Even after a couple of weeks, the stalemate in Wisconsin persists. Government is at a stand still. Patience is wearing thin. So what is next?
I am surprised that Republicans and the independents in Wisconsin have been as patient as they have. I’m not sure I would have been so restrained.
The issues haven’t changed a bit so what is changing?
The unions are working overtime to tie the governor’s actions to private sector business owners who may have contributed to his campaign. When you don’t have anything substantial to add to the debate, you attack your opponent. Where else have we seen that tactic?
But since they brought it up, what’s the connection between public employee unions and private sector contributors? Or maybe more important yet, what are the implications of public employee unions contributing to elected officials.
When the unions contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to elect Democrats don’t they have expectations that something will be delivered? Who advocates for the taxpayers when the unions elect the guys that negotiate their contracts?
I heard Governor Walker talk about contributors to his campaign and he acknowledged receiving contributions from business owners, but he received most of his money from citizens who may or may not have been big business in any way. Take a look at the Public Disclosure documents if you really want to know. Rules for individuals and businesses are different for unions and PAC’s
Check the PDC’s for almost any Democrat in the land and you will see the majority of the money comes from either unions or political action committees because rules allow unions and PAC’s to give in greater amounts. I wonder who negotiated that advantage?
What is so surprising to the Democrats in the Mid-West is the stunning upset they suffered in the 2010 elections and they are still reeling from it. It has to be a bitter pill after all their years in the drivers’ seat to see everything they worked for come crashing down because of their failure to properly read the sentiment of the people.
In Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio, the legislatures and governors have changed because voters in those states realized that union sponsored candidates were serving the unions and not the citizens of their states. And that is really the issue here.
Taxpayers in these states and others are finding that they have been used by entrenched Democrats to serve unions and their special interests and they’re finally getting wise. The problems being exposed by the bad economy are shining a really bright light on the Democrats and they are uncomfortable.
While I have been critical of Democrats I’m not suggesting that Republicans are always straight shooters because they have been just as greedy and/or corrupt as Democrats at times.
A lesson for voters everywhere might be that we have an obligation to be vigilant, to watch our elected officials and make sure that when they make promises in their campaign they deliver or are held accountable in the next election. Elected officials are called public servants for a reason. Let’s make sure ours serve the public and not the special interests.
We can only hope that voters in our state will begin to see the parallels between these mid-West states and our own and dump the liberal progressive tax and spenders from our legislature.
So what camp are you in?
No Loss for Words 
Squishy or Slippery, That is our President!
by Steve DanaI was listening to Dave Ross this morning as I was driving on the highway. Since Dave added Luke Burbank to his show, the content of that 9am to Noon time slot has gotten even more liberal. I would not characterize the change as a positive one.
Dave and Luke were talking about how disappointed they were that President Obama has decided to move forward with military tribunals at Gitmo even though in the campaign he was clear about closing the prison and trying the inmates in civilian courts. Rather than being upset that he made a commitment to voters and reneged like he has done on about every important issue in the election Dave and Luke were talking about how much they admired the President for being flexible when presented with information that led to a different action.
Luke Burbank characterized Obama as being squishy. He like the fact that the President was squishy.
There have been a number of times when the President has “realized the error” of his campaign rhetoric and directed his administration to act 180 degrees different from the promises in the campaign.
If you didn’t know enough about his record or his political leanings before the election in 2008 to vote for him you were looking for a reason to choose one candidate over the other. You were listening to the words he was speaking so eloquently and were convinced he was your guy because of those words. When he said he would close Gitmo and that was your issue, you decided to vote for him.
So how do you feel now?
The reason Dave and Luke characterize Obama as squishy is because he is not afraid to say what you want to hear but act completely different when a decision has to be made. Think about how many times he promised to act if you voted for him but when push came to shove, he flip-flopped. Is that the president you thought we elected? Is that the kind of man we want leading our country?
If there was ever a “bait and switch” president, this is him.
We have a huge task before us to hinder him from delivering any more of his true agenda during the remainder of this term of office; and to replace him with a candidate who stands behind his words. Where I am more likely to support conservative candidates, some of you might just want a candidate of your own persuasion that is not a prevaricator.
In the remaining months of his presidency Barak Obama will make every effort to convince voters that he is a moderate with his words like he does so well. What will be important is to watch what he does. His actions are a much better indicator of his political agenda than his words.
If he has any leadership he should be showing it now. Skyrocketing fuel prices caused by the crisis in the Arab world; two significant issues requiring leadership. What is he doing to address either?
In the State of the Union speech he talked about cutting the deficit. The Republicans in the House sent a bill to the Senate addressing last year’s budget with 60 billion in cuts. If the President is serious about his words in the speech, he works to get the Democratic Senate to approve the House Bill. Let’s see what kind of leadership he has with his own party?
During his campaign, he talked about putting on a comfortable pair of shoes to walk the picket line with union members because everyone is entitled to union representation. State Budgets are hemorrhaging red ink because of commitments to made to unions and the President is more concerned about the workers.
Leadership is what we need and this guy doesn’t appear to have any. He is a good looking smooth talking politician but a leader he is not.
Posted in Federal Government, Political commentary | Leave a Comment »