Rick Perry’s Gardasil problem

That Rick Perry has emerged in recent weeks as the front-runner in the GOP race is not really surprising.  There was a lot of pent-up feelings over the summer about whether he would throw his hat into the ring or not, and when he finally did, it felt like voters were relieved that there was a new face.  Which only confirmed my suspicions that conservatives and Republicans weren’t that fond of this particular group of contenders.

With his rise in the polls, and the media lamenting his brash approach to politics, his outspoken demeanor, etc.,  conservatives began taking to him as the most electable candidate–the one most likely to beat Obama.  And so began the inevitable comparisons to Ronald Reagan circa 1980.

I didn’t watch last night’s CNN/Tea Party debate, but I was glad to see that Bachmann landed some jabs at Governor Perry for his Gardasil debacle.   If only because someone on the stage of contenders actually addressed the issue.

To conservatives who are embracing Perry with open arms, how do you reconcile his Gardasil law with your conservative values?  The chief executive of Texas signed a law an executive order that mandated teenage girls receive a vaccination, whether they want to or not, whether their parents approve or not, under the penalty of law.  That isn’t a conservative trait.

It’s certainly not the conservatism of the Tea Party, but more like a big government conservatism.  Republicans have seen this movie before and it doesn’t end well for conservatives, and certainly not for the Republican party.

UPDATE.  And just like that, Bachmann took any success she had with her Gardasil attack and flushed it down the toilet.

Looking for someone to lead the way for conservatism

Signing a bill that mandates all 13-year-old girls receive a vaccination, produced by a company who has a lobbying relationship with someone in your administration, doesn’t really sound like something a conservative would do, does it?

But that’s just me.

More from Malkin here.

Iowa voter spanks Newt Gingrich

It didn’t take long for Newt to get knee-deep in the muck of a presidential campaign. 

Watch this video of an Iowan Republican stick it to the man after calling Paul Ryan’s budget plan “radical”.  The fun starts at about 1:30 into the clip:

Money quote:  “You’re an embarrassment to our party.  Why don’t you get out before you make a bigger fool of yourself.”

It’s not even primary season yet and already Newt is already pissing off Iowa Republicans.  That’s really not a good way to start out, wouldn’t you say?

Welcome to the 2012 Campaign, Mr. Speaker!

Don’t just do something, stand there!

With a few exceptions (ahem…Hermancain…ahem), that seems to be the battle cry for the current selection of candidates for the GOP nomination for President in 2012.   Yeah, Pawlenty will run.  Yeah, Romney will run.  But they themselves really don’t seem to care about beating President Gutsy Call, let alone stoking any enthusiasm from grassroots conservatives. 

The media seems to love John McCain Mitch Daniels as the “sensible” GOP candidate , but it’s always worth mentioning that the MSM never has the country’s best interest at heart–they just want Democrats elected.  Preferably those of the liberal sort.

From a conservative viewpoint, I can’t help but notice that it surely is a sorry bunch of candidates to pick from.  When Newt Gingrich—Newt Gingrich!—is throwing his hat into the ring, you just know that agita is coming. 

But the clock is, indeed, ticking, and it’s time to see who’s serious and, more importantly, who has the cajones to get in Obama’s face and point out his abysmal record and reclaim the White House for the Republican party.  Get in his face.  It’s the Obama way.

Stacy McCain has about as real a rallying cry as ther is right now, and he’s absolutely right:

I’ve heard all the objections, and I don’t care. I’m tired of people hesitating, waiting around for Chris Christie or Mitch Daniels or whoever their GOP “Dream Date” may be. Team Obama is talking about raising $1 billion — that’s $1,000,000,000.oo — to re-elect this disastrous president. We can’t sit around waiting and hoping. It’s time to get busy.

Amen.   To that I would add that America hasn’t seen anything yet.  You think a first-term Obama is bad?  Imagine if he wins a second term, and doesn’t have to run for election anymore.  All bets would be off.  At that point, it would be balls to the wall liberalism, statism on steroids.

And when I talk about being a serious candidate, I mean knowing your stuff and bringing it.   Mitch Daniels appears to be basking in the media adoration surrounding him right now, but telling the rank and file Republican voter that you’re not ready to debate Obama on foreign policy, of all topics, is not exactly awe-inspiring.

Barack Obama is beatable in 2012.  Very beatable.  But the Republicans can’t beat him unless they want to.  Plain and simple.

Astroturfing a non-existent “backlash” against Paul Ryan

As Republicans in Congress use the Easter break to make their case for Paul Ryan’s entitlement reform to the American people, liberals would love it if constituents would start “raucous” town-hall meetings, a la the anti-Obamacare Tea Party events that took place during the summer of 2009.

Yes they would absolutely if that would happen.  Too bad for them, because it isn’t:

How did things go for Republicans in their initial defense of the Ryan budget?  Well, consider the intensity of the Left’s desire for an anti-GOP, anti-Ryan, “Town Hall Backlash” narrative. And then consider the relatively small number of “incidents” reported in the news, the sensational headlines that were never written.  [...]

It might be too soon to say Republicans are winning the budget debate, but they definitely aren’t losing it, and that’s a real slap in the face for liberals who were absolutely convinced that Americans would never accept a plan as bold as Ryan’s.

Meanwhile, look at this “outrage” at Paul Ryan’s most recent town-hall (via):

These people are outraged I say.  Outraged!

Will the House Republicans blink on spending cuts?

It’s looking more and more likely.  But it’s still early, and the choice for the GOP is clear:

Congressional Democrats are holding out against substantive spending cuts, confident that they and the liberal mainstream media have so spooked Republicans with fear of “another government shutdown” that the GOP eventually will cave and settle either for minimal cuts or promises of a political fig leaf like a vote on a balanced budget amendment. [...]

Congressional Republicans have a choice to make. On the one hand, they can do what many of their leaders expect, which is to continue business as usual on Capitol Hill by agreeing to such a sham. That course will keep the country stumbling toward the fiscal disaster, economic ruin and national humiliation that inevitably result from such political irresponsibility.

But then I read stories about GOP leaders looking to cut deals with Blue Dog Democrats on bogus spending “cuts”, and I feel like pulling my hair out.

Elections have consequences for members of both parties.  If the message of the 2010 midterms wasn’t made clear to establishment Republicans (as well as Democrats), if the Tea Party didn’t give them a political smack upside the head, then I’m not sure what would.

Governor Walker does the right thing

Here’s what Governor Walker thinks about polls:

“Polls are nice, if they are on your side,” he said. “But in the end, you’ve got to govern based upon what you think is the right thing.”

Yesterday, Scott Walker and Wisconsin Senate Republicans did the right thing and scored a bold victory and took a huge step towards relinquishing the stranglehold that public unions have on the state budget and on Wisconsin taxpayers:

Bypassing Democrats hiding out in Illinois, Wisconsin Senate Republicans voted Wednesday night to strip state workers of their collective bargaining rights.

Republicans voted 18-1 to pass the stripped-down budget bill in a hastily arranged meeting. None of the Senate Democrats were present.

The State Assembly is expected to vote on the bill Thursday.

All 14 Senate Democrats fled to Illinois nearly three weeks ago, preventing the chamber from having enough members present to consider Gov. Scott Walker’s so-called “budget repair bill” — a proposal introduced to plug a $137 million budget shortfall.. 

The Senate requires a quorum to take up any measures that spend money. But Republicans on Wednesday split from the legislation the proposal to curtail union rights, and a special conference committee of state lawmakers approved that bill a short time later.

Daniel Foster:

Thanks to this bill — which doesn’t touch any of the civil service protections afforded public workers, nor any private-sector unions — public sector workers will have a choice over whether to join a union. Thanks to this bill, public workers who elect not to join a union won’t be forced to pay dues anyway. Thanks to this bill, elected officials won’t be negotiating away taxpayer dollars the people who finance their campaigns. So, naturally, the Democrats call it the the undoing of fifty years of “civil rights.”

The blowback will be brutal–from the media, the unions, the professional left, etc–and as enormous as this victory is, the work continues.  And it will be rough.  Efforts to recall the governor and the state senators have been underway for over a week now and this will only help to accelerate them. 

The governor and senators made a gutsy move, as they’re risking their political careers over their actions, but that should suit voters just fine.  Isn’t that what Americans want?  Elected officials who do the right thing, in spite of the risk to their careers? 

We can only hope that what Governor Walker has done will inspire conservatives throughout the country and do the right thing for their own constituents. 

And let’s not forget–this is a blow to President Obama, the Democratic Party and their enablers in the public sector unions, which fund it all.  The President needs the unions, or more specifically, needs their cash. 

Speaking of which, here’s an interesting take:

Barack Obama paid for, organized, and is putting on this riot.

Repeat ad nauseam. This is what Barack Obama wants. This is what Barack Obama believes. Barack Obama thinks that, if laws don’t go your way, you form a violent mob and riot.

Look very closely, America. The pictures you see from Madison tonight are of Barack Obama’s worldview.

[Hat Tip: Ann Althouse via Ace]

Governor Walker proposes a budget

No scalpel here:

Walker, whose state faces a $3.6 billion budget shortfall, outlined a two-year, $59 billion budget that would cut spending across the board. Over $4 billion would be gutted from state coffers, a 6.7 percent reduction. “The facts are clear: Wisconsin is broke,” he said. “It’s time to start paying our bills today — so our kids are not stuck with even bigger bills tomorrow.”

Walker, who is not shy about his fiscal conservatism, takes an axe to numerous state programs in his proposal. If passed, over $700 million in education funds and over $1 billion in county and municipal aid would be slashed. That state’s Medicaid budget would be cut by $500 million. Over 20,000 government jobs would be eliminated. The state commerce department would disappear. It would also require, as his budget-repair bill stipulates, for public employees to contribute 5.8 percent of their salaries toward their pensions and pay 12.6 percent of their health-care premiums. Taxes would not be raised.

“Our budget reduces the structural deficit by 90 percent,” Walker said. “Gone are the segregated fund raids, illegal transfers, and accounting gimmicks. Gone are the tax or fee increases. Our state cannot grow if our people are weighed down paying for a larger and larger government. A government that pays its workers unsustainable benefits that are out of line with the private sector. We need a leaner and cleaner state government.”

There will be a lot of financial pain for people in Wisconsin, people who are not in public employee unions go to work everyday to feed their families, depend on state services, etc.  I hope those people realize that they have their local union boss to thank for all of that.  Scott Walker is merely trying to clean up the mess.

Keep reading Costa’s post–Walker is proposing lowering taxes and expanding school choice.  More here.

Reality Check on Spending

Allahpundit digs through this NY Times/CBS News poll, which shows 60% of respondents disapprove weakening collective bargaining rights for public unions, and comes to the right conclusion on spending:

For whatever reason — misinformation or simple denial — the public isn’t remotely serious yet when it comes to making painful choices on spending. When asked if budget cuts are a good thing in the abstract, they’re plenty supportive, but start identifying specific programs and industries that’ll have to make do with less and those cold feet start turning icy. [...]

I don’t know what it’ll take to build popular support for greater austerity. Maybe nothing. Maybe we’re going to have to elect a bunch of Republicans who are fully prepared to sacrifice their careers by taking tough but necessary votes on the budget.

That sums up the problem pretty well.  Governors around the country are trying to make extremely difficult choices when it comes to their respective state budgets, and the left has acted as expected.  Here in New Jersey, the NJEA and their thugs were out in force last year as Governor Christie tackled the problem directly, the unions responded with vitriol about his weight, his well-being, rallies, etc., and we’re seeing that times ten in Wisconsin.

But as it pertains to Federal budget deficits, if we’ve learned anything over the past three years, it’s that the Democrats, and now President Obama are really not serious about reigning in spending or deficits, much less entitlement reform.  And even with the Tea Party dragging the Republican party to a majority in the House, I’m not sure Republicans are willing to take that big of a political leap either.  It appears that the political process will play out as a game of chicken over the next few months.

Florida district judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional

Here’s the ruling.

And here’s the money quote:

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” [...] and we would have a Constitution in name only.  Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended.

Judge Roger Vinson issued the ruling earlier today:

Vinson rejects the administration’s argument that the health care market is unique since nobody can truly opt out. Vinson mocks this argument a bit, writing: “Everyone must participate in the food market… under this logic, Congress could [mandate] that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily.” Later he offers another analogy: “Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile — now partially government-owned — because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business.”

Vinson concludes: “The individual mandate exceeds Congress’ commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law.”

As the piece notes, the law will probably end up in front of the Supreme Court at some point.

UPDATE.    This is a bit inconvenient:

In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.

Here’s a glaring case of waffleitis on the part of a Democrat politician, doing the opposite of what he proposed as a candidate.  I wonder if anyone outside the conservative commentariat will notice point this out?

And just as an aside, if a Federal court deems a statute unconstitutional, shouldn’t that require the executive branch to immediately cease enforcing said statute?  I’m waiting for the wailing and lamentations from the virtuous left about respecting the judiciary branch of government and the Constitution in 3…2…1…  

[Hat Tip:  The Other McCain]