Christian Schneider

Author, Columnist

Month: August 2010

Cheapskating to Victory

Wisconsin’s own Stephen Hayes takes a look at Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker in the most recent Weekly Standard.  Much of it will be familiar to those in Wisconsin who have been following the race  – but an exchange Hayes had with Graeme Zielinski of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin is most telling:

Graeme Zielinski, a former political reporter for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel who left his job earlier this year to become the spokesman for the Wisconsin Democratic party, wants me to know that Walker’s candidacy is based on lies and half-truths. “Generally, it’s our position that Scott Walker isn’t truthful about his record on just about anything.”

“When Scott Walker was in the legislature, he voted several times for budgets that included studies on high speed rail,” Zielinski explained. “If he was such an opponent of high speed rail, he wouldn’t have been in a tough election fight before he brought it up. He’s been a Johnny-come-lately to this.”

As it happens, I’d just read the transcript of an editorial board meeting with the Journal Sentinel from 2002 featuring Walker and his first opponent for the county executive seat, Jim Ryan. The two men agreed on many of the urgent issues facing the county, but one major area of disagreement concerned infrastructure. Ryan favored funding for a rail-based system in Milwaukee County. Walker did not.

He made two arguments against it—priorities and costs. “There are an incredibly large number of other infrastructure-based projects on the table that directly tie in the economic development that far outweighs the seriousness of just this rail-based system.” Walker was worried that federal subsidies would not cover the entire cost of the project and would, in any case, leave the county responsible for operating costs it could not afford. He makes exactly the same arguments today about high-speed rail.

So I pressed Zielinski about Walker’s supposed votes for high-speed rail.

“Was that one of those situations where he cast the vote for a huge budget so you can’t separate it out?”

“Yeah,” he acknowledged. “Absolutely.”

“So is it your view that the principled thing to do would have been to vote ‘no’ on the overall budget because it included studies on high-speed rail?”

“Well, he—he took some affirmative votes in committee that allowed—procedurally allowed those studies to go forward.”

That didn’t sound like a big deal to me, but if the spokesman for the Democratic party thought enough of it to make it his leading critique of Walker, I wanted to know more. Zielinski said he would send me details about those votes and then shifted to a broader critique, attacking Walker from the right.

“On spending, he’s increased spending by $380 million—more than any candidate in this race. On taxes, he raised taxes by 40 million bucks while he’s been here.”

I asked him about that number. “He raised taxes by 40 million bucks. The tax levy has gone up by $40 million.”

Of course, those are two different claims. The first one is false; the second one is true. The tax levy has indeed increased, but only because the county board repeatedly raised taxes over Walker’s veto. I pointed that out to Zielinski.

“He signed those budgets. He signed those budgets.”

“But they were passed over his veto.”

A four-second pause and then:

“Spending went up by 380 million bucks. And if his argument is ‘I couldn’t do anything,’ then how can he do something about high-speed rail? ‘Well, I was helpless about increasing spending by 35 percent but I’m not helpless on high-speed rail.’ That doesn’t square.”

Zielinski then warmed to the theme of making Milwaukee County sound something like Rome, or at least Detroit. “The parks are in ruins. The county buildings are in ruins. Services are in ruins.”

Of course, when things go wrong in Milwaukee County, it’s Scott Walker’s fault.  When things go wrong in the City of Milwaukee, it’s never Tom Barrett’s fault.

Read the whole thing here.

Then What Does a Mountain Look Like?

Via the Cato Institute blog:

President Obama says he wants to “invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt.”

Uhhhh…. here’s his plan.

Feingold Approved This Nonsense

So Ron Johnson has a new ad out.  Here it is:

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Pretty straightforward, nothing earth-shattering.

But I always get a kick out of the part of Johnson’s ads where he has to say “I approved this message.”  As we know, the only reason Johnson has to waste those four seconds is because of Russ Feingold.

The “I approved this message” provision was passed as a part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law in 2002.  In fact, it is one of the few portions of Feingold’s signature piece of legislation that hasn’t been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Court has, on at least three occasions, struck down major pieces of Feingold’s bill as unconstitutional restrictions of free political speech.

But the obnoxious “stand by your ad” provision remains.  As if, for some reason, we couldn’t figure out that an ad featuring Ron Johnson standing in front of a camera talking to us, with the words “Paid For By Ron Johnson for Senate, Inc., Approved by Ron Johnson” at the bottom of the screen, was, in fact, approved by Ron Johnson.  Has a candidate ever spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on an ad for which he only partially approved?  Imagine seeing an ad that began, “I’m Ron Johnson, and I’m pretty sure I approve of at least half of this message.

Of course, McCain-Feingold was supposed to root out corruption from the political system.  I challenge anyone to explain to me how costing a challenger four seconds of his political ad to state the obvious has prevented a single act of corruption or underhandedness in politics.  (Didn’t anyone tell Congressman Charlie Rangel that Feingold meant business?)

If I were running Johnson’s campaign, I would make this a point of one of my ads.  Begin an ad by saying “I’m Ron Johnson, and I approve of this message.”  Then go on to mention that you have to say that disclaimer because Russ Feingold was too busy worrying about micromanaging what is said in political ads and not worried enough about all the jobs Wisconsin has been hemorrhaging.  Then pivot to the economic talking points of your choosing.  Easy as that.

And if I were Russ Feingold, I would work a little harder to find at least one living person who has benefited from the stimulus plan to put in my ads.  At least, thanks to his own law,  we now know he approves of creating jobs for fictional people.

Neumann’s Novel Fundraising Strategy

Fundraising for a statewide campaign is always tough. The same group of donors is asked to give, and give, and give again – all to help candidates that likely don’t have a chance of winning.

But Mark Neumann has changed all that with a novel new fundraising appeal.

On Friday, Neumann, who has turned his once-promising gubernatorial campaign into a longshot candidacy worthy of a Fellini movie, debated primary frontrunner Scott Walker. The interview took place on radio talk show host Jeff Wagner’s show and was broadcast from the Wisconsin State Fair grounds.

Shortly after the debate, I received an e-mail from Neumann’s campaign, with the subject simply saying “Neumann Wins Debate.”

(I always get a kick out of these debate “victory” declarations. As I have said a hundred times, we should do debates more like WWE wrestling, where the moderator picks a winner, hands them the belt, then they get to hit the loser with a folding chair.)

The e-mail was addressed as follows:

Press,

Mark Neumann won today’s debate with Scott Walker at the Wisconsin State Fair! The debate was aired on radio 620 WTMJ and hosted by Jeff Wagner. It proved three important points, heading into these final weeks before the September 14 primary.

And off it went, explaining how Neumann supposedly destroyed Scott Walker in the debate. (I actually listened to the debate, and it was a bit of a snoozer. Needless to say, I think Scott Walker will be able to show his face again in public.)

But after all the talking points, Neumann’s press release ended up with this line:

P.S. Mark Neumann is a successful businessman who has a conservative plan to cut spending and cut taxes to create jobs. If you like to, please help us continue the momentum from today’s debate victory and donate $5, $15, $25, or $50 by clicking here.

There it is – a novel new approach to fundraising; don’t just ask the “press” to cover your campaign, go ahead and ask them for cash. Hey – reporters and newsrooms seem to be doing pretty well financially these days, why not just throw a casual fundraising appeal on the end of your press releases, too?

I’d love it if Neumann showed up on Mike Gousha’s show on Sunday morning, and after his interview, the on-air closing goes like this:

Gousha: “Mark Neumann, candidate for governor, thank you for joining us this morning.”

Neumann: “Pleasure to be here, Mike – and oh, while I have you here, can I maybe get 50 bucks? And do you validate parking?”

Gousha: “Please get off my set.”

I Guess There’s Still Time to Repeal It

A few weeks ago, I appeared on the “Sunday Insight with Charlie Sykes” show, on which we discussed the recent statewide smoking ban going into effect.  During our discussion, I made a rather ineloquent point that fell well short of the threshold to be considered “humorous.”

The story goes like this – I go see a lot of bands in Madison.  Before the smoking ban went into effect in the city, you’d always go home smelling like smoke.  But since the ban, I’ve noticed something else at concerts.  Namely, when everyone is packed up near the stage, people actually really smell bad.  They’re drunk, they’re sweaty, they smell like patchouli and dog hair (it is Madison, after all), and a lot of them attempt the “one cheek sneak” in close quarters.  I quickly figured that I enjoyed the masking scent of cigarettes more than the actual smell of drunk Madison residents.

So, on the show, when asked what I thought of the Madison smoking ban, I simply said I opposed it “because people stink.”  And that was it.  Didn’t make much sense without any explanation, and it pretty much killed the discussion.

ANYWAY, I feel much better about my flub after reading this letter sent to a Wisconsin state legislator regarding the ban.  Please take the time to follow this air-tight logic.  (Click on the image to make it full screen.)