Christian Schneider

Author, Columnist

Category: Politics (page 2 of 3)

You Paid for This: In Dire Economic Times, Legislators Spend Millions to Improve Their Public Images

Recently, WPRI issued a report on term limits (authored by yours truly) that made the point that incumbent legislators are extremely difficult to oust from office, given the advantages they grant themselves in office.

One of the most challenging aspects of running a legislative campaign as a non-incumbent is trying to get your message to the voters. Doing so takes raising money, and paying out tens of thousands of dollars in printing and mailing costs to get your literature to citizens of the district.

Fortunately for incumbents, they have no problem delivering campaign materials to the voters. Because the voters pay for it.

Every legislative session, incumbent lawmakers get to send “legislative updates” and “questionnaires” to their constituents in the form of mass mailings. Of course, nobody would argue that lawmakers shouldn’t be able to keep in touch with their constituents. Virtually any voter would agree that constituent service is a large part of the job citizens expect their lawmakers to perform.

However, a review of newsletters mailed out by legislators during the 2007-08 session shows that these taxpayer-funded fliers appear to have very little informational value to voters. They are essentially general fund-supported campaign literature, bragging incessantly about all the projects legislators were able to bring back to their home districts. They are sprinkled with photos of legislators reading to children, giving speeches on the floor, attending bill signings, and meeting with veterans in their district. They list many of the bills authored by the legislator, with flowery, hagiographic text written by that legislator’s staff.

Some newsletters are mailed out as questionnaires, allowing constituents to answer questions written by the legislator in order to get “feedback.” Of course, these questions are often heavily slanted in favor of the legislator’s personal views. Then, the incumbent can use these manufactured poll results as talking points during the campaign, perhaps even using the database with the poll results as a guide for targeting voters during the campaign. A voter that answers a questionnaire from a legislator saying they believe in the right to carry a concealed weapon is infinitely more likely to get a pro-gun literature piece from that legislator come election time.

These “questionnaires” (which are statistically invalid, since they are voluntary) contain questions such as this one, from Representative Mary Hubler’s survey:

“The governor has proposed that big oil companies be taxed 2.5% per barrel on profits from sales in Wisconsin. This tax could not be passed on to consumers at the pump. Do you agree with this?”

In 2008, WPRI released a study that invalidates nearly every portion of this question – “big oil” will not eventually pay the tax, and the tax could very well cost consumers more at the pump. Clearly, this question is meant to generate a specific answer in support of Representative Hubler’s position, not to actually gauge the opinion of her district. Furthermore, this question is representative of the hundreds of other biased questions found on these phony “surveys.”

During the 2007-08 legislative session, the Wisconsin Senate spent $568,000 printing and mailing these newsletters and questionnaires. The Assembly spent $692,000 on various forms of newsletters, questionnaires, mailing services, contact cards, newspaper inserts, and other taxpayer funded forms of constituent contacts.

In this time period, legislators sent out 152 different newsletters. Some choose to do one large newsletter, while some mail one newsletter and one questionnaire. Others, like State Senator Sheila Harsdorf and State Representative Scott Suder, choose to do multiple newsletters, but target them to smaller specific constituencies.

All total, the Legislature spent $1.26 million in 2007-08 trying to convince their constituents how well they did their jobs – enough to send 191 inner city children to private schools through the Milwaukee school choice program. This constitutes a $1.26 million taxpayer-funded head start over potential challengers vying for the public’s attention. Put simply, the Legislature takes a million dollars from voters in order to feed those same voters a line about how fiscally responsible they are.

A sampling of the 2007-08 legislative newsletters shows some of the following information that was deemed vital to constituents:

State Representative Samantha Kerkman’s newsletter includes a plug for the state’s new 24 hour hotline that allows constituents to call and report fraud, waste, and mismanagement in state government. Any constituent that didn’t immediately call the number and report her newsletter as an example simply wasn’t reading it.

State Representative Andy Jorgensen’s newsletter includes a section detailing the results of first-ever “Best of the Area” poll, conducted by local newspapers. The ballot included a question for readers about the “Best Area Politician,” which was won by… Representative Andy Jorgensen.

Numerous newsletters get directly to the point, boasting of all the money and projects that legislator has brought to the district. They include headlines such as “Hebl Brings Important Resources Back to District,”and “Hraychuck Delivers for Her District.” Disgraced State Representative Jeff Wood brags about creating $22 million in incentives for renewable energy development in his district.

State Representative Joe Parisi includes a picture of himself with the Dalai Lama. The relevance of this meeting to the citizens of the 48th Assembly District is unknown.

page_template_clip_image001

State Representative Steve Wieckert’s newsletter includes a picture of him hugging a puppy dog.

page_template_clip_image002

Despite having announced that she wasn’t running for office again, State Representative Barbara Gronemus mailed out a newsletter consisting of nothing but pictures of herself over the span of her 26 year legislative career. This ode to herself cost state taxpayers cost $5,683 to print and mail.

State Representative Jeff Mursau’s newsletter features a full page dedicated to images of press clippings he received in his local media. Constituents are treated to headlines like “Mursau Introduces Drunk Flying Bill.”

State Senator Jon Erpenbach’s newsletter features a picture of the Senator with a woman dressed as a giant foam rubber soybean, to commemorate a $4 million grant to build a new Evansville Soybean Crushing Plant.

page_template_clip_image003

From State Representative Steve Nass’ newsletter: “This legislative session will be remembered for years to come as the resurgence of Big Government in Wisconsin. The taxpayers were under assault from day one with numerous proposals to raise taxes and expand government power. Many of these bad ideas were bipartisan in nature, but bipartisanship didn’t change the fact that Wisconsin families would be forced to pay for Bigger Government.” Cost of Nass’ newsletter to the state’s taxpayers: $5,285.41.

State Representative Cory Mason issued a questionnaire in August of 2007, in which he asks constituents 14 questions, such as, “Racine has the highest rate of infants who die before they are a year old. Should the state invest in programming to reduce infant mortality?”

In April of 2008, Mason issued another newsletter, printing the “results” of his questionnaire. Yet he only printed the answers to five of the 14 questions he had asked six months before. Naturally, all of the answers he revealed strongly backed his viewpoint on those issues. The results of the other questions are unknown.

State Senator Mary Lazich’s newsletter attempts to fortify her law-and-order credentials by featuring a photo of Lazich in an FBI helmet and bulletproof vest. Lazich had the largest mailing budget in the Legislature, at $38,311.99.

page_template_clip_image004

State Senator Mark Miller’s newsletter features a picture of Miller serving his constituents from a canoe.

page_template_clip_image005

In many ways, these newsletters are completely indistinguishable from campaign literature mailed to constituents’ homes during election season. Many of the pictures and much of the glowing language will end up in campaign mail pieces verbatim. Yet taxpayers pay for these mailings, while challengers are left on their own to raise and spend the necessary funds to print, design, and mail their literature.

It is telling that in a time when the state is in a fiscal freefall, legislators continue to spend millions to boost their own public personas. Taxpayers get to pay for the right to be convinced of the greatness of their own legislators.

-November 9, 2009

Jim Doyle’s Democratic Successors: Who Got the Gravy?

So by now, you’ve heard the big news of the weekend. I hit my first career home run in my softball league, and the new season of Mad Men started.

Oh, and there’s the other minor news – apparently, Wisconsin will have a new governor in 2010. (Yawn.)

wisconsin-governor-jim-doyleFor months, political observers had been wondering whether Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle was going to run for a third term. It now appears that he is not. As much as Republicans hate to hear it, Doyle will go down as one of the most successful politicians in state history, at least from an electoral perspective. He went 5 for 5 in statewide races, and never lost an election for anything at any time.

His actual achievements are a different story, however. Doyle routinely broke promises to veto tax increases, drove the state into larger and larger structural deficits, and handed out enough special interest favors to his donors to make anyone paying attention want to take a shower. When elementary school students read about Wisconsin history 50 years from now, they won’t be reading about a single achievment of the Doyle Administration. (Assuming kids in 50 years know what “reading” actually is.)

On Saturday, my e-mail inbox began filling up with conservatives celebrating Doyle’s exit from Wisconsin politics. I got e-mails boasting that it’s a “great day to be a Republican” and wishing Doyle “good riddance,” and offering me “natural male enhancement.” (Wait – on second thought, I requested that last one. Strike that one.)

I would offer this advice to people who think Doyle’s exit means a conservative renewal in Wisconsin:

Pump your brakes.

On Saturday, the Republican task of taking back the East Wing in Wisconsin actually just got a lot harder. Presumably, Doyle looked at his approval ratings, which placed him firmly between “amputation” and “cellulite,” and decided to spare himself an electoral defeat next year. It got to the point where Doyle actually probably needed to get his picture taken with South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford to improve his public image. (Doyle currently only enjoys high approval numbers from the much sought after “Spanish train builders looking for sweetheart no bid contracts” demographic.)

whogotthegravyNow, instead of facing a badly damaged Doyle, Republican hopefuls Scott Walker or Mark Neumann will have to face a fresh Democratic face – take, Congressman Ron Kind, for example (see below.) Plus, Doyle could move on to a new position where he could do more damage to the conservative cause than he can as Governor – for instance, if President Obama chooses him to replace retiring Judge Terry Evans on the Federal 7th Circuit Court.

While 2010 could certainly trend more to the GOP, winning the governorship is not a lock, by any means. Remember – Wisconsin hasn’t elected a Republican Governor since 1998, 12 years before the 2010 election. Wisconsin hasn’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1984. So while some see an opportunity to run against a non-incumbent as a boon to Republican candidates, it also so happens that the incumbent was a millstone around the neck of statewide Democrats.

That’s not to say that the presumptive Democratic candidates don’t have shortcomings, either. And since speculation is really the most fun part of politics, here’s a list of the frontrunners for the nomination, with a brief summation of their pros and cons. In accordance with accepted practice among political scientists, their chances of electoral success are graded relative to a scale devised by rap group Digital Underground, from their classic 1998 CD “Who Got the Gravy?”

Congressman Ron Kind:

With Doyle’s resignation, Ron Kind immediately becomes the Democratic frontrunner for the nomination. (He’s been fundraising for a while in the event Doyle bowed out.) First elected to Congress in 1996, he’s a handsome, articulate Harvard graduate that positions himself as a moderate, working with conservatives like Paul Ryan on things like farm subsidy reform. Despite representing a swing seat in Congress, no Republican has even gotten a whiff of beating him in his six elections.

rod_kindlerOn the other hand, Kind currently has the word “Congressman” in front of his name, which isn’t exactly a selling point these days, given how the U.S. House has immolated itself on the national stage. Even Rick Pitino must be saying “man, those guys really screwed up.”

So don’t be surprised if Kind attempts to erase any public record that he ever served in Congress. His staff is probably going door to door, ripping his page out of Wisconsin residents’ Blue Books as we speak. Visitors to his official congressional website will be surprised to know that they’re now represented by a guy named “Rod Kindler.”

I imagine Kind’s announcement ceremony going as follows:

Reporter: “Congressman Kind, can you explain to us the thinking behind the House voting initially for rewarding banking executives with stimulus money?”

Kind: “Look, I’m no hayseed, but I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of this ‘Congress’ you guys keep talking about. Have I mentioned that I like donuts?”

Regardless, Kind remains the odds on favorite for the Democratic nomination. In fact, had he run in 2002, he would have beaten Doyle in the Dem primary.

Verdict:

RON KIND GOT THE GRAVY.

Lieutenant Governor Barb Lawton:

lawtonLawton’s candidacy is only appealing to those confused by the fact that she currently has a position with the word “Governor” in the title. In related news, I have a t-shirt that declares me “FBI: Female Body Inspector,” which I think qualifies me to run the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Lawton’s candidacy is a punch line to any political observer that has seen her in action over the past seven years. She believes government runs on rainbows, hugs, and patchouli.

Doyle probably has to be reminded once a year who his Lieutenant Governor actually is, as he has relegated her to talking about the arts and pushing for some goofball legislation that purports to pay women equal money for equal work (as if nobody’s thought of that in the past 30 years.) Fairly ironic, since Lawton earns $70,000 a year to do essentially nothing.

The good news is that Lawton’s brand of liberalism doesn’t have any appeal beyond the borders of Dane County. Democratic voters, smart enough to recognize that they actually need to win this election, will politely decline her invitation to hug it out.

Verdict:

BARB LAWTON MOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT GOT THE GRAVY

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett:

For as long as America has been a democracy, candidates have told voters they’re “fighting for them.” In Tom Barrett’s case, it is literally true. We all hope he gets better as soon as possible, as he is currently sitting in a hospital room recovering from a heroic lead pipe beating he suffered while trying to save a Milwaukee woman from an assault.

Assuming Barrett recovers fully – and we all certainly are praying that he does – this assault might be something that would appeal to voters. Everyone likes a hero. Many candidates have ridden lesser feats of heroism into office. Plus, people might be afraid that if they don’t vote for him, he’ll punch them.

On the other hand, Barrett already tried his hand at running for Governor in 2002, and was met with indifference by statewide voters.

Verdict:

TOM BARRETT GOT HEROIC, BUT REHEATED, GRAVY

Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker:

Through the miracle of modern technology, I was able to actually record Russ Decker’s brain waves regarding his decision on whether to run for Governor:

“So I’ve been busting my tail for the people in the state senate for 20 years, and some kook like Barb Lawton is actually mentioned as a more viable candidate for governor than I am? I’m the freaking Senate Majority Leader for Christ’s sake! I’m the second most important Democrat in state government – and as much as I’d love to run for Dave Obey’s congressional seat when he retires, everyone knows that bearded skeleton is only leaving Congress feet first. He’ll probably serve until he’s 132.
But what if people start figuring out that my fingerprints are all over this most recent disastrous budget? Aren’t I culpable for the huge tax increases and future deficits this budget creates? Are voters really going to elect someone that’s saddled with all the same baggage that Jim Doyle carries around?

And how is it that Pizza Hut keeps coming up with new pizzas to sell us as ‘specials,’ when they’re all essentially the same ingredients?”

(Sorry, I didn’t turn off the thought transcriber machine in time.)

Verdict:

RUSS DECKER GOT MORE GRAVY THAN PEOPLE THINK

State Senator Jon Erpenbach:

I just wanted to see “Governor Erpenbach” typed out to see if it made me laugh. Mission accomplished.

At this writing, in an attempt to boost his name identification, Erpenbach is wandering around downtown Madison, looking for someone to beat him with a pipe. Plus, he’d have to take too much time out of his job stocking shelves at Woodman’s grocery store in Madison to run for Governor.

Verdict:

JON ERPENBACH GOT NO GRAVY, BUT KNOWS WHERE THE GROCERY STORE STOCKS IT

Of course, with an incumbent leaving, there’s always the chance that someone from the crazy wing of the Democratic Party determines all the Dem candidates are too moderate (read: electable) and decides to run.

Verdict:

CRAZY DEMOCRATS DON’T EVEN GOT VEGAN GRAVY

On a somewhat serious note, it is sad to see Doyle exit in a state of such ignominy. Here’s a guy from a political family, whose mother served in the Assembly and whose father once ran for governor himself. And yet he so befouled the state’s finances, he really has no choice but to quit. While seeing the state in such financial disrepair may turn out to be electoral gold for the GOP in the upcoming elections, rooting against a governor of either party is rooting against Wisconsin – hopefully, a position our state doesn’t have to face in the near future.

-August 17, 2009

Cross Your Fingers and Hope for the Worst?

It was exactly at 1:11 PM on the afternoon of April 5, 2002 that State Senator Rod Moen wrote his own political obituary. On the floor of the Senate, Moen had offered an amendment to the 2002 budget adjustment bill that would have allowed a company in his district, Ashley Furniture, to fill in 13 acres of adjacent wetlands in order to expand their plant. Despite Moen’s own party controlling the Senate, his amendment failed, capping off what some considered a half-hearted effort on his part to keep jobs in his district. (A bill granting the wetlands exemption had passed the full Assembly nearly six months earlier, and Moen was never able to get it to the floor of the Senate.)

Fed up with state environmental regulation, Ashley announced on June 29th that it would be expanding in Ecru, Mississippi – costing Western Wisconsin 500 jobs. On July 3rd, the budget adjustment bill passed, with Moen’s provision included. But it was too little, too late. Moen’s provision was irrelevant, as the decision to move had already been made.

Behind the scenes, Republican staffers were joyous. This was, after all, a seat that was winnable for the GOP in November of 2002. Moen hadn’t had a serious challenge in a long time, and with the Ashley Furniture issue in their holster, Republicans dropped the issue on his head like a Steinway piano. Moen, a 20-year incumbent, lost the November election, helping Republicans gain control of the Wisconsin Senate.

Moen fouling up the Ashley furniture issue turned out to be gift for the GOP. But lost in the ebullience of the Republicans at the time was a sobering fact – 500 people had to lose their jobs for the GOP to pick up that seat. Basically, one party had to root for things to get really bad for Wisconsin in order to improve their chances of winning the next election. Such is the state of modern politics today.

***

It is now 2009, and Republicans have lost control of everything in state government, save for the Attorney General’s office. A recession is upon us, and Democratic Governor Jim Doyle has befouled the state’s fiscal standing. Doyle has done for the state’s finances what Vanilla Ice did for race relations in the United States.

Doyle’s Titanic-like captainship of the state budget, coupled with the current bad economy, has Republicans optimistic about winning the governorship in 2010. Unfortunately, for the GOP to have a good chance of winning, one thing has to happen.

Things have to stay bad. And if they get worse, even better.

Last week, I was talking to some Republican staffers about Governor Doyle’s proposed budget, which raises taxes by $3 billion, leaves enormous structural deficits, and is riddled with special interest giveaways. They all agreed they hoped it passed exactly as is – thinking there are enough politically damaging provisions with which to hang Democrats in the next election. Unable to actually change the budget in any meaningful way, the GOP political minds are actually rooting for liberals to overextend themselves. It’s like hoping your favorite football team loses the rest of its games so it gets a better draft pick.

Of course, this morose phenomenon isn’t exclusively a Republican one. It was in Democrats’ best interest for the War in Iraq to go as badly as possible (and it did, until it didn’t anymore.) The more the casualties piled up in 2006, the better chance Democrats had of taking over both houses of Congress – which they did.

In September of 2008, the John McCain presidential campaign was buoyed by a strong convention, briefly taking the lead in the polls over Barack Obama. Soon, however, the housing bubble burst, and McCain’s election chances went down the tubes along with the national economy. Claiming that the economy collapsing wasn’t politically advantageous for Democrats is like claiming horse tranquilizers aren’t advantageous to Paula Abdul.

As a result, the terrible economy that swept Democrats into power in 2006 and 2008 may also hinder their chances of keeping it in 2010. Basically, the GOP has to secretly root for unemployment to stay high for another year, in hopes of regaining control and making fundamental systematic changes that help unemployed workers in the long run. It appears that endless fruitless bailouts have fatigued voters, which may form a good platform on which the GOP to rebound.

The GOP is hoping short term pain brings long term gain. Let’s hope it doesn’t bloody Wisconsin’s nose irreprably in the next twelve months.

-May 4, 2009

Doyle Vows to Save Wisconsin Right After Sergio Putts

Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle Looking for the Key to Economic Development

While you were at home on your couch watching the Masters golf tournament on television between naps, your Governor was actually there watching it first-hand. Apparently, Doyle was looking for the answer to Wisconsin’s skyrocketing unemployment rate somewhere off the fairway on the 13th. (He swears it went just left of that pine tree, but can’t seem to find it.)

Steve Walters at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel had the nerve to ask the Governor how he paid to get down to Augusta for the event.  Doyle’s press secretary steadfastly insisted that no taxpayer money was used to get the governor to Georgia – only campaign funds had been used.

Which would be fine, if state law considered flying to the Masters golf tournament an acceptable disbursement of campaign funds.  In fact, it does not.  

According to the State Elections Division of the Government Accountability Board:

Wisconsin law restricts the use of campaign funds. Money in a candidate’s campaign account may be spent for political purposes only. The State Elections Board has not expanded on the definition of political purpose with specific examples in the form of an administrative rule. The candidate is responsible for ensuring that campaign finances are spent for political purposes and not for personal or governmental purposes.

Without this restriction, campaign funds could just be used for whatever current or ex-candidates wanted to – like buying big screen televisions, cars, or trips to see the Masters.  Of course, Doyle has said that his trip down to Augusta was for a phony concurrent Democratic Governors Association meeting, which would make it for a “political purpose.” 

Right.

 I’d LOVE to see all the official “political” business they took care of while drinking beers and watching the golf tournament at the Augusta National Golf Club.  In fact, through multiple secret sources, I was actually able to secure a copy of the minutes of the Democratic Governors Association meeting from Augusta last week:

THE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION MEETING OF THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 2009

11:08 AM – KANSAS GOVERNOR KATHLEEN SEBELIUS calls the meeting to order and takes roll.

11:10 – PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNOR ED RENDELL makes a motion to “hurry this sh** up.”  Motion passes.

11:11 – OHIO GOVERNOR TED STRICKLAND made a motion declaring “Monsters Versus Aliens” in 3-D the “awesomest thrill ride” of the summer.  Motion passed.

11:13 – NEW YORK GOVERNOR DAVID PATERSON showed up late, complaining that the guards at the front gate wouldn’t let him in.  Awkward silence ensues, as governors realize Paterson doesn’t know that he’s black.

11:14 – WISCONSIN GOVERNOR JIM DOYLE thinks they should take moment to recognize the tough economy and all the sacrifices working families are having to make while unemployment skyrockets.  He then screams “there’s too much orange juice in this mimosa!” and slams his glass on a country club servant boy’s head.

11:15 – VIRGINIA GOVERNOR TIM KAINE notices that the bowl of peanuts is getting low; immediately calls the White House, asking for more stimulus funds to get some more damn peanuts.

11:16 – NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR JON CORZINE announces he can’t wait for Rod Stewart Week this year on American Idol.  Motion passes, although strangely, no motion was made.

11:17 – MARYLAND GOVERNOR MARTIN O’MALLEY, fresh off his third keg stand, declares to MICHIGAN GOVERNOR JENNIFER GRANHOLM that the alphabet would be “a lot hotter if they put ‘U’ and ‘I’ together.”

11:18 – MEETING ADJOURNED.

11:19 – Wisconsin loses 300 jobs to a state that’s 70% underwater while its Democratic governor enjoys the Masters’ Tournament with legally questionable campaign funds.

Fortunately for Doyle, it was this meeting that made it okay for him to use his campaign funds for a personal purpose.  Unfortunately, the working people of Wisconsin don’t have campaign funds that allow them to fly away to phony conferences for the week.

Imagine my wife’s surprise when I tell her that the next meeting of the “Wisconsin Think Tank Blogger’s Association” will be held at the Miss Hawaiian Tropic Pageant in Daytona Beach.  There, I can raise a styrofoam cup of beer to the poor people left jobless by the recession.

Democrats in Wisconsin: Not Going Anywhere?

Since the November 4th electoral beatdown received by Wisconsin Republicans, state GOP party leaders have been scrambling to offer ways to fix the party. Some say the party has lost its way and needs to be more conservative. Others say the party needs to move to the center to gain new members. My suggestion to adopt a giant lobster with sunglasses as the new party mascot has been largely ignored.

Even if the party were somehow able to get together on a plan of action, the uphill climb is likely more substantial than anyone realizes. If conservatives sit around and wait for the Obama backlash to sweep them into office in 2010, they’ll soon be able to hold their state convention in a minivan in Osseo.

Now that Democrats hold a monopoly on power in Madison, there are several distinct, structural advantages they have which make it more difficult for Republicans to win seats. Many citizens are under the impression that the Legislature exists to serve them. In fact, the Legislature only takes actions that will keep them in power. George Carlin has a joke about jobs – employees do just enough work so they don’t get fired, and bosses pay their workers just enough so they don’t quit. And that, in a nutshell, is your Wisconsin Legislature.

Now, that all changes. When we have split houses, both sides push for electoral advantage. But with unilateral control, Democrats can take legislative action that puts Republicans at a distinct disadvantage. Soon, the Democrats’ de facto electoral edge become a de jure advantage. For instance:

Regulation of Speech

For years, so-called “good government” groups have been dying to get their spindly little fingers on your free speech rights. During campaigns, third parties groups on both sides crop up and run television ads of questionable taste. In many cases, they spend a great deal of money on these ads and don’t disclose their donors, in an effort to protect their members from political retribution.

As a result, many groups have pushed the Legislature to pass laws regulating the timing and content of these political ads. In fact, the Government Accountability Board, a team of unelected bureaucrats, recently deemed themselves eligible to be the political speech police come election time.

In the past, the Legislature has looked at plans that would regulate political speech – and no plan has come close to passing. Both parties seem to recognize that campaign spending takes place on both sides, and they like a lot of these groups doing the heavy lifting on behalf of their candidates. If a bill were to pass under a split Legislature, it is likely that the ads would be affected equally on both sides. Basically, the threat of mutually assured destruction has kept the Legislature from imposing these speech regulations.

However, with Democrats fully controlling the Legislature and governorship, the regulation of political speech can easily be turned into a partisan political weapon. When elected Assembly Speaker, Mike Sheridan of Janesville listed speech regulation as one of his first priorities. “”If you’re getting pounded, at least you should know where you’re getting pounded from,” Sheridan said following his ascendance to the speakership. And when the Democratic Legislature takes over speech regulation, it is almost certain they will slant the law in their favor.

Let’s look at the issue in the simplest possible way: WEAC, the state teacher’s union, spends millions of dollars on issue ads to promote their preferred candidates, usually Democrats. Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state’s business lobby, usually spends equal amounts to promote Republican candidates, for the most part. But once Democrats get their hands on political speech, you can bet which side is going to be shut down come election time. It would be easy for Democrats to ban issue ads, but somehow magically exempt unions from the prohibition. As a result, millions will be spent in support of Democratic candidates, and very little will be spent on Republicans. Such are the dangers of government involving itself in the micromanagement of political debate.

The Natural Advantage of Incumbency

It’s no secret that incumbents win more often. Once someone is in office, it takes a pretty strong crowbar to pry them out. In the last two elections, Democrats have had such a crowbar, and his name was George W. Bush.

Incumbents enjoy a great deal of natural advantages once in office. They get huge mailing budgets to saturate their districts with mailings telling constituents all the great things they’re doing for them. They get hundreds of Blue Books they can send to important supporters. They get to knock on doors all summer on the taxpayers’ dime, while the poor schmuck running against them actually has to campaign while holding down a real job. They get to send press releases to all the press outlets in the district for their entire term, trying to garner earned media. They get a taxpayer funded staff who’s entire job is to make them look good, to grease the skids for re-election. Finally, they get to introduce legislation, which sets the agenda for the state and local press.

And now, more Democrats have these tools at their leisure than Republicans. In fact, an estimated 30 Assembly Republican staff members are likely out of jobs due to the switch in party control. These are the footsoldiers that help win GOP seats – and now they’ll be busy fabricating stuff to put on their resumes instead of working to make Wisconsin a red state. Unless there is a Republican tsunami in two years akin to the kind Democrats have had in the last four, these natural advantages of incumbency are going to be extremely difficult to overcome.

Redistricting

If things don’t turn around for Republicans in 2010, Democrats in the Legislature then get to re-draw legislative districts to their advantage. In the 2000 redistricting, the Scott Jensen-led Assembly drew their district lines to protect their incumbents and the Chuck Chvala-led Senate did the same. At some point, they had to compromise and send a final plan to the governor, who then had to approve it. Then, the Wisconsin Supreme Court approved the final plan, to make sure it passed several tests pursuant to the Voting Rights Act.

With Democrats wholly in charge of the redistricting process, solidifying a liberal majority in both houses will be a snap. For the sake of argument, think of three adjacent legislative districts – one is 70% GOP, and the other two are more marginally Republican – say, 51% GOP. Simply move 5% of the Republicans out of the moderate districts and into the more conservative district – then you end up with one 80% GOP seat and two 46% GOP seats. Dems up two seats, just by moving the line. (This is dramatically simplified, but you get the idea.) Pack as many Republicans into as few seats as possible, and Democrats can run the state for the next decade.

The convergence of all of these advantages, coupled with the tendency of the media to favor Democrats, all adds up to a daunting challenge for the GOP in the near future. Not only are they going to have to outscore Democrats, they’re going to have to cover a significant point spread in the process. Clearly, it’s going to take a lot more than simply complaining about the treatment Sarah Palin got from the media to turn the party around.

-November 13, 2008

That\’s Debatable

Tonight, the presidential candidates went toe-to-toe for the final time.  I thought McCain did better than his previous debates, but still didn\’t set the world on fire.  Whatever.  I\’ve always thought that at the end of debates, the moderator should actually declare a winner, who would then get to hold a giant championship belt over their head while the loser trash talked them, pro-wrestling style.

What is really important is that I actually found myself watching the debate on CNN, with the little squiggly lines at the bottom of the screen tracking what some \”independent\” voters were thinking at the time.  And I was actually yelling out loud at the lines as they tracked across the screen.  For instance, I noticed that McCain didn\’t get much of a bump from women voters when he was talking about school choice.  \”JESUS CHRIST, WOMEN!\” I could be heard to exclaim.

It\’s also important to figure out whether there\’s a time delay in the graph lines.  Like, McCain would make a good point, and I\’d sit and wait to see if there\’s a lag… and there would be no bump… and I\’d get mad.  You know half the guys are sitting in this room trying to get some action from the \”undecided\” woman next to them, so they move the dial whenever she does, just to go with the flow.  Meanwhile, I\’m at home violently shifting to one side or the other just trying to coax the line up a little bit with some body language.

Also, what\’s up with McCain scribbling furiously whenever Obama starts talking?  What is he writing?  I fully expected him to hold up his notepad at the end of the debate to reveal a sketch of Sarah Palin riding a dolphin or something.

One final important note – even when Obama is clean shaven, he still has the faint hint of a mustache going.  If he gets elected, he just needs to let nature take its course and free the \’stache.  Now THAT would be a change I can believe in.

Hansen Seeing a Rise in the Poll

For years, Wisconsin’s 30th State Senate district (around the Green Bay area) has been a swing district.  Held by Republican State Senator Gary Drzwiecki until 2000, it has now been won twice by Democrat Dave Hansen.  At one point this year, Republicans had some hope of perhaps taking the seat back, but that optimism seems to be fading fast.  In all likelihood, Hansen will win a third term comfortably.

All that being said, Hansen has managed to inject his race with a little sizzle.  Last month, Hansen issued a lit piece to the district meant to address gas prices.  On the piece, Hansen’s staff used a photo of an electric car which they likely swiped from the internet.  When crediting the source of the photo, the piece lists “FreeFotos.com.”  Only one problem:  Freefotos.com is a pornographic website.  (I’m not even going to provide a link to it here – if you’re really dying to see it, you know how to find it.)

Here’s the piece (click to enlarge):

Note the Hansen campaign slogan:

“Hard working.  For hard working people.”  I bet.

Of course, this is all meaningless in the scope of the campaign, yet still entertaining.

McCain Challenges the American Public to Stay Awake

\"\"

After tonight\’s presidential debate, I had two choices: set fire to my eyelids, or write a post about the debate.  I had just pulled the matches out of the drawer, when a friend of mine messaged me and guilted me into writing something.  So here we go.

I thought the format was a little strange, and the candidates look way overcoached in these \”town hall\” debates.  You can see the wheels moving in their heads… turn this way… look at the questioner… walk over and pretend their question was smart… and so on.  Sadly, for McCain, he occasionally looked like he was getting lost – like he was an old guy at Sentry who couldn\’t find the tarragon.  At one point, I thought he was going to wander right off the stage, sit in the crowd, and enjoy the rest of the debate from the third row.

In fact, mark it down – in Saturday Night Live\’s opening sketch this week, that\’s going to be the joke – the candidates wandering around and getting uncomfortably close to the questioners.  They\’ll have McCain sit on someone\’s lap in the crowd or something, and have him walk right in front of the camera as Tom Brokaw is talking.  Of course, none of it will be funny.  I\’m still not necessarily sure what the point of these SNL sketches is – impersonations aren\’t funny unless there are jokes actually attached to the impressions.  But they know all the political blogs will be linking to them whenever the ridiculously overrated Tina Fey does her next Palin impersonation.  (The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has written no fewer than four articles about Tina Fey\’s impersonations of Sarah Palin.  That\’s exactly four times as many as they\’ve written about the fact that MPS is going bankrupt in a couple years.)

I was pleased to learn from McCain that he will be purchasing my mortgage for me, in order to make sure I don\’t have to actually budget for my monthly payment in any way.  This is really getting absurd – it appears the goal of both candidates is to make America a giant sensory deprivation chamber.  Nobody\’s allowed to feel any emotion that could be considered good or bad.  The threshold of the pain we expect the government to ameliorate is directly proportional to the drop in the stock market – the more the Dow drops, the more we expect Congress to take the edge off.  And once the government offloads all my pain, if they can apply it to those fatcats that make lots of money (and pay all the taxes), even better.  Then again, if the government can save me from watching one more commercial for \”Frank TV\” during the baseball playoffs, that seems entirely appropriate.

Things got so bad during the debate that I actually gave McCain credit for saying health care was a \”responsibility\” and not a \”right.\”  I thought he was heading towards at least acknowledging that people should be encouraged to take more responsibility for their own health and the decisions they make for treatment.  Instead, he gave a mushy answer that at no point acknowledged that health care is largely a matter of taking care of ourselves, rather than asking government to do it for us.

It was at this point that I kind of zoned out.  Basically, debates are to help people who don\’t know much of anything to pretend they\’re politically engaged.  I\’m pretty sure the only reason people watch debates now is so they\’ll understand the opening SNL sketch.  But the whole discussion of health care actually managed to subtract from the public\’s knowledge base of issues.  We as a county now know less about health care as a result of their answers.  It\’s like anti-learning.

McCain did settle in and do a lot better during the questions about foreign policy, as should be expected.  And we all get that he loves General David Petraeus, and for good reason – but the General is getting to be too easy of a talking point.  At some point, Petraeus became the all-knowing master of world politics – like Willie Wonka in fatigues.  If I were Petraeus, just to screw with McCain, I\’d declare victory in Iraq to be contingent on Americans wearing their underwear on the outside of their pants.  Wouldn\’t that be embarrassing when McCain shows up for the final debate?

Well after the debate, Fox News posted the result of their \”poll\” showing 86% of their viewers think McCain won the debate.  Imagine that – 86% of Fox viewers who are allowed to call in or text their opinion think McCain won.  Why do they even waste our time with this nonsense?  It\’s just clear they have a deal with the cell phone companies to bait people into sending more text messages, for which they\’ll get charged.  Does anyone there care about being taken seriously?  Has a more meaningless statistic ever been run for two hours straight on a major network?

And I don\’t mean to be too tough on Fox – it just so happens I turn there after the debate because I can\’t watch MSNBC without wretching.  I flicked over to Chris Matthews for a brief moment, and he actually posited the theory that because McCain didn\’t mention William Ayers during the debate, that he was likely ashamed of Sarah Palin for hitting Obama so hard on it.  I\’m sure that was it.

(Incidentally, this is probably why I can never run for office – too many of my good friends are self-identified dirtbags.)

All in all, nobody really won the debate, but nobody did anything to embarrass themselves, either.  That\’s what\’s so entertaining about listening to the post-debate chatter from the talking heads: they all grade the debate as if there\’s no such thing as a half hour from now.  Ask Cubs fans what they think of predicting the future based on a few recent good performances.  All the heads think McCain\’s milquetoast performance dooms his campaign, until…the next debate, when their reaction will be equally as short-sighted.  I think the candidates know that debating well doesn\’t win you a campaign, but debating poorly can sure lose it, and prepare accordingly.  It\’s when either of them start swinging for the fences in their answers that can lead to a giant mistake that can euthanize their campaign.

Oh, and one last thing – was McCain\’s crack about hair replacement surgery a shot at Biden?

Prediction: In 30 years, candidates will still say they\’re for \”clean coal,\” and still, nobody in America will have any idea what they\’re talking about.

The GOP’s Trojan Horse

Recent years in America have seen a languid national Republican Party, which has been struggling to recruit members, formulate a salient message, and win elections. As the war in Iraq has drawn on and the government has grown exponentially in size, voters have avoided the Republican Party like Michael Moore avoids exercise. In winning the party’s nomination for the presidency, Senator John McCain had showed sparks of inspiration, but has largely been wearing the concrete boots of the Bush/Cheney administration.

That may have all changed on Wednesday night, as the Republicans introduced Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to the world. Palin’s speech netted 38 million viewers – just as many as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s speech at the Democratic convention six days earlier – a speech that many hailed as the most anticipated in history.

Yet it appears the nation may be equally enthralled by the new GOP “Supermom.” For Republicans, Palin represents a trojan horse – buttressed by her credentials as a government reformer and mother of a special needs child, Palin struck a soft pose as she took the podium in front of a delirious convention on Wednesday night.

Yet much of Palin’s speech didn’t match the delicate exterior she portrays. She took a howitzer to her critics, and sarcastically mocked Barack Obama’s experience and qualifications – yet never stopped smiling.

Had it been Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty on that stage attacking Obama, America may have recoiled from the criticism of The Chosen One. They would have figured the shots delivered were just more Republican white guy vitriol. But because Palin’s.demeanor is so appealing, she may be the one VP pick McCain could have made that can penetrate Obama’s armor – and she seems to revel in the opportunity. It appears she will be Fed-Ex’ing Obama a weekly stool sandwich in her official duty as campaign attack dog.

Of course, it didn’t take long for Democrats to attack Palin – manufacturing stories before the convention even began. Yet the intensity of the Obama supporters’ criticisms are directly proportional to how quality of a pick she was for McCain. The Democrats know they need to take her out – now. Because she has what they like to call in football “breakaway speed.” Let her get a head of steam, and you may be looking at the back of her jersey until she gets to the goal line.

In this sense, Palin might be the Republicans’ performance-enhancing mom. She has given them the shot in the arm they needed to make this race competitive, as long as they don’t get a big Barry Bonds-sized head and blow it all.

-September 5, 2008

Is Obama the “Hero We Need?”

(Note: This column contains references to the movie “The Dark Knight.” Although they’re not “spoilers,” considered yourself duly warned if you’re one of those people that doesn’t want to know anything about the movie before you see it. And given its box office numbers, if you haven’t seen it, you likely live in a community with no electricity.)

In recent years, the superhero movie genre has undergone a revival. Previously, movies featuring comic book heroes could be counted on for nothing more than some good action and bad tights. But that has all changed. Now the Hulk is a sensitive hero with father issues. Spiderman wrestles with the weight of his own conscience. Iron Man ends up accomplishing the formidable task of saving both the world and Robert Downey Jr.’s drug dealer from bankruptcy. Even a movie like “Unbreakable,” which doesn’t reveal itself as a superhero movie until late in the film, features superhuman characters with real world problems.

This weekend saw the release of the granddaddy of them all, “The Dark Knight.” The second Christian Bale Batman movie has been hailed in some circles as the greatest superhero movie ever made. And while it features people wearing clown makeup blowing stuff up,[i] there are actually some valuable real world lessons interwoven through the script.

There’s a danger in applying the lessons of movies where the main characters wear masks and capes to politics. (Although it’s well known that Russ Feingold occasionally wears a red codpiece on the Senate floor.) Until John McCain saves a busload of school kids from careening off a bridge with his teeth, there’s probably no real comparison. (The chances of this actually happening are really no greater than 10%.)

Yet in “The Dark Knight,” there’s a theme that seems to strike close to home in the 2008 presidential election. In the movie, the public becomes increasingly skeptical of Batman’s vigilante brand of law enforcement. Instead, they credit District Attorney Harvey Dent (played by Aaron Eckhardt) with cleaning up much of Gotham’s crime. Although Batman clearly runs circles around the city’s law enforcement, he is content to accept the public’s scorn and pass the credit to Dent. At one point, Commissioner Gordon observes that “Batman is the hero Gotham deserves, not the one it needs.”

The dichotomy between what citizens “need” and what they “deserve” is essentially what voters are wrestling with in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. In the context of the movie, what voters “need” is a figurehead that makes them feel better about themselves – that the government has things under control. While Dent was a newcomer to the District Attorney’s office, he made citizens feel like he was one of them. And while his accomplishments were mainly devoid of content, he served as Gotham’s avatar for justice.

In this context, Barack Obama fits neatly into the category of the politician we “need.” We need to feel better about ourselves, regardless of those pesky “policies” and “details.” We need someone who represents Hope and Change, despite not having a single idea that hasn’t been culled from the Democratic blueprint. A vote for Obama washes away our guilt over race relations and helps us erase the hangover from an unpopular war. Obama is essentially a political paint-by-numbers book, where the lines are drawn, but we are free to fill in whatever colors make us feel better. (Adding to the comparison is Obama’s proclivity to flip-flop, leading one to believe he might be “two faced.”)

On the other hand, McCain represents the politician we “deserve.” The world is full of maniacal dictators intent on bringing down the United States, and they won’t be allayed by the U.S. sending them a “World’s Greatest Despot” coffee mug. We deserve someone willing to confront America’s international dangers as they are, not as how they are perceived at the NPR offices.

We “deserve” a politician who is willing to talk to us like grown-ups when it comes to earmark and entitlement reform. America is poised for an economic disaster when Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare bills come due for baby boomers. Yet no one is willing to do anything about it, as these entitlement programs constitute the third rail of American politics. Congressman Paul Ryan of Janesville is pushing his “roadmap” for reforming these programs, but there’s a better chance that Congress declares Prince’s “Batdance” as the national anthem than Ryan’s “roadmap to making granny cry” becoming law.

(Perhaps most importantly, McCain has been known to dress like a rodent and kick his political opponents in the head, which pretty much completes the parallel.)

In November, voters could very well choose the candidate they think they need, rather than the one they believe they deserve. But after our national collective group hug, the job of actually governing remains. By then, it may be too late to send out the Bat Signal.

-July 21, 2008

Pro-McCain Vigilantism?

Perhaps the most unconvincing trashing of a campaign headquarters ever took place in Viroqua on Tuesday of this week:

VIROQUA, Wis. — Police in Viroqua are investigating graffiti vandalism at the local campaign office for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Someone used red and white spray paint on the plate glass windows of the Obama office on Main Street in downtown Viroqua.

Chief Mark Rahr says someone painted a big red \”X\’\’ over an Obama campaign sign and wrote \”wrong kind of change\” below.

Over the Obama lettering on the front window, someone wrote \”McCain\” in white paint and \”He\’s a vet\” next to it.

Someone also wrote in red paint \”Obama is funded by….\” and the letters become illegible.

Rahr says the vandalism occurred sometime Tuesday afternoon.

Right.

McCain can barely get conservatives excited enough to vote for him – what are the chances of a few being so stoked that they\’d trash Obama\’s headquarters?

Plus, do the profiles of \”McCain supporter\” and \”political vandal\” really match? How did they get away so quickly in their battery-powered wheelchairs? Who at the home left them unaccounted for?

Then again, the vandalism supposedly took place in mid-afternoon. Just in time to hit the 4:00 fish fry.  And the fact that the last shot against Obama went unfinished could be evidence of a short attention span:

\”MCCAIN IS THE BEST….:

…NOW WHERE DID I PUT THAT TOOTHPICK AGAIN?\”

The messages they painted are also somewhat less convincing. \”He\’s a vet?\” \”The wrong kind of change?\” Any conservative hard core enough to trash the Obama headquarters wouldn\’t have been able to resist something like \”OBAMA\’S PLAN TO RAISE TAXES ON CAPITAL GAINS SUX!!!!\”

Needless to say, I am not convinced these were pro-McCain forces at work here. It could very well have been Obama supporters engaging in some chicanery, knowing Republicans would get stuck with the damage. (And likely engaging in a post-vandalism terrorist fist-jab for a job well done.)  Then again, had it been Obama supporters, they wouldn\’t have been able to keep themselves from writing something like \”VOTE MCCAIN FOR ANOTHER 100 YEARS IN IRAQ!\”

Wisconsin’s Third Party Animals

On the evening of November 5, 2002, the election results began to roll in. A rainy election day had come to wash away the grime from an often-brutal gubernatorial race in Wisconsin, which had seen the candidates refer to each other as “crooked” and “absolutely disreputable.” Incumbent Republican Governor Scott McCallum, who had been in office scarcely two years, faced a strong challenge from long-time Democratic Attorney General Jim Doyle. The race was a crucial turning point for Wisconsin, as it represented the first time in sixteen years iconic Governor Tommy Thompson was not on the ballot.

Merely a year earlier, Republican officials could only have dreamed about Doyle pulling a paltry 45% of the vote on election night. McCallum had suffered in Thompson’s shadow after Tommy had left to be Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Bush Administration. McCallum, saddled with a large budget deficit, sought to cut spending to local governments to make up the difference. Naturally, local officials, many of them Republicans, appeared all too willing to defenestrate McCallum in favor of the Democrat.

Yet on election night, Doyle’s poor showing did little to cheer up the GOP faithful. While the Democrat had fallen well short of the magic 50% mark, McCallum had pulled in a woeful 41%, losing to Doyle by nearly 66,000 votes. For the first time in sixteen years, Wisconsin would be led by a Democrat – and a long time bitter Thompson foe, at that.

The reason both major candidates together could only muster 86% of the total vote could be found in bucolic Tomah, Wisconsin (pop. 8,400). Former boxer, professional card player, tavern owner, and Tomah Mayor Ed Thompson had decided a year earlier to run for Governor in 2002. Thompson, a short, stout man with glasses so thick they looked like they could plausibly protect him from a bullet, had signed on with the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin in order to make his third party charge toward the state’s highest office. His sole qualification for the office of governor appeared to be that he once emerged from the same womb as his brother, Governor Tommy Thompson.

Thompson’s 2002 run for governor represented a perfect storm for a third party candidacy in Wisconsin. The Legislature was in the midst of a scandal that eventually led to leaders of both houses being convicted of felonies for crimes such as extortion, bribery, and using state offices for fundraising. The economic downturn of 2001 left voters skeptical of either party’s ability to deal with their financial troubles. By September 2002, 45 percent of Wisconsin residents felt the state was on the wrong track, up from 20 percent only three years earlier. Seventy-five percent of citizens believed lobbyists had more say in how the government spent money than voters did.

Of course, Thompson’s last name didn’t hurt either. As the brother of the state’s most beloved political figure, Ed Thompson had immediate name recognition throughout the state. Plus, it’s not entirely impossible that some voters may have actually confused Ed Thompson with his famous brother. Confusion over names at the polls isn’t exactly unprecedented—it is believed by some historians that Wisconsin’s first African-American legislator, Lucien Palmer, was elected in 1906 because voters confused him with another political Palmer, who was white. Lucien Palmer only lasted one two-year term, which may have been just enough time for voters to figure out their “mistake.”

Perhaps the most famous example of mistaken identity in Wisconsin politics occurred in 1970, when a Sheboygan gas station attendant Robert A. Zimmerman ran as a Democrat for the position of secretary of state. At the time, the incumbent secretary of state happened to be a popular Republican, Robert C. Zimmerman. Robert A. Zimmerman, who wasn’t allowed to speak during the campaign by his mentor Edmond Hou-Seye, won the Democratic primary against up-and-comer Tom Fox, presumably because voters confused him with the incumbent secretary. (Fox went on to become commissioner of insurance in Wisconsin.) Zimmerman, the mute gas station attendant, went on to lose to Zimmerman the secretary of state. Hou-Seye went on to run several ill-fated races for statewide office himself, coining the phrase “journalism is the science of distortion” along the way.

Wisconsin historically has been a sanctuary for third parties. It was in Wisconsin where Robert M. LaFollette, Jr. split the Progressive Party off from the GOP in 1934. That year, the Progressives won a landslide of state offices, including Philip LaFollette winning the governor’s office for the first time as a Progressive candidate. Milwaukee famously elected three Socialist mayors in the first half of the twentieth century, the only major city in the U.S. to have done so.

In recent years, third parties in Wisconsin have continued to affect statewide elections. In 2000, Vice President Al Gore defeated Texas Governor George W. Bush by 5,708 votes in Wisconsin. Gore’s margin of victory was actually less than the 6,640 Wisconsin votes cast for Libertarian Harry Browne for president in that same election. In the 2000 election, third party presidential votes numbered 116,445 in Wisconsin—nearly 20 times the size of Gore’s margin of victory. Everyone remembers the vote count debacle and subsequent court action in Florida following that presidential election, yet that charade would not have occurred had a small fraction of third party voters in Wisconsin shifted their votes to George W. Bush.

Strong third party voting in Wisconsin held true to form in 2004, when Senator John Kerry beat Bush by 11,384 votes. In that election, Wisconsin saw 26,397 votes cast for third party candidates. While well below the 2000 third party vote (due mostly to a drastically diminished Ralph Nader effort), the third party total still greatly exceeded the final margin of victory for Kerry.

Naturally, Ed Thompson wasn’t the only third party candidate in the field in 2002. Thompson was joined by 34-year-old Aneb Jah Rasta Sensas-Utcha Nefer-I, who insisted that he was already governor of Wisconsin. “I was born to rule, because God’s judgment will judge all unrighteousness,” said Sensas-Utcha, a native of Milwaukee. “I’m the damn governor of the State of Wisconsin.” To back up this claim, Sensas-Utcha pointed to several bills regarding E Coli that he had passed earlier. Unfortunately, he was unable to describe the details of this important legislation, claiming the press might be able to use it against him. Despite his previous hypothetical electoral success, Sensas-Utcha was only able to muster 929 votes statewide in November.

Thompson was also joined as a third party gubernatorial candidate by Mike Mangan, who campaigned wearing a gorilla suit. Mangan, a self-employed energy consultant from Waukesha, waged what he called a “guerilla attack against state spending.” Mangan criticized the state’s “King Kong deficit,” which is quite a coincidence since he happened to own a gorilla mask. (Fortunately for Mangan, the deficit wasn’t the size of a turtle, as he would have had to scramble for a new costume.) Mangan was actually a fan of Ed Thompson’s run, seeing it as a breakthrough for third parties in future races, saying, “I think he’s opening doors.”

These independent candidates represent only a small sliver of the colorful history of third party politicians in Wisconsin. In 1974, flamboyant West Milwaukee used car dealer James Groh legally changed his name to “Crazy Jim” to run for governor as an independent. Crazy Jim was a staunch advocate of legalized gambling, and frequently spun a tale of how he once played cards with Frank Sinatra in Las Vegas. At the time, the concept of legal gambling in Wisconsin seemed to be far-fetched—yet Crazy Jim turned out to be a visionary, as Wisconsin adopted a state lottery and welcomed almost unlimited Indian casino gambling by the 1990s. Crazy Jim lost to incumbent Patrick Lucey 629,000 votes to 12,100; but his family said he took solace throughout his life in the fact that he carried Waushara County. (Although he did not—records show he only garnered 47 votes in Waushara County, which placed him a distant fifth.) Crazy Jim died in 2002 of a heart attack.

In Madison, self-described “futurist” Richard H. Anderson has run for numerous offices, including state assembly, mayor, and city council. Anderson routinely ran on an “anti-mind control” platform, believing the government had planted a cybernetic chip in his brain. A self-described bisexual, Anderson fought for better treatment of minorities and, as a surprise to exactly no one, for legalized marijuana. “Just because I’m a pot head doesn’t mean I’m not qualified to hold office,” he once said. Unfortunately, the government rarely used mind control to direct voters to vote for him, as he once mustered a scant six votes in a race for the state Assembly against now-Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin. Naturally, the Progressive Capital Times newspaper said Anderson had “made a good impression.”

(One has to wonder what a debate between a “pro-mind control” and “anti-mind control” candidate is like. Presumably, the “anti” candidate would get up to speak, the “pro” candidate would glare and point his finger at them, and the “anti” candidate would sheepishly sit back down without saying a word.)

Yet the candidacy of Ed Thompson in 2002 represented a breakthrough for independent candidates, who had previously been relegated to the scrap heap of oddities, curiosities, and also-rans. In early 2001, Thompson was a man without a party. Without the backing of a more established third party, a Thompson candidacy could have been viewed as a fringe endeavor and may have lost traction quickly.

Early that year, Thompson met with notorious independent Governor Jesse “The Body” Ventura of Minnesota, who had been carried by his nationwide wrestling fame to victory in 1998. (Thompson would later joke that he should be called Ed “The Belly.”) The meeting was arranged by Bob Collison, leader of the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin. Soon thereafter, Thompson signed on as the official Libertarian candidate for governor of Wisconsin. It was a symbiotic relationship—the Libertarian tag gave Thompson the legitimacy his campaign needed, while Thompson gave the Libertarians a big enough name to finally make a splash in state politics.

Yet there remained an internecine struggle within the party between Libertarians who fundamentally subscribed to the Libertarian principles of limited government and those looking for statewide legitimacy in the electoral process. Clearly, Ed Thompson wasn’t a dyed-in-the-wool Libertarian, although he espoused many of the dangers of government police powers. In the late 1990s, Thompson’s Tee Pee supper club was raided by authorities and four nickel slot machines were confiscated. He refused to cut a deal and plead guilty, and the charges were dropped when the county district attorney was voted out of office over the raid. Thompson said that one of his motivations for running for governor was to beat then-Attorney General Jim Doyle, whom he believes had ordered the raid on the Tee Pee.

However, this desire for deregulated gambling alone wasn’t enough to make him a Libertarian. As mayor of Tomah, Thompson governed as if he were any mayor of any small town in Wisconsin. His gubernatorial platform included more environmental regulation to preserve Wisconsin’s natural spaces and more money for the University of Wisconsin system. Thompson’s supporters bred more distrust among philosophical libertarians when they bitterly complained about Thompson not receiving enough public tax money to run his campaign—a concept anathema to those truly interested in restricting government spending.

Furthermore, as his running mate, Thompson signed up retiring Democratic Assembly Representative and former Ladysmith Mayor Marty Reynolds. While Reynolds described himself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, throughout his twelve years as a representative he represented a reliable vote for Assembly Democrats when they sought to expand taxes and spending. Yet, as is required of Northern Democrats in Wisconsin, Reynolds was staunchly in favor of individual rights with regard to firearms and property. Before picking him as his running mate, Thompson said he had never actually met Reynolds—he had only read an editorial the representative had written decrying the “corruption” at the State Capitol. Thompson praised Reynolds’ experience as a legislator, saying he would be an “active participant” in his administration, instead of “playing basketball all the time”—a thinly veiled shot at McCallum, who was known for his hard court wizardry during his brother’s administration.

On November 15, 2001, at the State Capitol, Thompson officially announced his candidacy for governor of Wisconsin. He posited himself as the everyman candidate, saying:

I am no big time Charlie. I’m just a common hard-working man who is dedicated to serving the hard-working people of Wisconsin. I’m a fighter. I’ve been in the ring many times as a boxer and there is nothing I like better than a good fight. This is the biggest fight of my life, and I plan on winning it.

Having announced he was running, it was time for Thompson to mobilize his supporters. This included Libertarian Party of Wisconsin President Bob Collison, who had introduced Thompson to Jesse Ventura. Collison had recently garnered press attention for his opposition to the U.S. Census, believing the questions asked on their survey were too personal. (Collison would later leave the Libertarian Party to make an unsuccessful run for the Wisconsin State Assembly.)

Also in the mix was Wisconsin Libertarian Vice Chair Rolf Lindgren, who in November 2003 was accused of stealing $50 out of a bar apron at the Irish Waters Tavern in Madison. After being accused of stealing the cash, Lindgren was arrested for his fourth drunk driving violation. At his trial, he pleaded insanity, testifying that the stress caused by the police accusations related to the Irish Waters incident caused him to blow a .23 on the breathalyzer (11 times the legal limit for someone with three prior drunk driving arrests).

Lindgren also said he was feeling anxiety over appearing in a documentary about Ed Thompson’s life the next morning, and suggested that his arrest was retribution for his attempt to recall Jim Doyle from the governor’s office. Said Lindgren, “it doesn’t really matter why they [filed charges]. What really matters is that they did do it. If I were a black person, I’d be charging racism. What are they saying, all white people look alike?”

The charge against Lindgren for stealing the $50 from the tavern was dropped, as the Dane County District Attorney said the prosecuting attorney needed more time to prosecute the drunk driving charge. In 2006, a jury rejected Lindgren’s insanity plea and he was sentenced to five months in jail for driving while intoxicated.

With his campaign team mobilized, Thompson hit the road in his beat-up, 20-year-old motor home. In the week following his campaign announcement, he visited Waukesha, Wausau, Superior, Eau Claire, and Sparta. On the trail, Thompson’s policy agenda began to round into shape. He espoused the benefits of lower taxes and more local government control. He pushed for legalization of marijuana and for the release of nonviolent felons from prison. He argued for term limits that would limit governors and legislators to eight years in office.

However, Thompson most often used what he thought was his most powerful talking point—that government was corrupt and it was time for a third party candidate to change it. Eventually, discussion of policy issues merely faded into the background in favor of his corruption speech. When Thompson launched his first radio ads in April 2002, they focused on the ongoing criminal investigation of the Legislature. “Our state government is being tarnished by corruption,” Thompson boomed in the ad. “Enough is enough. It’s time to put the people’s interests above special interests. We need common sense and accountability in government,” he said.

At one point in May 2002, students at a campaign appearance at Rice Lake High School asked Thompson what a Libertarian was. “It means you have the right to live your life as you want, as long as you don’t physically hurt someone and no one physically hurts you,” he said. “It takes the business attitude of the Republican Party and the social attitude of the Democratic Party and improves them,” he added.

Later that day, at Bob’s Grill in Rice Lake, an 81-year-old patron asked Thompson what life was like in Washington D.C. “No, that’s my brother,” Ed Thompson politely replied. He then mentioned that he’s three years younger but ten years smarter than Tommy, and definitely better looking.

As the campaign wound into the oppressive Wisconsin summer months, Thompson was able to set himself apart from the other candidates in one regard: his yard and highway campaign signs seemed to outnumber his opponents’ by a fifty-to-one ratio. By September, Thompson had 850 large highway signs and 9,000 yard signs out the door. Thompson’s close ties to the Wisconsin Tavern League virtually guaranteed a black and yellow Ed Thompson sign would be in front of every bar in the state. In rural Wisconsin, those bars are often the centers of civic debate. Tommy Thompson’s exploits in local bars are often credited with catapulting him to statewide recognition. It seemed his little brother may be able to capture a little of the same plainspoken magic.

Meanwhile, the race between the major party candidates raged ahead. McCallum ran a television ad that accused Attorney General Doyle of being “crooked” for not aggressively pursuing corruption in the Legislature. Doyle volunteers held a “bingo party” at a Kenosha home for the developmentally disabled where there also conveniently happened to be absentee ballots available for residents to fill out on site.

As election day grew nearer, Thompson was finding it harder and harder to take his “common man” message to the voters. For one, he was having difficulty working his way into debates, which required a candidate to earn six percent of the total vote in the primary. Since Thompson ran unopposed in the Libertarian primary, he didn’t garner enough votes. He argued, accurately, that rather than waste their vote on him, his supporters likely voted in the contested primaries between the major candidates.

Eventually, Thompson filed a complaint with the State Elections Board, arguing his exclusion amounted to an illegal campaign contribution to the major candidates. He lost the complaint, but went on to take part in minor debates throughout October. Finally, on October 29th, he participated in a debate broadcast statewide. But by that point, the race between Doyle and McCallum had turned bitter and personal, and Thompson was left without much time to speak between the bickering.

When the dust settled on election night a week later, Thompson had received 10.5% of the vote. While it wasn’t nearly enough to win, it was the largest percentage any third party candidate for governor had received in sixty years. Watching the results at the Tee Pee, Thompson seemed upbeat. “We changed the face of politics in Wisconsin,” he beamed, adding, “We’ve made the third party viable.” Furthermore, reaching the 10% vote level meant that the Libertarian Party would be validated by having an official representative on the State Elections Board.

Thompson’s supporters, however, were confused as to why their candidate didn’t fare better. Following the election, Rolf Lindgren wrote an editorial claiming that Ed Thompson hadn’t been beaten by the voters; he had instead been beaten by the polls. In the column (in which he listed his credential as “1986 UW-Madison Mathematics Graduate,”) Lindgren expressed disbelief that Thompson only received 10.5% of the vote, when a poll prior to the election had Thompson’s approval rating at 39%. Since a candidate merely had to receive 34% to win the three-way election, Lindgren was confused as to why Thompson wasn’t able to garner enough support to emerge victorious. Apparently, he was unaware that approval ratings measure a candidate’s popularity against only themselves, while actual elections pit candidates against each other.

Lindgren went on to argue, as only a 1986 mathematics graduate could, that polls published during the campaign that showed Thompson with single digit support actually depressed his popularity. Lindgren believed the polls showing (accurately, as it turned out) Thompson with little support drove away individuals that normally would have been supporters. “In hindsight, if he had done a few more polls at key moments, and put out a few more polls-related press releases, he might have won the election,” said Lindgren.

The debate still rages in Wisconsin about whether Ed Thompson handed the state over to Jim Doyle by stealing votes from McCallum. Conventional wisdom tells us that since Libertarians are further to the right, they steal votes from Republicans. Thus, the GOP immediately groused that Thompson’s 10.5% vote total may have swung the race to the incumbent Governor had “Fightin’ Ed” not run.

The numbers seem to indicate that, even had Thompson not run, a McCallum victory would have been a long shot. When Thompson’s 185,000 votes are divided up, McCallum would have had to win 67.7% of them to overcome Doyle’s 66,000-vote margin. While it is true that Thompson did extremely well in GOP-dominated counties like his home Monroe County (Thompson 45%, McCallum 27%, Doyle 26%), Thompson also pulled substantial votes out of the city of Madison, likely due to his support for legalized marijuana. (It is estimated Thompson received 100% of the vote from the much sought-after “dudes who make late night trips to Taco Bell” demographic.)

Additionally, rather than merely being a Libertarian, Ed Thompson was a once-in-a-generation cult of personality. There’s no evidence that his votes were from people who lean Libertarian. It’s possible his votes were comprised of voters sick of the two parties generally and who recognized his family name as a safe haven for their vote. His addition of Marty Reynolds to the ticket may have made it even easier for Democrats to vote for him.

On the other hand, it is possible that Thompson pulled more votes from Republicans than Democrats. Aside from the votes on election day, Thompson’s entry into the race drew other types of resources away from the major candidates—he was able to raise and spend over $400,000, which may have favored McCallum, had Thompson not been able to get his hands on it. Furthermore, the curiosity of Thompson’s campaign took up media time that may have changed the face of the race had he not been in it (although given the press McCallum was getting at the time, it might have been better for him to get less coverage throughout the campaign).

Whether Ed Thompson gift-wrapped the 2002 election for Democrat Jim Doyle, we can never really know (although Doyle did defeat a strong Republican challenger, Republican Congressman Mark Green, in 2006). What we do know is that third parties in Wisconsin are a force to be reckoned with. While many regard third parties as a motley group of political nutballs, they have what the major candidates need—votes.

Given the proclivity of Wisconsin voters to cast their ballots for a third party, the 2008 presidential election could hinge on how well candidates relate to these third party voters. With Wisconsin’s traditional razor-thin margins of victory, the major candidate who appeals most to third party voters could be the one who emerges victorious. Senators John McCain and Barack Obama need to tap into the wealth of Wisconsin votes that could easily stray into third party territory. With big names like Former Congressman (and star of “Borat”) Bob Barr running as a Libertarian, Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney seeking the Green Party nomination, and Ralph Nader doing whatever it is he does, independent voters could very well decide Wisconsin, and therefore the presidency.

In 2005, three years after his gubernatorial run, Ed Thompson was elected to the city council back in Tomah. The problem was, he didn’t know he was running. Thompson had benefited from a write-in vote effort of which he was unaware. After receiving 31 of 34 votes, he begrudgingly took office. In 2007, Thompson flirted with the idea of running for president himself after aligning himself with a group of “9/11 Truthers” who believe the U.S. government had a role in the September 11, 2001, attacks. In 2008, he was once again sworn in as Mayor of Tomah, assuming the comfortable position he had left to run for governor. It appears he is now content to be an important footnote in Wisconsin’s political history—one that major candidates should not soon forget.

How Jim Doyle Can Save Wisconsin’s Republican Party

With the state weary from a long, drawn-out war overseas, one of Wisconsin’s political parties was taking a beating at the polls. The party’s national elected officials had gone to war seven years previously, and voters were demonstrating their displeasure at the ballot box. The party, which had strayed significantly from its traditional values, was a mere afterthought in Wisconsin government, and appeared to be sinking even lower.

Then Jim Doyle showed up to save it. Not the current governor, the other one.

The year was 1948, and Democrats in Wisconsin were foundering. German voters, who had traditionally been Democrats, had fled the party due in large part to Woodrow Wilson’s declaration of war on Germany in 1918. (At the time, many of Wisconsin’s Germans were still foreign born, and had ties to the homeland.) While German Americans in Wisconsin were very much in favor of U.S. involvement in World War II, the war reinforced their desire to stay away from the Democratic Party. The Progressive Party in Wisconsin was nearly extinct, and many of its members were returning to the Republican Party, from whence they came in 1934.

By 1948, it had been sixteen years since a Democrat had won the Wisconsin governorship (former Madison Mayor Alfred Schmedeman, who served only one two-year term). Even worse, Democrats won only three Wisconsin gubernatorial elections in the previous 73 years and had been in the minority in the State Senate and Assembly since 1893. For four straight legislative sessions (1923-1929), there were no Democrats in the Senate. The 1925 Assembly featured 92 Republicans, one Democrat, and seven Socialist Party members.

In May of 1948, several upstarts within the Democratic Party met in Fond du Lac to chart a course for a new, revitalized party. Among the attendees were Jim Doyle Sr., Ruth Doyle, Horace Wilkie, and Gaylord Nelson. The “Young Turks,” as they were called, formed the Democratic Organizing Committee (DOC), with the intent of circumventing the traditional, more conservative (and largely ineffective) Democratic Party leadership. In doing so, they began planting the seeds for future Democratic success in Wisconsin. Their dream came to fruition in 1957, when Bill Proxmire won the U.S. Senate seat previously held by Joseph McCarthy prior to his death. A year later, Gaylord Nelson won the Wisconsin governorship.

It was the plan formulated in the nascent years of the DOC that precipitated Wisconsin eventually becoming a state where Democrats could once again succeed. Doyle, Nelson, Patrick Lucey, and others worked tirelessly to organize county parties and recruit members, which was a tough task for a party that had been struggling so mightily for so long. As Doyle famously once said, “There are places around the state where it takes courage to be a Democrat. The few professed Democrats are like the early Christians. They feel as though they should hold their meetings in the catacombs.”

It is now 2008, and another of Wisconsin’s major political parties in on the ropes. Wisconsin Republicans are still feeling the backlash from a long war, just as Democrats had in 1948. The party has largely lost its identity, with voters unable to differentiate its platform on taxes and spending from that of the Democrats.

If there’s any good news, it is that Wisconsin Republicans aren’t in anywhere near as bad shape as the Democrats were in 1948. While the war is still unpopular, it doesn’t offend the national pride of any voting bloc in Wisconsin politics. (This type of mass defection is unlikely to happen to the Republicans unless John McCain declares war on the Green Bay Packers.) The Assembly is still Republican, but by a shrinking margin. Republicans in the Senate only need to pick up two seats to retake the majority that they lost in stunning fashion in 2006.

Yet even if Republicans were able to buck the odds and regain majorities in both houses, nobody really expects any shift towards fiscal conservatism. Wisconsin citizens will see that the Republican Party is currently propped up on a rotting foundation, set adrift with few principles, and no platform on which to stand.

What Wisconsin Republicans need to do now is to follow the DOC blueprint for revitalizing the party. If that means a group of talented insiders get together and plot the overthrow of the current leadership, then so be it. It won’t be easy work, and certainly the national GOP zeitgeist will affect the amount of change that can be felt at the state level. The reason Democrats in Wisconsin are such a formidable foe is because of the efforts of a handful of individuals determined to breathe life into their party’s corpse. So it can be done, and the future of the Republican Party in Wisconsin depends on it.

When the new GOP braintrust gets together, here are some suggestions for a blueprint back into the majority:

BUILD AND BREAK CONSTITUENCIES

When Democrats built themselves into a majority in the late ‘50s and early ‘60s, they did so by consolidating existing constituencies and building new ones. Labor unions banded together within the Democratic Party, and former Progressives found the party much more to their liking. Perhaps most importantly, they recognized what effect the expansion of government dependency would have on their base. Democrats recognized the fact that when more individuals received a check from the government, those individuals would become Democratic voters. They would continue to support the party that would keep the checks rolling in. As government grows and grows, so do the fortunes of those chained to a government check – so the built-in constituency will always be there to lobby for Democrats.

Republicans don’t have to stand on the sidelines in building constituencies for their programs, and constituencies don’t have to be built solely on government handouts. Getting people hooked on tax incentives and less government regulation can resonate.

For instance, the GOP needs more people to become dependent on programs that employ free market principles, to make sure voters know such programs can succeed. Last week, the Wisconsin State Journal highlighted a charter school set up to teach Native American children their traditional Ojibway language and culture. Charter schools are a perfect example of how educational choice can empower parents to direct how they want their children to be educated. Just because a program is conservative, it doesn’t have to benefit fat, cigar-chomping white guys.

Additionally, Milwaukee shouldn’t have a monopoly on school choice – it should be a topic statewide for two reasons: First, so out-state school districts and parents don’t see it as the enemy of their kids’ schools and cheer for its demise. Second, because as it becomes a state issue, more momentum statewide will grow, laying the groundwork for more educational choice in areas other than just Milwaukee. School choice is one of Wisconsin’s crown jewels, and should be discussed by Republicans statewide.

However, school choice is only one area where the GOP can create a new statewide constituency. Health Savings Accounts have been around as an issue for a decade, but Republicans seem content to allow HSAs to twist in the wind as a merely theoretical issue. The longer that happens, the more skepticism people will have that they can actually work. Where’s the Republican plan to give all state employees HSAs instead of the traditional budget-busting health coverage? Why aren’t they telling everyone who will listen that the best way to show that HSAs work is to build a market with the 70,000 state employees? That would be a pretty good start – and for the naysayers that think the unions would never let that happen, ask the unions what they think of the Qualified Economic Offer (QEO), which restricts teacher salaries. It can happen.

LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION

Building a permanent GOP majority means going where the voters are and locking them down as Republican voters. For the GOP in Wisconsin, that means heading west.

For the political nerds living in the Milwaukee-Madison corridor, the picture of Wisconsin is clear; Madison is liberal, Waukesha is conservative. For the most part, those two counties should cancel each other out. That leaves the rest of the state to offset liberal Milwaukee. Green Bay and the Fox Valley help Republicans, while areas like Stevens Point and Wausau favor Democrats.

This analysis ignores a sleeping giant in Western Wisconsin that should be fertile ground for the GOP in the years to come. St. Croix County is the fastest growing county in the state, and is solidly Republican. It’s difficult for people to picture, but one day St, Croix will be the Waukesha County of the west. It is a Twin Cities suburb in the same way Washington and Ozaukee Counties are Milwaukee suburbs. It would be a huge mistake for the state GOP to ignore the growth potential in that area of the state. Lock down the growth areas, and that means more GOP voters statewide in the years to come.

Furthermore, more attention need be paid to Southwestern Wisconsin. This is an area that was once solidly Republican; yet lackluster leadership and disinterested elected officials have now handed the lower half of the 3rd Congressional District over to the Democrats. While their GOP state senators and representatives may have been able to do enough constituent service to keep them in office, those days are long gone as the population continues to slip out of their grasp. The area needs a dynamic Republican representative who is actually interested in selling the statewide GOP message, rather than merely pushing parochial bills to stay in office. There’s no better indicator that people are willing to vote for a Republican than the fact that they actually used to.

TRIM THE WEEDS

A concerted effort should be made to cut the dead weight out of Wisconsin’s contingent of GOP elected officials. A senator or representative who sits in a solidly Republican district and does nothing with it is an albatross around the neck of the state party.

In this respect, primaries can be an invaluable tool in the quest for a more vibrant GOP statewide. In fact, “Fighting Bob” LaFollette championed primaries primarily because he knew he could wrest control of the Republican party away from the conservatives in the 1890’s. Through LaFollette’s liberal (and often vindictive) use of primaries, he was able to shape the GOP in the Progressive image throughout the early 1900s. And it can be primaries once again that should be used to trim the noxious weeds from the ranks of the GOP elected officials.

This doesn’t necessarily mean a district needs the most conservative representative. Certainly, an elected official needs to fit the district in order to ensure election in the November general election. It doesn’t make sense to run a conservative against a moderate if it means that seat is going to go Democrat in the general. But a moderate Republican willing to be active in promoting the statewide GOP message is infinitely more valuable to the effort than one who introduces one bill per session, and who might get around to doing a press release if someone noteworthy in their district dies.

The party cannot sit idly by with do-nothing Republicans hogging seats in areas where a vibrant newcomer could freshen the party’s image. These seats have to be viewed not as what they are, but as what they could be. Plus, they are a farm system for major state offices in the future. (For instance, the 1950 Legislature had four future governors in its ranks, as well as two future U.S. Senators and the mother of a future governor.) Representatives who sleepwalk through their jobs in these valuable seats are clogging the arteries of the future GOP circulatory system.

REPUBLICAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Fair or not, voters pick candidates they are comfortable with. More and more, these voters are growing increasingly uncomfortable with white males. The minorities that currently vote Republican do so primarily because they don’t like other minorities, not necessarily because they trust white guys to do the right thing.

There are minorities out there that share the GOP message of limited government, low taxes, and family values. And women have been dropping quickly in the ranks of Republican elected officials. An effort should be made to recruit them to run for office, and they should quickly move to the front of the line in GOP leadership. And if they get better committee assignments or party support than a deserving white legislator who’s been in office for a decade, so be it. Get over it, whitey.

Think about it – in order to become a majority party once again, the GOP needs new voters. And where is the growth in new voters going to come? It’s going to come in the minority groups that are growing more quickly. If Republicans stick with caucasians to pull the freight, the party will be infinitely disappointed as their base shrinks. And the best way to convince minority voters that the GOP is a safe place for their vote is to prove it through their slate of candidates.

Furthermore, we have seen recently how much attention minority candidates can draw. Set aside the media love affair with Barack Obama. Look at Bobby Jindal in Louisiana – the guy gets elected as governor ten minutes ago, and before my hot pocket cools off, he’s already mentioned as a serious Vice Presidential candidate. This isn’t because Jindal is necessarily a political genius – it is because he represents the changing face of politics. A change the GOP desperately needs if it seeks to grow its base.

(As a side note, women and minorities deserve to be elected for reasons other that just making Republicans look better. Thought that should be mentioned.)

MORE SPREADSHEETS

Exactly what is the Republican message in the upcoming state and national elections?

Anyone?

Can any Wisconsin resident name a single accomplishment of the GOP in the past two years?

Naturally, Republicans are at a disadvantage when taking credit for certain governmental “achievements” (which may actually be an oxymoron.) It is easy for Democrats to say they “funded drugs for seniors” or “supported expansion of the Stewardship program.” Simple and direct. Republicans have to explain what governmental initiatives they blocked, and why we’ll all be better off because of something they have denied us. Of course, a detailed explanation of the role of market economics and how free trade makes our lives better is usually out of the question. Personally, I would much prefer eating a burrito right now over a conservative telling me how Milton Friedman’s theories enable me to one day have the freedom to purchase my own burrito. Dude, I’m hungry.

Yet, as George Will has recently said, conservatives have one thing going for them. Market-based conservatism is the truth. And, as difficult as that may be, that truth has to be made understandable. The longer people are allowed to be told that gas prices are going to fall if Barack Obama doesn’t accept money from oil companies, the longer the GOP will flounder with voters. The basic fact is this: students aren’t being taught economics in school. State and local Republican parties have to break down the door with a message of financial literacy.

Furthermore, Republicans should be the party willing to talk to voters like grown-ups. We can handle it. Being against bogus campaign finance reform proposals doesn’t make you look like you’re pro-corruption. It makes you look like you value free speech. Cowering from the inevitable critics of allowing private Social Security accounts doesn’t gain you any votes – it makes you look like a spineless coward.

Wisconsin Republican Congressman Paul Ryan has led the way in this regard, with his recent plan to pull the U.S. out of fiscal insolvency by recognizing the entitlement disaster heading our way. The longer the state is willing to fix its budget woes with gimmicks and deferred obligations, and as long as Republicans are willing to accede to such nonsense, the party has no ground on which to stand when the fiscal apocalypse comes.

Of course, getting Republicans statewide to coalesce around any one message is like stapling Jell-O to a wall. But having more willing carriers of the message (See point 3) will help immeasurably.

LEGALIZE MARIJUANA

Do this, and the state goes GOP overnight. Instead of being motivated to go to the polls, half of the City of Madison will be motivated to watch I Love Lucy reruns, eat Peanut Butter Cap’n Crunch, and nap.

***

None of the Young Turk Democrats in 1948 thought their party’s turnaround was going to be immediate. Young Democrats like Jim Doyle, Sr. drove from county to county to rebuild the party from scratch. (A feat that would be a lot less possible if his son’s proposal to raise the gas tax by seven cents had been in effect in 1948.) They had to patience to plant the seeds, and put in the hard work that eventually made them a force in Wisconsin politics. The GOP should thank Doyle for his blueprint.

-June 9, 2008

Helpful historical sources for this commentary include “Wisconsin Votes,” by Robert Booth Fowler, and “The Man from Clear Lake: Earth Day Founder Gaylord Nelson,” by Bill Christofferson.

The Grand Old Patriarchy: Whither the Republican Women?

This one’s for the ladies.

On September 10th of 2002, I was in my car on the way to the Peggy Rosenzweig for Senate victory party. Rosenzweig, a moderate Republican incumbent who had spent 20 years in the Legislature, was being challenged in a primary by the more conservative Tom Reynolds, who had previously run for Congress several times. I called ahead to one of her campaign staffers to see how the party was going. “Turn around,” he said. “We just lost.”

The early 2000s were good to GOP women. In 2002, the majority of Republican state senators in Wisconsin were female. In January of 2003, Mary Panzer became the state’s first female majority leader. Margaret Farrow became the state’s first female Lieutenant Governor in 2001. In 2002, 12 women held Assembly seats. Yet Rosenzweig’s loss was a harbinger of things to come. (A full list of women who have served in the Wisconsin Legislature can be found here. A full list of women who won’t answer my daily e-mails can be found here.)

In 2008, the landscape for Republican women looks entirely different. With the retirement of long-time Republican State Senator Carol Roessler, the number of female senators has dwindled to three – five fewer than held office just seven years ago. And of those three that remain, two (Sheila Harsdorf and Alberta Darling) are priority targets for the Democrats in the upcoming November elections. With the announced retirement of three female representatives, the Assembly is down to six Republican women. Not since my debut as a Chippendale’s dancer has an establishment seen so many women fleeing the premises. (I used to run on stage nude, while women threw money at me to put my clothes back on. It was lucrative, to say the least.)

During this year’s state Republican Convention, Wispolitics.com took a straw poll of potential GOP candidates for both governor and U.S. senator. There were zero female names on the list, despite names like Rick Graber, Mark Neumann, Scott Klug, and Tim Michels making the cut. High profile female legislators like Kitty Rhoades (the chair of the Legislature’s most powerful committee) and Leah Vukmir (chair of the Assembly Health Committee) weren’t even considered. With all due respect to Neumann and Klug, neither of them have held elected office in a decade. Exactly what does one have to do to get their name off the Republican VIP list? Would two decades do it? Perhaps the GOP should just dig up the skeleton of Lucius Fairchild and run him in 2010.

Some would suggest the dwindling number of GOP women is a conspiracy by the “old boys” network to keep “the ladies” out of power. The fact that primaries were run against Rosenzweig and Panzer, both moderates and both defeated by men, gives these conspiracy theorists the ammunition they need. It more likely speaks to the general impression, whether fair or not, that Republican women tend to be more moderate. The fact that Rosenzweig and Panzer were challenged likely spoke more to voters’ frustration over spiraling taxes than the fact that they were women. But the liberal stereotype attached to their gender probably didn’t help them in their heavily conservative districts.

It is perhaps more likely that, with the Legislature’s approval rating hovering just between “warts” and “arsenic,” more women are just deciding that they have better things to do than jump on a sinking ship. After her election in 2002, State Senator Cathy Stepp quickly grew tired of the endless meetings and pointless time-wasting that occurred at the Capitol. As the owner of a private business, Stepp was frustrated by the inefficiency of the legislative process, which cost her time at home with her young children. Near the end of her tenure, she would pass the time on the floor of the Senate by playing pranks on her colleagues – such as the time she went desk to desk, shocking her fellow senators with a pack of trick electric gum. Stepp left the Senate after serving just one term.

Furthermore, it’s not as if Democrats don’t have their own issues with their female legislators. When the 2007-09 biennial budget passed the Legislature, Senate Democrats immediately dumped their majority leader, Judy Robson, citing the need for “more direct” leadership. Robson immediately charged sexism, believing some of her colleagues simply didn’t want to be led by a woman. (In a blog post, Stepp actually agreed that gender played a part how Robson’s leadership style was portrayed.)

However, Democrats have a slightly better record retaining their incumbent females. When a woman Democrat leaves the Legislature, they’re usually moving up, not out. For instance, Gwen Moore and Tammy Baldwin both left the Legislature to become Wisconsin’s first two female U.S. Representatives. Republican women such as Terri McCormick and Jean Hundertmark left the Assembly to run for higher office, yet both were unsuccessful. As mentioned, Margaret Farrow moved up to become Lieutenant Governor, but her stint with Governor McCallum lasted about as long a trip to a Chinese buffet.

Many conservatives would argue that whether they elect women or not is irrelevant – they want to see a legislator who is more in tune with their vision of smaller government and lower taxes. And if that costs them a moderate Mary Panzer in favor of a more conservative Glenn Grothman, then so be it. In the end analysis, your property tax bill doesn’t care whether your legislator has a Y chromosome. You owe what you owe.

While this point is incontrovertible, it sets up a false choice. Being conservative and being a woman aren’t mutually exclusive. There are women in the Legislature who are conservative and perhaps should be given more of a pulpit to enhance their statewide visibility. And the GOP should be out recruiting more women who can appeal to their right wing base. As mentioned before, when a female legislator does something that strays from the party line, it tends to stick to her more than it would one of her male counterparts. Conversely, many Republican women face harsher Democrat criticism for taking principled conservative votes because they’re “voting against women’s interests.”

Female legislators have flaws, just like male elected officials. And while a representative’s gender is meaningless when it comes to their voting record, there’s no question that women provide a diversity of viewpoint that is needed in the Capitol. It’s not impossible for that viewpoint to be both female and conservative.

Each year in Madison, a local grocery store holds “Bratfest,” which they brag is the “World’s largest sausage festival.” Unfortunately, this year Bratfest will be bumped to number two, just behind the Wisconsin Legislature.

-May 19, 2008

(Christian Schneider spent eight years working in the State Legislature, where he worked for three different women.)

Truth in Advertising?

Here\’s a look at the pro-Obama ad the service unions are running in Pennsylvania:

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

Please tell me you happened to catch the bald guy with the big truck complaining that it costs him $75 to fill up his tank. The fact that he\’s driving a gas guzzler is supposed to make me sympathetic? Listen, man – maybe it wouldn\’t cost you $75 to fill up your tank if you had a smaller car.

Of course, as an advocate of free speech in campaigns, I believe SEIU has every right to air this ad, and it doesn\’t bother me a bit. But it doesn\’t mean others can\’t point out the lunacy in telling people that somehow Barack Obama is going to hold down gas prices. Exactly how is that going to happen? By taxing oil companies more? There actually isn\’t a better way on Earth to raise gas prices than to raise taxes on the companies that produce oil. Anyway, details.

« Older posts Newer posts »