Born, Again, in Wisconsin: Rebirth of the GOP
The Cheesehead Revolution in Wisconsin is more than a catalyst for change, however. It is a call to arms for conservatives everywhere, giving courage and hope to lawmakers and politicians in states like Ohio, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and California, states drowning in unfunded mandates, mammoth government employee pension obligations, massive debt, and mounting deficits. This is the perfect storm President Barack Obama was dreading. Big Labor’s attacks on Scott Walker’s reforms tested voter attitudes towards his aggressive, common-sense form of governing, and will surely embolden other conservative politicians — perhaps even Mitt Romney — to make the tough decisions necessary to restore fiscal common sense to a country driven off the cliff by self-serving public employee unions and believers in a big-government panacea. It will be the undertone for every public appearance of Mitt Romney, with the debt clock ticking ominously in the background. It might even provide the political backbone necessary to give Paul Ryan’s budget proposal, dubbed the “Roadmap for America’s Future,” a fighting chance.
Like a punch-drunk fighter who has recovered and gathered his wits during the later rounds, the Republican Party has gotten its second wind — precisely at the right moment. Democrats and public employee unions intended to use Walker as a warning to budget-cutting, union-busting conservatives across the country. Instead, now tens of thousands of once-faithful union members are suddenly not so faithful, refusing to contribute and quitting their unions in droves. Labor’s miscalculations have already proven devastating and may well be the undoing of public employee unions as well as seed right-to-work legislation around the country.
One of the worst blunders in political history has proven true the following maxim: if you shoot at the king, you had better not miss.
Also read:
Update: Romney Now Leads…in Wisconsin
If the unions would have gone along with the few concessions the governor asked for they would still have a viable union. Now the stakes have been raised, nation wide, to make union dues voluntary. I realize this only applies to states, but it’s a start.
That’s true but from the unions’ perspective it would have been the start of the slippery slope and a trend that grow nationally. I believe the unions’ calculus was:
1. If we don’t fight this we’ll die a slow death.
2. If we fight this and lose we’ll die a quicker death.
3. If we fight this and win we’ll live.
This may be true for Walker’s changes to how payments for benefits and retirement were divvied up.
The killer for the unions was no longer having union dues automatically deducted from workers’ paychecks. The results of no longer having union dues automatically deducted- making union membership optional- greatly reduced union membership, which means much less money for unions to influence elections. From the unions’ perspectives, they had to fight this.
Sorry, but you’re misreading Wisconsin. I know this doesn’t fit your narrative but the unions were willing to move to Walker’s positions, but his Koch/ALEC masters weren’t happy with that.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116162704.html
I wouldn’t be so sanguine on the hope for the demise of the public sector unions. I don’t think they’re going anywhere.
Sorry,Phil, that simply isn’t true. What went on in my state is that ordinary people were appalled at the behavior of their Dem. legislators and the meanness and crookedness demonstrated by the teachers and all the unions. Then when the facts of the WEA Trust came out that pretty much put paid to the whole left wing caper.
You can keep repeating “Koch Bros., Koch Bros., Koch Bros.” all you want. They still have nowhere near the money that George Soros, the unions, trial lawyers and Hollywood have. I’m sure you haven’t heard and wouldn’t believe, but the Kochs are genuine patriots who were themselves, appalled at the way our country was going and decided to step in and help the Conservative Republicans.
I’m curious. What do you do when Soros says, “Step lively now!”??
P.S., the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel is mostly left wing but even they finally saw that what was going on was so obviously illegal and chaotic they finally endorsed Walker.
To say that all Republicans oppose big government is to ignore reality. Republicans created the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Prescription Drug entitlement program, No Child Left Behind federal intrusion into public education, he EPA, TARP, and many more statist, big government boondoggles. There are many big government conservatives who despise the Tea Party. People such as Karl Rove and Dana Perrino and the National Review leadership. The big government Republicans include the Speaker, John Boehner, who has given Obama all the money he needs to destroy the economy, despite a Repubican House majority. The big government plantation foremen need to be fired and replaced with free market oriented Constitutionalists.
Hate to break it to you, but the Constitution is the source of big government.
1. Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3): “[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes”.
2. Necessary and Proper Clause (Article 1, section 8, clause 18): “The Congress shall have Power – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers [i.e., enumerated powers found in Article I, section 8], and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
3. Fifth Amendment Takings Clause: “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
These little clauses give the federal government sweeping powers to enact laws, take your property, and regulate essentially anything that could possible be tied to business or affect business in some obscure way. In the 2005 case of Gonzales v. Raich for example, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes, and even though there was absolutely no likelihood of drugs to enter the stream of commerce. Regardless of your feelings on marijuana, this should scare the crap out of everyone because it sets a precedent for the government to take your property based on an imaginary supposition that it is somehow tied to interstate commerce. And it’s all made possible by the Constitution.
Actually no. Those clauses specifically limit government to certain prescribed areas. The Constitution is mostly a limiting document, not an expansive and arbitrary one. The significant expansions of government have come as the result of abandonment of the Constitution (except as a nice antique to dust off when it serves a need) by the Congress and the President and the Court. No serious person believes the Constitution says anything about abortion. No serious person believes the Founders believed the Constitution could permit a Federal mandated purchase of health insurance by all citizens. The. People who legislated these things don’t care about the Consitution. That includes many Republicans.
It seems to me that our good Pastor isn’t reading the Commerce Clause which he so ably copy and pasted. I read that Congress can regulate commerce between states, tribes and foreign nations. Not with or between citizens or “persons” (persons being the term in use at the time to refer to people who were not considered citizens by reason of sex, race or etc.) That said the courts, even the Supreme Court, has ruled otherwise but you may recall that the courts, even the Supreme Court, has made rulings which turned out to be wrong. If you question whether the Supreme Court has made bad decisions look up: Katzenbach v. McClung, West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, Dred Scott v. Sanford and a host of others. In time, hopefully not from the perspective of a new country, the perversion of the Commerce Clause will be looked back on as the greatest downfall of our country and individual liberty.
The Commerce Clause does not mean what you seem to think it means. It does not give the Feds the authority over commerce. It give them the authority to regulate (to make regular, enable it to flow) commerce among (between several) States. The documents of the time all make this clear. The various States had become near-oligarchies. Trade and travel had broken down in many cases. The Commerce clause was simply the power to veto State actions which restrict trade and travel among (between) States.
You have to know what words mean to understand the Commerce Clause. When the understanding is imprecise, the Constitution get distorted.
“It’s not that Liberals are ignorant. It’s that they know so many things that just aren’t so.” – Reagan
Well said. The philosophy of having to go along to get along may finally be dead.
And, Pastor, those clauses didn’t seem to affect Congress all that much until the Progressive movement started. What is growing within the Republican Party’s community as described in the article is the gut level realization that this leads to doom of American exceptionalism. That bothers a lot of people. Me included.
Don’t forget the EPA (Nixon), the Interstate Highway System (Eisenhower), the Homestead Act (Lincoln). Now, tell me again, why did the Tea Party throw it’s hat in the ring with Republicans.
Don’t forget, if Nixon hadn’t stumbled with Watergate, we would have had Big Health Care, with Henry Kaiser.
If I remember correctly, Wisconsin was the birth place of radicalism in America (ie The Wisconsin School) Its kind of ironic that Wisconsin should be the state that is spear heading the revolt against radicalism.
When I was a kid (in Milwaukee), I was a stamp-collecting geek. I went to a first-day issue with a Postmaster General celebrating the anniversary of workmen’s compensation, which had been instituted first in Wisconsin. Wisconsin was the birthplace of the lot of things, the progressive Republicans with the LaFollettes (Ripon School) and yes, a lot of radicalism (e.g. Madison in the 1960s)
Before we get too gassed on this, I want to pass on the observation that everybody I talked to that voted in this election were primarily offended by the notion of a recall election against a legitimate sitting governor that did not commit a crime or other act of malfeasance. Unions??….. What are those?….. Fiscal conservatism?…… Naw, I’m not for it. Anyway, I’m not seeing evidence that there is a movement or tectonic shift in public sentiments, let alone anything that approaches an agreeable consensus…….
isn’t it nice to see that the unions poured so much money into a losing cause, lost the ability to directly take dues and has seen their funding drying up.
WALKER WINS IN WISCONSIN AND NOW ROMNEY LEADS IN POLLS
SCOTT PURGING VOTER ROLLS, TELLS HOLDER TO SHOVE IT
N.DAKOTA FLUSH WITH OIL WEALTH AS SALES TAX REVENUE SOARS
Now that is a trifecta of hope and change that Americans can embrace
It’s true that Ripon, Wis. not only was the birthplace of the Republican party, but more than likely Wisconsin will go down in history as the Dallas of labor union assassinations.
In fact, at a dinner party in Fullerton, Ca. this past Saturday, the talk of the table before dessert was whether labor unionism in America should now be buried in a casket, (non-union made of course), cremated (Hitler’s choice) placed under the concrete of the new football stadium being built in East Rutherford, New Jersey (a la J. Hoffa Sr., or simply executed before a firing squad, a death very apropos to the communist leadership infecting their body politic.
I personally prefer labor unions should go out of this world in a way more befitting thugs who serve no purpose in life other than to grow fat bellies and intimidate people. Hung from the neck as they wiggle like a fish on a hook.
Not to stop a good rant, but the birthplace of the GOP is disputed.
Not really disputed. It was organized in Ripon Wisconsin and the first convention was held in Jackson, Michigan. Their first presidential candidate was explorer John Charles Fremont who lost to James Buchanan.