.

Three Losers and a Runner

Is this the best the Wisconsin Democrats can muster?

Ever since the election of Walker, we have been told that the sky will collapse over the state of Wisconsin.  With the implementation of Act 10, we were supposed to see larger class sizes, huge teacher layoffs and declining student performance.  Legislation was passed that would have disenfranchised thousands and tens of thousands of possible voters, so we were told.  More recently, Walker and State Republicans restructured the sex education bill that evidently causes teens to have more unprotected sex.  In short, Democrats, unions and teachers want you to believe we elected a dictator in 2010.

If the state is on the verge of becoming a third world country, I would have thought the primary ballot for the Democrats would be the strongest ever.  My assumption was that if the state is heading in a bad direction, the Democrats could find a person the public will love.  Instead, the state is presented with three candidates that Wisconsin has already rejected numerous times and one who has rejected the state.

Loser #1 – Tom Barrett will attempt to run for governor for the third time in the last 10 years.  In his two prior attempts, he was beaten first by his own party in the primary and then by Scott Walker in the 2010 general election.  Prior to his first attempt at Governor he was a US Representative in Wisconsin’s former 5th district, which was phased out and won by Jim Sensenbrenner.  Since 2002 Tom Barrett has been Mayor of Milwaukee.  As mayor, Tom Barrett was unable to handle the City of Milwaukee budget on his own and required the help of Walker’s Act 10.  Currently he is advocating for a fiscally irresponsible train to be built in downtown Milwaukee, hopefully it will look better than the poop he has allowed to float onto beaches.

Loser #2 – Kathleen “I Love Unions” Falk has entered the race as the darling of Madison liberals.  Like Barrett, she has also made attempts at state government, including a poorer performance than Barrett in the 2002 Democratic primary and a loss to JB Van Hollen in the 2006 Attorney General election.  Between 1996 and 2012 she held the position of Madison County Supervisor.  A county that I believe has 15 Republicans living in it.  In her last year as County executive, she raised taxes 8% and over the course of her county executive career she raised the tax levy $59 million.  Did I mention she is endorsed by all the major unions? She has stated she will not sign a budget without the repeal of Act 10.  This means the only solution is to raise taxes (something she is familiar with) in order to ensure all Wisconsin teachers can afford their Netflix subscriptions.

Lose #3 – Doug La Follette, for those of you not aware, he is the Wisconsin Secretary of State.  No one is really sure what he does and over the last couple decades there have been calls for the elimination of that position.  In 1974, he won his bid for Secretary of State and has been there ever since.  However, in Wisconsin we hate unemployment and as such Doug continues to get re-elected, usually running unopposed.  His first attempt at politics came in 1970 when he ran unsuccessfully for US Representative and lost in the Democratic Primary.   Since then he has attempted to advance his political career; however, the people of Wisconsin appear to believe he has reached the apex of his abilities.  In 1978, he was unsuccessful in his bid for Lieutenant Governor, in 1988 ran unsuccessfully against Herb Kohl in the Democratic Senate primary and most recently in 1996 he unsuccessfully ran for US Representative again losing in the Democratic primary.

The Runner – Kathleen Vinehout is a dairy farmer from Western Wisconsin, which holds a special place in my heart because my Grandfather was dairy farmer from Western Wisconsin.  Farming is tough and I have always been impressed with the work ethic of a farmer.  However, to my knowledge, my Grandfather never skipped the state when his job got difficult.  Unfortunately, in an act of anti-democratic partisanship Senator Vinehout vacated her seat for a non-approved vacation to the lovely state of IL.  As governor (assuming she can beat 3 losers), will she run from the capital every time she is presented with legislation she doesn’t like?  Will she divert tax dollars to build a Democratic safe house in IL?  These are questions that must be asked.

If Governor Walker has torpedoed Wisconsin as the Democrats want us to believe, is this the best they can offer.  The people of Wisconsin have voiced their opinion on Barrett in 2010, Democrats haven’t even been able to support Falk statewide, La Follette is as high politically as Wisconsin feels comfortable and Vinehout isn’t dependable to show up for work.  If Democrats were hoping to garner support, they picked weak ballot.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

J. B. Schmidt April 16, 2012 at 06:40 PM
@Randy Sure, and government housing policy developed by Carter had nothing to do with it. Policy during the Clinton administration pressuring banks to give loans to those that could not afford had nothing to do with it. That quasi-governmental Frannie/Freddie had nothing to do with it. I worked for two corporations that had a very well paid CEOs while I made little pay. I never once was jealous about what they made. I was driven to make what they made. What should a CEO be paid? How much profit is to much?
Keith Schmitz April 16, 2012 at 06:56 PM
Speaking of pimps, looks like we another of the legion of Koch paid posters parachuting into Patch from God knows where. Welcome to our little family George or who ever you are.
Randy1949 April 16, 2012 at 07:01 PM
@J.B. -- There's 'jealously' and there's seeing the policy of asking workers to make sacrifices in the cause of austerity while CEO compensation balloons and corporation rake in profits for what it is. My father didn't raise any fools.
Keith Schmitz April 16, 2012 at 07:02 PM
I get so tired of that childish question about how much should CEOs should get paid. The first answer is we know obscenity when we see it. The second answer is we have a very good indication of money being held back from the system when a country like ours is unable to both grow and provide for its basic needs. Let me turn it back on you JB. When the hell is the point when these people feel they have enough money. Even Mitt with his lifestyle is showing that he doesn't need a lot to live off, aside from his massive houses and garage elevators. That said, it reaches the point of pure egotism. What society should have to cater to that. Yes cater. Because we provide and pay for the structure for them to attain these massive piles of money, plus have the leverage to ensure that they can make more of it. People should not get rich by making others poor.
Steve ® April 16, 2012 at 07:08 PM
Never herd of someone working at a corporation, moving up the ladder and making less pay. Where does this happen Randy? Maybe that person should invest in said corporation, make HUGE dividend profits and "only" pay 15% of that income to taxes.
George Warez April 16, 2012 at 08:14 PM
Keith, please come clean on the Village of Shorewood loan and the hundreds of 'co-op memberships' that you bilked hard working folks out of. Keith you are a fraud and the folks here need to know this.
J. B. Schmidt April 16, 2012 at 09:25 PM
@Randy You can't just say 'profits' as if that is an absolute value. Please define what is a bad profit. @Keith Whose definition of enough? Yours? What makes your definition better then mine? You also cannot use a word like enough as an absolute. That is subjective term. I realize that actually placing a dollar figure on 'enough' will make your argument look foolish and hence you dance around using words that you can place an arbitrary meaning on.
Dirk Gutzmiller April 16, 2012 at 10:11 PM
J. B. - Where are your facts that social mobility increased under Reagan? A lot of other things increased under Reagan, including the National Debt, and there were tax increases.
Luke April 17, 2012 at 04:41 AM
Liberals are more selfish and greedy. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1#.T4zzpKyF8mQ
Luke April 17, 2012 at 04:44 AM
Liberal givers are more conservative. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
Archie April 17, 2012 at 08:22 AM
Should Scott Walker wait with his thumb up his rear and be railroaded by some junior d.a. and his lackeys?! Why is it dems always seem to think that taking the crybaby way out is the high and moral way? For once take your crow and eat it! Scott Walker won the Governor`s office by a majority vote, he ran on what he has put into practice. It works and SCOTT WALKER WILL WIN AGAIN!
Luke April 17, 2012 at 11:33 AM
@Unions I'm trying to make sense of your comments. You do realize that Act 10 did not affect fire fighters or police, right. Actions were not taken at the state level. Your union does not negotiate with the state. As things appear to be headed, I seriously doubt that Falk has much of a chance. Given that, do you understand that Barrett's consistent complaint about Walker is that he did not include police and fire fighters in Act 10??? Think about that whie you read the article below. http://maciverinstitute.com/2011/11/two-faced-barrett-or-evil-twin-milwaukees-mayor-on-ohio-wis-act-10/
Keith Schmitz April 17, 2012 at 12:20 PM
That's one survey, cited by that 80s throwback John Stossel. Here's the facts -- if you care about those things http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh010809.shtml. But that's cool Luke. If you are going on one survey then with the volumes of research you must be backing the notion of man-made climate change.
Dirk Gutzmiller April 17, 2012 at 04:28 PM
Luke - If you just read and quote ultra-conservative propaganda, your integrity will be questioned and your posts ignored by all but a few poor tea potties. The author of the survey you quote is none other than Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. Brooks spoke at a "Leadership Dinner" at ALEC's 2011 Annual Meeting in New Orleans, LA, on August 2, 2011. ALEC is not a lobby; it is not a front group. It is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve “model” bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative board. (ALEC says that corporations do not vote on the board.) They fund almost all of ALEC's operations. Elected legislators who are active in ALEC, overwhelmingly right-wing politicians, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills. ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year. How can a thinking person take the survey you quote, or you, seriously?
Luke April 17, 2012 at 09:36 PM
Liberal says conservatives are more generous than liberals. Cites studies: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=1
Dirk Gutzmiller April 17, 2012 at 10:38 PM
@Luke - I got to read part of the article before the nytimes took me to the login page. Arthur Brooks of ALEC affiliation is the author of the main study. The article did state that conservatives give much more to churches (those mega-churches are fantastic edifices, but is that really charity?) If you are tryng to make the point that conservatives are more compassionate toward the poor and afflicted than liberals, your credibility takes a deeper dive.
Luke April 17, 2012 at 11:12 PM
@Dirk Invest in a new (free) browser. Also, spend some time at this site, because it appears that you would benefit from it. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Luke April 17, 2012 at 11:20 PM
Quote of the day: "Ronald Pollina's Chicago-based commercial real estate firm is receiving a flood of calls asking advice on relocating from Illinois. "These companies are calling me on a daily basis to say they want to expand jobs, but they're going to do it in another state -- or in Brazil or China," Pollina said." http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/01/us-usa-illinois-business-idUSTRE7304JD20110401
Luke April 17, 2012 at 11:29 PM
Quote of the WEEK " The state budget office estimates that the typical homeowner's bill would be some $700 higher without Mr. Walker's collective-bargaining overhaul and budget cuts." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432704577348080124322186.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Dirk Gutzmiller April 18, 2012 at 02:02 AM
@Luke - Suggest you read and practice proper debate techniques as laid out on the site you cite. You might start with not quoting obviously biased sources as authorities, such as Arthur Brooks, the ALEC speaker.
Luke April 18, 2012 at 02:13 AM
@Dirk I suggest you read what is said, instead of practicing your usual fallacious method of trying to poison the well. After all, I posted a link to a liberal source at the NY Times who provided all the documentation. Of course your attempt to muddy the waters is par for the course, but our eyes are pretty sharp, nonetheless. Why shouldn't we believe a liberal who provided all the documention you demanded? You're apparently self-relegated to the role of a barking dog, wouldn't you say?
Dirk Gutzmiller April 18, 2012 at 02:18 AM
Luke - Ron Pollina makes a lot of his money on getting businesses to move to other states. He publishes "10 best" and "10 worst" state lists to get the excitement up. Kind of like the old "blockbusting" when entire blocks of residential blocks were stampeded to the suburbs almost overnight through racial fear-mongering by unscrupulous real estate agents back in the the 1950s-1970s. Let us all know when he gets a panicky company to relocate to Wisconsin, or gets one to move out of Wisconsin (much more likely).
Luke April 18, 2012 at 02:45 AM
@Dirk Remember that link to the site I gave you concering fallacious arguments? It is a fallacy to attack the messenger rather than the message. You have relegated yourself to the roll of a barking dog. I don't know how to communicate with you. Well, let me try this......::woof woof: Did that get through?
dpatric2 April 18, 2012 at 02:49 AM
Isn't Walker the true loser and runner. He is a "three time loser"...1.) in his own mind he thinks he balanced a budget by taking from public employees and kids (what a loser)...2.) he caused Wisconsin to be 50th in job creation (what a loser)...3.) he divided a state and put Wisconsin in a mess worse than Illinois (what a loser). He is a "runner" by spending more time out of state than our "hero" democrats but doing it for himself to raise money to save his political life.
Tom Barrett April 18, 2012 at 03:01 AM
Walker didn't go far enough. He should have included police and firefighters in Act 10. Then, perhaps, their unions would have supported him. http://maciverinstitute.com/2011/11/two-faced-barrett-or-evil-twin-milwaukees-mayor-on-ohio-wis-act-10/
Dirk Gutzmiller April 18, 2012 at 03:03 AM
Luke, Luke, Luke - The state budget office is not the equivalent of the General Accounting Office in Washington. It is not independent, it does budget work, among other things, for Walker's pleasure. And the Wall Street Journal is a Rupert Murdock publication for Wall Streeters or wannabees, and will publish such propaganda. Can you present the numbers that prove this claim?
Luke April 18, 2012 at 03:14 AM
@Dirk Dirk, Dirk, Dirk...you are attacking the messenger, rather than the message once again? Do you refute the numbers, or just object. Translation into Dirkanese: "woof, woof wooooooooooooooooooooof!"
Tom Barrett April 18, 2012 at 09:59 AM
Is this bad? http://maciverinstitute.com/2012/04/act-10-one-year-later/
Tom Barrett April 18, 2012 at 10:05 AM
Tom Barrett also commented on Three Losers and a Runner. Walker did not go far enough. Damn those unions. http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/walker-challenger-tom-barrett-sought-to-weaken-uni
Dirk Gutzmiller April 18, 2012 at 01:17 PM
@Luke - .Calling me a barking dog? Then going "woof woof"? Ad hominem attacks are in that list of debate rules you referred the reader to. This reinforces my point that ultra-conservative commenters resort to name-calling and vile references at the first opposition, sometimes before they even meet any opposing views. It is an apparent inability to comprehend why people disagree with their embedded beliefs, and the pent-up reaction is verbal violence.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something