implications. Such as, a man can't be spiritually free if he is not economically free, etc, etc."

So close, and yet so far away. Spiritual freedom must come FIRST. Trying to gain economic freedom without attaining spiritual freedom (in Christ--yes, I am an unapologetic Bible thumper) is like trying to move a mountain with a toothpick. It's just not the right tool. Get the bulldozer of the Holy Spirit behind you, and "you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." Matt 17:20.

In fact, you can't have freedom from any form of bondage until you have spiritual freedom first. Without spiritual freedom, you simply lack the tools to break the chains of bondage.

I am not suggesting that we institute a theocracy. Quite far from it, actually. Did it also escape your notice that the Christian woman, Sarah Palin, was the one most in favor of minimizing government intrusion in our lives?

Patrick| 3.1.11 @ 3:18PM

Let's make this easy. Take a piece of paper. Write down all the names of Republicans that are social and fiscal conservatives on the right, social moderate but fiscal conservatives in the middle, and moderate social and fiscal on the left.

Now, go through that middle column and look at what they supported fiscally. You'll notice that they all end up, when not campaigning, in the left column.

You need guts to take a stand, and there's no more difficult stand than public morality. If you can't handle that stand, you won't be able to handle the smaller ones either.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.1.11 @ 4:02PM

I still don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying WE DON'T HAVE TO BEND. We can defer the issues to the states. Take a stance like this: "I am pro-life, but this is not an issue that was ever meant to handled at the federal level. Therefore, I defer to the states and the people to make that decision."

Is that so tough for you guys who disagree with me? Or are you admitting that you prefer Federal Power and the Centralization of govt?

jolizoom| 3.1.11 @ 11:17PM

Well why didn't you say so in the first place? I absolutely agree, the feds should not be making laws legalizing abortion and using taxpayer money to pay for it. Each state should be able to decide that question for themselves. Even if a state chooses to keep it legal, that state still should not be funding it with taxpayer money.

Same with SSM. If the citizens of a particular state vote to make it legal, then fine, it's legal (it's still immoral, but that's between them and God)--but in states where it's not legal, they should not be forced to recognize couples who move to their state from a SSM state. Further, states that recognize SSM should remain mindful of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I would hope this appears in some form in every state constitution too. Because SSM is very much a religious and moral issue, and not just a political one, the First Amendment (or its state analog) protects my right to continue believing that homosexuality is wrong, and it protects my right to state that I believe homosexuality is wrong without being jailed for it.

Further, the definition of "hate speech" needs to be dialed back to mean only speech that incites to harm, and it needs to be applied evenly across the board--on both sides of the issue.

Well, Phil, it is always fun for me to clarify my thoughts by writing them down and discussing them with another person. Have we (you and I--obviously I don't speak for anyone else here) reached an accord, or do we just call it a stalemate?

AnyoneButNewt| 3.1.11 @ 11:42AM

I'll take a low-key midwesterner over an American-Idol-In-Chief any day. Hopefully America will be over its Obamahangover, and, like most college kids in the normal course of maturity, outgrow this foolishness known as hope and change.

Louis Jenkins| 3.1.11 @ 1:18PM

Well, the polls are in, and surprisingly the WI. Americans don't believe in what Walker is about. It was on Katie's even news last night! My spouse had to call me down on my language, too many four letter words. To believe that the American Taxpayer supports such drivel is a crime, and a false front. Inspite of this survey, Walker has the support of everyone who lives and works in the real world. The protesting crowds are growing? To heck with them. Principles matter.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.1.11 @ 1:40PM

Ya know, its crazy, Goldwater made the argument against Social Security before he could even foresee the financial disaster that it would ultimately cause. Goldwater's case was that men should be able to spend the fruits of the labor as they see fit. So beyond the fiscal disaster that is looming because of entitlements, we need to make the case for Liberty. That's all I'm saying above. And I don't think we lose as many votes in the process if we can frame the debate in that fashion.

But I'm sure meaningless cuts here and there will keep our voting bloc where its at. And if that's what your looking for, so be it. But don't act like we need to really reform things and not think about the effect it will have on our voting base.

As sad as it is, most people are completely naive on the issues. And the intellectually shallow only see someone taking away a "right". (I hate calling it a right, even with the quotations.)

So if we can't frame the argument in terms of pure conservatism, we lose. big time. I can only see us making up those losses by explaining what conservatism means: the maximization of freedom.

jolizoom| 3.1.11 @ 2:01PM

With Republicans and conservatives busy divining ... if Mitt Romney is or should be toast because of RomneyCare...

Romney is an idiot. If he ends up on the ticket, Obama will remain president.

http://www.massresistance.org/.....f_ssm.html

J.C.Eaton| 3.1.11 @ 2:23PM

I AM a Wisconsinite and hope to live to see it: If Gov. Walker pulls this off, in ten years, he will be president, Book it!

jolizoom| 3.1.11 @ 2:30PM

http://www.scottwalker.org/issues

All this, and he's American born.

Who Knows?| 3.1.11 @ 2:55PM

As Bill Buckley famously put it, about preferring to be governed by a randomly picked individual from a phonebook, given what a less-than-zero dark hole as president we are now suffering through, want to bet that as domestic and foreign crises GET WORSE in the coming year or so, that the Republicans will find a plethora of quite well qualified GOVERNORS to choose from?

My present educated guess is that Pawlenty will win.

Here’s ONE problem---with the last watershed election, the GOP won a bunch of governor races, and some of the winners are proving to be OUTSTANDING!

However, a Christie or a Walker JUST TOOK OFFICE, so they don’t have much real world experience.

Why, even a Christie admits he’s not ready to run, YET.

But, Pawlenty has ALREADY served, what, eight years, and in a liberal state, by fighting the good fight, and WINNING.

Yes---watch out for Tim!

JP| 3.1.11 @ 3:13PM

Three years ago Pawlenty was one of this nation's biggest boosters of the Anthrogenic Global Warming fraud. He not only fell for it, but went along with most of the ALGORE's remedies -including Cap and Trade. This alone will and should disqualify him.

What is it about Republicans that he feel they must show the world thier Progressive bonafides. And it isn't just Pawlenty. From Newt to Daniels, McCain, Lugar, Graham, and Huckabee and Romney, all are just Progressive Lite.

Briab| 3.1.11 @ 3:14PM

If Walker beats the rotten corrupt entrenched special interests in Wisconsin he'll have my vote if he runs for Prez.

Patrick| 3.1.11 @ 3:23PM

I'd have a tough time trying to nominate Gov. Walker for the same reason I had a tough time voting for him as governor.

If he becomes president, who can follow his act in WI? I suppose we can ... allow the rest of you to have him for eight years ... I guess... maybe. We get him right back after that - not a day longer!

Intelligent Design| 3.1.11 @ 3:35PM

Romney, Gingrich, Palin, Jeb Bush, Ron Paul, etc. should take the hint and get out of the way. We have several Republican Governors who would make much better contenders for the White House.

A great book about Coolidge by Robert Sobel is titled "Coolidge - An American Enigma".

chris| 3.1.11 @ 3:57PM

Every time some new, promising looking Republican comes along, someone immediately starts touting him as the next presidential candidate, whether it's Scott Brown, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio or Scott Walker. They are all untested and have little experience. This just shows what a terrible bind we are in.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.1.11 @ 4:07PM

Don't take this as a signal that I want Huckabee to run.

One thing I liked about what Huck said on Fox news sunday was how Romney should quit trying to justify RomneyCare, but at the same time, he should justify that he tried something different. One of the best things about a federalist system is the idea of each state being a laboratory to experiment with policy and its effects. This is where Federal policy SHOULD be drawn from. No policy should happen in DC without being proven effective on the state level first.

Can we just go back 90 years and defeat these damn progressives before they got moving on this stuff????

jolizoom| 3.1.11 @ 11:30PM

Hi again Phil... so explain to me, WHY should successful state policy become federal policy? Just because it has been proven effective? Where did "maximizing freedom" go?

I'm sure you'll agree that the better approach would be to let states figure out for themselves that one state or another is experiencing great success with a particular policy, and adopt the policy state-by-state. If other laws in a state made a policy untenable in that state, they would be free to fix it at that level. In the meantime, the feds can stick with their Constitutional duties.

PattyMor| 3.1.11 @ 4:58PM

Is there something in the water in Wisconsin? Your governor is taking on the teachers unions, you have Paul Ryan the lonely voice touting entitlement reform, and Reince Priebus heading the GOP? I agree, Walker will be presidential material if he can push his reforms through.

Gringrich and TPaw both got on the Global Warming bandwagon. You can't be a deep thinker and go for a hoax. Just what other fads would they go for?

Huckabee let all those felons out on parole. It not just a few of them either. What kind of strange thinking would it take to unleash these people out on society?

Romney will NEVER live down Romneycare and his flipflop on abortion.

Mitch Daniel's backtracking on social issues disqualifies him. And we don't want Obamacare improved. Let all the 1099 and other irritants in there to insure that it either gets shot down by the Supremes or repealed.

Chris Christie is no conservative. He is certainly willing to take on the unions, but he put an Islamist on the court. This is dangerous stuff:
think Shiria Law with cutting off hands, wippings, and "honor killings".

Dee See| 3.1.11 @ 9:59PM

"That's the trouble with the past,
it isn't even past---"
-William Faulkner
American Writer/Novelist
1951

----Yes, Coolidge! The man who took over
after the fierce opponent of the illegal FED,
Warren G. Harding, had that sudden 'mysterious'
heart attack.

-------------------------YES!

Nite| 3.1.11 @ 10:41PM

Scott Walker is telling it like it is. Good for him! I hope he continues his stance. The Unions just don't get it. The state is broke! Apparently, some of them went back to their school districts and got big contracts pushed through. I think they have been lying through their teeth. Walker may be a good candidate for the GOP ticket if he is successful. Herman Cain is the only one potential candidate that interests me of those who seem to be currently running. Walker would be a good addition.

Kingofthenet| 3.1.11 @ 10:48PM

This Yemen situation would be FAR more serious, except for TWO things:
1. I have DRAGON BLOOD and
2. Hercules DNA

Lu| 3.2.11 @ 12:00AM

I have volunteered for Scott Walker for all his campaigns and find him to be a very charismatic person.The people who know him well have the deepest respect and love for him. When you meet him in person he is a very warm,honest and straight forward person. We need him in Wi.

Jon B| 3.4.11 @ 11:40AM

Walker is nothing more than a socialist for corporations, redistributing wealth from the working classes to his campaign donors. I hate these dam communists like Walker with a passion ...

Creative Recreation| 8.11.11 @ 2:28AM

is good

العاب بنات| 4.11.12 @ 6:11PM

Brilliant article. Thank you.